Germans want to power themselves TOTALLY with wind/solar ...

[hyperD]

Doesn't matter to me, I send it to the grid to be paid for it regardless what they do with it. Even if I didn't send it to the grid I'd be paid for the amount if produces.

You are right OH, the power gets dumped regardless and sadly, yes taxpayer funds are used for reimbursement, hence the overtly costly nature of "renewables". However having a large farm array generate power when not required cannot be dumped into the Grid because of spiking and is just spinning furiously for nobodies benefit but the landowners.

Just an aside, once FITs are deemed too expensive to run any more and the turbines are eventually removed, who's going to pay for the removal of the thousands of tonnes of concrete require for the windmill bases?

[hyperD]

However developing the technology is expensive, no one argues with that. But what is clear is the solution is viable and the technology available.

Not only is it expensive to develop, it's expensive to maintain and operate compared with a mix of coal, gas and nuclear to power a nation's grid.

I've no much interest in the climate business either.

Well, it's the main driver for all this expensive and incompatible renewables charade.

I'd really love to see wave generation take off with some massive investment. Enough power in the waves exists off shetland to power the whole of the UK.

Hideously expensive to build and maintain.

Hydro is only good for short-term demand when half the south east decides it's time for a cuppa once they've finished watching coronation street.

Most of our hydro is run as peaking power stations for the situation you described - they make their profit from the price differential from peak power (morning/evening) and low (night) spot prices.

Using a windfarm instead to provide the power during the night to recharge the reservoir would not only be a huge additional capital expenditure on the pumped storage facility but would still not solve the problem of when the ol' wind no blow.

And we don't have the geography (nor the cash) to artificially excavate and build more pumped storage facilities.


And of course, the overarching legal caveat when you are in the power generating business, you must be able to guarantee a certain power deliver at a certain time. Having a windmill gives you a twitchy ringpiece unless you are Nostradamus.

[scooterscot]

Not only is it expensive to develop, it's expensive to maintain and operate compared with a mix of coal, gas and nuclear to power a nation's grid.

Really? It's an area of business I'm closely involved in and I'm just not convinced. Particularly when you consider decommissioning cost associated with nuclear, which run into billions of pounds - Maintenance of new technology is always more costly until the period of reliability growth is achieved. Indeed current reliability monitoring of farms I'm working on is several times greater that of the national rail network. By comparison if we spent the cash we need to to operate an reliable rail network rail fares would be required to increase to a level where people might actually start rioting.

The trouble is in our country we expect the best for next to nothing. Then when we're faced with a major event we pay through the nose instead of prudent long-term planning.

Well, it's the main driver for all this expensive and incompatible renewables charade.

I don't believe that. That's just a smokescreen to appease the simple, the stoned, the hippies. The truth is we're developing this technology because our resources we've been so dependent are of finite supply. Safety is another driver.

Hideously expensive to build and maintain.

Actually I see these structures as a reminder of what engineering wonders we can achieve in a nation that has chosen to put the engineer as someone who fixes photocopiers.

Most of our hydro is run as peaking power stations for the situation you described - they make their profit from the price differential from peak power (morning/evening) and low (night) spot prices.

Using a windfarm instead to provide the power during the night to recharge the reservoir would not only be a huge additional capital expenditure on the pumped storage facility but would still not solve the problem of when the ol' wind no blow.

I know of not one system that operates in this fashion. Yet if we wanted to we could use excess energy to make gas and pump that gas back into the fields using existing systems installed across the north sea!

And we don't have the geography (nor the cash) to artificially excavate and build more pumped storage facilities.

Yet we have the cash to invade three countries in the past 13 years, which were of absolutely of no benefit to anyone in this country.

And of course, the overarching legal caveat when you are in the power generating business, you must be able to guarantee a certain power deliver at a certain time. Having a windmill gives you a twitchy ringpiece unless you are Nostradamus.

That's a problem for the supplier, nothing to do with they who generator.

[VectraMan]

I've no much interest in the climate business either. However saying that, I'm convinced our ability to survive in our changing environment is a must. And we would be generating our energy requirements with renewable sources, not finite supplies.

I don't buy that it's necessary for survival, at least not in the medium term, and I'm not an ecomentalist, but I do find all this very interesting. It's proper large scale engineering, and that's kind of cool and not something we do enough of anymore. Just accepting the old way of burning fossil fuels is just backwards thinking.

I'd really love to see wave generation take off with some massive investment. Enough power in the waves exists off shetland to power the whole of the UK.

Some things just have a smell of "never going to work" about them, and I think wave is one. I might be wrong. Whereas tidal, as much as putting turbines under the sea where nobody will see them, seems like a no-brainer. And the tides are predictable, if not able to provide constant power.

BBC News had an article about a test of such a scheme recently, but it made for depressing reading. The plan was for "up to" 300 odd turbines - in fact the whole article used "up to" and "could" a lot, as does every article about renewable power. As in, it "could" provide power for "up to" 40,000 homes. Which of course is just homes, no businesses, schools, factories etc., and then just electricity, not heat. It said that was 40% of The Highlands, and 40% sounds impressive. Except The Highlands is presumably the most sparsely populated area of the UK.

When there's a scheme that can actually provide power and heat for a city, then we'll be onto something and it'll probably snowball. But that seems a long way off.

[hyperD]

Particularly when you consider decommissioning cost associated with nuclear, which run into billions of pounds -

Power station decommissioning is expensive, especially nuclear, but back to the point of the new tech you are involved in: the issue you've not addressed is that the process of using renewable energy to utilise the Power-to-Gas (PtG) concept:

"...might not always result in the most efficient use of electricity". here.

And herein lies the problem of your admirable renewable arguments: doing something else that might not involve the conventional mix of cost and energy efficient power delivery to a nation will ultimately lead to a very high cost of base energy that will effect everything from trading, commuting to simply heating a home. Some people will be financially inconvenienced with this new power delivery alchemy, they will suffer.

Maintenance of new technology is always more costly until the period of reliability growth is achieved. Indeed current reliability monitoring of farms I'm working on is several times greater that of the national rail network.

Well, I'm sure any project will grow if sufficient taxpayers' funds are thrown into the project at the detriment of an efficient portfolio of energy power delivery.

National rail networks cost a large amount of taxpayers' funding to run, and yet we have one of the highest in Europe. Why is that? Unions? Energy costs? Demands? I dunno.

The trouble is in our country we expect the best for next to nothing. Then when we're faced with a major event we pay through the nose instead of prudent long-term planning.

I agree - governments of all colours have done just this, perhaps my above comment addresses this?

I don't believe that. That's just a smokescreen to appease the simple, the stoned, the hippies. The truth is we're developing this technology because our resources we've been so dependent are of finite supply. Safety is another driver.

Let me burst your MSM driven bubble.

And to address your peak oil concerns. With new(oldish) technologies such as fracking and economic/viable options of new gas and oil fields.

All energy has a risk, although most O&G and power companies are striving legislatively to improve, and even due to governments' continual progressive are pushing for greater safety for their operations.

Actually I see these structures as a reminder of what engineering wonders we can achieve in a nation that has chosen to put the engineer as someone who fixes photocopiers.

I see these as a folly to the ignorant amongst a lobbyist self interested paradigm that just want to profit off the backs of those that are succeeding. But for proven power efficiencies that can benefit the world with cheaper, safer and more affordable power I'm all ears.

I know of not one system that operates in this fashion. Yet if we wanted to we could use excess energy to make gas and pump that gas back into the fields using existing systems installed across the north sea!

Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest.

Yet we have the cash to invade three countries in the past 13 years, which were of absolutely of no benefit to anyone in this country.

As pjclarke would say: strawman.

That's a problem for the supplier, nothing to do with they who generator.

Electricity Act 1989

[DodgyAgent]

You are right OH, the power gets dumped regardless and sadly, yes taxpayer funds are used for reimbursement, hence the overtly costly nature of "renewables". However having a large farm array generate power when not required cannot be dumped into the Grid because of spiking and is just spinning furiously for nobodies benefit but the landowners.

Just an aside, once FITs are deemed too expensive to run any more and the turbines are eventually removed, who's going to pay for the removal of the thousands of tonnes of concrete require for the windmill bases?

No problem. I will be shipping in a few thousand Eastern Europeans to do the work.

[hyperD]

No problem. I will be shipping in a few thousand Eastern Europeans to do the work.

Help me, DodgyAgent, you're my only hope.

[scooterscot]

Power station decommissioning is expensive, especially nuclear, but back to the point of the new tech you are involved in: the issue you've not addressed is that the process of using renewable energy to utilise the Power-to-Gas (PtG) concept:

"...might not always result in the most efficient use of electricity". here.

And herein lies the problem of your admirable renewable arguments: doing something else that might not involve the conventional mix of cost and energy efficient power delivery to a nation will ultimately lead to a very high cost of base energy that will effect everything from trading, commuting to simply heating a home. Some people will be financially inconvenienced with this new power delivery alchemy, they will suffer.

Who cares about efficiency when the sun shines, the wind blows for PtG? The gas is generated when there is spare capacity otherwise inefficiency only increases.

In any case in the same link you posted:

"PtG might not always result in the most efficient use of electricity, but it clearly offers services that are valuable now or will become valuable in the near future."

Beside PtG is not for private use, only commercial. It was never intended to be pumped into homes. The gas would be used in power stations to generate electricity.

National rail networks cost a large amount of taxpayers' funding to run, and yet we have one of the highest in Europe. Why is that? Unions? Energy costs? Demands? I dunno.

Partly because we've never invested in the national rail network since the 1980's, and even when we did it was a poor job indeed. The west coast line upgrade is still not yet complete despite construction starting last millennium. When we compare our efforts to modernise against other european countries I really do wonder what we've done when we've had much more tax money to spend. The minds boggles where our properties lie.

Consider this, :"bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) was announced by the British government on 8 October 2008"

That's enough to build 8 x HS2 lines. Which would you rather, a modern high-speed rail infrastructure across the country or failed banks? What have we to show for it?

I agree - governments of all colours have done just this, perhaps my above comment addresses this?

Yes - I agree, our long-term investment is near non-existent. Political parties seem only interested in winning the next term. When this becomes the norm alarm bells should ring, why anyone would expect a single government to turn the country around in one or two terms seems delusional. Perhaps it's an argument for further coalition governments to get our house in order before any one party is allowed a majority control of our country because in my book neither has demonstrated an interest for it's citizens.

All energy has a risk, although most O&G and power companies are striving legislatively to improve, and even due to governments' continual progressive are pushing for greater safety for their operations.

Yes I agree. But I don't believe safety gets the concern it requires. O&G companies will always put profit first. When was the last time you heard national air traffic services cocking it up over the busy skies of London? I used to work at NATS for while, the safety requirements put in place to ensure continuous reliable, safe, service seem redundant to me. O&G could never be as bold, and it's a problem that grow ever more larger with ageing platforms on the north sea. In fact the oil & gas is more likely to stop flowing because of poor maintenance of those platform & their subsea installations long before the juice runs out. Remember last year when inflation shot up? It was largely because of one-off factors such as platforms closing down for urgent maintenance, suddenly we were relying on imports pushing prices way up. It seems to me this is some we're going to see more of in the near future, yet it's only now being address in the last 12 months. Don't panic!

[DodgyAgent]

Who cares about efficiency when the sun shines, the wind blows for PtG? The gas is generated when there is spare capacity otherwise inefficiency only increases.

In any case in the same link you posted:

"PtG might not always result in the most efficient use of electricity, but it clearly offers services that are valuable now or will become valuable in the near future."

Beside PtG is not for private use, only commercial. It was never intended to be pumped into homes. The gas would be used in power stations to generate electricity.



Partly because we've never invested in the national rail network since the 1980's, and even when we did it was a poor job indeed. The west coast line upgrade is still not yet complete despite construction starting last millennium. When we compare our efforts to modernise against other european countries I really do wonder what we've done when we've had much more tax money to spend. The minds boggles where our properties lie.

Consider this, :"bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) was announced by the British government on 8 October 2008"

That's enough to build 8 x HS2 lines. Which would you rather, a modern high-speed rail infrastructure across the country or failed banks? What have we to show for it?



Yes - I agree, our long-term investment is near non-existent. Political parties seem only interested in winning the next term. When this becomes the norm alarm bells should ring, why anyone would expect a single government to turn the country around in one or two terms seems delusional. Perhaps it's an argument for further coalition governments to get our house in order before any one party is allowed a majority control of our country because in my book neither has demonstrated an interest for it's citizens.




Yes I agree. But I don't believe safety gets the concern it requires. O&G companies will always put profit first. When was the last time you heard national air traffic services cocking it up over the busy skies of London? I used to work at NATS for while, the safety requirements put in place to ensure continuous reliable, safe, service seem redundant to me. O&G could never be as bold, and it's a problem that grow ever more larger with ageing platforms on the north sea. In fact the oil & gas is more likely to stop flowing because of poor maintenance of those platform & their subsea installations long before the juice runs out. Remember last year when inflation shot up? It was largely because of one-off factors such as platforms closing down for urgent maintenance, suddenly we were relying on imports pushing prices way up. It seems to me this is some we're going to see more of in the near future, yet it's only now being address in the last 12 months. Don't panic!

Have you thought of going global?

[scooterscot]

Have you thought of going global?

Scale is not important to me, only knowledge.