AUFC90 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Not a lot. Gordon Brown committed to spending 100bn on windmills and this government hasn't knocked this spend on the head either. The "project" today is currently delivering 0.66GWh of electricity to the grid. Basically if you light one of your farts, its producing more energy. When I was talking about costs to deliver power, I was of course including all the subsidies paid to generate the various methods. In stand alone terms per GWh nuclear is actually the cheapest by a mile. Looking at the raw costs of producing electricity from various power sources is instructive. For a megawatt hour (a standard unit of energy, enough to brew about 50,000 cups of tea), the cheapest fuel is nuclear (£74), followed by gas (£77) and coal (£95). Onshore wind ties with hydroelectric at just over £100 and offshore wind can cost a whopping £146. But the costs are all skewed by the various subsidies demanded by the generators and by the government as they try to push whatever method is currently flavour of the month with them. As I've said previously, wind DOES generate power, but it's totally erratic and its not predictable. It also needs to be backed up by something which can fire up and shut down swiftly. That "something" at the moment, happens to be gas fired power stations. Fuel costs don't account for all the cost for said form of power generation. Nuclear is a very stable source of power but it's expensive and no one has the slightest clue what to do with the waste. It would be interesting to find out how much power generation and storage capacity Scotland could build with it's share of the costs of cleaning up one nuclear waste site. Wind is a perfectly viable method of producing electricity for Scotland as long as we invest in ample storage capacity at the same time. So the statement above that I made a couple of pages back is entirely correct. How much renewable power and storage would 69bn buy us ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Fuel costs don't account for all the cost for said form of power generation. Nuclear is a very stable source of power but it's expensive and no one has the slightest clue what to do with the waste. It would be interesting to find out how much power generation and storage capacity Scotland could build with it's share of the costs of cleaning up one nuclear waste site. ETA. Wind is a perfectly viable method of producing electricity for Scotland as long as we invest in ample storage capacity at the same time. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Such as? Pump storage. Compliments wind perfectly and produces power almost instantaneously when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 For the love of GOD!!!!!!! It's a technology which inherently works but still requiring vast amounts of research. Like every new technology which needs R&D, you sell it first, because it fundamentally works, and then use the profit to fund the research which can then bring prices down through more widespread and efficient use. Without being able to sell it now you can't fund the research to improve it. Exactly what happened with cars, phones, washing machines, semiconductor technology, coal mining, oil and gas exploration, etc etc etc etc etc. It's as though you don't understand how technology works. The Reynard method of waiting until it's perfect before deploying it would see us still cooking with fire, living in caves and addressing each other in grunts. By comparing wind power to gas power you are comparing apples to oranges. This is the reason why people like you can NEVER be in charge of anything important. A long way of saying, erm there is no viable way of storing excess wind energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Pump storage. Compliments wind perfectly and produces power almost instantaneously when needed. Of course all the pump storage sites are used as hydro, what's the capacity of hydro in Scotland? 1.5GW. Not enough to be useful as it's only 12.5% of the capacity needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 A long way of saying, erm there is no viable way of storing excess wind energy. Well, it's a question of will rather than technical viability. You either build 7 GW capacity of wind and a lot more pump storage to complement it, or you build a large excess capacity with a broad mix of generation types including onshore, offshore, tidal and wave, distributed over a wide geography to make sure you always are picking up enough generation from somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Of course all the pump storage sites are used as hydro, what's the capacity of hydro in Scotland? 1.5GW. Not enough to be useful as it's only 12.5% of the capacity needed. If you check back you'll find that my posts said that wind was perfectly viable for Scotland as long as we invest in storage capacity. ie in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 If you check back you'll find that my posts said that wind was perfectly viable for Scotland as long as we invest in storage capacity. ie in the future. What sort of storage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Of course all the pump storage sites are used as hydro, what's the capacity of hydro in Scotland? 1.5GW. Not enough to be useful as it's only 12.5% of the capacity needed. Hydro is brutally expensive in capital outlay, thats why most of the projects were dumped decades ago. Flooding valleys isn't exactly the greenest thing we can do either. And to make wind viable we all better look out the canoes as we will be flooding a lot of our land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Of course all the pump storage sites are used as hydro, what's the capacity of hydro in Scotland? 1.5GW. Not enough to be useful as it's only 12.5% of the capacity needed. Worth adding that the biggest at Cruachan is only really used as a backup for peak times, specifically designed to fire up and and give out lecky for Coronation Street with just a few minutes notice (which other stations can't do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 What sort of storage? Read back. I ain't posting it again. Wind complimented by pump storage hydro is a perfectly viable energy source for Scotland going into the future. Hydro also churns put power in an instant when required unlike fossil fuel power stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Read back. I ain't posting it again. Wind complimented by pump storage hydro is a perfectly viable energy source for Scotland going into the future. Hydro also churns put power in an instant when required unlike fossil fuel power stations. You were worrying about the cost of decommissioning nuclear. Nuclear is cheaper than wind. Can you tell me how much additional storage you want and how much this incredibly expensive capital project will cost, and who will be paying for it? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Well, it's a question of will rather than technical viability. You either build 7 GW capacity of wind and a lot more pump storage to complement it, or you build a large excess capacity with a broad mix of generation types including onshore, offshore, tidal and wave, distributed over a wide geography to make sure you always are picking up enough generation from somewhere. There are no more suitable places for pump storage. Pump storage is running a hydrostation in reverse. We've used up all the good places for hydro. If you check back you'll find that my posts said that wind was perfectly viable for Scotland as long as we invest in storage capacity. ie in the future. Will the Thermodynamics fairy come along and tell us how to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Turning carbon dioxide back into oil, gas or coal. That's where the research money should be going. Been researched for some time, no feasible methods likely for a long time. And oops we'll need them in place in seven years if the Essenpee have their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That's before we talk about all the other nuclear scares plus Chernobyl which still hasn't been dealt with BTW. Nuclear power is lunacy. Chernobyl? Yeah the Russians have a great record with their reactors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-431 http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-russia/2007-09-chelyabinsk-region-residents-still-being-irradiated-50-years-on https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/4227 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 There are no more suitable places for pump storage. Pump storage is running a hydrostation in reverse. We've used up all the good places for hydro. Will the Thermodynamics fairy come along and tell us how to do it? We already know how to do it. Thanks for playing though. The expected upgrade to the hydro plant in the great glen will be enough to power around a million homes at far less expense than nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 There are no more suitable places for pump storage. Pump storage is running a hydrostation in reverse. We've used up all the good places for hydro. Will the Thermodynamics fairy come along and tell us how to do it? Hydro is giving us 0.8GWh of power right now. At peak demand. Even if it can store some, we'd be needing to build absolute shitloads more hydro schemes to back up the utter drivel that is windpower. Why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 AUFC would be out of his depth in a puddle of spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Why bother? Ask the Norwegians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Ask the Norwegians. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in Norwegians. I don't pay their fucking bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.