Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 29 June 2010, 22:21:13
-
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/7858960/Power-rationed-on-green-island-Eigg-after-mild-weather-causes-drought.html
OK, sniggering over. ;)
Hands up those who can imagine a similar situation occurring on the UK mainland in the not too distant future? :o :o
-
Wot? No solar panels for a 'rainy day'???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/7858960/Power-rationed-on-green-island-Eigg-after-mild-weather-causes-drought.html
OK, sniggering over. ;)
Hands up those who can imagine a similar situation occurring on the UK mainland in the not too distant future? :o :o
on the UK mainland in the not too distant future?
I welcome the attempts presently being made to broaden the source of generated energy in our nation. 8-) :y
However I'm afraid that I will be quite uncharacteristically sniggering when all this amounts to naught. :(
The reason for my recklessness? The present Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change - the Right Honourable Christopher Huhne, MP and lesbian turner :y :y ( :-* :-*)
-
sods law, put all your efforts into producing leccy from the inevitable constant rainfall and... sunshine!!
got to admire there efforts thou.
got to strike a balance as they have found out with more solar gain.
some of these homes are mega insulated and even in the coldest of seasons are kept warm with limited means.
-
Wot? No solar panels for a 'rainy day'???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
;D ;D
They're going to get that one covered, though:
The trust is now planning to spend part of its £300,000 share of the prize money on more solar panels to prevent a repeat of the shortages in future years.
Everyone knows how sunny it is up there... ::) ::)
-
Furthermore, if they can't make this work in such a northern location, how do they expect it to work in Sunningdale or Kensington or any other inland place you care to mention?
-
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/7858960/Power-rationed-on-green-island-Eigg-after-mild-weather-causes-drought.html
OK, sniggering over. ;)
Hands up those who can imagine a similar situation occurring on the UK mainland in the not too distant future? :o :o
on the UK mainland in the not too distant future?
I welcome the attempts presently being made to broaden the source of generated energy in our nation. 8-) :y
However I'm afraid that I will be quite uncharacteristically sniggering when all this amounts to naught. :(
The reason for my recklessness? The present Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change - the Right Honourable Christopher Huhne, MP and lesbian turner :y :y ( :-* :-*)
Don't worry about Huhne, Zulu. It's not just about one man. After all, we also have Greg Barker, the Climate Change Minister.
"...the MP for Bexhill and Battle is a fighter and unafraid to court controversy. Four years ago, the father-of-three was mired in scandal after leaving his wife, Celeste, for a male interior designer. He was also caught up in the MPs’ expenses furore, having made £320,000 profit on a flat he bought with the help of his taxpayer-funded expenses.
In one sense, Barker is ideally placed for his new role, having worked for the Russian oil company Sibneft, once owned by Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/7860450/Greg-Barker-climate-change-minister-We-cannot-go-on-relying-on-foreign-fuel.html
On second thoughts, Zulu, worry about them both. ;) ;D ;D
-
the new solar panels do not require direct sunlight, just daylight to produce leccy. prices coming down-slowly.
-
Furthermore, if they can't make this work in such a northern location, how do they expect it to work in Sunningdale or Kensington or any other inland place you care to mention?
mega long extension cables to Skye ;D ;D ;D
-
the new solar panels do not require direct sunlight, just daylight to produce leccy. prices coming down-slowly.
They get a lot of that in winter up there, don't they? ;)
-
House a few doors away from me has no roof after a fault in a solar panel or the wiring at the w/e (still investigating).
By the time the fire brigade arrived 2/3 of the roof was burning so they had to use a turntable ladder and a large hose so all the ceilings and house contents are trash.
If you go for solar electric panels use a reputable installer who follows the installation rules and fits the correct (mega expensive) cables.
-
the new solar panels do not require direct sunlight, just daylight to produce leccy. prices coming down-slowly.
They get a lot of that in winter up there, don't they? ;)
Think you mean summer :y
-
the new solar panels do not require direct sunlight, just daylight to produce leccy. prices coming down-slowly.
They get a lot of that in winter up there, don't they? ;)
Think you mean summer :y
Must confess. I was being sarcastic. ;) ;D ;D
-
so you agree we should spend millions of taxpayers money to hook Eigg (pop 100 ish) to the mains then?
:o ::)
luckily the residents of Eigg are a hardy breed - i'm sure they'll be OK - they were well used to power cuts before the renewable energy grid was brought online :y
you really don't want this to work Nickbat do you? thats the spirit, keep ignoring the need for renewables and mocking those that are developing it for the rest of us.....when the time comes ;)
-
Sniggering aside, though, there is a salutory lesson to be learned here.
We CANNOT rely on alternatives alone to power the UK. It is simply a non-starter. We have to have a reliable source of base load, whether it be coal, gas or nuclear generated.
Rationing electricity on the mainland would cause the economy to collapse and would have huge social implications. Forget looking back to Heath's infamous 3-day week, saying that we survived it OK; it was before the advent of the microprocessor. Look around you; there is barely anything you can do these days that does not rely 100% on a powered microchip. Take away that power on a widespread scale, even for a short period, and you have disaster.
It really is that scary. :o :o
-
so you agree we should spend millions of taxpayers money to hook Eigg (pop 100 ish) to the mains then?
:o ::)
luckily the residents of Eigg are a hardy breed - i'm sure they'll be OK - they were well used to power cuts before the renewable energy grid was brought online :y
you really don't want this to work Nickbat do you? thats the spirit, keep ignoring the need for renewables and mocking those that are developing it for the rest of us.....when the time comes ;)
They aren't developing anything for anyone. There are 95 people on the island. I'm sure they'll cope. What it does do, however, is provide us with a warning of how wholesale reliance on alternatives, at this stage of their development, could spell disaster (see my later post).
-
so you agree we should spend millions of taxpayers money to hook Eigg (pop 100 ish) to the mains then?
:o ::)
luckily the residents of Eigg are a hardy breed - i'm sure they'll be OK - they were well used to power cuts before the renewable energy grid was brought online :y
you really don't want this to work Nickbat do you? thats the spirit, keep ignoring the need for renewables and mocking those that are developing it for the rest of us.....when the time comes ;)
There's nothing wrong in seeking alternative sources BJ but should we not be concerned by the apparently dismal failure of technology specifically developed to exploit these alternative sources?
-
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/7858960/Power-rationed-on-green-island-Eigg-after-mild-weather-causes-drought.html
OK, sniggering over. ;)
Hands up those who can imagine a similar situation occurring on the UK mainland in the not too distant future? :o :o
on the UK mainland in the not too distant future?
I welcome the attempts presently being made to broaden the source of generated energy in our nation. 8-) :y
However I'm afraid that I will be quite uncharacteristically sniggering when all this amounts to naught. :(
The reason for my recklessness? The present Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change - the Right Honourable Christopher Huhne, MP and lesbian turner :y :y ( :-* :-*)
Don't worry about Huhne, Zulu. It's not just about one man. After all, we also have Greg Barker, the Climate Change Minister.
"...the MP for Bexhill and Battle is a fighter and unafraid to court controversy. Four years ago, the father-of-three was mired in scandal after leaving his wife, Celeste, for a male interior designer. He was also caught up in the MPs’ expenses furore, having made £320,000 profit on a flat he bought with the help of his taxpayer-funded expenses.
In one sense, Barker is ideally placed for his new role, having worked for the Russian oil company Sibneft, once owned by Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/7860450/Greg-Barker-climate-change-minister-We-cannot-go-on-relying-on-foreign-fuel.html
On second thoughts, Zulu, worry about them both. ;) ;D ;D
On second thoughts, Zulu, worry about them both
Thank's Nick - leave that one to me :y :y
-
Furthermore, if they can't make this work in such a northern location, how do they expect it to work in Sunningdale or Kensington or any other inland place you care to mention?
mega long extension cables to Skye ;D ;D ;D
Great suggestion Hoof :y :y The uncomplicated ones are usually the best. ;D ;D :y
-
if at first you don't succeed....give up and bury your head :y
-
if at first you don't succeed....give up and bury your head :y
I don't think it's a case of that BJ - more one of a national energy policy being formulated on technology that is costly to develop and maintain (for the potential return) and is so weather dependent for its alleged generating efficiency.
To stave off the expected generating shortfall coming in the next decade or so we should have already embarked on an aggressive nuclear policy years ago.
-
http://www.birminghamrecycled.co.uk/energy/bullring-unveils-first-public-power-points-for-electric-cars-in-birmingham
:-? :-?
well thought out as usual.
news item toward the bottom of the page talks of a possible axe on the £5000 discount.
-
if at first you don't succeed....give up and bury your head :y
I don't think it's a case of that BJ - more one of a national energy policy being formulated on technology that is costly to develop and maintain (for the potential return) and is so weather dependent for it alleged generating efficiency.
To stave off the expected generating shortfall coming in the next decade or so we should have already embarked on an aggressive nuclear policy years ago.
totally agree that we should be building new reactors, zulu, but as there seems to be a massive misconception about nuclear power added to the massive initial costs....i think that ship has sailed, maybe with the impending energy shortfall, when we're more desperate for alternatives we'll build more........my guess would be that we'll "make do and mend" the current reactors........stretching out their design life rather than build new ones, personally i'd rather we got over our distrust of nuclear energy and invested properly :o
-
http://www.birminghamrecycled.co.uk/energy/bullring-unveils-first-public-power-points-for-electric-cars-in-birmingham
:-? :-?
well thought out as usual.
news item toward the bottom of the page talks of a possible axe on the £5000 discount.
You do well to wonder Tapper.
The general idea of this is laudable enough but fails on the grounds of impracticability. The energy used to charge up these vehicles must come from somewhere, and that place - for the most part - is the plain, vanilla power station that has burnt fossil fuels to generate the power.
So, in the times of potential energy shortages due to dwindling generating capacity, does it make sense to roll these schemes out on a wide-spread basis? Like schemes are being used, in my view, as a conduit to riches - on the back of government acquiescence - by business sector more intent on making money than being overtly concerned with the urban/city environment.
Is there any point in having private transport - in the form of cars - at all, surely public transport should reign supreme in these locations?
Until there is a root and branch reform of public transport in this country, with the emphasis on moving people quickly, cleanly and safely - rather than making money - we are only tinkering with the policy in an extremely disjointed way.
-
http://www.birminghamrecycled.co.uk/energy/bullring-unveils-first-public-power-points-for-electric-cars-in-birmingham
:-? :-?
well thought out as usual.
news item toward the bottom of the page talks of a possible axe on the £5000 discount.
You do well to wonder Tapper.
The general idea of this is laudable enough but fails on the grounds of impracticability. The energy used to charge up these vehicles must come from somewhere, and that place - for the most part - is the plain, vanilla power station that has burnt fossil fuels to generate the power.
So, in the times of potential energy shortages due to dwindling generating capacity, does it make sense to roll these schemes out on a wide-spread basis? Like schemes are being used, in my view, as a conduit to riches - on the back of government acquiescence - by business sector more intent on making money than being overtly concerned with the urban/city environment.
Is there any point in having private transport - in the form of cars - at all, surely public transport should reign supreme in these locations?
Until there is a root and branch reform of public transport in this country, with the emphasis on moving people quickly, cleanly and safely - rather than making money - we are only tinkering with the policy in an extremely disjointed way.
You sound as blinkered as the other 'search for alternative energy forms' knockers.
Electric cars are not without environmental benefit even when charged from coal-fired power stations. They enable the energy to be created on a large scale centrally - which is more efficient. They allow the pollutants to be discharged away from centres of population and to be put through cleaning processes that are unaffordable on 20-30kGBP cars.
It is precisely to research the practicalities of day-to-day running of these experiments, that they have installed these subsidised charging points.
As for businesses being interested only in profits... where have you been over the last several decades? That is why governments have to dangle something they understand in front of them to get the desired development done.
Abolish private transport? A very commendable suggestion IMO but will get laughed out of court by your next-door neighbours for the next few decades unless some disaster strikes. :(
-
I think you have all missed the point here.
There isn't [size=14]enough[/size] electricity apparently for the islanders. Therefore the problem is not the technology but the planning stage which didn't assess the needs correctly.
I get totally fed up with people chasing fixes for things rather than addressing the fundamental issue. A good example of that is the prison population being too large in the Uk so we will let them out early rather than reduce the numbers offending in the first place.
-
I think you have all missed the point here.
There isn't [size=14]enough[/size] electricity apparently for the islanders. Therefore the problem is not the technology but the planning stage which didn't assess the needs correctly.
I get totally fed up with people chasing fixes for things rather than addressing the fundamental issue. A good example of that is the prison population being too large in the Uk so we will let them out early rather than reduce the numbers offending in the first place.
they didn't have capacity before this solution to harness renewable energy so its still a damn sight better than they had :y
-
You sound as blinkered as the other 'search for alternative energy forms' knockers.
Electric cars are not without environmental benefit even when charged from coal-fired power stations. They enable the energy to be created on a large scale centrally - which is more efficient. They allow the pollutants to be discharged away from centres of population and to be put through cleaning processes that are unaffordable on 20-30kGBP cars.
It is precisely to research the practicalities of day-to-day running of these experiments, that they have installed these subsidised charging points.
As for businesses being interested only in profits... where have you been over the last several decades? That is why governments have to dangle something they understand in front of them to get the desired development done.
Abolish private transport? A very commendable suggestion IMO but will get laughed out of court by your next-door neighbours for the next few decades unless some disaster strikes. :(
blinkered as the other 'search for alternative energy forms' knockers.
I would disagree with that point Chris. Far from knocking the search for technology to generate energy by alternative means I’m very keen so see this succeed from an environmental and energy security standpoint. This is why I described it as laudable.
It remains impracticable in by view (in this case) because inter alia there should be no requirement for private transport in the city environment. The establishing of these recharging points suggests that such transport is being regarded as part of the future norm rather than the emphasis being placed of efficient, safe and clean public transport.
They enable the energy to be created on a large scale centrally - which is more efficient.
Energy that still has to be generated in the first place Chris, and at the moment this is drawn from a mixture of technologies each exhibiting their own disadvantages in terms of environmental impact.
That is of course as long as there's sufficient energy to go round: That's why I believe that rather than focussing on this (presently) trendy means to move people in the city environment - given the relatively primitive technology available to provide the motive force - we should ensure that the generating infrastructure is in place to provide sufficient capacity that allows technology to develop and refine future means of transport. Battery technology is a very important issue here so perhaps the emphasis should be placed on that rather than on charging points.
dangle something they understand in front of them to get the desired development done
I'm not naive enough to suggest that business has no part to play Chris but by extension, business is there to make money and the bottom line will always take precedence over the public good.
Past governments have abdicated responsibility for the effective running of critical state institutions to the private sector which is fair enough if there's sufficient regulation in place to ensure that these institutions run effectively and efficiently. The present difficulty of obtaining a reasonably priced through fare to travel on the rail network is a case in point, illustrating the drawback of commercial consideration before everything else - as exhibited by the different operators.
Abolish private transport?
I'm not suggesting that at all Chris. In the city environment it makes sense otherwise its an impossibility. The weak point in most journeys made by commuters is that from their home to the first point of public transport. The private car has a role to play here by enabling that journey to begin at a time convenient to the traveller. Why is there not substantial car parking capacity at main access points to public transport outside the city environment?
Where I'm presently located I could not do without private transport and that will always be the case for people living in rural areas. When I had my London posting however I was able to park-up the Volvo 760 I drove at the time and use public transport - except when I was obliged to use official transport of course.
So, I'm far from being a nay-sayer in these matters Chris. I would love to see a sensible national energy policy being formulated based on the security and environmental credentials of sustainable generating capacity – and - the development of workable alternative technology designed to benefit the populous at large rather than the business sector chosen to develop and manage this critical element of the national infrastructure.
-
I think you have all missed the point here.
There isn't [size=14]enough[/size] electricity apparently for the islanders. Therefore the problem is not the technology but the planning stage which didn't assess the needs correctly.
I get totally fed up with people chasing fixes for things rather than addressing the fundamental issue. A good example of that is the prison population being too large in the Uk so we will let them out early rather than reduce the numbers offending in the first place.
Not quite - the nature of renewables is that you can only generate when the natural resource you're using is playing ball.
They could have installed 10 x the required capacity and still get times when demand is not met.
There will be calm days - sometimes for weeks at a time. Calm days have calm nights, so that's wind power and solar gone for a burton. Often calm spells occur in winter, and coincide with very frosty weather and short days, so very little solar energy to collect and high demand.
Unless you can store as much energy as you can consume, renewable can never provide the reliable supply 24/7 which we have come to expect and rely on, no matter by what factor your capacity exceeds demand.
Storing energy on a significant (to the supply network) scale is impossible so what do you do then?
- Run fossil or nuclear stations inefficiently on hot standby but pat yourself on the back for using renewables anyway?
- Concentrate on implementing a "smart grid" where you can shed low priority load when renewables are off-line and make use of small scale storage attached to the grid to absorb output from renewables when there is little demand?
- Say "sod it all" and decide that if you have to run Nuclear / fossil fuels on hot standby you might as well use them for the base load and just concentrate on making them as clean as possible and leave renewables in the minority?
- Go from a high availability grid to a rather more iffy infrastructure where you accept that mains power is not available 24/7. In this instance, everyone who absolutely relies on mains power will, of course, install a diesel backup generator.
The answer isn't clear cut, of course, but at the moment we are sleepwalking towards the last option through failure to address the others. Of course, a fossil fuelled backup generator at every commercial premises running for ever more significant percentages of the time as the grid fails to keep up leads to the worst possible environmental outcome. ;)
Kevin
-
I think you have all missed the point here.
There isn't [size=14]enough[/size] electricity apparently for the islanders. Therefore the problem is not the technology but the planning stage which didn't assess the needs correctly.
I get totally fed up with people chasing fixes for things rather than addressing the fundamental issue. A good example of that is the prison population being too large in the Uk so we will let them out early rather than reduce the numbers offending in the first place.
Not quite - the nature of renewables is that you can only generate when the natural resource you're using is playing ball.
They could have installed 10 x the required capacity and still get times when demand is not met.
There will be calm days - sometimes for weeks at a time. Calm days have calm nights, so that's wind power and solar gone for a burton. Often calm spells occur in winter, and coincide with very frosty weather and short days, so very little solar energy to collect and high demand.
Unless you can store as much energy as you can consume, renewable can never provide the reliable supply 24/7 which we have come to expect and rely on, no matter by what factor your capacity exceeds demand.
Storing energy on a significant (to the supply network) scale is impossible so what do you do then?
- Run fossil or nuclear stations inefficiently on hot standby but pat yourself on the back for using renewables anyway?
- Concentrate on implementing a "smart grid" where you can shed low priority load when renewables are off-line and make use of small scale storage attached to the grid to absorb output from renewables when there is little demand?
- Say "sod it all" and decide that if you have to run Nuclear / fossil fuels on hot standby you might as well use them for the base load and just concentrate on making them as clean as possible and leave renewables in the minority?
- Go from a high availability grid to a rather more iffy infrastructure where you accept that mains power is not available 24/7. In this instance, everyone who absolutely relies on mains power will, of course, install a diesel backup generator.
The answer isn't clear cut, of course, but at the moment we are sleepwalking towards the last option through failure to address the others. Of course, a fossil fuelled backup generator at every commercial premises running for ever more significant percentages of the time as the grid fails to keep up leads to the worst possible environmental outcome. ;)
Kevin
I think that was a well reasoned piece K 8-) I also share the fears you express in the final paragraph :y
-
I think you have all missed the point here.
There isn't [size=14]enough[/size] electricity apparently for the islanders. Therefore the problem is not the technology but the planning stage which didn't assess the needs correctly.
I get totally fed up with people chasing fixes for things rather than addressing the fundamental issue. A good example of that is the prison population being too large in the Uk so we will let them out early rather than reduce the numbers offending in the first place.
Not quite - the nature of renewables is that you can only generate when the natural resource you're using is playing ball.
They could have installed 10 x the required capacity and still get times when demand is not met.
There will be calm days - sometimes for weeks at a time. Calm days have calm nights, so that's wind power and solar gone for a burton. Often calm spells occur in winter, and coincide with very frosty weather and short days, so very little solar energy to collect and high demand.
Unless you can store as much energy as you can consume, renewable can never provide the reliable supply 24/7 which we have come to expect and rely on, no matter by what factor your capacity exceeds demand.
Storing energy on a significant (to the supply network) scale is impossible so what do you do then?
- Run fossil or nuclear stations inefficiently on hot standby but pat yourself on the back for using renewables anyway?
- Concentrate on implementing a "smart grid" where you can shed low priority load when renewables are off-line and make use of small scale storage attached to the grid to absorb output from renewables when there is little demand?
- Say "sod it all" and decide that if you have to run Nuclear / fossil fuels on hot standby you might as well use them for the base load and just concentrate on making them as clean as possible and leave renewables in the minority?
- Go from a high availability grid to a rather more iffy infrastructure where you accept that mains power is not available 24/7. In this instance, everyone who absolutely relies on mains power will, of course, install a diesel backup generator.
The answer isn't clear cut, of course, but at the moment we are sleepwalking towards the last option through failure to address the others. Of course, a fossil fuelled backup generator at every commercial premises running for ever more significant percentages of the time as the grid fails to keep up leads to the worst possible environmental outcome. ;)
Kevin
Agreed. So the planners costed it all up and recognised that there would be calm days with little or no renewable energy and so had back up generators.
-
Agreed. So the planners costed it all up and recognised that there would be calm days with little or no renewable energy and so had back up generators.
That about sums it up. A bit like us having a hosepipe ban when there has been a long spell with no rain.
-
Agreed. So the planners costed it all up and recognised that there would be calm days with little or no renewable energy and so had back up generators.
That about sums it up. A bit like us having a hosepipe ban when there has been a long spell with no rain.
This was just a small-scale scheme, but they certainly didn't plan for this scenario, otherwise they would not be putting out red alerts and talking of rationing.
The point I'm trying to make is that if this situation arose on a UK-wide scale, it would be a disaster. We won't have enough back-up diesel generators for the country's base load.
Kevin Wood's assessment was spot on. :y
-
Agreed. So the planners costed it all up and recognised that there would be calm days with little or no renewable energy and so had back up generators.
That about sums it up. A bit like us having a hosepipe ban when there has been a long spell with no rain.
This was just a small-scale scheme, but they certainly didn't plan for this scenario, otherwise they would not be putting out red alerts and talking of rationing.
The point I'm trying to make is that if this situation arose on a UK-wide scale, it would be a disaster. We won't have enough back-up diesel generators for the country's base load.
Kevin Wood's assessment was spot on. :y
There's no reason to suppose that the same solution would be applied to the UK as a whole. We already have several power-generation systems (and feeds from France) that would be main sources initially and become reserves as-and-when-and-if.
The isle of Eigg has only recently been introduced to mains electricity so it is no massive deal to have rationing threatened. The 'old way of doing things' is not forgotten.
This 'event' is part of the learning process that experimentation sets out to achieve.
-
There's no reason to suppose that the same solution would be applied to the UK as a whole. We already have several power-generation systems (and feeds from France) that would be main sources initially and become reserves as-and-when-and-if.
The isle of Eigg has only recently been introduced to mains electricity so it is no massive deal to have rationing threatened. The 'old way of doing things' is not forgotten.
This 'event' is part of the learning process that experimentation sets out to achieve.
If "zerocarbon2030" from the Zero Carbon Trust is adopted by the government, it WILL be applied to the whole of the UK since they reckon that over half of our energy needs will come from wind power by 2030...
...and when the wind doesn't blow?
"some biogas is used as additional dispatchable [sic] generation to back up the grid,"
The Register does a good job of pulling this daft document apart, but that doesn't mean it won't be adopted by government. ::) ::)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/zero_carbon_britain_2030/page2.html
-
There's no reason to suppose that the same solution would be applied to the UK as a whole. We already have several power-generation systems (and feeds from France) that would be main sources initially and become reserves as-and-when-and-if.
The isle of Eigg has only recently been introduced to mains electricity so it is no massive deal to have rationing threatened. The 'old way of doing things' is not forgotten.
This 'event' is part of the learning process that experimentation sets out to achieve.
If "zerocarbon2030" from the Zero Carbon Trust is adopted by the government, it WILL be applied to the whole of the UK since they reckon that over half of our energy needs will come from wind power by 2030...
...and when the wind doesn't blow?
"some biogas is used as additional dispatchable [sic] generation to back up the grid,"
The Register does a good job of pulling this daft document apart, but that doesn't mean it won't be adopted by government. ::) ::)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/zero_carbon_britain_2030/page2.html
reckon that over half of our energy needs will come from wind power by 2030
I suggest that this might be flawed thinking :( :(
-
I have been watching this thread, and I want to bring a different dimension to all the 'reasoning'.
Man during all his progress has never managed to go from A to a perfect Z in anything he invents, for better or for worse.
Man had an idea to develop a rail system in Ancient Babylon during c.2245, BC, but no doubt due to dissenters of some description or another on possibly very sound reasons at the time failed to develop it. After 4,255 years of man perfecting rail use we have the high speed trains of today.
Man of course first worked wood, then stone, Bronze and Iron over thousands of years before he achieved the manufacture of arms grade steel.
He then developed the upturned boat, that became a submarine, but at one point it was dismissed as a potential, let alone major, naval weapon as its use in war was deemed as "cowardly" and not the way of a gentleman. These simple craft developed into the 16,000 ton nuclear monsters of today capable of wiping out whole countries with 16 Trident missiles, each with multiple warheads.
Man even developed the airplane, but it was considered a mere toy. In the early stages of the Great War it was considered only ever capable of carrying out reconnaissance and target identification with gun range finding. That soon changed and the development of aircraft during the twentieth created a machine capable of deciding the direction of a battle, and a war overall.
The Chinese in the first Dynasty of Emperor Chin (221BC to 206BC) used simple fireworks that were useful in any battle, but were limited. The ballistic missiles that developed over centuries from them, especially the German V2 that first would not even become airbourne, now can destroy continents.
Oh, and we must not forget the introduction of steam in ships. At first not to be trusted, with even the great Brunel deciding that his SS Great Britain must still have masts. On land the first steam locomotives built be Trevithick were considered impractical, as they broke the rails, and was no more than a play thing. 1829 saw the first 'modern' steam locomotive, but I do not think I need to expand on what happened to both railway locomotives, and how man developed the technology so it could be relyed on, with turbines in particular on ships creating the twentieth century super weapon, the Dreadnought Battleship.
So, what I am saying in a rather long winded way for I believe all the right reasons, is that the technology of all 'alternative' energy sources of today are of the first generation of what will be a long process. They are the infants of what is to come and never the final, end, product. They have started a process off of investment, development and experimentation that will lead to ever greater revelations and discoveries. But this will take time, and some failures to be sure, but man is again "learning on the job".
We need to find new ways of generating the power we need, so why should anyone knock the efforts of the pioneer, which is of course typical of man throughout the ages? Only through the work of the pioneer will man achieve the answers for his current needs, as he has also done throughout his existence. I bet the first wheel didn't go quite to plan at first!
Therefore I would say to all you detractors out there give these schemes time, and of course if you have any better solutions yourself then get stuck in and show how you could positively assist the development required ;) ;) ;)
-
I have been watching this thread, and I want to bring a different dimension to all the 'reasoning'.
Man during all his progress has never managed to go from A to a perfect Z in anything he invents, for better or for worse.
Man had an idea to develop a rail system in Ancient Babylon during c.2245, BC, but no doubt due to dissenters of some description or another on possibly very sound reasons at the time failed to develop it. After 4,255 years of man perfecting rail use we have the high speed trains of today.
Man of course first worked wood, then stone, Bronze and Iron over thousands of years before he achieved the manufacture of arms grade steel.
He then developed the upturned boat, that became a submarine, but at one point it was dismissed as a potential, let alone major, naval weapon as its use in war was deemed as "cowardly" and not the way of a gentleman. These simple craft developed into the 16,000 ton nuclear monsters of today capable of wiping out whole countries with 16 Trident missiles, each with multiple warheads.
Man even developed the airplane, but it was considered a mere toy. In the early stages of the Great War it was considered only ever capable of carrying out reconnaissance and target identification with gun range finding. That soon changed and the development of aircraft during the twentieth created a machine capable of deciding the direction of a battle, and a war overall.
The Chinese in the first Dynasty of Emperor Chin used simple fireworks that were useful in any battle, but were limited. The ballistic missiles that developed over centuries from them, especially the German V2 that first would not even become airbourne, now can destroy continents.
Oh, and we must not forget the introduction of steam in ships. At first not to be trusted, with even the great Brunel deciding that his SS Great Britain must still have masts. On land the first steam locomotives built be Trevithick were considered impractical, as they broke the rails, and was no more than a play thing. 1829 saw the first 'modern' steam locomotive, but I do not think I need to expand on what happened to both railway locomotives, and how man developed the technology so it could be relyed on, with turbines in particular on ships creating the twentieth century super weapon, the Dreadnought Battleship.
So, what I am saying in a rather long winded way for I believe all the right reasons, is that the technology of all 'alternative' energy sources of today are of the first generation of what will be a long process. They are the infants of what is to come and never the final, end, product. They have started a process off of investment, development and experimentation that will lead to ever greater revelations and discoveries. But this will take time, and some failures to be sure, but man is again "learning on the job".
We need to find new ways of generating the power we need, so why should anyone knock the efforts of the pioneer, which is of course typical of man throughout the ages? Only through the work of the pioneer will man achieve the answers for his current needs, as he has also done throughout his existence. I bet the first wheel didn't go quite to plan at first!
Therefore I would say to all you detractors out there give these schemes time, and of course if you have any better solutions yourself then get stuck in and show how you could positively assist the development required ;) ;) ;)
What about building more nuclear generating capacity E?
-
I have been watching this thread, and I want to bring a different dimension to all the 'reasoning'.
Man during all his progress has never managed to go from A to a perfect Z in anything he invents, for better or for worse.
Man had an idea to develop a rail system in Ancient Babylon during c.2245, BC, but no doubt due to dissenters of some description or another on possibly very sound reasons at the time failed to develop it. After 4,255 years of man perfecting rail use we have the high speed trains of today.
Man of course first worked wood, then stone, Bronze and Iron over thousands of years before he achieved the manufacture of arms grade steel.
He then developed the upturned boat, that became a submarine, but at one point it was dismissed as a potential, let alone major, naval weapon as its use in war was deemed as "cowardly" and not the way of a gentleman. These simple craft developed into the 16,000 ton nuclear monsters of today capable of wiping out whole countries with 16 Trident missiles, each with multiple warheads.
Man even developed the airplane, but it was considered a mere toy. In the early stages of the Great War it was considered only ever capable of carrying out reconnaissance and target identification with gun range finding. That soon changed and the development of aircraft during the twentieth created a machine capable of deciding the direction of a battle, and a war overall.
The Chinese in the first Dynasty of Emperor Chin used simple fireworks that were useful in any battle, but were limited. The ballistic missiles that developed over centuries from them, especially the German V2 that first would not even become airbourne, now can destroy continents.
Oh, and we must not forget the introduction of steam in ships. At first not to be trusted, with even the great Brunel deciding that his SS Great Britain must still have masts. On land the first steam locomotives built be Trevithick were considered impractical, as they broke the rails, and was no more than a play thing. 1829 saw the first 'modern' steam locomotive, but I do not think I need to expand on what happened to both railway locomotives, and how man developed the technology so it could be relyed on, with turbines in particular on ships creating the twentieth century super weapon, the Dreadnought Battleship.
So, what I am saying in a rather long winded way for I believe all the right reasons, is that the technology of all 'alternative' energy sources of today are of the first generation of what will be a long process. They are the infants of what is to come and never the final, end, product. They have started a process off of investment, development and experimentation that will lead to ever greater revelations and discoveries. But this will take time, and some failures to be sure, but man is again "learning on the job".
We need to find new ways of generating the power we need, so why should anyone knock the efforts of the pioneer, which is of course typical of man throughout the ages? Only through the work of the pioneer will man achieve the answers for his current needs, as he has also done throughout his existence. I bet the first wheel didn't go quite to plan at first!
Therefore I would say to all you detractors out there give these schemes time, and of course if you have any better solutions yourself then get stuck in and show how you could positively assist the development required ;) ;) ;)
What about building more nuclear generating capacity E?
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
-
a process off of investment, development and experimentation that will lead to ever greater revelations and discoveries.
..and that, Lizzie, is the nub of the problem.
I am not against alternative forms of energy, merely those that are expensive, unreliable and potentially damaging.
If we really want investment and development - and I agree we do - we need to ensure a vibrant economy. By shackling an economy with unattainable limits and costs on energy in the short term, we are actually stifling development of realistic alternative energy. Windmills are fundamentally useless as a 21st century fuel source. Hydro is great if you have the topography and precipitation. Wave power is dubious. As Zulu has pointed out, nuclear is the obvious way forward, but it requires the massive investment that only growing economies can finance.
This business on Eigg is merely play-acting. Stick up a few windmills and a small hydro plant and bingo, you get enough electricity to allow 95 people to watch telly and run their fridges..for a while. It does not address the needs of the millions living in the metropolis in the slightest. It's merely green window-dressing- and expensive at that.
So, yes, it does need knocking as it has absolutely no national benefit - other than to make a few people feel smug.
If we get power cuts because of enforced limits on energy usage - you can kiss goodbye to the prospect of real alternative power. Short-term feelgood = long-term pain.
:(
-
a process off of investment, development and experimentation that will lead to ever greater revelations and discoveries.
..and that, Lizzie, is the nub of the problem.
I am not against alternative forms of energy, merely those that are expensive, unreliable and potentially damaging.
If we really want investment and development - and I agree we do - we need to ensure a vibrant economy. By shackling an economy with unattainable limits and costs on energy in the short term, we are actually stifling development of realistic alternative energy. Windmills are fundamentally useless as a 21st century fuel source. Hydro is great if you have the topography and precipitation. Wave power is dubious. As Zulu has pointed out, nuclear is the obvious way forward, but it requires the massive investment that only growing economies can finance.
This business on Eigg is merely play-acting. Stick up a few windmills and a small hydro plant and bingo, you get enough electricity to allow 95 people to watch telly and run their fridges..for a while. It does not address the needs of the millions living in the metropolis in the slightest. It's merely green window-dressing- and expensive at that.
So, yes, it does need knocking as it has absolutely no national benefit - other than to make a few people feel smug.
If we get power cuts because of enforced limits on energy usage - you can kiss goodbye to the prospect of real alternative power. Short-term feelgood = long-term pain.
:(
Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.
The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned). It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.
It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.
The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources. I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.
If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use. The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)
Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. ;D (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
But this is happening Zulu. My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day. I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.
That is what is happening with alternative energy generation. Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today! I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.
You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success. In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!! :D :D :D :D ;)
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
But this is happening Zulu. My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day. I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.
That is what is happening with alternative energy generation. Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today! I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.
You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success. In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!! :D :D :D :D ;)
Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece. I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.
It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.
Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
But this is happening Zulu. My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day. I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.
That is what is happening with alternative energy generation. Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today! I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.
You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success. In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!! :D :D :D :D ;)
Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece. I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.
It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.
Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.
But is anyone actually doing that in their calculations? Are we not planning to build new power stations, and re-inforcing our interconental power cable 'grid'?
Those in the real know recognise that the alternatives cannot be rellied on yet to cover any shortfalls, and have calculated the need for new power stations which the Government is persuing ;) ;)
It should be remembered that the power generators are private companies, out to expand their business and profits, and will do all they can to provide the extra power generation they can to boost their objectives. EDF are certainly one of those at the forefront of ensuring Britain has the power in the future to meet its needs. ;) ;)
-
Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.
The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned). It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.
It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.
The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources. I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.
If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use. The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)
Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. ;D (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)
I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.
The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.
Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.
-
Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.
The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned). It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.
It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.
The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources. I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.
If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use. The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)
Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. ;D (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)
I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.
The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.
Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.
Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.
The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors. The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives. The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem! And this is where divergence occurs. Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future. At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ;)) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is. Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever. ;D
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
But this is happening Zulu. My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day. I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.
That is what is happening with alternative energy generation. Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today! I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.
You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success. In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!! :D :D :D :D ;)
Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece. I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.
It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.
Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.
But is anyone actually doing that in their calculations? Are we not planning to build new power stations, and re-inforcing our interconental power cable 'grid'?
Those in the real know recognise that the alternatives cannot be rellied on yet to cover any shortfalls, and have calculated the need for new power stations which the Government is persuing ;) ;)
It should be remembered that the power generators are private companies, out to expand their business and profits, and will do all they can to provide the extra power generation they can to boost their objectives. EDF are certainly one of those at the forefront of ensuring Britain has the power in the future to meet its needs. ;) ;)
I'm concerned with Chris Huhne's over reliance on wind turbines to provide part of the solution although he now seems to accept that nuclear generation may well have to play a part in the quest for energy security.
On the point of those who are presently providing power generation - will they be inclined to meet the capital cost of establishing fresh generating capacity without government subsidy and increased consumer tariffs?
The entire power generation and supply network in this country needs a make-over - for a variety of reasons. I hope that it's not the consumer who will be left to foot the bill through increased tariffs and forced reduction in energy use to conserve power in a dwindling supply market
-
Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.
The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned). It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.
It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.
The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources. I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.
If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use. The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)
Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. ;D (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)
I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.
The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.
Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.
Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.
The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors. The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives. The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem! And this is where divergence occurs. Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future. At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ;)) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is. Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever. ;D
So is there a workable solution that isn't going to cost us - as consumers - a fortune in our energy bills?
-
Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows. ;) ;)
Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.
We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course - but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.
But this is happening Zulu. My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day. I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.
That is what is happening with alternative energy generation. Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today! I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.
You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success. In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!! :D :D :D :D ;)
Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece. I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.
It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.
Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.
But is anyone actually doing that in their calculations? Are we not planning to build new power stations, and re-inforcing our interconental power cable 'grid'?
Those in the real know recognise that the alternatives cannot be rellied on yet to cover any shortfalls, and have calculated the need for new power stations which the Government is persuing ;) ;)
It should be remembered that the power generators are private companies, out to expand their business and profits, and will do all they can to provide the extra power generation they can to boost their objectives. EDF are certainly one of those at the forefront of ensuring Britain has the power in the future to meet its needs. ;) ;)
I'm concerned with Chris Huhne's over reliance on wind turbines to provide part of the solution although he now seems to accept that nuclear generation may well have to play a part in the quest for energy security.
On the point of those who are presently providing power generation - will they be inclined to meet the capital cost of establishing fresh generating capacity without government subsidy and increased consumer tariffs?
The entire power generation and supply network in this country needs a make-over - for a variety of reasons. I hope that it's not the consumer who will be left to foot the bill through increased tariffs and forced reduction in energy use to conserve power in a dwindling supply market
Seeing as the consumer funds the government it will be the consumer.
-
Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.
The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned). It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.
It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.
The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources. I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.
If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use. The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)
Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. ;D (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)
I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.
The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.
Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.
Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.
The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors. The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives. The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem! And this is where divergence occurs. Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future. At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ;)) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is. Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever. ;D
So is there a workable solution that isn't going to cost us - as consumers - a fortune in our energy bills?
We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously! :D
There will be a workable solution but as to cost...
Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation. There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account). Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.
-
We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously! :D
There will be a workable solution but as to cost...
Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation. There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account). Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.
;D ;D I did notice that.
I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over. I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.
-
We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously! :D
There will be a workable solution but as to cost...
Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation. There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account). Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.
;D ;D I did notice that.
I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over. I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.
You're showing signs of agematurity there Zulu ;D ;D
As an engineer myself, I pride myself in the number of ideas that I have that I discount as un-workable or unacceptable - it should be part of the role. Our society currently however, derides experience (current thinking) as out-of-date, without assessing it for its true value. My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced. I consider that a taxation!! I cannot see that as something I taught her.
A big part of the problem is that, due to prolific communications, every Tom, Dick and Harry has equal access to the minutae of decision-making and the 'real' experts (I think there are still a few around ;D) get swamped with the barrage of resulting inputs. You only have to add a politician or journalist with more sound-bites than common-sense and it all goes horribly wrong.
-
We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously! :D
There will be a workable solution but as to cost...
Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation. There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account). Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.
;D ;D I did notice that.
I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over. I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.
You're showing signs of agematurity there Zulu ;D ;D
As an engineer myself, I pride myself in the number of ideas that I have that I discount as un-workable or unacceptable - it should be part of the role. Our society currently however, derides experience (current thinking) as out-of-date, without assessing it for its true value. My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced. I consider that a taxation!! I cannot see that as something I taught her.
A big part of the problem is that, due to prolific communications, every Tom, Dick and Harry has equal access to the minutae of decision-making and the 'real' experts (I think there are still a few around ;D) get swamped with the barrage of resulting inputs. You only have to add a politician or journalist with more sound-bites than common-sense and it all goes horribly wrong.
Maturity is nice - but in reality, it's age, crusty 'old git' age :( :( ;D
I can certainly agree that too many cooks may well spoil the broth - lets hope that the recipe has been sufficiently well conceived to produce an acceptable and palatable result.
-
My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.
My IKEA desk has just passed its 20th birthday. ;)
-
My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.
My IKEA desk has just passed its 20th birthday. ;)
That's splendid news Nick 8-) :y but it is my duty to inform you that I have been - and remain - daughter-less. ;D ;D :y
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
I understand and agree with what you are getting at Jereboam, but how can you say these are already well developed when no of us know what discoveries will be made that will make current progress seem positively archaic. My earlier post was also touching on how man initialy thinks he has the answers then technological and scientific advancements produce staggering possibilities that cannot be predicted in the contempary environment.
Like with all technological advancements we have seen nothing yet in terms of wind and solar power development. ;) ;) The only way you can say for sure what we have now is to live and have a 22nd century mind with all the knowledge by then accumulated. Of course none of us have that yet. We can only aim for that time, making mistakes all the way whilst we learn ;) ;)
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
Yes, I enjoyed reading that - perhaps the following experiment will bear some fruit;
http://www.iter.org/
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
Not absolute rubbish Jereboam, relative rubbish! ;D ;D Only joking, there's a lot of sense in what you say (except that a parabolic mirror needs to cover the same area to collect the rays so only saves on area of pv convertor).
There are developments that can be made though with all these types of sporadic sources of energy, and that is in storage. If we have sufficient (and that can usually be achieved by scale) total energy available (albeit random), we can store excess for use in quiet times. This is what Eigg did with their massive 24hr UPS). On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity).
Cheap and high-density electric storage is likely to unlock a whole raft of benefits for society, not least in electric vehicles. As with all large stores of energy, there will be nasty accidents and safety will be one of the determining factors in its acceptance.
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
Not absolute rubbish Jereboam, relative rubbish! ;D ;D Only joking, there's a lot of sense in what you say (except that a parabolic mirror needs to cover the same area to collect the rays so only saves on area of pv convertor).
There are developments that can be made though with all these types of sporadic sources of energy, and that is in storage. If we have sufficient (and that can usually be achieved by scale) total energy available (albeit random), we can store excess for use in quiet times. This is what Eigg did with their massive 24hr UPS). On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity).
Cheap and high-density electric storage is likely to unlock a whole raft of benefits for society, not least in electric vehicles. As with all large stores of energy, there will be nasty accidents and safety will be one of the determining factors in its acceptance.
On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity)
I think there's a plant in Wales that does just that, but are there sufficient sites - having suitable topography - on a national basis to make this type of storage a commercial possibility?
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
I understand and agree with what you are getting at Jereboam, but how can you say these are already well developed when no of us know what discoveries will be made that will make current progress seem positively archaic. My earlier post was also touching on how man initialy thinks he has the answers then technological and scientific advancements produce staggering possibilities that cannot be predicted in the contempary environment.
Like with all technological advancements we have seen nothing yet in terms of wind and solar power development. ;) ;) The only way you can say for sure what we have now is to live and have a 22nd century mind with all the knowledge by then accumulated. Of course none of us have that yet. We can only aim for that time, making mistakes all the way whilst we learn ;) ;)
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. There really are limits on how far you can go to improve the efficiency of a wind powered generator. The speed of technological advance we see today is vastly greater than in the days of steam, or internal combustion, engines. They took a long time to increase their efficiency, and as that time extended, the rate of improvement fell as it always does. Wind turbines have developed significantly faster, and the scope for efficiency improvement is very limited. A new technology is needed - maybe Sir James Dyson could think of a way of turning unidirectional wind gusts into rotational motion and power a generator that way. But wind turbines are rapidly approaching their efficiency limit. And much the same argument applies to solar, although materials development may surprise us all. :) :) :)
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
Not absolute rubbish Jereboam, relative rubbish! ;D ;D Only joking, there's a lot of sense in what you say (except that a parabolic mirror needs to cover the same area to collect the rays so only saves on area of pv convertor).
There are developments that can be made though with all these types of sporadic sources of energy, and that is in storage. If we have sufficient (and that can usually be achieved by scale) total energy available (albeit random), we can store excess for use in quiet times. This is what Eigg did with their massive 24hr UPS). On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity).
Cheap and high-density electric storage is likely to unlock a whole raft of benefits for society, not least in electric vehicles. As with all large stores of energy, there will be nasty accidents and safety will be one of the determining factors in its acceptance.
Strangely enough, I was going to mention what you call "pumped storage hydroelectricity", but got interrupted and had to finish. This is a very old idea, but a very good one. It's never going to be a cheap solution, and I expect the efficiency of re-conversion will not be all that high, but it complements wind and solar electricity generation perfectly.
There are drawbacks: suitable sites may not be adjacent to wind- or solar-suitable sites, and the power losses involved in taking the electricity to a suitable site may make it uneconomic. I can't imagine there will be suitabe desert sites, for example, and that may be the best place for solar farms.
Its all very complicated. :(
-
I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish.
I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power. The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions. On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development. There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.
There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable. Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy. We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area. (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)
We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists. And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.
I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil. And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain. Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.
We're doomed, we're all doomed...
The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work. :( :( :(
Not absolute rubbish Jereboam, relative rubbish! ;D ;D Only joking, there's a lot of sense in what you say (except that a parabolic mirror needs to cover the same area to collect the rays so only saves on area of pv convertor).
There are developments that can be made though with all these types of sporadic sources of energy, and that is in storage. If we have sufficient (and that can usually be achieved by scale) total energy available (albeit random), we can store excess for use in quiet times. This is what Eigg did with their massive 24hr UPS). On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity).
Cheap and high-density electric storage is likely to unlock a whole raft of benefits for society, not least in electric vehicles. As with all large stores of energy, there will be nasty accidents and safety will be one of the determining factors in its acceptance.
Strangely enough, I was going to mention what you call "pumped storage hydroelectricity", but got interrupted and had to finish. This is a very old idea, but a very good one. It's never going to be a cheap solution, and I expect the efficiency of re-conversion will not be all that high, but it complements wind and solar electricity generation perfectly.
There are drawbacks: suitable sites may not be adjacent to wind- or solar-suitable sites, and the power losses involved in taking the electricity to a suitable site may make it uneconomic. I can't imagine there will be suitabe desert sites, for example, and that may be the best place for solar farms.
Its all very complicated. :(
Ahh Bless!! :D
There are other ways of doing it. Tower bridge uses weights and there's no real reason why a bladder under a mountain should not be pumped-up with liquid to raise it like a car jack. When you need electricity, you let the liquid flow through turbines and Bob's your proverbial.
All these methods involve losses and your point about distance between variable sources and a storage scheme are real. With electricity, the 'easy' fix is to step up the voltage for transmission - hence the 132kV grid.