Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC

[Reynard]

We also buy more coal fire generated (mainly) electricity off the Ditch than our entire hydro energy scheme produces on a daily basis.

All of this is unacceptable.

[renton]

And its also worth pointing out that we have a national grid. It was brought about to serve the nation, not particular regions. Its like me claiming that Ayrshire is entirely self sufficient in energy thanks to Hunterston and the nonsense windfarms dotted around the place.

Scotland nuclear stations will be offline in a decade or so unless they get ANOTHER life extension. Hunterston is currently operating at low capacity thanks to cracks. Longannets coal burning will cease at some stage because of regulation, not because it fails to deliver. So there's a fucking enormous chunk of power away from Scotland if they cease generation. Wind simply doesn't cut it. At peak demand for instance, can you guarantee me that the wind will blow from 4 in the afternoon to around 7 in the evening every single day 365 days a year? If you can't, what will you do about it? Candles and waterwheels?

This is a ridiculous argument. The fact is that renewables is always going to be a regional resource because it relies on the local geography. Decentralise the grid, place heavier emphasis on local energy generation, make it more flexible. 'Wind' isn't some central resource either, it's part of a mix of broader resources, Offhsore wind is and will be a much more reliable resource than onshore which should be mixed with tidal and solar as deemed fit, and yeah, we are going to need more storage capacity. It's a massive engineering challenge but it's doable.

It's still a better long term option than pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 ans SO2 into the atmosphere and it's a better option than being dependent on someone else wentirely for your energy requirements, and yes, it's still better than relying on an energy resource where the fuel is scarce, and with the best safety record in the world still carries the threat of irradiating the entire west coast of Scotland.

[renton]

I'll go back as far as you like and refute this. But I'd be interested to see where you get you output figures from for Scotland as I can never find them for here alone. I CAN get all I need for the grid as whole. And it's perfectly obvious that wind doesn't deliver. As I mentioned before, we buy more cheap nuclear surplus from the French than our entire wind array (onshore and offshore) provides.

It's the ScotGov figures. It's for equivalent which means it doesn't always come when you need it, but the fact is there are two solutions for that. Either build enough excess capacity via different generating means seperated geographically so that you always have enough from one source, the maximum potentiall installed capacity for Onshore and offshore wind is several times the entire peak consumption in Scotland, let alone ading in tidal sources, biomass and solar. The other solution is to build a lot of new hydro-storage, of which Scotland has a lot of potnetial sites, to store that generated off peak energy.

[Reynard]

This is a ridiculous argument. The fact is that renewables is always going to be a regional resource because it relies on the local geography. Decentralise the grid, place heavier emphasis on local energy generation, make it more flexible. 'Wind' isn't some central resource either, it's part of a mix of broader resources, Offhsore wind is and will be a much more reliable resource than onshore which should be mixed with tidal and solar as deemed fit, and yeah, we are going to need more storage capacity. It's a massive engineering challenge but it's doable.

It's still a better long term option than pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 ans SO2 into the atmosphere and it's a better option than being dependent on someone else wentirely for your energy requirements, and yes, it's still better than relying on an energy resource where the fuel is scarce, and with the best safety record in the world still carries the threat of irradiating the entire west coast of Scotland.

Can you pony up where you are getting the figures from. I want to see them to be better informed. Cheers.

As I said, I can only get the figures for the entire grid, but if you have regional variations I'd like to see this.

None of what you say is actually countering the point I'm making that wind simply doesn't deliver enough energy when we need it or cheaply enough to keep us competitive economically. This is now well known and can be backed up with actual figures all day virtually every day. There has been the odd spell of weather where the wind array HAS delivered good amounts of power, but its rare. Very rare actually. And there has NEVER been a time when it has worked close to capacity.

How many more turbines do we require in order to replace the dirty dirty dirty coal fired station at Longannet for instance and what do we use to provide energy when it isn't very windy? We need baseload, what do you reckon we should use for this? Coal provides it incredibly cheaply at the moment. Around a third of all power generated is by coal. Gas is providing slightly more at the moment as nuclear production is well down. What do we build to pick up the slack and will it still be as cheap as coal?

[renton]

Can you pony up where you are getting the figures from. I want to see them to be better informed. Cheers.

As I said, I can only get the figures for the entire grid, but if you have regional variations I'd like to see this.

None of what you say is actually countering the point I'm making that wind simply doesn't deliver enough energy when we need it or cheaply enough to keep us competitive economically. This is now well known and can be backed up with actual figures all day virtually every day. There has been the odd spell of weather where the wind array HAS delivered good amounts of power, but its rare. Very rare actually. And there has NEVER been a time when it has worked close to capacity.

How many more turbines do we require in order to replace the dirty dirty dirty coal fired station at Longannet for instance and what do we use to provide energy when it isn't very windy? We need baseload, what do you reckon we should use for this? Coal provides it incredibly cheaply at the moment. Around a third of all power generated is by coal. Gas is providing slightly more at the moment as nuclear production is well down. What do we build to pick up the slack and will it still be as cheap as coal?

See above.

[Reynard]

It's the ScotGov figures. It's for equivalent which means it doesn't always come when you need it, but the fact is there are two solutions for that. Either build enough excess capacity via different generating means seperated geographically so that you always have enough from one source, the maximum potentiall installed capacity for Onshore and offshore wind is several times the entire peak consumption in Scotland, let alone ading in tidal sources, biomass and solar. The other solution is to build a lot of new hydro-storage, of which Scotland has a lot of potnetial sites, to store that generated off peak energy.

Yes but I can never find them. I want to see them, how they get them and how detailed they actually are thats all.

Scotland is part of the national grid system, it doesn't actually need to produce more energy than it needs at the moment so any argument about Scotland is entirely based on regional nonsense which you just dismissed a few posts back. The UK taxpayer as a whole provides massive subsidy towards wind generated power. The Scottish government policy seems to be to stick plenty of these things up as they know the Scottish bill payer alone isn't ponying up for them. If we were a stand alone grid they wouldn't. Simple as that,.

[Reynard]

See above.

you didn't.

You just told me it was the scottish governments figures. I want to see the breakdown of it thats all. The national grid doesn't break it down regionally either but it does give a daily output based on each method of power generation. Id love to have a scottish version, but its not available.

They ignore FOI requests.

[Reynard]

I'd like to see just what is generated from nuclear and coal and gas alone in Scotland in order to compare it with our wind array. Id also like to see a daily breakdown of this to see what would happen when we bin conventional power generation and go to renewables.

I also don't see any method of generating power up here that will pick up the slack when it isn't windy. Wind will also affect wave generation and even tidal.

[renton]

you didn't.

You just told me it was the scottish governments figures. I want to see the breakdown of it thats all. The national grid doesn't break it down regionally either but it does give a daily output based on each method of power generation. Id love to have a scottish version, but its not available.

They ignore FOI requests.

Yeah I did. I gave you the figures for what renewables generated in Scotland as equivalent gross consumption of electricity.

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/

[renton]

I'd like to see just what is generated from nuclear and coal and gas alone in Scotland in order to compare it with our wind array. Id also like to see a daily breakdown of this to see what would happen when we bin conventional power generation and go to renewables.

I also don't see any method of generating power up here that will pick up the slack when it isn't windy. Wind will also affect wave generation and even tidal.

I think the point is that the north sea is generally a windy place somewhere, all the time. The trick is installing enough capacity in different places to pick up on that.

[Reynard]

Yeah I did. I gave you the figures for what renewables generated in Scotland as equivalent gross consumption of electricity.

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/

Doesn't help while comparing with other forms of energy generation. I can give you the figures daily, monthly early for all forms of power generation including anything imported.

The point still remains that it doesn't give WHEN it was generated either. If it happens to be through the night for instance, it doesn't help matters.

You've yet to let me know what you will use to back up during periods of no wind. Strike price on offshore is also more expensive than any other form of power generation. Maintenance is also ridiculous.

We still import more from France than the entire wind array generates. Its essentially a really shit and really expensive way of generating intermittent energy.

[AUFC90]

Doesn't help while comparing with other forms of energy generation. I can give you the figures daily, monthly early for all forms of power generation including anything imported.

The point still remains that it doesn't give WHEN it was generated either. If it happens to be through the night for instance, it doesn't help matters.

You've yet to let me know what you will use to back up during periods of no wind. Strike price on offshore is also more expensive than any other form of power generation. Maintenance is also ridiculous.

We still import more from France than the entire wind array generates. Its essentially a really shit and really expensive way of generating intermittent energy.

Are renewables more expensive than the ridulously expensive deal we signed with the French for nuclear intetconnectors ? The French were proudly proclaiming that it was the deal of the century. Just a pity that British taxpayers will have to cough up for it.

[Reynard]

Are renewables more expensive than the ridulously expensive deal we signed with the French for nuclear intetconnectors ? The French were proudly proclaiming that it was the deal of the century. Just a pity that British taxpayers will have to cough up for it.

Yep. The strike price on THAT is still cheaper than onshore wind and vastly cheaper than offshore.

And thats at the current prices, bear in mind the new nuclear facilities wont be operational for a few years yet. They will also produce continual energy, unlike wind.

[Reynard]

What plans are in place to replace the 35,000GWh of energy generated in Scotland by fossil fuels and nuclear? This is effectively our entire baseload. What plans are in place to keep the lights on here?

[Reynard]

That's utter bollocks.

Wind is producing next to nothing for the vast sums of money invested into it and it's nowhere close to being at "grid parity" with coal and gas.

For instance, right now, the UK is producing 70% of all its energy from coal and gas. 6.7% from wind. Yesterday we were producing virtually nothing at all from wind. Its an utter fantasy to think we will ever be able to produce enough energy from wind in order to turn off a significant portion of our fossil fuel generation. Indeed, for every GWH of wind coming on stream we need the equivalent in back up from the likes of gas (because it can be fired up quickly) for days like yesterday when the wind just doesn't blow.

It MAY be that down the line we can produce abundant energy from renewables, but we certainly can't right now. As for hydro, its producing around 2% of energy production consistently. We would need an enormous building project and we would need to flood a ridiculous amount of land if thats the route we wanted to go down. The country is in danger of not being able to cope with its demand for energy thanks to stupidity on the part of government. Bad planning and bad investment in technologies that simply don't deliver power when required.So much money is being pissed away on shite energy projects that deliver f**k all.

Our nuclear power generation is down by around a third thanks to issues with some of the power stations that are knocking on. Its shameful that we are in the situation we are in just now through underinvestment based on ridiculous "green" philosophies. Last month we had some buckled hemp wearing f**k on the radio crowing about the amount of energy wind was providing over a weekend. He was claiming that nuclear was producing less (true for 48 hours) and that wind was tearing ahead (true for 48 hours). But it didn't last, and looking at the figures, the power all came in overnight when it was least needed. You can't guarantee wind power to match with grid demand. Thats the main isse and thats why you'll ALWAYS need proper back up for it. And at the moment, this means gas turbines as they are fastest to react to demand.

Now down to 4.5% and we are coming up to peak usage in an hour or so. Wind powered generation peaked at 5 this morning and has been on a steady decline ever since through the day. Gas has picked up the slack for this.

[Reynard]

well, we are at peak demand just now. wind is producing 3.69% of our energy production at the time when we actually need it most. Gas turbines are giving us nearly 45% right now and coal is dropping back to around 28% for the evening when demand drops. The gas turbines will drop back as well. We are currently selling around 2% of excess to the Irish and we are BUYING in 4% of our energy at a pittance from the French nuclear excess. Its still to our advantage to flog our own energy to the irish, interestingly..

[Reynard]

we are also buying in 2% from the Dutch. We are actually buying in twice as much from abroad as wind is producing for us just now.

What a load of fucking nonsense that is.

[Clarkston5]

[doulikefish]

Oh Reynard

[Reynard]

No answer from Reynard.

Why oh why am I not surprised?

Solutions are not easy to come up with eh?

When it's time to step up and put your own neck on the line by voicing your own solutions it's not so easy is it?

We use what we currently use apart from binning every single wind turbine and all the rest of the green crap that doesn't work. Bills will come down, it puts more money in peoples pockets and it benefits our economy it benefits our industry who are the biggest users of energy etc etc

We also need far more nuclear. And we should be building more gas and coal power stations too. For all the money pissed away on the windmill shit we could have actually had the money invested in something that actually works.

Its incredible that a supposed "scientist" like oaksoft (or someone that trumpets his credentials without remotely convincing) puts up such horrifically bad defence of this. Are you a biology teacher or something?