So if it wouldn't work for the whole of the UK, how come it will work for ecotricity and their customers? I hope you're stocking up on candles for when they do reach 100%.
marsdenman appears to have invented perpetual motion.
I don't think there's any single renewable energy type that will be able to supply the whole of the UK at present - especially not with our current attitudes to energy use. So what's wrong with starting off by expanding a proven, comparatively efficient method of energy generation? It sounds like you're just re-hashing the same tired old "renewable energy is rubbish" arguments that come up on here every so often.
Of course, if you're an expert in other types of renewables who finds his work marginalised becuase of the current focus on wind power, I apologise unreservedly...
So if it wouldn't work for the whole of the UK, how come it will work for ecotricity and their customers?
just read the website they explain it to you or give them a ring and ask...my electricity never runs out as thankfully their is a lot of hot air about 😆
Chrism - All that has to happen is for ecotricity to supply the same amount of power to the grid (over some period of time) as their customers draw down from the grid over the same period.
Do you honestly think that if you change electricity or gas supplier they build new wires and pipes to your house?
Marsdenman, there is a mountain in Wales where they do what you describe, water is pumped uphill using off peak electricity and then during peak periods they let it downhill and put power back onto the grid. Obviously it doesn't generate any net power that way (in fact it loses some), it just stores energy for when it is needed (the end of eastenders probably) like a big battery.
the guy who owns ecotricity lives down the road. he has a merc sl55 amg, rangerover vogue and a host of fast bikes, hes no mug. great company to work for by all accounts(HQ is in my local town). i do also buy electric from them.
gonefishin - sorry you lost me on that one - pumping the water back up will consume electricity but that will be electricity that the system itself produced, a small amount surely compared with what can be supplied to the national grid.... kind of a 'closed loop' thing. Happy to ackn though that i am not an expert, not at all, just voicing an idea that crops up from time to time in my idle mind....
Chrism - All that has to happen is for ecotricity to supply the same amount of power to the grid (over some period of time) as their customers draw down from the grid over the same period.
Ah, so when they claim 100% renewable they're actually lying - you get your power from non-renewables when the wind doesn't blow. Shame the non-renewables you actually rely upon keep burning fuel when you're getting your energy from the wind, so that they can step in when you need them.
Nothing wrong with that, just that's not what ecotricity are doing - wind is only proven if you ignore the complete system, whereby it doesn't supply anywhere near the amount of power claimed, and still needs conventional power to back it up. I've got nothing at all against renewable - it's just wind power that's rubbish. If ecotricity was spending their money on research into more useful ways of renewable energy generation instead of windmills I'd switch in a flash.So what's wrong with starting off by expanding a proven, comparatively efficient method of energy generation? It sounds like you're just re-hashing the same tired old "renewable energy is rubbish" arguments that come up on here every so often.
The German scheme afaik is designed to encourage renewable energy and also micro-generation to build the industry and technology as much as anything. It's an incentive for a purpose, not a purely economic tool.absolutley correct.
Here, we banned tungsten bulbs instead
Well, without wishing to get all gtechnical in a nice discussion, the Renewables Obligation Order came into force on 1 April, bringing into force (among other things) a feed in tariff for micro generation below 3MW.
So, now we have both the ROC system, and a series of FITs (depending on technologu and output).
Ecotricity are one of many developers and producers in this country and, while many people decry wind (usually on a nimby basis), the potential of projects like Sheringham Shoal and London Array - not to metion the significant amount of output available through the new Round 3 offshore propjects - means that there is a real possibility of non-carbon sources of electricity positively benefitting the nation.
But, as many point out, wind is by no means the only solution (though it is the most well established, and best funded). Biomass is growing, and there are increasing numbers of - usually waste wood fuelled - power (and, better still, CHP) plants being commissioned. Anaerobic digestion is also becoming more viable, as are other technologies. including tidal and wave.
Even if you don't believe in clean energy, you probably would believe that this is one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK (and internationally), and so if you want to make some money, get into it.
(Oh, and I know onje of the directors at Ecotricity - thoroughly nice chap and, yes, they do give a sh*t about what they're doing.)
No one is saying that wind alone is the solution ...HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY THIS CHRISM?
It does have limits but its main strength is it is renewable and [relatively]carbon neutral unlike the currently available alternatives at present.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY THIS CHRISM?
You can say it as many times as you like. Every time you say it you're still completely ignoring my point.
which is what then?
*wonders how much coal has been burnt to power this thread so far*
😀
marsdenman the system you are describing would give you more energy out than is being put in.
If you start with the situation that the upper reservoir is full and the lower one empty. Water flows from the upper to the lower reservoir generating a certain amount of energy. The water in the lower reservoir is then pumped back up to the upper reservoir to return the system to its original state ready to generate more power. This requires energy to be put into the system and thanks to the laws of thermodynamics the amount of energy put in will always be more than you get out. The net effect is that such a system will consume energy.
which is what then?
I've said it enough times, try reading my posts
"you get your power from non-renewables when the wind doesn't blow. Shame the non-renewables you actually rely upon keep burning fuel when you're getting your energy from the wind, so that they can step in when you need them."
"wind is only proven if you ignore the complete system, whereby it doesn't supply anywhere near the amount of power claimed, and still needs conventional power to back it up."
Chrism - we all know this (as do most people who are interested in such things). The point is that Ecotricity want to reduce carbon emissions NOW by building as many turbines as they can and supplying as much wind power as they can. Ecotricity won't take 100% of the market, and they realise this - that's why they want all of THEIR energy to be renewable so that they can maximise the amount of renewable energy on the grid. Most companies want to supply as many people as possible regardless, Ecotricity want as much renewable power as possible. If they did have 100% or even 50% of the market they'd have to re-word that pledge.
You might find it hard to believe that people who work in the power industry might maybe have thought for more than 2 seconds about it.. but it's true. There are clever people out there besides you 🙂
You might find it hard to believe that people who work in the power industry might maybe have thought for more than 2 seconds about it.
I'm sure they have, and I'm sure there is money to be made. Whether wind turbines are actually really reducing carbon emissions once you build a sufficiently large amount of them that they're overwhelming energy storage (which is where we already are) is another matter entirely. The point being that that 100% will be a lie when they get there, as you'll still be essentially relying on non-renewable power.
The water being pumped up hills is very popular... and the energy problem more complex than most people think. I have a few points that are interesting.
The pumping of water up hills is not a power producer, true, but hydro schemes work on flowing rivers from one height down to another and these are power producers but at the cost of reducing river flows and destorying areas of beauty in some cases.
The ones where the same water is pumped up and then let to run down is for a very different reason, during the day there is a great demand for power, huge and so all the power stations are all full stretch, during the night this demand is so small as we're all asleep, as mentioned before you can't just turn this things on and off it takes hours to warm up and prep these turbines and so what they do is use the night time to pump the water, the cost of pumping it knowing they can draw on it later is worth it considering the cost of having to shut the power down as and when its on demand. This also allows the flow to be levelled out, as the water then gives enough to average out the peaks and drops in the power supply. It is not really a true eco friendly method.
second point, when i worked at an electricity distribution company, i remember there was talk about having regional blackouts in areas, even to the point that the building we were working in was to run on diesel genny for a weekend and they were going to shutdown power to some areas, during this i was told the grid runs at 97% of its capacity and during this time two main power stations were down due to health and safety breaches...
of all the power produced in this country around 7-8% of it is from renewable energy (taken from uni lecture notes) and of that 75% of it is from biomass, wind, solar and hydro are great but they are pointless, they will never be able to provide for our needs truely they can assist but they will never manage it, the only way we can ensure future generations true supply is to invest in nuclear and to look into improving this technology as i believe the current nuclear fuel supply is about 70 years (unless they can get a way to use the rest of the uranium)
So wind farms and tidal energy really don't make a huge difference,
A lot of companies looked at wave generators and the like originally and decided not to invest as they were not economically viable and it is only due to the huge grants in this field that makes such projects possible,
I don't think we should be flippent but i do feel we are chasing a false hope here, even at best these devices will never provide the needed power.
Why can't we just take responsibility, and control what we "need"?
But no, the only solution people ever come up with is more Brute Force Engineering.
Did the Romans "need" nuclear power?
The point being that that 100% will be a lie
Mate, honestly, you need to read posts a little more carefully.
They're not trying to supply 100% of the UK market with wind power. That's not possible, and they know it. So why do you keep telling us what we know?
They are trying to supply their customers with 100% wind power, so that consequently a larger percentage of the total power consumed can be from wind. Can I make it any clearer?
As for the viability of wind - the wind does blow, they do turn, and they generate power. They are economically viable as far as I know. So what's the problem? Nimbies aside, of course.
Well I'm charging my iPhone while surfing the net, and listening to the radio. All via electricity produced from biomass.
Actually, I think you do. You could try the bit just after what you quoted for a start "as you'll still be essentially relying on non-renewable power." the "you" being ecotricity customers. What I'm saying if you could actually manage to read my posts properly is that it's not possible for them to supply ecotricity customers with 100% wind power. Have I made that clear enough for you?Mate, honestly, you need to read posts a little more carefully.
As I keep pointing out, again and again, but you seem incapable of reading, that the wind doesn't always blow, and unless you want to crack out the candles when that happens, you have to keep just as much conventional generating capacity as you had before you built any windmills. You don't just turn that capacity on and off like a tap (hence the original need for pumped storage). Economically viable due to huge subsidies and distortion of the market.As for the viability of wind - the wind does blow, they do turn, and they generate power. They are economically viable as far as I know. So what's the problem?
Well done that man - at least somebody is using a practical form of renewable energy.Well I'm charging my iPhone while surfing the net, and listening to the radio. All via electricity produced from biomass.
I work in a biomass energy plant. We are currently generating just over 1MW (due to one line being down) we generally produce between 3.5 - 4.5 MW. We burn mainly waste wood from skips that would otherwise end up in landfill. So IMO it's a win win. Less waste going to landfill and using it to make electricity.
it's not possible for them to supply ecotricity customers with 100% wind power
Why not? If their customers are say 2% of the population, they could receive 100% of power [i]aggregated over time[/i] from wind turbines...
that the wind doesn't always blow, and unless you want to crack out the candles when that happens, you have to keep just as much conventional generating capacity
Maybe I have read it and understood it, and am trying to counter the point (I don't know why people get so insulting on forums when having discussions.. I'm actually a very clever bloke and am pretty good at reading and understanding). The wind is pretty much always blowing somewhere, especially out at sea (as I mentioned). You would perhaps still need a full range of power generating options when available wind poiwer is low including wave, nuclear, coal, gas etc but you would not need to drive them as hard when the wind IS blowing and hence be able to save fuel etc. If you used lots of different renewable energy sources then pretty much you would be able to cover power demand most of the time. There are also plans (afaik) to extend our links with the continental power grids on the basis that there'll always be power being generated somewhere.
That's why people keep talking about the energy mix - they are looking for ways to generate power from lots of different renewable sources that will cover what we need. Most people are quite capable of realising that if there's no wind then there'll be no wind generated power. That's why the clever folk out there (there are some really) are working on how to make the system work. After all, the people that sell electricity don't want the lights going out any more than their customers.
So you see, I did understand your point that there need to be other sources besides wind.
PS did you really think I needed to be told that it's not always windy? I mean really? Not just in a grumpy frosty STW argument kind of way?
Oh dear. I was going to comment and add something, but there are some people who just don't get renewable energy or the energy crisis facing the UK, so I don't want to get drawn into an argument.
.
I may return to the thread when we all have our rolling power-cuts across the UK in the next few winters, or when the £billions of subsidy the nuclear lot will have needs repaying.
.
The way I think it works is that any electricity that the wind turbines produce gets exported to the grid. So ecotricity's customers do not recieve electricity solely produced by wind. So there is no more of a chance of their lights going out as npower or powergen customers. What I believe they are doing is the more profit they make they are making more wind farms. Therefore increase the amount of "green energy" they produce and customers they can supply
Only if you have sufficient energy storage capacity - and we don't. Otherwise you're getting some of your energy from conventional power stations, which are burning more fuel than if you didn't exist.Why not? If their customers are say 2% of the population, they could receive 100% of power aggregated over time from wind turbines...
Given what you wrote earlier in your own post, but seem to have forgotten about already, yes.did you really think I needed to be told that it's not always windy?
Is "pretty much" a different way of saying "almost"? As I mentioned before, that's almost good enough.The wind is pretty much always blowing somewhere, especially out at sea (as I mentioned).
Good. Lets have lots of different renewable energy sources. Just let none of them be wind. Meanwhile if we import energy from the continent, most of that would surely be French nuclear?If you used lots of different renewable energy sources then pretty much you would be able to cover power demand most of the time. There are also plans (afaik) to extend our links with the continental power grids on the basis that there'll always be power being generated somewhere.
Diving in here.. I 100% approve of Ecotricity and I buy my electricity from them.
So there.
There are also several really promising ways of storing energy which are up and coming, and there are much better ways than we have now of distributing it. I believe unless we ramp up production, and encourage much more investment, then none of this will get the backing it deserves either.
Chrism - read the bit you quoted again. You are ignoring the phrase "over time".
You are also confusing capacity with loading. Yes, we still need the capacity in other forms but they don't have to be consuming as much fuel when the wind blows if there are also wind turbines.
That said, we also need to build 10 or 20 nuclear reactors as well, and we need to start building immediately. Show me a nuclear only electricity tariff and I would sign up.
and have the reactor close to where you live....
I'd rather live near a nuclear power station than a coal one. Less radiation for a start.
Only if you have sufficient energy storage capacity - and we don't. Otherwise you're getting some of your energy from conventional power stations, which are burning more fuel than if you didn't exist.
You missed the word 'aggregate' there.
If you really think I'm so stupid as to not understand that it's not always windy, why don't you give me a call and we'll talk about it. I'm really not an imbecile. I'm all for a discussion of the subject, but can we leave out the abuse please?
You don't need to re-iterate the same stuff over and over again. Yes, we know that wind is inconsistent but we're trying to make our point that we (and a lot of other industry folk) think that it can be a useful option. You seem to think that because we don't agree with you that means we're idiots who can't read a post. But that's debate - we are presenting reasoning to show why we disagree.
Oh and yes, currently most of the traffic on the cross channel HVDC link is French nuclear power, but in the future that need not be the case. What we need along with loads more diverse renewable sources INCLUDING wind is a comprehensive grid allowing energy to be transported around Europe from where it can be generated renewably to where it's used. We're a long way from that tho.
If you really want to know where green generation is going you need to look at this Februarys white paper (yeah I know BORING!)and see where the gov. are putting ROC (Renewables Obligation Certificates) Credits for renewable power generation.
Also if you are having difficulty sleeping due to worrying about how your electricty is produced, it`ll help there too. yawn!
You missed the word 'aggregate' there.
No, just ignored the fact that you want to get your electricity by conventional means when the wind isn't blowing and then replace it when the wind is, because you're ignoring that it doesn't work that way unless you have sufficient storage capacity. The conventional stations still have to be kept running even when you're generating by wind so they can step in when you aren't.
I don't, but you seem to think I'm stupid enough to ignore when you attempt to use the idea that it is to support the use of wind power. You can't have it both ways. Shall we just drop the "The wind is pretty much always blowing somewhere" line now?If you really think I'm so stupid as to not understand that it's not always windy
You don't need to re-iterate the same stuff over and over again.
Well you do seem to keep ignoring the points I make. If you want to have a debate, try directly addressing them.
chrism, if we agree with you, will you go away?
Chrism - why do the conventional stations have to keep running when there is sufficient wind blowing?
Lets just say we have a maximum generating capacity of 20% wind driven, say it's working at that top capacity why can't we turn off say 15% of the conventional stuff. I mean weather forecasts must be able to predict wind capacity, when the forecasts predict a drop in wind capacity switch all the other stuff back on again.
Unlike molgrips I am a simpleton so feel free to condescend to me all you like.
Chrism - why do the conventional stations have to keep running when there is sufficient wind blowing?
Wind does require extra backup of course due to intermittancy, but gas power stations can do this by operating in "spinning reserve". Whilst this does use some fossil fuel, it's analogous to leaving your car ticking over, instead of driving it down the road.
As a general point, most forms of generation, fossil or renewable, are poor at dealing with sudden changes in demand. So there will continue to be a need for combined cycle gas turbines acting as backup even if we decided to go for coal or nuclear in a bigger way.
No, just ignored the fact that you want to get your electricity by conventional means when the wind isn't blowing and then replace it when the wind is, because you're ignoring that it doesn't work that way unless you have sufficient storage capacity
I'm trying to address your points - trying to tease them out of the abuse 🙂 So what you're trying to say is that you'd have to keep the power stations running all the time in case the wind drops. Okay, but I'm not sure this is true. I think you can throttle power stations up and down relatively easily but not switch them off.
I find it hard to believe that everyone would be investing in wind power if it was totally pointless.
You should be able to cope, given I've just been reusing your own expressions, if I've understood correctly what you're getting upset about.trying to tease them out of the abuse
I already mentioned the subsidies which make it economically viable.I find it hard to believe that everyone would be investing in wind power if it was totally pointless.
You'd be surprised how difficult it is to predict the wind that reliably - I say this as a windsurfer! Bearing in mind they also have to switch off the turbines when there's too much wind.I mean weather forecasts must be able to predict wind capacity, when the forecasts predict a drop in wind capacity switch all the other stuff back on again.
Wind does require extra backup of course due to intermittancy, but gas power stations can do this by operating in "spinning reserve". Whilst this does use some fossil fuel, it's analogous to leaving your car ticking over, instead of driving it down the road.
Phew. Have been waiting for days for somebody to actually argue coherently with my point. You are right, but as I point out you do still use significantly more energy than if the backup capacity wasn't required. I believe that level of response is only realistic with gas power, which is already being spooled up and down to balance variations in load, thus inherently limiting what other compensation is available. I have been a little disingeneous, but given the way the wind industry always quotes figures (peak output, not mean, let alone typical minima, and not taking any account of backup requirement), it's hardly been a huge distortion.
Another question I have, if as pointed out earlier wind is more reliable offshore (a point I'd agree with in general), why not build all wind turbines offshore to improve the utility, or do they not because there are other motivations than building the best possible generation system?
"you do still use significantly more energy than if the backup capacity wasn't required"
Yes, and significantly less fossil fuel than not using wind power at all. Research shows that up to 20% from wind is feasible with using gas as back-up. As I said before, any power supply requires backup, so this is not unique to wind power. My view is that we ought to be substantially increasing our use of renewables for electricity, with fossil fuel being largely limited to gas generation for dealing with fluctuations in supply and demand.
The reason more wind power isn't built offshore is simple - cost. It's more expensive to install and maintain, plus the installer has to pay for their own connection to the onshore national grid.
There are a lot of misleading data and statistics on both sides of the debate - just look at the nonsense spouted by the nuclear industry, which glosses over £80 billion of clean-up liabilities, and the fact that nuclear is useless for reacting to spikes in demand.
Who's research, based on how optimistic figures for availability of wind? How much gas power capacity would be required? A lot more than we have at the moment I'm sure (remember, even without any variation in supply due to unreliable sources, there's still huge variation in demand, so flexible capacity we have is well used).Research shows that up to 20% from wind is feasible with using gas as back-up.
Other sources of power need backup for maintenance - something wind will also need. That and as you said before to cope with changes in demand. What is unique to wind power is the need for complete capacity backup in addition to this for when the wind doesn't blow. It's very disingenuous to suggest other sources of power need backup in the same way - with wind you have to have an awful lot more of it (basically the same capacity as if there were no windmills at all).As I said before, any power supply requires backup, so this is not unique to wind power.
You really think it's actually feasible now, or at any time in the near future to supply all of our base load from renewables?My view is that we ought to be substantially increasing our use of renewables for electricity, with fossil fuel being largely limited to gas generation for dealing with fluctuations in supply and demand.
I thought this was all about saving the planet and having reliable energy supply, not cost? Or do those not apply when the suppliers can rake in just as much subsidy for building less useful windmills on land?The reason more wind power isn't built offshore is simple - cost. It's more expensive to install and maintain, plus the installer has to pay for their own connection to the onshore national grid.
You mean lots of misleading data from both wind and nuclear? I did think about mentioning the subsidies nuclear also relies on, but we seem to be doing that debate elsewhere. Mind you, I don't see why not being able to react to spikes in demand is particularly a bad thing for base load generation (in the same way not being able to supply consistently is), and nor do they usually quote outputs for nuclear power stations which bear no relation to real average output. There are of course also other sides than wind and nuclear...There are a lot of misleading data and statistics on both sides of the debate - just look at the nonsense spouted by the nuclear industry, which glosses over £80 billion of clean-up liabilities, and the fact that nuclear is useless for reacting to spikes in demand.
Chrism - suggest you get googling, there's plenty of research on how much wind power is feasible, and how much backup it would need. IIRC, 20% is the point at which the extra costs of extra backup become significant. Denmark is getting about that level now.
Don't understand the purpose of your point re saving the planet - wind power companies are businesses, so will always go for an economically viable option. Currently, offshore is less viable than onshore. There would need to be a change in subsidies to alter this.
Nuclear is promoted by advocates as a panacea - it isn't, because even leaving aside problems of fuel, waste & subsidy, it's only really suitable as baseload.
Of course, all of this is putting the cart before the horse - as a nation we are massively wasteful of heat and power. Conservation is always a better option than generation.
I actually agree with your last two paragraphs (as has been mentioned on the nuclear thread, we should just spend the money on better insulation), and given the opportunity to write that, this is probably a good point to sign off this thread for good, as I'm getting bored.
