• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Interesting stuff. Thanks!

I guess its the quick payoff period that makes wind more attractive than nuclear - less risk for investors?
 
Visage said:
Interesting stuff. Thanks!

I guess its the quick payoff period that makes wind more attractive than nuclear - less risk for investors?
Click to expand...

I just knew that you would have missed the capacity factor issue and the intermitancy. Capacity factor is probably more like 20%, it is also worth noting that wind contribution this month has been low for the time of year.
Come back when you can provide baseload from your not exempt from environment damage favoured power source.
 
The numbers I used were based on the total annual output of the London array.

In other words a real number, representing real output over a lengthy period.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
The numbers I used were based on the total annual output of the London array.

In other words a real number, representing real output over a lengthy period.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

324MW is a drop in the ocean even for a Sunday. Answer the baseload question. Current total UK wind contribution is 1GW (3%, CF~6%).
The French interconnector supplies that 24/7 (80% Nuclear, most of the rest hydro).
As usual you also ignore the rest of our energy expenditure in transport, heating and refrigeration to name just a few.
 
So our small installed capacity supplies a small amount of energy.

Genius.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
So our small installed capacity supplies a small amount of energy.

Genius.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you suggest we install 50-60 times more of the installed capacity to guarantee precisely nothing?
GENIUS

PS there was a reason that our lower population society moved away from wind power two centuries ago leading to better life styles and expectancy.
 
Why 50-60?

The point is we've barely scratched the surface of the UKs renewable energy potential.

Through greater use of wind, solar, and tidal, the latter two being 100% reliable and predictable, we don't need to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on expensive nuclear energy.

Instead we have cheap, clean, affordable energy, and we're not reliant on China for financing or Russia for gas.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Visage said:
Why 50-60?

The point is we've barely scratched the surface of the UKs renewable energy potential.

Through greater use of wind, solar, and tidal, the latter two being 100% reliable and predictable, we don't need to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on expensive nuclear energy.

Instead we have cheap, clean, affordable energy, and we're not reliant on China for financing or Russia for gas.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Astonishingly naive. Please explain how you are going to replace the entire 50GW capacity grid with those means of generation.
None of those you mention could make a dent.
You quote the London Array which has been refused expansion on environmental basis (as offshore it weighs in at £150/MWh). As for gas we are sat on plenty ripe for the picking and if the government could be arsed new nuclear technologies might stand a chance.
You fail also to address the transport/heating issues although you will no doubt promote a shift to electrically powered transport shifting the burden to an electricity grid which is inherently inefficient.
 
We do it by scaling up current renewables.

Or are we going to run out of wind? Or sunshine?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
To be clear, look at this:

UK_renewables_generated.PNG


Thats real numbers of actual energy produced. Nor theoretical capacity - real electrons flowing through real wires.

Now, when you combine the ~20% year on year increase in renewable generation with the ~7% year on year reduction in total electricity use (due to greater energy efficiency), along with the fact that renewables are getting cheaper every year then its absurd that anyone would think this wasnt the way forwards.

You keep saying it isnt scaleable. Were you saying that when it was 1% of UK capacity? When it reached 5%? 10%? 20%?

In Q2 2015, the UK produced 25% of its energy from renewable sources. And yet you're still saying it cant scale up.

So where is the ceiling? At what point will we have to stop? What percentage of UK electricity can be supplied by renewables?

Time to come up with an actual number....
 
Visage said:
We do it by scaling up current renewables.

Or are we going to run out of wind? Or sunshine?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, it gets dark at night and the wind doesn't always blow. Expect marginal electricity supply this coming winter, tell me how you mitigate by your technique in the future.
 
Visage said:
To be clear, look at this:

UK_renewables_generated.PNG


Thats real numbers of actual energy produced. Nor theoretical capacity - real electrons flowing through real wires.

Now, when you combine the ~20% year on year increase in renewable generation with the ~7% year on year reduction in total electricity use (due to greater energy efficiency), along with the fact that renewables are getting cheaper every year then its absurd that anyone would think this wasnt the way forwards.

You keep saying it isnt scaleable. Were you saying that when it was 1% of UK capacity? When it reached 5%? 10%? 20%?

In Q2 2015, the UK produced 25% of its energy from renewable sources. And yet you're still saying it cant scale up.

So where is the ceiling? At what point will we have to stop? What percentage of UK electricity can be supplied by renewables?

Time to come up with an actual number....
Click to expand...

UK demand is in the region of 250TWh. Expand to global scale you might see the problem. That is just on demand electricity.
For a physicist I expect better....

No way did Q2 produce 25% of UK energy by renewables perhaps at a single point in time deep in the night for electricity generation only.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
 
So what %age of that 250TWh can be met by renewables?

Come on...give us a number....
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Astonishingly naive. Please explain how you are going to replace the entire 50GW capacity grid with those means of generation.
None of those you mention could make a dent.
You quote the London Array which has been refused expansion on environmental basis (as offshore it weighs in at £150/MWh). As for gas we are sat on plenty ripe for the picking and if the government could be arsed new nuclear technologies might stand a chance.
You fail also to address the transport/heating issues although you will no doubt promote a shift to electrically powered transport shifting the burden to an electricity grid which is inherently inefficient.
Click to expand...

just to be clear and as stated a number of times in this thread, the first CfD auction included awards to two offshore wind farms at £120/mwh and at £115/mwh, not £150/mwh, so let's not backtrack to a position of yesteryear.

and note, we already discussed onshore availability. nothing would get financed at 20%. the banks may run a sensitivity at lower levels but the site data would have to be showing 30% minimum over a significant test period or it's a no go.

the points about capacity and back up are relevant but the argument against renewables on price and risk loses credence when the alternative is nuclear at the price agreed (£92.50/mwh) with capped clean up liability to operator and requiring HMTreasury guarantees.
 
Visage said:
So what %age of that 250TWh can be met by renewables?

Come on...give us a number....
Click to expand...

A small fraction so pitiful as to be irrelevent in a modern industrial prosperous society.
Do you you power your PC according to availability of your prefered power source?
 
nimrod said:
just to be clear and as stated a number of times in this thread, the first CfD auction included awards to two offshore wind farms at £120/mwh and at £115/mwh, not £150/mwh, so let's not backtrack to a position of yesteryear.

and note, we already discussed onshore availability. nothing would get financed at 20%. the banks may run a sensitivity at lower levels but the site data would have to be showing 30% minimum over a significant test period or it's a no go.

the points about capacity and back up are relevant but the argument against renewables on price and risk loses credence when the alternative is nuclear at the price agreed (£92.50/mwh) with capped clean up liability to operator and requiring HMTreasury guarantees.
Click to expand...

We need to address baseload which with established provision can be as low as <£50/MWh.

How do you tip toe around the fact that wind can only ever supply a small fraction of energy supply?
 
So what is the maximum percentage of UK electricity can be generated by renewables?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top