SOT Dunkelflaute

The obvious answer is to close all renewables and build nuclear power stations instead, and keep a little gas for peak following

The real issue with 6 is that for large parts of the world, there simply is no cheap access to fossil fuels, which makes their countries highly dependent on imports from other countries that do not have their best interests at heart.

Since we have established that 'renewables' are simply not a practical solution, the only alternative in nuclear.

^ This

Mind you it should have been done 20 yrs ago

Avpx

We need to be driving a horse and cart through pointless regulations and building out nuclear on a war footing. But before that happens Milliband needs to learn that if a fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise....

Green party 2024 manifesto

We would cease development of new nuclear power stations, as nuclear energy is much more expensive and slower to develop than renewables. We are clear that nuclear is a distraction from developing renewable energy and the risk to nuclear power stations from extreme climate events is rising fast [/quote]

These may be small quotes from a very large document but it shows something about the green (party) policy on nuclear.

Labour will take up to £1,400 off the annual household bill and £53 billion off energy bills for businesses by 2030, by delivering a cheaper, zero-carbon electricity system by 2030. [/quote]

If that happens I will change my mind about the potential failure of the UK's current green energy policy.

Throughout this thread storage has been mentioned and the magnitude of the problem, and cost, has been addressed

That is demonstrably false. My home

Ah, the often quoted the statement my many that they are effectively off the grid because because the solar produces more electricity per annum than is used per annum in the houshold. What you fail to mention is that your cheap storage at best will keep you going for perhaps 3 days. You are not storing enough to keep you going for 3 months even ignoring heating during the winter months. Add electric heating (ASHP etc.) and its worse. If all the 13 million houses in the UK had solar and 10KWh of battery storage they would be requesting the same as they do from the grid during most of the winter as they do now.

Solar can work for many individuals in being cost effective if used to home charge the EV, using a battery to store daytime generation for use during the hours of darkness, selling surplus to the grid and charging a battery a low tariff rates to use when the tariff is higher.

Even you semi-green set-up highlights the problem with storage. How much did your storage cost and how large is the box?

Assuming your battery has the capacity of 10KWh The grid would need 2 million of your batteries for 1 hour of Dunkelflaute. The current Dunkelflaute has lasted approx 8 days requiring battery storage equivalent to 384 million of your batteries, That' approx 6 batteries per man, woman and child in the UK.

Don't assume there will be any cheap off peak supply when many more people adopt your semi-green policy.

Consumption is likely to go up

i) population growth. More efficient new house building has not even kept up with population growth. The majority of the housing stock in the UK will require a fairly substantial investment to bring it up to the required standard.

ii) EVs for all road transport including HGVs etc.

iii) swapping from gas to electric for heating. 10 million households each swapping from using 12000kWh to gas 3000kWh of electricity (assuming a unrealistic cop of 4 for a ASHP) would be a net increase on demand

Yes you need redundancy but you need a lot more redundancy if you are going to rely on intermittent sources.

Net zero by 2030? Did no-one learn the lesson from relying on Russian gas?

Labour is just stating some of the bleeding obvious problems, especially with renewables.

The national grid needs to be expanded to join up the widely scattered renewable wind farms. The grid needs to be expanded in the next 7 years to meet the 2030 target and by installing more wires than have been installed in the past 30 years. To achieve this planning permission will be relaxed.

The current renewables are intermittent. Their solution seems to be to build more of the same so when the wind doesn't blow that much the small amount they do produce meets our needs. At present 12,000 wind turbines produce around 5% of our needs on a bad wind day. To meet 80% of our needs during the same weather conditions we need to install 180,000 extra wind turbines by the target date of 2030. This is assuming that there is no increase in demand.

Houses need to be better insulated. Provide grants.

More solar. Provide grants

More storage!

Get a large percentage of the population to change their usage demand.

etc. etc.

All this to be achieved by 2030. All this to be achieved with a black hole in government financing of 22 billion and with a promise to take £1,400 off the annual (energy) household bill.

A few weeks ago the BBC business news interviewed the CEO of a Scottish renewables company. During the course of this treatise of the wonders of renewables, he did slip in the remark that ‘…cheap electricity is for the medium to long term’.

Perhaps the Greens didn’t speak to him, and are making things up. They are known for talking b*ll*x.

Is it ever going to be cheap?

The costs of electricity from the various renewable power sources seem to ignore the short/medium term costs for the infrastructure to get them on-line and ignore all of the ongoing costs of the backup when all of them fail to generate (and all at the same time).

With a generation network spread to remote locations all over the UK, and offshore, what is going to be the ongoing cost of maintenance?

The mean time between failure record for wind turbines is not too good. Albeit it is improving slightly and many of the failures may be minor in nature it is likely to require a sizeable work force to provide timely maintenance. This workforce could spending more time travelling long distances rather than fixing problems.

...Burning lots of diesel as they do...

With the best will, the Greens current policy isn't that relevant.

I think it'd be about £2k for 10kWh.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I think you're missing the fact that it's possible for households to import energy - they don't have to rely on solar. And 3, 4, 5 and 6 still apply.

Well, according to theories of regrowth, it will go down. Why do we in the UK have to consume several times as much energy as the average Indian? Answer that, then work back.

Indeed. Doesn't mean it can't be done. The opportunity missed with new build has been criminal.

Improve public transport. Rail freight. Consume less nonsense.

Not with retrofit, decent new build, and changing patterns of home heating.

yep.

It'll be an interesting 6 years :-)

Your manifesto of less consumption, more public services, breaking the country finances to insulate houses, living on a minimum and all the rest, seems to be very Marxist-Leninist in style and substance. It’s a philosophy that hasn’t worked in the 100+ years since it was invented, why do you expect it to work now?

It is if that is the general policy being adopted by Government.

So that is £2000 x 384 million for battery storage or an investment of around £55,000 per household in the UK. That also includes your household because without it there would be zero top up for your 10KWh battery for perhaps 4 weeks a year. Who do you think is going to have to pay for this investment?

Where are you going to import this energy from? The policy is to build more wind. When we rely on wind for a significant proportion on our demand and the wind doesn't blow you, with your semi-green technology, are going to be in exactly the same boat as all the people who have not adopted the technology.

Are you missing the point that adopting any technology that gives next to no generated energy for 3 months a year and also adopting a technology that is uncontrollably variable in it's generating capacity is not going to solve the problem.

The green argument appears to be that by having solar and wind we can significantly cut our CO2 emission (by how much is debatable) but at the cost of not having a reliable energy source. We can then make it reliable by investing in other unreliable technologies and/or by spending truly obscene amounts of money providing a green backup (how green is also debatable)

Which theories of regrowth?

If 75% of the UK domestic and industrial heating needs and motor vehicle use switch from gas, petrol and diesel to electric how does this reduce our ELECTRICITY demand. Perhaps if we all switch to ASHPs we could all reduce our overall energy consumption (not necessarily costs) but this would not decrease our demand for ELECTRICITY. It is the intermittent nature of our green electrical energy policy that is the main problem. It doesn't work 100% of the time and I'm not sure that any of us is willing to pay the financial price for the sticking plaster solutions suggested by the green lobby, assuming the solutions are actually technically possible.

INDIA Possibly because the whole of the UK is a much colder climate. Possibly because the aspirations of the poor in India have yet to be met

A solution requiring significant amounts of money to improve housing stock.

Not cheap to improve public transport in a way it takes people to and from the places they want to go. Possible OK in a large city or the centre of a large town.

I wonder why rail transport came off the rails?

Explain how this would work for the vast major of the housing stock in the UK.

Yes, better insulation would reduce demand but for many millions of homes in the UK it's not just a matter of topping up the loft insulation.

Yes, build better than I've seen some modern properties go up.

How would changing patterns of home heating significantly reduce demand?

Prediction: Bugger all will significantly change except we will have more unconnected windmills and billions will be spent on grants that make little difference, assuming the Government hasn't already run out of money. There will be adverts on TV urging those that have been mis-sold ASHP to make a no win, no fee claim. Those of us still around will be debating the same things.

Because the average Indian is dirt-poor.

This is all just hand-waving. No suggestions for how to achieve any of these questionable goals.

Ah, another one who believes in building two power stations when one will do.

-- I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Roger Scruton

Marxist-Leninist always work nicely for the few.

Because it, like all modes of transport, has no inherent right to exist.

Stage coach - all there as for quite a long time. Replaced in some areas by canals.

Canals - supplanted fairly soon by rail.

Rail - supplanted by ICE vehicles - cars, buses. And in the US, planes.

I notivce that RJH makes many assertions, but backs up none of them with any plausible arguments.

Relying solely on wind it will be at least 6x extra windmills.

Oh, it’s easy to see a situation where the plebs live in mud huts, wear sackcloth, crap in a hole in the ground, and eat locustburgers, while the elites that foisted this on them fly overhead at 35000ft dining on Kobe steaks and downing fine wines.

What I find amazing is that the plebs are clamouring for this, in order to ‘save’ something or other.