Cash to produce power, cash not to produce power.

seems bit of a win win situation!

Scots windfarms paid cash to stop producing energy

Isn’t an ideal situation but perhaps the concept of them producing too much power will silence a few people going on about them not producing any power!

You’ve not been paying attention, bigjim. Us windfarm critics tend to complain about the unreliability of the power generation, not that they’re incapable of occasionally producing plenty of unwanted energy. If anything that article rather reinforces our viewpoint!

those that are pro point out that we need some method of storing this energy with hydrolift pumps or something else clever.
No one argues that the wind speed varies from day to day

Yup – energy not a problem, but storing it so you can use it when you want it is a bit of an issue at anything house-sized or larger.

This is the bit I don’t get;

According to the REF research, the payments made cost up to 20 times the value of the electricity that would have been generated if the turbines had kept running.

why not just pay the turbine owners what they would have received if they had have used the energy? (what they normally pay them presumably). Why did they have to pay them 20x the value of the electricity?

Now then – where are TJ and (Un)Edukated when you need them? 😉

Why did they not turn the nukes off instead? Oh thats right- they can’t be turned on and off.

If you actually read into it the reason this happened was that the interconnect to England was unavailable so they could not put the electricity to England where the surplus Scottish generated electricity usually goes. The answer is more robust interconnect.

those that are pro point out that we need some method of storing this energy with hydrolift pumps or something else clever.

What if every house in the UK had a dozen or so lead acid batteries in the basement? That could soak up a lot of energy and release it back, no?

Oh – and there are plenty of proposals for things to deal with this – my favourite is local heat storage – basically ever house gets a hot water cylinder that when there is surplus eleccy is heated up – so you get free hot water. when it windy

What if every house in the UK had a dozen or so lead acid batteries in the basement? That could soak up a lot of energy and release it back, no?

Or an electric car in the drive..

Good point, IanM. That has been discussed a lot.

Funnily enough, we are planning a wind turbine/PV Array hooked up to a citroen Zero as part of our display at the Highland Show this year.

Why did they have to pay them 20x the value of the electricity?

Poorly written contract is the most likely explanation.

my favourite is local heat storage – basically ever house gets a hot water cylinder that when there is surplus eleccy is heated up – so you get free hot water. when it windy

That’s a dreadful idea. Heat is the least useful form of energy. Pump storage to convert to potential is a much better idea.

gonefishin- pump storage is too small scale unfortunately. The pump storage we have is only a few hours worth and there is not enough suitable locations to expand this massively

the local heat storage idea has some real benefits – 1/3 of all energy used is in providing heat but the main thing is that it is low tech and distributed storage. it allows yo to soak up excess electricity in times of high wind and reduce demand when there is low wind. It can be implemented now with existing tech. have yo actually heard of this or looked into it? or are you merely using the usual glib denial of alternatives?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/17/immersion-heater-renewable-energy

However as I say the basic issue here is the failure of the interconnect. Nothing to do with the wind turbines at all.

There are also possibilities for large scale non distributed heat storage but that comes with the conversion innefficinecies.

It can be implemented now with existing tech. have yo actually heard of this or looked into it? or are you merely using the usual glib denial of alternatives?

Technologically it is very easy, however using electricity to heat water is only of practical use if there is actually a use for the hot water at the time, which there isn’t always. It is inherently inefficient as there would be massive amount of energy loss and once converted you can’t use it for anything else. Think of how bad storage heaters are at providing heat for a home and you will get some idea of what I’m talking about.

It is far far better to convert the electricity to another form (such as potential) which can be usefully stored in the longer term and then reused by conversion to whatever is required at the time. The best solution is as you say likel to be a better interconnect as it removes the requirement to convert the energy with all the resultant energy losses that would ensue.

My thoughts are not based on any “glib denial of alternatives” but rather a working knowledge of thermodynamics and an appreciation the relative usefulness of different forms of energy.

So you actually have never heard of this solution before but simply dismiss it without looking in to it. 🙄

It is simple, robust, cheap to implement, proven – what else do you want?
Its exactly the sort of solution we shouldbe looking at as it counters one of the critical shortcomings with wind energy. Its not the only solution but its a part of teh solution that could be inplace very quickly.

The system has been used for decades in New Zealand, where the grid company can now reduce peak demand by about 13%, and so defer expensive investments in new power stations. In Florida, where the local power company has struggled to cope with demand caused by a 50-year housing boom, 700,000 customers receive a monthly rebate for handing over control of their hot water heaters, and the utility has avoided building a 1GW power station as a result. In South Africa, ripple control is being introduced to prevent a repeat of the rolling blackouts that crippled the country last year.

It is inherently inefficient as there would be massive amount of energy loss

I seem to remember that an electric kettle (same thing) is 98% efficient, isn’t it?

However I agree it’s not that useful in general terms. If you are only taking a few cool showers in summer the water won’t get used up for that, and your heating’s off too, but you could be watching TV all night from a charged set of batteries.

However lead acid batteries are more expensive to manufacture but I suspect they must be fairly easily recyclable no?

The system has been used for decades in New Zealand, where the grid company can now reduce peak demand by about 13%,

Hmm.. it would only iron out electricity demand if everyone used leccy water heaters normally, wouldn’t it?

TJ, are you just spoiling for a fight or did you simply not notice the point where I agreed with you.

The best solution is as you say likely to be a better interconnect as it removes the requirement to convert the energy with all the resultant energy losses that would ensue.

I seem to remember that an electric kettle (same thing) is 98% efficient, isn’t it?

As a general rule I only boil water in the kettle when I need it and then I use it immediately. I don’t keep a kettle on the boil continually so that there is hot water when I want it.

TJ, are you just spoiling for a fight

😆

Molgrips – the inefficiencies come it two ways – one is heat loss from the system – energy wasted especially in summer (in winter it heats the house) and in conversion back and forward – which this system does not do.

It is well worth doing – I repeat this is robust, proven and reliable and with more modern control systems could be even better.

Gonefishin – but you completely dismissed this idea despite THE FACT IT WORKS! and is a large part of the solution of intermittant supply

No, I dismissed it on the grounds that there are better solutions for the storage of energy.

I don’t see how it solves the problem of intermittent ELECTRICITY supply. What use is a tank of piping hot water if the wind’s died and the lights are out?

Arrggghh

Gonfishin –
have you ever heard of this before? Looked into it? Clearly not. So something you have not seen before, that is place in other countries and works you dismiss out of hand for no reason.

It works, it requires very little investment, its low tech robust and reliable. Its a large part of the solution as it could be in place quickly and cheaply.

Molgrips – read the article linked to. It allows you to soak up excess and reduce peak demand.

Arrggghh

have you ever heard of this before? Looked into it? Clearly not.

Mate, easy. I’m not trying to wind you up, I would love this to stay calm and reasonable.

But hot water would not store electrity, it would just store energy in a one-way conversion.

So this would be of some help in the short term I feel but we’d still need substantial base capacity, wouldn’t we?

It allows you to soak up excess and reduce peak demand

Only if the majority are using electricity for hot water – surely?

Didn’t see the link, only saw the quote. Reading now.

Molgrips – read the article.

The article is now read by me. Still have the same questions.

If we all use gas for heating water, and we have a tank of hot water ready, how does that REDUCE my electricity demand?

Read the article. The answers are there.

there are many immersion tanks still in use, more could be installed, what it does is smooth the peaks and troughs of demand. It does not reduce electricty demand at all. I did not claim it did. Its not a mechanism to do that. it reduces peak demand

One of the major criticisms of wind generation is the difficulty of matching supply and demand. this is a way of matching demand to supply

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this really really really is worth reading

🙂

. So something you have not seen before, that is place in other countries and works you dismiss out of hand for no reason.

I’ve given you my reasons as to why I don’t think this is good idea. i.e. there are better solutions to the problem of energy storage. Just because a solution is good for one country/location it does not necessarily hold that it is an approprite solution for every country/location. We are close to a huge energy market in Europe, it makes much more sense to export the excess energy into that market thereby negating the losses that would inevitably result from the conversion process.

Converting excess energy to heat should always be the last option as it can’t be converted back to anything else. Storing the energy either as electricity or potenetial (or something else) will always be preferable as these forms of energy can be converted into whatever form of energy is needed at the time.

it reduces peak demand

I’m sorry for being thick, but I still don’t get it. Peak demand for leccy is what? FA cup final half time, for the sake of argument (I dunno when it really is – early winter evenings possibly). How does having a tank of hot water help?

It would only help if it saves people from needing electricity to heat water or their homes. But most of us don’t use electricity to heat water..?

So gonefishing – you reject out of hand a technique that is robust, cheap and proven that can be a part of the solution and is complimentary to other solutions.

had you ever heard of this before today?

Exporting the energy across the north sea is a hugely expensive undertaking that will take a long time to do. Its also grossly inefficient.

however it the sort of large scale high investment solution loved by technophiles

Molgrips – I am sorry you can’t understand. Try reading the article again.

A tank with an immersion heater may be just an oversized kettle, but there are thought to be around 19m in Britain’s homes,

Molgrips – I am sorry you can’t understand. Try reading the article again

With respect, I don’t think I need to. I understand the concept. When the wind blows, make hot water. When it doesn’t, have a bath in the dark…?

No you clearly don’t understand the concept. Its very clearly explained in the article. its not about reducing energy demand, nor is it about an individuals consumption. its about matching generation to demand accross the country. Its about reducing peak demand and about using excess generation usefully

Exporting the energy across the north sea is a hugely expensive undertaking that will take a long time to do. Its also grossly inefficient.

What, 20 miles across the English channel? It’s not that difficult (there are gas pipelines that do the same route right now) and those 20 miles will be no less efficient than any other cable of equivalent length.

Putting an extra hot water tank in most homes in the UK will not be cheap and will be a logistical nightmare. by the way, once you’ve heated up the water what do you do with the excess now?

TandemJeremy

Gonfishin –
have you ever heard of this before? Looked into it?

do you understand about power losses during transmission? this is why local solutions both in generation and storage are good

Wh said anything about putting an extra tank in every house? Obviously that would be good but its not necessary – enough exist alredy, it could be made a requirement in new build, it fits well with solar water heating.

Its about reducing peak demand and about using excess generation usefully

But if we use mostly gas for heating water, how does it reduce electricity demand?

Molgrips – IT IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING DEMAND! its reducing peakdemand

A tank with an immersion heater may be just an oversized kettle, but there are thought to be around 19m in Britain’s homes,

Yeah mate I saw the bit about there being 19m.

But how does having a tank of hot water reduce PEAK demand?

do you understand about power losses during transmission? this is why local solutions both in generation and storage are good

Yes I do, and had you actually bothered to read my last post when I said

and those 20 miles will be no less efficient than any other cable of equivalent length.

You would have been able to deduce this quite easily, although electrical losses through the grid are quite low. Here’s an extract from a favourite website of yours that refers to transportation losses within the UK electricity grid.

Total losses: 1,423.5 MW (2.29% of peak demand)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(UK)#Losses

That’s pretty low to be honest.