Discussion
One of my facebook friends has just posted that we've not used an ounce of coal in power stations for 8 weeks- is that correct?
i'm also reading that the strike price for a meg of win power is now as low as £40, veruss £95 for nuclear and that both hydrogen product and cryogenic air storage are resolving storage needs.
Are we actually likely to be reliant on renewables in the foreseeable future?
i'm also reading that the strike price for a meg of win power is now as low as £40, veruss £95 for nuclear and that both hydrogen product and cryogenic air storage are resolving storage needs.
Are we actually likely to be reliant on renewables in the foreseeable future?
No coal for weeks is correct https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52973...
However bear in mind it's driven by a reduction in demand due to stuff being shut down, rather than just an increase in other sources.
However bear in mind it's driven by a reduction in demand due to stuff being shut down, rather than just an increase in other sources.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
One of my facebook friends has just posted that we've not used an ounce of coal in power stations for 8 weeks- is that correct?
i'm also reading that the strike price for a meg of win power is now as low as £40, veruss £95 for nuclear and that both hydrogen product and cryogenic air storage are resolving storage needs.
Are we actually likely to be reliant on renewables in the foreseeable future?
Yes. Yes/No. Yes. i'm also reading that the strike price for a meg of win power is now as low as £40, veruss £95 for nuclear and that both hydrogen product and cryogenic air storage are resolving storage needs.
Are we actually likely to be reliant on renewables in the foreseeable future?
Yes - no coal in 2 months. Suspect it might get used again in September... maybe. Certainly no time soon.
Yes - wind is cheap. Onshore wind is currently built with no subsidy at all, offshore wind last cleared at £42 from memory. Just to be clear, that is not a strike price, thats a CFD (contract for difference). So the wind farm owner gets £42 per MWh, whatever the market price. If the market price is £30, the government gives them £12, but if the market price is £50, the wind farm gives the government £8.
No - hydrogen and cryogenic air are not being used as storage, not at scale anyway. Both are in fairly early stage development. There is huge investment going into batteries, which are okay for fine balancing, but really the only large scale storage we have is pumped hydro, and the last of those was built in the 1960's or 70's. Sadly they are very expensive to build, and without government support then no more will be built.
Yes - National Grid is preparing for a grid powered by renewables by 2025. There are still some problems to overcome but Covid has actually taught them a lot about how to manage a grid with low thermal genreation, because there has been high wind and high solar with low demands. Its not been perfect, but there are lessons being learnt ahead of when they expect to go 100% renewable.
Not using coal, but importing pellets made from wood from the USA. So, grow forest, cut down forest, chip wood, form pellets, transport to sea port, load onto bulk carrying ships, sail across Atlantic, offload to rail/trucks, transport to power stations and burn.
Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of f
king smoke and mirrors!!
Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of f
king smoke and mirrors!!jshell said:
Not using coal, but importing pellets made from wood from the USA. So, grow forest, cut down forest, chip wood, form pellets, transport to sea port, load onto bulk carrying ships, sail across Atlantic, offload to rail/trucks, transport to power stations and burn.
Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of fking smoke and mirrors!!
Even Greenpees are against it Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of f
king smoke and mirrors!!
jshell said:
Not using coal, but importing pellets made from wood from the USA. So, grow forest, cut down forest, chip wood, form pellets, transport to sea port, load onto bulk carrying ships, sail across Atlantic, offload to rail/trucks, transport to power stations and burn.
Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of fking smoke and mirrors!!
No it's not ZERO carbon overhead, but it is a lower carbon overhead!Yup, seems Green!
It is another case of f
king smoke and mirrors!!(hint, how much coal do we burn in the Uk that is dug up from within the UK?)
Also, don't forget fossil fuels (mostly in the form of gas) were the largest proportion of power generation over the past year (about 40%).
http://grid.iamkate.com
http://grid.iamkate.com
Edited by mmm-five on Tuesday 16th June 11:47
That figure just now for CCGT is the highest I've seen for ages. Its been running between 5 and 10 GW or most of lockdown. Some great windy sunny weather at the same time as the lower demand has really helped!
But it must be quite challenging managing the grid in this situation as said above. Such low inertia is difficult to ride through faults, as shown last August during the big power cut.
As said, batteries can help with faults, and loss of generators etc, but can't see how they'll help us ride through a week of calm cloudy weather for example!
But it must be quite challenging managing the grid in this situation as said above. Such low inertia is difficult to ride through faults, as shown last August during the big power cut.
As said, batteries can help with faults, and loss of generators etc, but can't see how they'll help us ride through a week of calm cloudy weather for example!
Max_Torque said:
No it's not ZERO carbon overhead, but it is a lower carbon overhead!
(hint, how much coal do we burn in the Uk that is dug up from within the UK?)
Burn wood and balance the CO2 by growing more trees?(hint, how much coal do we burn in the Uk that is dug up from within the UK?)
If that can work, why not go a little better: burn CH4 and grow enough trees to balance the CO2? Cleaner, more convenient and requires fewer trees.
Condi said:
Yes - wind is cheap. Onshore wind is currently built with no subsidy at all, offshore wind last cleared at £42 from memory. Just to be clear, that is not a strike price, thats a CFD (contract for difference). So the wind farm owner gets £42 per MWh, whatever the market price. If the market price is £30, the government gives them £12, but if the market price is £50, the wind farm gives the government £8.
Why is wind power so cheap now? Has there been some major technological breakthrough or is it just economies of scale?Could we have implemented the current cheap wind power capacity 40 years ago and reduced our dependence on oil from the unstable middle East?
996c2 said:
Why is wind power so cheap now? Has there been some major technological breakthrough or is it just economies of scale?
Could we have implemented the current cheap wind power capacity 40 years ago and reduced our dependence on oil from the unstable middle East?
Economies of scale; increased number of people/ships able to do what is being required driving down costs, larger turbines mean fewer installations, skills built up over time from previous installations. Could we have implemented the current cheap wind power capacity 40 years ago and reduced our dependence on oil from the unstable middle East?
We don't really have a dependence on oil from the middle east - up until only a relatively few years ago the North Sea provided most of our oil - and for the power network we don't have oil stations. Coal and gas were the main energy sources, and nuclear.
Condi said:
Economies of scale; increased number of people/ships able to do what is being required driving down costs, larger turbines mean fewer installations, skills built up over time from previous installations.
We don't really have a dependence on oil from the middle east - up until only a relatively few years ago the North Sea provided most of our oil - and for the power network we don't have oil stations. Coal and gas were the main energy sources, and nuclear.
I thought the 1970s oil shock really hurt us and we got involved in the first Gulf war because of oil. Clearly this is a very simplistic understanding of what happened but I thought there was at least a kernel of truth behind it.We don't really have a dependence on oil from the middle east - up until only a relatively few years ago the North Sea provided most of our oil - and for the power network we don't have oil stations. Coal and gas were the main energy sources, and nuclear.
It's a shame that it took us so long to realise that UK wind power is cheap and viable. Was this because businesses and the UK government were too risk adverse to invest sooner? We could have sold all that gas and coals for a tidy profit rather than burning it in the power stations!
996c2 said:
Condi said:
Yes - wind is cheap. Onshore wind is currently built with no subsidy at all, offshore wind last cleared at £42 from memory. Just to be clear, that is not a strike price, thats a CFD (contract for difference). So the wind farm owner gets £42 per MWh, whatever the market price. If the market price is £30, the government gives them £12, but if the market price is £50, the wind farm gives the government £8.
Why is wind power so cheap now? Has there been some major technological breakthrough or is it just economies of scale?Could we have implemented the current cheap wind power capacity 40 years ago and reduced our dependence on oil from the unstable middle East?
Beati Dogu said:
They still have to keep the power station turbines rotating slowly (using electric motors) to stop them being damaged by their own weight.
Same goes for the big wind turbines. If you see them idling round on a still day, they're using electricity from the grid to do so.
That can't be true, there are a lot of turbines around which are static.Same goes for the big wind turbines. If you see them idling round on a still day, they're using electricity from the grid to do so.
Evoluzione said:
Beati Dogu said:
They still have to keep the power station turbines rotating slowly (using electric motors) to stop them being damaged by their own weight.
Same goes for the big wind turbines. If you see them idling round on a still day, they're using electricity from the grid to do so.
That can't be true, there are a lot of turbines around which are static.Same goes for the big wind turbines. If you see them idling round on a still day, they're using electricity from the grid to do so.
Nothing unique about a wind turbine though, coal unit will use approx. 15-20MW when doing nothing, and a gas unit 5-10MW. That is just powering the lights, pumps, electronics etc. Add about 5MW or so when the units are starting up as loads increase.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff