National Grid

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

Happened on this site, for those interested as to where out 'letric comes from.

**LINK**

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

That one has been around a long time ,the truth , as it happens.

This should be the default screen displayed on the Smart meters.

We only need at least 20 times more wind power than we have installed to date, to cover daily demand.

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Thanks Speedy Builder for a great link.

John what they don't tell you is that total UK installed wind generating capacity is about 21 GW. So 1.5 GW is hardly good return on investment. But its about what you'd expect. Hand waving calculations for wind in anything other than super prime sites suggest that generators will average 1/3 rd of the maximum output for 1/3 rd of the time. In other words you will get about 10 % of the nominal installed capacity. Not allowing for servicing downtime.

Wind power is daft way of going about things. Why do you think windmills and sails got dumped just as soon as anything remotely useful became available.

Handy as a top up system I suppose if you have proper energy storage systems. Which doesn't mean Umpty-Four socking great batteries!

Clive.

Edited By Clive Foster on 27/12/2018 08:49:18

[John RuddParticipant @johnrudd16576]

Here's the gas info for anyone interested on where our gas is coming from….

http://mip-prod-web.azurewebsites.net/InstantaneousView/Index

[Stephen MillwardParticipant @stephenmillward99920]

Renewables and hydrogen are the future. In most parts of the world new renewables now work out cheaper than new fossil fuel generation, and that trend is going to continue. We can still enjoy building models of how it used to be done.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

That is my ‘go to’ site, but apparently there are some better ones which include, wind in particular, that is not reported like the large generators. One must also remember there is quite a lot of ‘embedded’ generartion which only shows as a reduction in demand (like companies that use all their generated wind or solar power on their own site), so never shows ontheir import meter as electrickey used.

We need more storage, for certain. I have seen wind generation down to about 0.05GW this last year, so 20 times the present name-plate wind generation would not, on its own, be sufficient.

But wind, solar and storage is likely no more costly than hinkley point is going to cost our children and their children – and without serious risks like a major nuclear accident. I remember milk going down the drain during the Windscale incident, because it was likely laden with Strontium-90; also Caesium-137 raining down from the chernobyl explosion (although we were not aware of it at the time we were getting soaked at what is now Rutland Water).

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Stephen Millward on 27/12/2018 09:56:10:

Renewables and hydrogen are the future.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source unless it is being used in a fusion reactor which isn't yet practical. Hydrogen is used for energy storage. As far as renewables are concerned try reading "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" for a scientific approach by Prof. David MacKay FRS.

Russell

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

JH and Clive have missed the point of Wind Power I think. Wind isn't supposed to be a one-for-one replacement for other methods of generating power, nor is it expected that it will ever meet our total daily requirement for energy.

All methods of generating power have advantages and disadvantages. Not difficult to find disadvantages in burning fossil fuels! Even if you don't believe in climate change, fossil fuels come from abroad and supplies are running out, everywhere. God isn't making any new coal, oil or gas to replace what we're extracting. As demand exceeds supply prices will rise – probably sharply : if I last that long it will be interesting to see how much a litre of petrol costs in 2039.

In a world where cheap fossil fuels are disappearing it makes sense to add alternative methods to the mix. The advantages of wind are that it's free, clean, and ours – you don't have to compete with foreigners on the open market to buy it, or ship it half way round the world before it can be used!

Wind power's main disadvantage is that it can't follow demand. But within limits that doesn't matter much: when wind feeds power into the grid fossil burners work less hard and save fuel. On a still day, not much fuel is saved, but on a good day enough to allow some generators to shut down completely – at least until the wind drops. Overall it's a worthwhile saving, no more no less.

The need to make power generation more flexible shifts the balance of advantage in other generating technologies. A disadvantage of coal power stations is they are poor at stopping and starting. Gas turbines cost more to run but are highly responsive. It's no coincidence that the UK has stopped making electricity from coal in favour of gas. I don't think there's a single simple answer, rather power generation has to adapt to current and future conditions by using whatever combination of technologies provide the best answer. There are no sacred cows.

When I get Cold Fusion working in my garage, all energy problems are solved! Perhaps something else will come on stream and make wind power obsolete again. But in the meantime wind generated electricity is surely worth having, warts and all.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 27/12/2018 10:54:16

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

The physics is simple. Everytime you convert energy from one type to another, the process is wasteful. The sun heats the oceans which heats the air which causes wind which drives the turbines which generate electricity. What comes out if a fraction of what goes in. Direct solar power is the ultimate future. While I like the idea of Helium 3 fusion reactors, there is a potential for catastrophe (or sabotage). Solar energy, which has been gifted to us for free since before we evolved is where the future lies. The debate is really about what tides us over until then.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Two weeks ago we had solar panels fitted on our roof, south facing and we live on the Sussex coast so about the most ideal location. Wife took some convincing that it would be the way to go, her argument was always that I wouldn’t live long enough to recoup the cost of the investment, have calculated roughly about six years to cover initial investment, so hoping she is wrong on that count. Surprised that even on these grim winter days the panels still generate albeit a reduced amount of energy. Part of the installation is a WiFi connection that means we can check on how much is being generated at any time and it gives bar chart display of total generation, wife is constantly checking it to see what is current, novelty should soon wear off. She certainly seems to have taken up the spirit of the moment because she will suddenly come out with “ the suns shining so I will do the washing while the electric is free “ at least we are now doing our bit to reduce our consumption of grid electricity generated by non-renewables. It will be interesting to see how much we can generate and therefore save in the summer when the sun is at its strongest, we are big users of electricity, we consume about 8,000 kw hrs per year, I have two large ponds using about 400 watts an hour between them, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, I also run a small oil filled radiator constantly throughout the winter in my workshop.

Dave W

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Right now the solar panels on our roof are generating about 700 watts in weak and hazy December sun, charging the battery with 480 watts and just occasionally leaving a bit spare to push into the immersion heater. It's likely that by the end of the day the battery will have enough energy stored to just about cook dinner, so our net energy usage from the grid in daylight will be just about zero. This shows the utility of energy storage, which would be even more useful if I had wind power too. There has been a lot of complaint about the removal of the FIT from April next year for new installations, so far the FIT has been a great incentive to get people to install but panel prices and installation costs have come down a lot. The logical next step is to incentivise you to store the energy you produce when the sun shines, for example in domestic and vehicle batteries

[Philip RoweParticipant @philiprowe13116]

Next month the PV installation on my roof will be five years old, so far I've no complaints but my initial calculation of recouping the up front cost in about seven years isn't going to happen. My roof alignment is unfortunately not the optimum and I think that payback will probably happen in about nine years, but at least the money spent is doing something rather than sitting in an account somewhere earning virtually no interest.

Phil

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

John, I wanted to go the whole way with our solar installation but the cost of a battery was a step to far for the financial controller, however have left the way forward for a battery install at a later date when either battery costs come down or wife accepts the cost of a battery addition. Our current energy tariff is an off peak tariff which means that we have much cheaper units at night which could mean being able to top up spare capacity of the battery with off peak electricity during the night, when the sun don’t shine, and therefore use off peak units during daylight. Have also floated the idea of supplementing the solar with wind from a windmill in the garden, we are in a coastal area so wind is plentiful. Have to let the seeds germinate with the wife before I can go further with the project, will get there eventually.

Dave W

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

And the technology (efficiency) is only going to get better.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

The above is all talking about electrical energy and it's use in home and industry but what about other energy use. How does this stack alongside energy for heating in various forms, and transportation.

If everyone had gas in their home, or none had how would that skew all the figures and how much energy does an 'quick break' holiday in Dubai compare to daily usage. Systems that 'save' energy can have the negative effect of encouraging people to squander elsewhere.

[the artfull-codgerParticipant @theartfull-codger]

Interesting article,jus just yesterday I was reading an article in the local paper about the national Grid beefing about the massive amount of people who are fitting solar panels and demand from the national Grid is dropping drastically, I'm at my daughter's in Perth Australia at present,(we won't have that problem in the UK of course) my neice works on wind turbines and they're all on good money,im I'm not a big lover of wind turbines

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Chris Trice on 27/12/2018 11:38:00:

The physics is simple. Everytime you convert energy from one type to another, the process is wasteful. The sun heats the oceans which heats the air which causes wind which drives the turbines which generate electricity. What comes out if a fraction of what goes in. Direct solar power is the ultimate future. While I like the idea of Helium 3 fusion reactors, there is a potential for catastrophe (or sabotage). Solar energy, which has been gifted to us for free since before we evolved is where the future lies. The debate is really about what tides us over until then.

Not entirely true.

As a vegetarian I could argue that plants are more efficient food sources than meat, but if you live in a desert region using goats to concentrate the sparse vegetation into more usable food, allowing people to survive in marginal areas.

Similarly hydro, tidal and wind generation can more cost-effective ways of generating large quantities of energy in a limited area compared to covering the land surface with solar which then removes the potential of the land to support farming or biodiversity.

The answer, especially for an country with as varied and unpredictable weather as the UK, is to find the optimal mix of technologies.

Neil

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 27/12/2018 10:46:49

Hydrogen isn't an energy source unless it is being used in a fusion reactor which isn't yet practical. Hydrogen is used for energy storage. As far as renewables are concerned try reading "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" for a scientific approach by Prof. David MacKay FRS.

Russell

Maybe you should have a look at this

**LINK**

Not as energy efficient as battery store leccy, but better for longer term energy storage?

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

As in Bazyle's premise , this 'energy' subject quickly becomes an insatiable monster, where 'free energy' in the form of electricity promotes even more release of ' fossile fue'l energy on leisure activities, ad infinitum.

[John MCParticipant @johnmc39344]

I would like to think Hydrogen is the way forward but realistically not in the forseeable future. I don't think wave power has been mentioned. I worked on a wave power project some 35 years ago and was left feeling that the power of the sea was not tameable, developments since have done nothing to change my mind.

I had solar PV fitted 5 years ago on a roof facing in a good but not perfect direction. I calculated that pay back would be in (roughly) 8.5 years, so far that seems to be about right. At the same time I had an immersion heater controller fitted, free hot water in the summer!

John

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

The thing that people tend to skip over when talking about wind, solar and storage is the cost of producing the equipment (fiscal and environmental) and it's lifespan. The cost of bulding enough offshore wind to equal the new Sizewell nuclear proposal is about the same as the nuclear plant. However the life of the offshore wind is only half that of the Nuclear. If we bulit next generation fast reactors that can "burn" depeleted uranium and reprocessed fuel there would not even haave to be any more mining. Unfortunatly there are irrational fears over nuclear. More people die every year from illnesses caused by burning coal than have ever died from nuclear effects of power generation including accidents.

The con of Drax II being "zero emission" because it burns "renewable" fuel is terrible. They are cutting down forrests in the USA etc, drying the wood and shipping the pellets to the UK in ships burning heavy bunker oil.
Trees take 3-5 years to regrow so you need to be planting 3 to 5 times what you cut down each year to be sustainable (assuming adequate water and nutrients). I see no evidence of that happening or even tht we are replanting what is cut down. Burning biomass waste from other production such as sugar cane is better but a limited source.

Not sure what any of this ha to do with model engineering. Unfortunatly I can't build a working scale model of a nuclear plant

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 27/12/2018 17:00:56:

Not sure what any of this ha to do with model engineering. Unfortunately I can't build a working scale model of a nuclear plant

It isn't hard. You don't need much more than some fuel rods and a big pile of graphite blocks, plus a boiler to sit on top and a steam engine

Oh, and a casual disregard for personal safety…

Neil

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 27/12/2018 17:00:56:

……

Trees take 3-5 years to regrow so you need to be planting 3 to 5 times what you cut down each year to be sustainable (assuming adequate water and nutrients). I see no evidence of that happening or even tht we are replanting what is cut down. Burning biomass waste from other production such as sugar cane is better but a limited source.

 

Not quite true, to maintain the same number of trees you have to start planting 3-5 years before you start cutting, and then keep on planting at the rate you are cutting. That niggle apart I agree with Robert, it is hard to believe that this makes environmental sense. According to a recent TV report the pellets are produced by clear felling ancient woodland, no attempt at replanting.

Edited By duncan webster on 27/12/2018 17:31:55

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/12/2018 17:13:55:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 27/12/2018 17:00:56:

Not sure what any of this ha to do with model engineering. Unfortunately I can't build a working scale model of a nuclear plant

It isn't hard. You don't need much more than some fuel rods and a big pile of graphite blocks, plus a boiler to sit on top and a steam engine

Oh, and a casual disregard for personal safety…

Neil

Well I actually have a nuclear fuel pellet . The problem is you still need a critical mass which limits the minimum size to something like a TRIGA at around 100kW and hardly model scale. The units used in pacemakers, satelites etc use decay heat which is uncontrolled.

[Author]

Posts