On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:10:16 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
I'm waiting for someone to prove they know nothing about the subject by claiming that means that 70% of the output must therefore come from coal or nuclear stations.
The problems of management with wind are slightly different to those without wind, but either are something which it is possible to do.
At current prices studies have shown wind can generate up to around
20% without it becoming excessively expensive to manage the system. In Scotland we are at something like 10% already.
On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:49:23 +0100 someone who may be tony sayer wrote this:-
In the days of old it was necessary to have at least 100% backup in the generating station, in case something failed and put the lights out. This was still susceptible to failure of the line out of the power station.
As electricity grew within towns/cities the power stations were connected together and the operators found, as they had suspected, that backup could be shared between the power stations and thus the total amount of backup reduced.
When the grid system was set up to link the power stations over an even wider area the amount of backup could be reduced further, the same with the supergrid and that is the situation we are now in.
Backup is provided by a variety of sources. Hydro is the fastest to react, followed by some types of gas fired plant and then partially loaded coal fired plant.
This backup is provided to cover a variety of failures. Remove all wind and it would still be necessary to have the backup, because large plants and lines can suddenly fail.
It is not necessary, as some suggest, to build a great deal of new capacity for backup. Old plant not in regular use can be run occasionally if it becomes necessary, the fourth boiler at Longannet is a good example.
Below is a summary, those who read the report should develop a knowledge of the subject.
"100% 'back up' for individual renewable sources is unnecessary; extra capacity will be needed to keep supplies secure, but will be modest and a small part of the total cost of renewables. It is possible to work out what is needed and plan accordingly
"The output of fossil fuel plant will need to be adjusted more often to cope with fluctuations in wind output, but any losses this causes are small compared to overall savings in emissions
"Renewable energy, such as wind power, leads to a direct reduction in CO2 emissions
"None of the 200+ studies UKERC reviewed suggested that the introduction of significant levels of intermittent renewable energy would lead to reduced reliability
"If wind power were to supply 20% of Britain's electricity, intermittency costs would be 0.5 - 0.8p per kilowatt an hour (p/kWh) of wind output. This would be added to wind generating costs of 3 -
5p p/kWh. By comparison, costs of gas fired power stations are around 3p p/kWh
"The impact on electricity consumers would be around 0.1p p/kWh. Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh. Intermittency therefore would account for around 1% of electricity costs
"Costs of intermittency at current levels is much smaller, but will rise if use of renewables expands.
"Wide geographical dispersion and a diversity of renewable sources will keep costs down"
Frequently enough that the electricity system has always had to guard against them since its earliest days. We don't hear about most of these failures, but in the past year or two we have heard of the coal conveyor falling down at Longannet and the failure of the (partially loaded) Longannet (at almost the same time as the total failure of Sizewell B) being the last straw in causing lights to go out in England.
Exactly. As long as you have plenty of gas oil coal and nuclear stations and the odd Dinorweg, up to 5% of the power can be usefully generated by windmills. At three times the expense and ruining tracts of countryside and seascape.
However, the sensible man asks the simple question.."If we cant get rid odf more than 5% of conventional power with windmills, and they are ugly and expensive, WTF is the point of having any?
To which there is a simple answer.
There isn't any point. They are a pure sop to lobbies who have no understanding of the mathematics and economics of power generation, who have foisted them on the taxpayers at the taxpayers expense.
Highly suitable idea. There's more radioactive shit in the coal ash than there ever will be from a nuke plant. All the infrastructure is in place and you could probably use the turbines anyway.
I think if we sent all the Scotsmen back to Scotland, it would be a Good Thing, and they can f*ck up their own country instead of ours. Turn the lights out when you go, chaps...;-)
Just wanted to drop in to say that although this has drifted from domestic to national scale, and despite the fact that lots of authoritative claims seem to be made without any links to prove or disprove otherwise (google is definitely my friend here!) I just wanted to say that I'm finding this quite interesting, and I'm learning quite a bit along the way!
Take a look at Kabola. I used to heat my boat with one, No wick, I have to admit, the oil dripped in a controleld way form a small float chamber and was evaporated in a pot and burned. The one I had produced 6 kW, but they make bigger ones. It has no electrical connection - that was a big plus on boat with no electricity. I was very happy with it.
Pot burners were very popular (and probably still are) in rural Canada where the power could be off for days in winter. No, they're not as controllable and not as efficient. But they work. And you can fix them yourself in the unlikely event of anything going wrong.
I can't see any ruining (apart from in the eyes of the bigots and nimbys.
I've something like 20 visible from my bedroom window. I think they are beautiful. And they can produce up to 15% of demand with no fuel costs. Construction costs with increased use can't be high, they're quite sinple and don't use mmuch land ( about 10m^2 each out of agricultural production).
There is a point. The mathematics and economics of other methods under the same scrutiny don't stack up.
No it don't. The greenies (AKA nimbies) are revolting to my south. The ones to the north (where the current crop of turbines are) have been won over.
Then you must live in a bloody dreary place. They had one up on the ridge here. Its been taken down, or fallen down. Probably because it was no bloody use.
No, they don't. Any more than windmills do.
Only nuclear power can currently do the job without the carbon. In the UK.
Won over to what? windmills? well let them all sod off to scotland then. Best place for em.,
On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:51:51 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
In money terms. What is seen as expensive depends on the other costs of producing electricity, which is why in time 20% may not be seen as a financial limit.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.