Sadly, once again, the conservatives are running the hoary old fear n smear anti carbon tax line.

When it suits them they push/preach the market forces line but when our commercial radio 'shockjocks' get hold of them they go to water.

Truly embarrassing and sad.

As the UK produces plenty of Electricity or can, it is a shame it can not be stored and used when generation from renewables can be high, not only available cheap to Industry but to domestic users, transport companies etc.

even in efficient Storage Heaters, Vehicles, and in Hydro Schemes, Hydrogen Production & Storage. 

It is just Money for old rope for many that have facilities funded with public money and profits to private individuals.

Baron Nicol Stephen Ex Scottish Liberal Democrate Leader being a prime example.

http://nationalgridconnecting.com/grounds-for-constraint

http://nationalgridconnecting.com/building-a-robust-network

 

The Truth is that the 'Banks' invested peoples money in Coal & Mining and dirty energy production

and now lost out, other peoples money gone, but Governments in the EU tried to keep Coal Burning while saying they were going Green.

Germany happy to have other nations and countries producing their electricity and having the issues with pollution.

 

Now the Banks have invested in Fracking, Fracking North America, and the Arab Oil Producers have messed that up, 

they spent more in the US setting up fracking and the income can not repay the Loans for the Fracking.

 

Bankers do not want Renewables producing energy / electricity.

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by GoneOffSKi

Renewable can be reliable for example tidal stations like the one planned for Swansea Bay and it is just the dithering by Con Government about funding it it much of the issue.

 

 

Nope.

 

The Swansea bay scheme will cost over £1billion to give 320MW (Peak) power. But this is not constant base laod, it depends on tide times and will generate for around 14hours a day.

 

So will still need a back capacity on the grid.

 

This is why we pay 2000MW and 3000MW fossil fueled stations to stand idle and why we have to pay stations that have announced closure like Ferrybridge to remain available. There's no current reliable base load replacements and renewable technology can't replace that and won't be able to for the foreseeable future.

 

The French Nuclear connection only has a 2GW capacity and it's more or less at maximum capacity all the time, we don't use it to offset renewable dips.

 

I will not bother posting my own qualifications or which university I went to but my industry ensures there is enough capacity in the market to keep the lights on and uk industry going.

Until technology improves the only viable option is for nuclear base load and gas to cover the shortfall when it's not daylight or windy. As Nuclear replacement is a decade + away then coal is going to have to fill the gaps. That's been shown in how the capacity auctions have gone into the next decade.

 

Lee

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by logiclee

All human knowledge doubles every 13 MONTHS and accelerating

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/physicist-brian-cox:-the-golden-age-of-discovery/7406914

Shouldn't be a problem left before long, on that basis.

Optimism is nice.

All human knowledge doubles every 13 MONTHS and accelerating

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/physicist-brian-cox:-the-golden-age-of-discovery/7406914

Shouldn't be a problem left before long, on that basis.

 

Just a shame that available funding doesn't grow at the same rate.

 

Perhaps we will be able to solve the deforestation issue and why we burn down rain forests for palm oil and fill our oceans with little plastic beads all in the name of cosmetics and vanity.

 

These are real environmental issues that could be solved without massive leaps in technology.

 

Lee 

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by logiclee

Optimism is nice.

Hah, IT is just half full )))

it is just the dithering by Con Government about funding it it much of the issue.

 

again stalled by Con government dithering

 

 

lol-lol,

BSc Hons (2-1), not just a Greenies eco-warrior but an ex-marine engineer and science graduate in thermo-dynamics and ex Big 4 accountancy/consultant).

 

 

I think you'll find that a lot of the issue is associated with the potential wider impacts of schemes to the immediate environment and a rather small question of where the money for them comes from (more tax perchance???) as opposed to 'dithering'

 

And just to let you know, quoting your qualifications is actually a bit sad and doesn't give any real substance to your comments, especially when there are many people more highly qualified and better placed than you   ;-)

Just in the last year 175 Million at least has been paid in subsidies for Diesel Farms as a stand by in the UK.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-35035717

Someone in the industry might know how often Diesel Farms have had to be used to provide Electricity in England.

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by GoneOffSKi

All human knowledge doubles every 13 MONTHS and accelerating

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/physicist-brian-cox:-the-golden-age-of-discovery/7406914

Shouldn't be a problem left before long, on that basis.

Such a shame that even this won't change the laws of physics.

Nope.   The Swansea bay scheme will cost over £1billion to give 320MW (Peak) power. But this is not constant base laod, it depends on tide times and will generate for around 14hours a day.

So will still need a back capacity on the grid.  This is why we pay 2000MW and 3000MW fossil fueled stations to stand idle and why we have to pay stations that have announced closure like Ferrybridge to remain available. There's no current reliable base load replacements and renewable technology can't replace that and won't be able to for the foreseeable future.  The French Nuclear connection only has a 2GW capacity and it's more or less at maximum capacity all the time, we don't use it to offset renewable dips.  I will not bother posting my own qualifications or which university I went to but my industry ensures there is enough capacity in the market to keep the lights on and uk industry going.  Until technology improves the only viable option is for nuclear base load and gas to cover the shortfall when it's not daylight or windy. As Nuclear replacement is a decade + away then coal is going to have to fill the gaps. That's been shown in how the capacity auctions have gone into the next decade.

Lee

 

The tidal fall energy in the Bristol channel is, unlike wind or solar, a reliable source of energy day in day out and coupled with hydro-electric storage can irons out the daily kinks in demand it is just a shame that the UK went for the smaller project, the 0.3Gw Swansea Bay is only about 1% of our needs rather than the entire across the Bristol Channel which was going to supply about 10% of the UK requirements.  We actually draw energy from Holland as well as from France it appears. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449424/Chapter_5_Electricity.pdf

 

If we do need any hydrocarbon the gas is preferable of course due to it being cleaner.

 

As to the power industry I did a technical tour of Hinkley point A (Magnox) and B (AGR) and I helped Westinghouse with some of the setting up of Sizewell B PWR and am pro nuclear but prefer renewable as any sensible person would but it needs to be linked to hydro-storage and electrical storage system at a local level.  Hydrocarbon can only be an option in the short term due to climate change and massive preamture death toll due to fossil fuel burning if we have any conscious at all. 

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by lol-lol

ASAP is absolutely nowhere in sight though. As isn't viable bulk electric storage.

You seem to be in the same mind-space as the beautiful Miss World contestant who calls for "world peace" as if it was something that just needs requesting for it to happen.

 

Bulk energy storage is achieved through hydro-plants like Dinorwig but it only smooths out daily kinks in supply and that has to be matched to sufficient nuclear base load, whether than it here in the UK, or in Western Europe or perhaps as far as extending the grid on a further basis to optimize where production is occurring to where the need is and this is running within the SETIS organisation which is a benefit of the EU being able to do this....https://setis.ec.europa.eu/    

Hydrocarbon can only be an option in the short term due to climate change and massive preamture death toll due to fossil fuel burning if we have any conscious at all. 

what massive premature deaths tolls?

I think you'll find that a lot of the issue is associated with the potential wider impacts of schemes to the immediate environment and a rather small question of where the money for them comes from (more tax perchance???) as opposed to 'dithering'    And just to let you know, quoting your qualifications is actually a bit sad and doesn't give any real substance to your comments, especially when there are many people more highly qualified and better placed than you   ;-)

 

I agree that wind turbines can be contentious but the new 100 MW storage facility next to Dinorwig's 2 GW is that there is nothing to see other than seeing the upper and lower lakes mysteriously rising and falling.  Off shore wind turbines I like the look of and prefer it to seeing an oil rig burning off hydrocarbons.

 

I make the point that support of are not all just people with near worthless BAs and MAs but with Science Degrees and with engineering backgrounds and not just minor civil or public servants working in local offices but it is everyone, those who live in polluted cities where roads are slowed down or closed due to the levels of hydrocarbon pollution that we will benefit as we phase out the nine remaining coal fired stations and get them replaced by clean energy that is adding to the 30K pa premature death and many others respiratory misery.   

what massive premature deaths tolls?

 

Where have you been?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-more-uk-deaths-than-previously-thought-say-scientists

Where have you been?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-more-uk-deaths-than-previously-thought-say-scientists

Living in the real world an not believing everything that's printed in a newspaper.t.

Slight flaw in the article where it lists Global deaths, top ten causes. No mention of deaths from Cancer, murder, accidental deaths etc.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

lol-lol I don't have the time or will to explain how the national grid or the capacity market works. 

 

You are talking mainly of projects that would iron out peaks of maximum demand and are still banging on about wind projects and interconnects.

 

The dutch interconnect is 0.5GW maximum or a quarter of the output of a normal sized coal station like Ferrybridge that has just been given cash to stay open. While we are at it there's also interconnects from Scotland to Northern Ireland (0.4GW) and Ireland to Wales (0.32GW).

 

The pumped hydroschemes are less than 0.5GW and are only any use to offset short periods of peak demand.

 

Peak winter we can hit 45GW demand in freezing temperatures. Being winter this would be dark and for prolonged cold snaps we are usually in a high pressure weather system and have little wind.

 

This is our current reality and why we have had to stop loosing coal station after coal station as we do not have reliable base load to replace it and no off sure wind farm is going to do that.

 

Government policy is steered towards Fracking and Gas but the timescales imposed has even been ridiculed by the industry and the Institute of Engineers as not possible.

 

So the capacity market will limp along with renewables to reduce CO2 when they are available and fossil stations to keep the lights on when they are not.

 

That's already pre-sold and confirmed well into the next decade.

 

Lee

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by logiclee

Coal should be our future really, not our past.

Just in the last year 175 Million at least has been paid in subsidies for Diesel Farms as a stand by in the UK.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-35035717

Someone in the industry might know how often Diesel Farms have had to be used to provide Electricity in England.

 

Not often, they are expensive to run and dirty but they are used in peak demand in winter if there's no wind. It can also depend on the location of the diesel generators and the specific demand on that section of the grid.

 

Most coal fired stations also have black start engines so they can power up with no grid connection. Some stations have up to four Rolls Royce Olympus turbines (Concorde/Vulcan Bomber) that drink fuel but even these have been run as extra supply when wind has failed.

 

It's political suicide to have powercuts so everything will be used to keep the lights on.

 

Lee

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by logiclee

Expensive not to run as well.

Just like the Dirty Coal Fired ones that have been closed down in the UK last year.

 

Dirty running, expensive to pay to have ready to run.

More Nuclear been needed for decades and they should have been in the south, especially as those in the North might need closing down any time even with the Billions already wasted trying to extend their lives.

lol-lol ......

 The pumped hydroschemes are less than 0.5GW and are only any use to offset short periods of peak demand.  

Lee

 

Dinorwig is 1.75 GW alone.

 

Average consumption is usually 40 GWs or less therefore with proper hydro-storage and the nuclear base load, which is slightly less than 10 GWs at present but needs to be more like 15 GWs ie Hinkley and Sizewell C and possibly another one or even two depending how energy efficiency, population growth and climate change occurs and then the rest supplied by renewable ie tide and wind mainly upping the 20% to 60% ie 30 GWs plus which it should achieve in the next 14 years at present rate particularly with offshore wind and various wave schemes if they stop prevaricating.    

 

Interesting dashboard for those interested....

 

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by lol-lol

Dinorwig is 1.75 GW alone.

Average consumption is usually 40 GWs or less therefore with proper hydro-storage and the nuclear base load, which is slightly less than 10 GWs at present but needs to be more like 15 GWs ie Hinkley and Sizewell C and possibly another one or even two depending how energy efficiency, population growth and climate change occurs and then the rest supplied by renewable ie tide and wind mainly upping the 20% to 60% ie 30 GWs plus which it should achieve in the next 14 years at present rate particularly with offshore wind and various wave schemes if they stop prevaricating.

Interesting dashboard for those interested....

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

14 years for added Nuclear. No way.

And you can quote as high a percentage as you want for renewable. Without viable storage it's not reiable and needs a backup, even tidal.

There is no interest in pumped hydro other than small scale peak demand smoothing.

Gridwatch Templar is good as long as you factor in it's shortcomings. It doesn't factor in micro generation. Something the market has to when calculating predicted demand and load.

Expensive not to run as well.

Just like the Dirty Coal Fired ones that have been closed down in the UK last year.

Dirty running, expensive to pay to have ready to run.

More Nuclear been needed for decades and they should have been in the south, especially as those in the North might need closing down any time even with the Billions already wasted trying to extend their lives.

Actually coal stations in the UK produce very cheap electricity. That's why they were pretty much base load stations up until just over a year ago when the additional carbon tax was imposed on them. They have been taxed out of the market by the Government. They were certainly not economically unviable.

Some have spent hundreds of millions on emission controls like the SCR plant at Racliffe and steps towards CCS at Drax but the Government has pulled the plug and the investment is wasted.

Is there not an EU Investigation into the subsidies for DAX & the burning of Biomass?

 

Produce Cheap Electricity while producing expensive pollution and getting Carbon Credits which were just a joke.

Was it not because the claims of emissions reductions were exagerated, or actually just fiction?

Being paid not to produce just as much as when they do produce

Bringing coal from around the world.

UK Coal Mines not cleaned up yet, open cast mines in Scotland abandoned by those that took the profits, then go bust and the public are paying to clean them up.

 

They were long past their sell by date.

Sorry people are losing jobs, but things move on, there will be plenty jobs in Renewables if the Governments get their acts together.

 

'Cheap Electricity from coal',  and then the real cost comes down on the public after the fact.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25352375

 

Like the Nuclear, generations later are going to be paying for the clean up.

The first Power Stations are not yet cleaned up, just being kept as safe as possible until some solution is found.

http://magnoxsites.com/site/chapelcross

Edited 12 May, 201610 yr by GoneOffSKi

This is where we should be

 

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

 

Way to go France

 

 

As to the how.

 

Work closely with Électricité de France to get the 4 Nuc stations biult, cancel the waste of money Trident ICBM subs, job done.

Edited 13 May, 201610 yr by lol-lol