[Closed] Time to stockpile Baked Beans?

Pro fracking proper gander.
Prapps

Some sustainable gas ideas from france
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

New Clear Gas Power Stations

Perhaps a £2:55 investment is in order....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hydrogen-Generator-Renewable-Self-Sustainability-ebook/dp/B00522SEUY

[img] [/img]

Nuclear power, it's the future.

Or simply tool up...

I only we had a plentiful supply of energy rich material buried beneath the UK.

CaptJon - Member
I only we had a plentiful supply of energy rich material buried beneath the UK.

We would if people would let us bury it!

Or do you mean coal? With all it's pollution.

coal - efficient carbon capture or gasification shouldn't be beyond the reach of science.

A nice Buffet of baked beans, perhaps?
(See what I did there?)

Mr Buchanan is flageoleting a dead horse if you ask me

And build some bloody windmills already. It's embarrassing seeing how many of them are in mainland Europe (particularly Germany) compared to here.

coal - efficient carbon capture or gasification shouldn't be beyond the reach of science.

A very persuasive well reasoned argument 🙂

build some bloody windmills

Right now total demand = 47.33GW, total wind contribution 0.14GW. Maybe we could burn some windmills to produce energy?

For every GW capacity of windmills you build, you need to build the same in conventional power to supply the euqivalent load when it's not windy.

[quote=CaptJon ]I only we had a plentiful supply of energy rich material buried beneath the UK.

A peat-fired power station?

For every GW capacity of windmills you build, you need to build the same in conventional power to supply the euqivalent load when it's not windy.

Right now total demand = 47.33GW, total wind contribution 0.14GW. Maybe we could burn some windmills to produce energy?

Germany is averaging many times that (in the order of an average of 5GW). Nobody's ever going to claim it's the overall solution, but it's less gas and coal burned.

but it's less gas and coal burned

Agree, but the original article was about meeting peak demand, and if our current 8.5GW of installed wind power is actually generating 0.13GW (wind seems to have just dropped) it's not contributing much to that! It seems to average somewhat less than 2GW btw.

konabunny - Member
For every GW capacity of windmills you build, you need to build the same in conventional power to supply the euqivalent load when it's not windy.

Or, to put it another way, every GW of wind power is a GW you didn't have to generate by burning gas or coal or kittens.

Sort of but you need the Kitten Furnace running on standby which means for every GW of Wind you still cause pollution.

Oh - I thought this was going to be about how a little old guy sitting in a pensioner's bungalow in Omaha manages to be such a huge world player...

Some science dude on Radio two weeks ago suggesting that wave power off the North West coast of Scotland is projected to produce more than 22 Nukeleaar Power stations combined amd since it has a regular flow and not reliant on tidal currents so they can provide constant supply.
Technology for this is 10-12 years away.

A peat-fired power station?

We've been doing that for years in Ireland, same for home fuel...its not that good TBH... but smells lovely 🙂

do we not waste huge amounts of energy? we are very poorly insulated in many homes, businesses, many folk prefer to heat a whole house than put some clothes on-- cheap energy is a luxury that will not be available anymore, best get used to it, and yes the coal industry was shut for political purposes, pesky workers having some say in the runnings of ....

we'll be fine.

we'll just buy our leccy from the French*

(*who'll just chuck another uranium log on their nuclear fire)

it's what the Germans do.

and just like the Germans, we'll be able to point at our windmills, and say 'no nukes here'.

(i call this 'cheating')

Some science dude on Radio two weeks ago suggesting that wave power off the North West coast of Scotland is projected to produce more than 22 Nukeleaar Power stations combined amd since it has a regular flow and not reliant on tidal currents so they can provide constant supply.
Technology for this is 10-12 years away.

Glad I'm not up there waiting for that to happen could be a cold dark few years to find out the original prediction (less some reality) is 2/10th bugger all

surroundedbyhills - Member

Some science dude on Radio two weeks ago suggesting that wave power off the North West coast of Scotland is projected to produce more than 22 Nukeleaar Power stations combined amd since it has a regular flow and not reliant on tidal currents so they can provide constant supply.
Technology for this is 10-12 years away.

waves are constant are they?

(they aren't)

I foresee demand for turbo trainers going up 🙂
Home-produced energy - we can get paid for riding our bikes and selling the power back to the grid on feed-in tariffs.
Will sort out the obesity crisis too...
Bring it on I say!

waves are constant are they?

(they aren't)

He didn't say waves, he said tides - which are alarmingly regular - you can buy books telling you the times and heights of tides going months into the future don't you know.

so, say the country ate baked beans at 1pm, how would we tap this natural gas resource produced at around 2pm? Is that the plan?

bokonon - Member

He didn't say waves, he said tides - which are alarmingly regular - you can buy books telling you the times and heights of tides going months into the future don't you know.

he very definitely said 'waves'

here:

Some...dude...suggesting that wave power off the North West coast of Scotland

and he very definitely said 'not tidal'

here:

and not reliant on tidal currents so they can provide constant supply.

which sort of makes some kind of sense, as tides stand stillish for a while as they turn - making them not ideal as a power supply.

anyway, the idea that we can design, test, modify, test, build and successfully install any meaningful amount of tidal/wave/whatever power generation in a usefully short period is a step into the world of science fiction.

Fair point RE waves tides - my poor reading.

anyway, the idea that we can design, test, modify, test, build and successfully install any meaningful amount of tidal/wave/whatever power generation in a usefully short period is a step into the world of science fiction

The same is true for carbon capture and storage, and in fact almost all low carbon technologies bar nuclear though.

I SAID "Oh - I thought this was going to be about how a little old guy sitting in a pensioner's bungalow ..."

Oh, please yourselves.

Oh, please yourselves.

Can anyone hear a little tiny voice in the corner getting ready for a flounce?

[img] [/img]

Great argument that we are currently really bad at using wind power therefore it's not viable. 🙄

Spain is the world's third biggest producer of wind power,[1] with a year-end installed capacity of 21.6 GW and a share of total electricity consumption of 15.9% in 2011.[2]

In 2010, 43,692 GWh of wind electricity was produced in Spain, with an end of year installed capacity of over 20 GW, representing 20% of capacity, and 16% of production.[3] only overtaken by thermal gas combined cycle at 68,828 GWh and nuclear that reached 61,944 GWh. In 2009, for the first time in the annual calculation, wind overtook coal that produced 33,844 GWh. In 2010, wind energy has covered 16% of the demand, compared to 11.5% in 2008 and 13.8% in 2009.

In 2009, the largest producer of wind power in Spain was Iberdrola, with 25.5% of capacity, followed by Acciona with 20.9% and NEO Energia (EDP Renewables) with 8.3%.[4] On windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain; in November 2009, a wind storm caused wind farms to produce a peak of 53% of total electricity demand (11.546 GW).[5][6] Power peaks of 14.960 GW were reached in November 2010,[7] and in November 2011 a new capacity peak of 59% of power demand being generated by wind power was reached.[8]

Grum what was being used when it wasn't windy or at peak. There still needs to be something else there or the lights go off. (And the hospitals etc)

The "replace 22 nuclear powerstations" quote is probably one of those typical sound bites that are based on something, but something that is not applicable or can't actually be leveraged!

For example, 22 Nuclear stations = 22 x 850MW = 18.7GW, could be the amount of power that is theoretically availible over a certain stretch of coastline on an averagely windy/wavey day. The feasibility of harnessing that power however wasn't mentioned.

Tidal power is a fantastic solution to power generation, being both incredibly predictable, and because the tides follow the path of the moon, you can get continous generation because the times of slack water are not the same for all physical locations. The issue is the potential for huge changes to the ecosystem, changes that are not immediately obvious and may be very subtle. You only have to look at the issues and war of words surrounding trying to build 1 barrage across the Seven to see that!

Wind is at this moment producing 0.09% of UK electricity demand. If that's what we're going to be relying on to keep the lights on we'd better go and stock up on candles, never mind baked beans.

Apparently there is an inexhaustible supply of straw men. Can we burn them?

Grum what was being used when it wasn't windy or at peak. There still needs to be something else there or the lights go off. (And the hospitals etc)

Not sure where I've suggested we should only use wind power?

Wind is at this moment producing 0.09% of UK electricity demand. If that's what we're going to be relying on to keep the lights on we'd better go and stock up on candles, never mind baked beans.

Just repeating your incredibly flawed argent doesn't make it any more compelling you know. 🙄

Why is it a flawed argument that wind power can't meet peak demand?

It can do peak but it requires an equal amount of standby generation to cover its arse

ERF's are worth a shot, burns houshold rubbish generates electricity and stops landfill win win.

coal - efficient carbon capture or gasification shouldn't be beyond the reach of science.

Beyond the reach of Science - no

Engineering - no (although we've not tried it yet)

Government - yes, at the last round of "let's look at how feasible this is and review funding" they culled everything that had already had fortunes spent on it and was nearing the point where it could be built, and kept the stuff that was still just a brain fart on a napkin. Simply because that way the spending on new power stations would then be under the next parliment.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/uk-britain-ccs-notice-idUKTRE81N1CD20120224

And people wonder why these projects go over budget.

ERF's are worth a shot, burns houshold rubbish generates electricity and stops landfill win win.

They are, but they only prodyce a few percent of the energy needed for the towns they feed off. For example the new one in Middlesbrough will power 50,000 homes, but needs the (suitable, non recyclable, non compostable, combustible) waste from most of the North East.

it requires an equal amount of standby generation to cover its arse

Quite, so building more wind capacity doesn't help with the problem outlined in the original article, which is that we won't have enough capacity to meet peaks when we close down the old capacity so we're currently faced with buying more gas.

and buying nuclear power off the french.

I wonder just how viable it is to build a hydrogen electrolysis system and then run a generator off it for the brown/black outs we shall surely have to come?! 🙂

well not from using cheezey-feet's link anyway apparently 😯

http://nlcpr.com/Deceptions7.php

maxtorque - Member

Tidal power is a fantastic solution to power generation,

yes, it's (currently) the stuff of fantasy.

The issue is the potential for huge changes to the ecosystem...

the main issue is that the technology is not ready to go yet, we're still at the testing stage.

and even when it's all completed sorted, it'll be very difficult (read expensive, and dangerous) to maintain.

I wonder just how viable it is to build a hydrogen electrolysis system and then run a generator off it for the brown/black outs we shall surely have to come?!

At home, not very, how will you seperate the hydrogen and oxygen, then store them, bearing in mind hydrogen wont liquify so needs huge pressures to store not a lot.

Pumping water up a hill overnight then letting it run down again is the usual way of doing it (Llanberris for example).

if you're thinking of something you could bodge up in your shed, you could spin up a load of really heavy flywheels?

if you're thinking of something you could bodge up in your shed

I was considering sloshing some petrol around and having a fag.

No Rio, this was your original ridiculous straw man, which you then repeated after I pointed out other countries do much better. Where has anyone ever said wind power is the sole solution btw?

Right now total demand = 47.33GW, total wind contribution 0.14GW. Maybe we could burn some windmills to produce energy?

Wind is at this moment producing 0.09% of UK electricity demand. If that's what we're going to be relying on to keep the lights on we'd better go and stock up on candles, never mind baked beans.

It's a truly pathetic line of reasoning.

it requires an equal amount of standby generation to cover its arse

Tell me, which forms of energy should we rely on with no backup from any other methods?

Grum, really don't see where you're coming from. The article linked in the original post pointed out that we're closing down generating capacity and won't be able to meet peak demand. Someone suggested building more windmills, I've pointed out that this isn't the answer. As it happens today's situation is a particularly good example of why - it's a cold day, demand is high, there's no wind. Why is that a "truly pathetic line of reasoning"?

The word 'peak' doesn't even appear in the original article. Neither did you mention it, you've just latched onto it now to try and shift the goalposts.

Note also that he says this:

"There isn't a single person or people to blame. In my view it was a single event - the financial crisis. Before the financial crisis the government had backed a a visionary approach to energy on wind, water and nuclear... then came the financial tsunami."

So he clearly thinks wind is part of the solution. But you know better obviously.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if we had more of our electricity coming from wind farms like spain does?

Ok, I'll concede on the word "peak" - he's just saying we won't have sufficient capacity unless we burn more gas. But at no point have I said that it's a bad thing to have electricity coming from wind, that seems to be something you've assumed because I've pointed out one of the shortcomings of wind energy. I do worry about this place sometimes. 🙄

But at no point have I said that it's a bad thing to have electricity coming from wind, that seems to be something you've assumed because I've pointed out one of the shortcomings of wind energy.

When someone said 'build some more windmills' you said 'Right now total demand = 47.33GW, total wind contribution 0.14GW. Maybe we could burn some windmills to produce energy?' - clearly implying that they're basically useless.

Can you not see the gaping logical fallacy in that argument?

[img] [/img]

in November 2009, a wind storm caused wind farms to produce a peak of 53% of total electricity demand (11.546 GW).[5][6] Power [b]peaks[/b] of 14.960 GW were reached in November 2010,[7] and in November 2011 a new capacity peak of 59% of power demand being generated by wind power was reached.[8]

Tell me, which forms of energy should we rely on with no backup from any other methods?

Cover the UK with enough turbines to run everything and it's still not going to work. It will reduce but we will need the big capacity fixed resource stuff to make up for cold still mornings

Cover the UK with enough turbines to run everything and it's still not going to work.

Why do you keep saying this as if anyone has actually suggested it?

grum - Member
Cover the UK with enough turbines to run everything and it's still not going to work.
Why do you keep saying this as if anyone has actually suggested it?

Firstly I don't "keep saying it"
Secondly Anything that is reliant on things outside of our control (Sun/Wind/Waves) is not suitable for critical base load supply. I have no problem with supplementing generation with this stuff. However it is not a solution to the current problem.

The current problem is we have not enough stable reliable energy generation or fuel for generation. Being able to generate half our energy on a windy day is great but I wouldn't want to be relying on it for anything important.

clearly implying that they're basically useless.

Your words not mine! I was pointing out that they're not generating any significant power at the moment. I regard wind energy simply as a useful contribution to the energy mix that has advantages and disadvantages and must be subject to the same scrutiny and criticisms as any other energy source, and I hadn't realised that anyone would be quite so sensitive about it.

And I wasn't seriously suggesting burning them; I believe they're mostly non-inflammable.

mikewsmith - these are classic examples of a straw man argument - absolutely textbook:

There still needs to be something else there or the lights go off. (And the hospitals etc)

Cover the UK with enough turbines to run everything and it's still not going to work.

No-one has at any point suggested we should have all wind power with no backup, or even anything like that.

Rio - what was this supposed to imply then?

Maybe we could burn some windmills to produce energy?

It's not about being sensitive - it's just tedious to hear the same fallacious half-baked arguments about why 'wind turbines are bad mmmmkay' being trotted out over and over again.

Your words not mine! I was pointing out that they're not generating any significant power at the moment.

Yes, as an argument that they couldn't produce significant power in in the future. 😕

Why are we obsessing about generating more energy, surely the bright thing to do would be to drastically reduce our consumption? Turning street lights off and capping energy for heating so houses are warm not saunas would be a start. Working in from both ends to find a solution.

as an argument that they couldn't produce significant power in in the future

Not what I said at all but there is some validity in that view; the best way to look at wind IMHO is as a way of producing energy, so it can save on using other expensive and potentially polluting energy sources in the future. As a way of producing power it is inherently unpredictable; and the message Buchanan has been pushing today seems to be primarily about power (shortfalls in generating capacity), not energy (although he does seem sometimes to mix the two up).

As much as I hate the idea of nuclear power, unfortunately it is likely to be the best solution until clean energy generation reaches much higher levels of efficiency.

[img] [/img]

Wind yields have been much reduced in mainland Europe for the last few years - I assume (but don't know) that they have been here too.

To be fair to Ofgem, they have been saying for some time that this reduction in reserve margin in the short term is coming - I recollect the 5% figure being mentioned a couple of years ago. Not sure why the sudden panic now.

Gas to fill the gaps again, but strategically it strikes me as madness to rely on it for security of supply reasons and to a lesser extent cost reasons.

Why are we obsessing about generating more energy, surely the bright thing to do would be to drastically reduce our consumption?

We're not concerned about generating MORE energy, we're concerned about replacing the generating capacity we currently have.

If we halved our consumption we'd still use a hell of a lot of fossil fuel. We'd like to halve our consumption AND replace the remaining half with renewables.

@Molgrips - looking at the stats, our power usage per capita seems to be equivalent to that of 1960 (source : World Bank) which looks pretty good until you look at population increase - from c52.4m to c62.6m which is a 20% increase so if the trend continues at a linear pace (seems to look more like exponential on the web graphs) we will need 20% more power over the same period. If we are only planning to replace the current demand then we are going to do this all over again very soon.

Why are we obsessing about generating more energy, surely the bright thing to do would be to [s]drastically reduce our consumption? Turning street lights off and capping energy for heating so houses are warm not saunas would be a start. Working in from both ends to find a solution.[/s] increase energy imports, at least according to Ofgen's C.E.
But where from? How about oil-rich Northern Mali. It's also uranium-rich for the pro-nuclear camp/French.

If we are only planning to replace the current demand then we are going to do this all over again very soon.

I know but my point is that yes, we have thought of it. Reducing usage and replacing powerstations are both independent activities that can and MUST be done concurrently.