Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

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.

[Chris_H]

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.

[Nickbat]

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.    

[Chris_H]

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.    

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.

[Nickbat]

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

[Dishevelled Den]

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

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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

[Dishevelled Den]

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?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.  

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[Nickbat]

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.

    

[Chris_H]

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. (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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!!

[Dishevelled Den]

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!!

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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!!

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.