Is This The Future?

rollestonpark

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Burton on trent
If that's right, we gonna need some bloody big battery installs for use at night and winter when the solar is offline.

I do think that given the time taken (and expense) to build nuclear,
batteries, solar and wind will have probably made little need for nuclear.
But could be wrong.
 
All well and good till the wind is too strong or not strong enough at night. Batteries don’t last forever.

we will always need some sort of non renewables but it needs to be flexible, to plug the gaps.

recall back in August when a trip blew on the North Sea wind farms? London shut down and total carnage resulted in rush hr. every battery was flat out but it wasn’t enough
 

Y Fan Wen

Member
Location
N W Snowdonia
I wasn't expecting any positive reactions, that's too much to hope for.
I was intrigued to see that their examples had typical 40 hours of battery back up required, a lot less than one would think.
Their discussion of 'superpower' is interesting as well, what becomes possible as the price decreases. Using solar to build solar.
I watched the first episode of 'powering britain' yesterday. Offshore windfarm with 7Mw machines. The field amounted to about 1,100 Mw which is about the same as the last Magnox reactors I think. It is planned to be the first of 4.
 

Y Fan Wen

Member
Location
N W Snowdonia
All well and good till the wind is too strong or not strong enough at night. Batteries don’t last forever.

we will always need some sort of non renewables but it needs to be flexible, to plug the gaps.

recall back in August when a trip blew on the North Sea wind farms? London shut down and total carnage resulted in rush hr. every battery was flat out but it wasn’t enough
They do say that historic plant, nuclear and hydro, should continue.

Network problems are the same whatever the mode of generation.
I remember a friend who worked at Trawsfynydd nuclear telling me that in a severe ice storm there was so much leakage from the grid connections that none of their output was arriving at the destinations.
 

Swarfmonkey

Member
Location
Hampshire
It's a bit simplistic to compare just installed capacity for nuclear and wind, as wind has far lower capacity factor. For nuclear it's near 100%. For offshore wind it's between 40% and 50%.

1100MW of installed capacity on an offshore wind farm will never, ever, produce anywhere near that in real-world terms. With capacity factor taken into account it'll be somewhere between 440MW and 550MW. Then there's those odd days when it'll have an anticyclone weather system sitting over it when it'll produce 0MW...
 

Y Fan Wen

Member
Location
N W Snowdonia
Like most supposedly independent think tanks once you follow the money you can see the real motivation behind what they say.

RethinkX is funded by two tech investors. Investors who stand to make a lot of money out of renewables...
As they say in these reports over and over, if you don't stay ahead of the curve you are left behind and destroyed. Nokia and Blackberry anyone?
If you are a tech investor you need to be au fait with the bleeding edge research and investing in this research and forecasting is the obvious route.
 

Y Fan Wen

Member
Location
N W Snowdonia
It's a bit simplistic to compare just installed capacity for nuclear and wind, as wind has far lower capacity factor. For nuclear it's near 100%. For offshore wind it's between 40% and 50%.

1100MW of installed capacity on an offshore wind farm will never, ever, produce anywhere near that in real-world terms. With capacity factor taken into account it'll be somewhere between 440MW and 550MW. Then there's those odd days when it'll have an anticyclone weather system sitting over it when it'll produce 0MW...
Anticyclones tend to produce sunny days. That's why it is a three pronged approach.
Looking at the map, New England is about 10 degrees S of GB so I would think that the balance here would be slightly more in favour of wind against solar. I suppose that is the reason govt. is progressing offshore wind. Would you think GB has better wind characteristics with our prevailing S Westerlies?
Maybe this would also mean increased battery capacity to say 50 hours rather than the 40 I mention up thread.
From one of my fields in Anglesey I can see about 30 windmills, including one smock mill which has been rebuilt and preserved. It is very rarely that I have seen them at rest (maybe twice?), even when it is totally calm where I'm working. I happened to be processing a hay crop when they were being installed. They took one day to put one up, presumably after the foundations had been poured and cured.
 

Swarfmonkey

Member
Location
Hampshire
Offshore is preferred because the capacity factor is higher than it is for onshore wind turbine. Another benefit of offshore over onshore is that you don’t have problems with the usual suspects trying to block PP. The downside of offshore being that the marine environment is extraordinarily hard on the kit.

Two websites to have a shufty at are energynumbers.info and renewableuk.com meaning you can then compare installed capacity to how much ‘leccy they’re actually generating.
 
I wasn't expecting any positive reactions, that's too much to hope for.
I was intrigued to see that their examples had typical 40 hours of battery back up required, a lot less than one would think.
Their discussion of 'superpower' is interesting as well, what becomes possible as the price decreases. Using solar to build solar.
I watched the first episode of 'powering britain' yesterday. Offshore windfarm with 7Mw machines. The field amounted to about 1,100 Mw which is about the same as the last Magnox reactors I think. It is planned to be the first of 4.


But who owns them ?

Why are landowners being stopped from creating their own power only to get big corporates monopolising the market ? This energy is more expensive AND we have to pay a premium on top.

I don't like the premise of what is happening - the public are being ignored, nobody voted for being dominated by a few already rich people.
 
Offshore is preferred because the capacity factor is higher than it is for onshore wind turbine. Another benefit of offshore over onshore is that you don’t have problems with the usual suspects trying to block PP. The downside of offshore being that the marine environment is extraordinarily hard on the kit.

Two websites to have a shufty at are energynumbers.info and renewableuk.com meaning you can then compare installed capacity to how much ‘leccy they’re actually generating.


Offshore is preferred because nobody else has a cat in hells chance of competing. We are under the thumb of a bunch of self appointed rich people.

I don't like this at all .. offshore is more expensive than onshore and offshore means joe average is screwed.
 
But the queen does very nicely thankyou


According to these people the Crown is some weird company which puts profits into the treasury .. to me personally it's all the same. I don't get any and I bet most people in the UK don't get any either. But we have to pay for the system.


Google says:

Queen Elizabeth owns 6.6 billion acres .. so if each acre was worth £1,000 that's £6.6 Trillion
 

Swarfmonkey

Member
Location
Hampshire
@wanton dwarf

Offshore makes sense for a few reasons.

1: Higher capacity factor
2: Not having to deal with all the crap that comes with getting PP for an onshore wind farm. You know the kind of thing, where the RSPB/CPRE/Ramblers Association/Lower Bumblefück Residents Association put in objection after objection
3: Offshore wind farms effectively create mini marine reserves. Those fishing outside near those areas have seen increased catches.

If you want to find a real scandal look at what the ‘leccy companies are paying those producing power from sub 50kW PV and wind installations compared to what they’re selling it for.
 

glasshouse

Member
Location
lothians
According to these people the Crown is some weird company which puts profits into the treasury .. to me personally it's all the same. I don't get any and I bet most people in the UK don't get any either. But we have to pay for the system.


Google says:

Queen Elizabeth owns 6.6 billion acres .. so if each acre was worth £1,000 that's £6.6 Trillion
The crown is taking a hood kicking from collapse of retail rents and therefore capital values
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 33 16.5%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 10.0%
  • Xero

    Votes: 93 46.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 54 27.0%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 202
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top