Diesel Fuel

[Vic]

On Vic Said:

We could get rid of plants like Drax with more renewables and battery storage if there was the will to do so.

https://youtu.be/fR–t-eMq_Y?si=j7F5-lO6jrlakKbA

 

 

No we could not. The current design of the UK grid (and most others) relies on a certain level of mechanical generation for stability. This is literally mechanical inertia. Historically it was provided by the rotating generators. Now they are having to add huge flywheels with attached motor generators.
It’s not just renewables that need this. The high voltage DC links used for international power transfer also need them.
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-services/service/rotating-grid-stabilizer.html
https://www.gevernova.com/power-conversion/sites/default/files/2021-12/BROCHURE_GEA34602%20GE%27s%20Rotating%20Stabilisers%20For%20Grid%20Stability_July%202020.pdf

This is another area where nuclear power (especally small distributed generation like Small Modular Reactors if they ever happen) has an advantage as they use rotating generators.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Clever stuff, Robert

Do you know where they are installing those stabilisers ?

… Not in my back-yard, I hope !

MichaelG.

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

Clever stuff, Robert

Do you know where they are installing those stabilisers ?

… Not in my back-yard, I hope !

MichaelG.

Why ever not Michael?  Other people have to take the rough with the smooth!

or:

Flixborough helped get H&S legislation into British law.  The naysayers were successfully resisting it with the usual arguments.  Then there was an enormous bang.  28 dead, 36 seriously injured in the plant, and could have been much worse – the explosion happened on a Saturday, when the plant was partially staffed.    Plus significant property damage in a 3 or 4km radius around the installation, and many minor injuries to local residents.

Followed 2 years later by the Seveso dioxin leak, which finished objectors off.

Lessons learned internationally we would hope, but in 1984 the Bhopal disaster killed over 4000 people unlucky enough to live in a residential district downwind of the plant.  Plenty of lesser examples.

Inquiries usually show these incidents to be avoidable.  Causes include missing processes, ad-hoc fixes by unsupervised unqualified workforce, done with materials to hand, without doing the sums, and without assessing or mitigating the risks. Common-sense and experience aren’t enough on their own.   The Flixborough employee who drew the replacement pipework on the floor in chalk should never have been put into that position.  Being a practical man rather than a chartered Mechanical Engineer (a vacancy), meant he didn’t have all the necessary skills, or know that he didn’t.  Management failure.

Oil is not safe, and neither is renewable energy.  Truth is, if we want nice things, we have to manage the downside.  And that includes coping with future shortages, pollution, finance, major infrastructure changes, and huge costs.

Only one thing is certain: change is inevitable.  Nothing lasts forever.  And inevitable that some people will suffer during the transition.  Best we can do is plan to minimise the pain and maximise the benefit.  Sadly, there is no guarantee an individual won’t find a massive new industrial thingy next door and nowhere to charge his EV!

Individual pain is acceptable to the herd provided there are more winners than losers.  Less so if the winner turns out to be a multinational.  It has always been thus.

Dave

 

 

[Robert Atkinson 2]

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

No we could not. The current design of the UK grid (and most others) relies on a certain level of mechanical generation for stability. This is literally mechanical inertia. Historically it was provided by the rotating generators. Now they are having to add huge flywheels with attached motor generators.
It’s not just renewables that need this. The high voltage DC links used for international power transfer also need them.

This is another area where nuclear power (especally small distributed generation like Small Modular Reactors if they ever happen) has an advantage as they use rotating generators.

Robert, can you explain why stability of the grid requires (temporary) mechanical energy storage? Clearly, there are lots of rotating generators in service, and use can be made of their rotational energy, but is mechanical storage a necessity? Wouldn’t battery storage (assuming the batteries are practicable and affordable) also work? If so, solar farms, for example, with massive batteries, would seem (to this layman) to provide advantages regarding grid stability.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Sonic can have it, Dave

He wants a well-balanced drive for his grindstone

MichaelG.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Something akin to a Ward Leonard set would be pretty innocuous, the only emission being a bit of waste heat? Bulleid used a similar set up on his electric locos to cope with breaks in the third rail

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

https://www.statkraft.co.uk/about-statkraft-uk/where-we-operate/Locations/keith-greener-grid-park/

MichaelG.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

So much prattle about what we can’t do.  Simple to accommodate the apparent lack of spinning reserve.

 

With regard to Drax – that was a typical governmental fopas in that it was not flagged up that contracts for subsiy payments for that type of electricity generation.  It would now likely cost over a £billion to get out of that arrangement – what with litigation and compensation.

 

Two huge flywheels are being installed at the Walpole grid stability facilty for overcoming spinning reserve shortcomings upon the eventual demise of gas generation.

Nucs are thermal, but apparently not set up for grid restarting?  Dinorwig has a high spinning momentum potential for this duty?

Wind farms are increasingly being installed as ‘grid-forming’ supplies, rather than ‘grid-following’.  These will clearly assist in restarting the grid after the very infrequent widespread blackouts that can occur.  The National Grid, I am sure is very cautious of possible grid failures – such as has happened previously and in Iberia more recently.

People will have to get used to electrification – because of the necessary demise of the habitual burning of fossil fuels.  All road transport WILL become electrified eventually.  Cars are first, but HGVs are now starting to be catered for.  Industry (including electricity generation) is, or will, follow.

The question of powering recharging sites will be addressed before widespread adoption by the heavy goods transport industry and for each installation – which are now starting in the UK.  Diesel powered car sales diminish sharply, month by month – just look at the SMMT monthly reports on new vehicle sales.

Power required, is not a real long-term problem – it is a matter of installing the supplies.  One place I worked at regularly consumed over 25MW, whenever necessary, overnight (2230-0730h IIRC).  At times of power shortages, the factory was occasionally reduced usage to 10MW, if really necessary.  A 2MW reduction in power, with 2 hours notice, was the normal arrangement for the factory.  Part of my job was to arrange which plant could be closed down without adversely affecting production – and to maximise power usage at night.

The few who claim they are not able to operate without a dinosaur gas-guzzling, polluting vehicle may be correct at this time.  But that will change – make no mistake about that!  It may take several years – fossil burning cars will still be on the UK toads long after the 2035 cut-off point for new sales!!  People apparently simply cannot get this into their heads?!

I drive a BEV.  I like it, it does all (and more) than I require.  I will never go back to burning fossils in my car.  ICEs are dirty, unhealthy and very bad for the atmosphere, climate, etc.  Get used to it – all new cars will only have an electric propulsion, after 2035.  Think ahead, nog in the past!

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

SOD (Dave) wrote “Individual pain is acceptable to the herd provided there are more winners than losers.”

I disagree. The herd generally do not accept things like aggression against, or the killing of individuals. It’s not a matter of numbers. However, governments allow processes that are known to be widely injurious, provided the economics ‘work’ and the blame won’t stick.

However, this is nit-picking: I broadly agree with the rest of your post, and would like to amplify it. Bad things will continue to happen as a result of human ignorance and/or stupidity, and it’s inconceivable that legislation can eliminate that. Bad things also happen by chance, and chance doesn’t care about regulations. But that’s no reason to shrug shoulders and carry on regardless. We need to take care not to introduce change without thinking very hard about possible consequences. Too much is being done in the name of ‘progress’ for blatant short-term financial benefit, and also ‘because we can’. The rate of change is far too fast for the regulatory authorities to keep up, and the politicians are ill-informed and can not be expected to be experts in the fields covered by their portfolio. It is a worry that politicians are selected without any regard to their level of intellectual capability: popularity wins in a ‘democracy’. The short electoral cycle makes long-term planning difficult if not impossible. Also, when there are mega-rich and mega-powerful individuals and corporations operating internationally, it seems they are difficult to control by any national legislation.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Roberts mention of inertia was all brought home to me when a small generator of approximately 10 times the power needed to run a small induction motor STOPPED DEAD ! It hadn’t the inertia to generate the split second overload of the inrush caused. Yet the same generator would start a brush motor of 4 times the induction motors power.

The above example illustrates one of the BIG problems of relying on solar and wind.  Noel.

PS it also illustrates the different starting characteristics of different types of motor.

 

 

 

n’t

[Kiwi Bloke]

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

No we could not. The current design of the UK grid (and most others) relies on a certain level of mechanical generation for stability. This is literally mechanical inertia. Historically it was provided by the rotating generators. Now they are having to add huge flywheels with attached motor generators.
It’s not just renewables that need this. The high voltage DC links used for international power transfer also need them.

This is another area where nuclear power (especally small distributed generation like Small Modular Reactors if they ever happen) has an advantage as they use rotating generators.

Robert, can you explain why stability of the grid requires (temporary) mechanical energy storage? Clearly, there are lots of rotating generators in service, and use can be made of their rotational energy, but is mechanical storage a necessity? Wouldn’t battery storage (assuming the batteries are practicable and affordable) also work? If so, solar farms, for example, with massive batteries, would seem (to this layman) to provide advantages regarding grid stability.

The mechanical systems are able to absorb energy almost instantly and are inherently a damping infuence. They stabilse power (voltage) and frequency. Modern electronic loads tend to be constant power so if the supply voltage decreases they draw more current. This drops the voltage further i.e postive feedback and with response delays can lead to oscilations.
Batteries cannot absorb power quickly enough so you woud need to use capacitors for storage. A medium size flywhell stores 450 MJ (450 MW/s) of energy awith a 13.8 kV motor-generator. To store 450MJ at 13.8 kV  requires a lot of capacitance. Energy (J) =0.5 x Vsquared x capacitance so capacitance is 2 x J/Vsquared = 4.726 Farads. That does not sound a lot but combined with the requirement to deliiver it over a short time period (high current) it is huge. A 1uF 1kV film capacitor for this type of duty is around 50mm x 50mm x 35mm. You would need 4.726 Million of those in parallel to get 4.726F at 1 kV and 14 of those to get to 18 kV so 66 million capacitors.
Even a battery would be big. 450 MJ is 125 kWh and for 13.8 kV you need 3600 cells (about 39 kWh for 18650 cells so need about 11,500 cells for the nominal capacity) . Doesn’t sound too bad. Until you realise that is for discharging over an hour. To provide it in a second (the rotary specification) The battery would have to provide 32,600 amps. So at 36A maxmum discharge curren per cell you would need around 910 parallel strings of good 18650 cells.That is about 3.276 millon cells weighing 154 tons excluding connections.
That is of course only the energy supply / battery discharge case. To absorb 450MJ or 32,600A in 1 second would need 4 times as many because the maximum charge current is only 9A So about 13 million 18650 cells weighing 600 tons. Plus of course all the associated power electronics for AC to DC to AC conversion…
These are highly generalised figures but you can easilly see why 200 tons of rotating steel and iron is still the best solution. It’s greener too.

Robert.

[not done it yet]

On not done it yet Said:

 

The few who claim they are not able to operate without a dinosaur gas-guzzling, polluting vehicle may be correct at this time.  But that will change – make no mistake about that!  It may take several years ——————––   People apparently simply cannot get this into their heads?!

I drive a BEV.  I like it, it does all (and more) than I require.  I will never go back to burning fossils in my car.  ICEs are dirty, unhealthy and very bad for the atmosphere, climate, etc.  Get used to it – all new cars will only have an electric propulsion, after 2035.  Think ahead, nog in the past!

And that says it all doesn’t it?

It’s the Capitalisation of the selfish and greedy attitude of Industrialised First world countries. Africa, for example, did not get the world’s climate in to the mess it is – it did contribute, no doubt, but when you consider that just under 1/3 of Africans don’t own cars, and we have no massive industry like America, Europe, The UK ( the UK is still industrialized, is it not?) , then Africa’s contribution is less than a percent.

So, while the industrialised world invested in industry, production, manufacturing, pollution, and grew wealthy, comfortable and large girthed, the rest of the world just had to take it as it comes.

Since you grew wealthy from this approach, and since it fostered the Pollution Dilema, why don’t these wealthy entities fund the modernisation of Africa, for example, fund Electrical infrastructure, and all that is needed to cope with coming mess that was primarily created by the  industrialised world. So all this money you believe you will save with BEV’s etc, why don’t you step up and pay your dues for having forced the rest of the us to suck it up on your behalf, for so long.

 

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Joseph, if you didn’t notice, my post was referring to the UK.

While my BEV is actually cheaper to run than equivalent ICEVs, my post did not mention that.

I recognised, long ago, that burning coal, petrochemicals and natural gas was detrimental to the world environment.

The actual real blame primarily rests with the oil giants, who knew the outcome of continued fossil use for simple burning for energy generation of any, and all, kinds decades ago.  Profit today and to hell with the future attitude.

No different than the tobacco industry.  No different to the asbestos industry.  No different than manual coal mining.  No different than many other human activities.

Later blame lays at the political decisions.  Very few (only one president?) still advocates the use of fossils over renewables.

In the UK, there is a renaissance of nuclear reactors for electricity generation.  If anyone thinks that electricity, generated by Hinkley C will be cheap, they will be wrong – that cost will be of paying high a price for the generated power for 35 years after it actually starts generation.  Few politicians, who started that particular fiasco, will be around to witness the costs to our children’s children.

I am but one single individual who recognises the future consequences.  There are many more, but while there are those that still decry any reduction of fossil burning, there will be some that are swayed into the same doctrine – as stupid as it really is.

Everyone should be looking to reduce the race towards climate disaster.  That means suggesting/using low carbon alternatives, not just feebly suggesting that they cannot possibly change from fossils usage for burning.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

When they spend £700,000,000 on a scheme to save one salmon per year at Hinkley C you can see why nuclear costs so much.

The Victorians didn’t know they couldn’t do it so they just got on and did it. We are living on their infrastructure and spending millions on paperwork before we even go looking for the spades for new projects. It recently took nearly 18 months to resurface 1.5 miles of road near me. Admittedly they had to dig down a couple of feet to reinforce the substrate, but no new bridges or earthworks. At that rate we’d still be building the M1.

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

On 5 February 2026 at 12:13 Joseph Noci 1 Said:

“And that says it all doesn’t it?
It’s the Capitalisation of the selfish and greedy attitude of Industrialised First world countries…why don’t these wealthy entities fund the modernisation of Africa?”

Useful to have an Afrocentric perspective.

Sadly, obstacles to Africa’s development can’t be attributed solely to first world greed and inadequate overseas investment. Corruption, political instability, poor rule of law, and geographical challenges are significant factors that militate against Africa’s modernisation too.

I say this as someone with several family members who were born and lived in African countries for a significant part of their lives.

[Bill Phinn]

On Bill Phinn Said:

On 5 February 2026 at 12:13 Joseph Noci 1 Said:

“And that says it all doesn’t it?
It’s the Capitalisation of the selfish and greedy attitude of Industrialised First world countries…why don’t these wealthy entities fund the modernisation of Africa?”

Useful to have an Afrocentric perspective.

Sadly, obstacles to Africa’s development can’t be attributed solely to first world greed and inadequate overseas investment. Corruption, political instability, poor rule of law, and geographical challenges are significant factors that militate against Africa’s modernisation too.

I say this as someone with several family members who were born and lived in African countries for a significant part of their lives.

Bill, you are quite correct – I must be wary of politicising this thread too much…

 

However…You are correct WRT to the issues you mention – I would summarise it in one word – Corruption – the rest, rule of law, instabilities, are all a by product of corruption. But corruption exists because it is easy and there is little else that could bring a better future. There is no Industry in Africa – Mining is not an industry, it’s a method – not technology development, no manufacturing that is global in nature.

The thing is…It will never improve while the rest of the world does its best to keep it that way. The world is content to take Africa’s resources, Gold, Copper, Tin, Zinc, Hardwoods, Diamonds, etc. There is a HooHa about diamonds, conflict diamonds, etc, but through those Diamond Craftsmen in the Middle East, the West has found ways to Sanitise those diamonds anyway and receive them..And some of the mineral mines – esp Copper, are among the most horrific in the world, in Central and northern Africa.

It’s easier to turn a blind eye to all that and use the minerals in western industry to grow Western industry and wealth, at the continued expense of Africa. Yes, its hard to do business in Africa, some places anyway, but joint ventures, bringing modern methods and increasing jobs would have been a good start. Unfortunately that would mean a slice of the top of profits, which should really be the West’s Sin Tax anyway, and so the Blind eye remains turned.

This started a s a focus on ‘diesel’ but the picture is far bigger than that, and the implications may turn out far worse than the abolition of fossil fuels – possibly even the demise of ignorant nations, with notions that  such collateral loss be acceptable for the greater good.

>Individual pain is acceptable to the herd provided there are more winners than losers.  < Springs to mind…

Don’t presume to think of the third world as your herd..

 

[Joseph Noci 1Participant @josephnoci1]

My apologies for Ranting so – The Worlds Will is driven by greed and self preservation of comfort zones and it very hard for the rest to survive under those terms.

So, I bow out and let the thread return to its intent rather.

And I will return to contemplating my Pendulm…and navel…

Thank you for your indulgence.

Joe

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Thank you Joseph for bringing an interesting side to the discussion, might I say ” how the other half live”.  Noel.

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

On 5 February 2026 at 16:28 Joseph Noci said:
“And some of the mineral mines – esp Copper, are among the most horrific in the world, in Central and northern Africa.”

I can vouch for this, Joseph. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Roan Antelope Copper Mine in Zambia.

A relative of mine was witness to the horrors there many decades ago (when Zambia was still N. Rhodesia).

 

 

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Robert Atkinson 2   Thank you for your illuminating answer to my question. Your illustration of the magnitude of the problem is certainly made impressive by basing it on ‘domestic-sized’ capacitors and cells, but isn’t it a straw man argument? Clearly, the massive storage required would be based on purpose-designed, large-scale components (which may not yet exist). Already, super capacitors are being used to deliver a lot of energy quickly (a lot of power, but not for long), for instance in some transport applications. Granted, it’s small beer, compared to an electrical grid, but isn’t it scaleable? One isn’t expecting each installation (solar farm, wind farm, etc.) to do more than make a contribution to the grid stabilisation task. I was just thinking that mechanical energy storage seems likely to be overtaken by solid state or electrochemical storage before too long…

[Adrian R2Participant @adrianr2]

Australians are *finally* going for renewables in a big way and have both spinning and non-spinning grid stabilisation solutions so will be interesting to watch how they pan out, for example:

Neoen Big Battery (Western Downs) Deployment Project

There are some technical lessons learned documents on the website that are beyond me but those experienced with grid scale deployments may find interesting.

I’d also guess that some of this may be applicable to other southern hemisphere deployments in the future.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Is there not some big problem with the Neoen battery system, that means though not even finished a fatal flaw has come to light ? Noel.

[Kiwi Bloke]

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

Robert Atkinson 2   Thank you for your illuminating answer to my question. Your illustration of the magnitude of the problem is certainly made impressive by basing it on ‘domestic-sized’ capacitors and cells, but isn’t it a straw man argument? Clearly, the massive storage required would be based on purpose-designed, large-scale components (which may not yet exist). Already, super capacitors are being used to deliver a lot of energy quickly (a lot of power, but not for long), for instance in some transport applications. Granted, it’s small beer, compared to an electrical grid, but isn’t it scaleable? One isn’t expecting each installation (solar farm, wind farm, etc.) to do more than make a contribution to the grid stabilisation task. I was just thinking that mechanical energy storage seems likely to be overtaken by solid state or electrochemical storage before too long…

The capacitors I referenced are not domestic types they are industrial units designed for this type of application. Super capacitors arn’t there yet in terms of power and voltage. Rotating mass is also a lot more reliable than electronics.

[noel shelley]

On noel shelley Said:

Is there not some big problem with the Neoen battery system, that means though not even finished a fatal flaw has come to light ? Noel.

Sounds like an internet click-bait title 🙂

I’m sure there have been problems along the way as evident by publication of lessons learned reports but the only flaw I can think of that would be fatal for one of these schemes (there are several in Aus and getting bigger all the time) is that as the capex cost keeps reducing too many of them are built and the bottom drops out of their market, “energy too cheap to meter” all over again.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

“electricty too cheap to meter” was envisaged because it was a secondary output from reactors producing materials for weapons. Never happened because why not make money from it.

[Author]

Posts