View Full Version : How Much Electrical Power Does Caithness Actually Need
ywindythesecond
09-Jan-07, 00:30
Pass.
Sponsored by Mareng.
Do you really think that wind turbines are going to be exporting power south of Inverness?
Pass.
Sponsored by Mareng.
Do you really think that wind turbines are going to be exporting power south of Inverness?
Keep the maths very approximate to make it simple. Let's say that we end up with 2,000 turbines which are so inefficient they only produce 1,000Mw, that still works out at 100kw per home in Caithness, 100 bars on an electric fire, around a £7.00 an hour electricity bill.
Then add to that all the power which will come into Caithness from windfarms on the Islands and offshore, perhaps doubling it.
These are average figures, peak will be over three times that and the grid would have to be capable of shipping the peak surplus south not the average.
Like I've said before, I don't see how they will have any choice but to build heavy industry in Caithness just to soak up the power.
What happens to Dounreay Power?
The developers of the 3 turbines originally proposed at Lieurary stated that they would provide all the electricity needed by Thurso.
The developers of the 2 turbines at Achairn claimed they would generate enough power for all of Wick.
Causeymire claimed all of Caithness would be powered by their 21 turbines. (At one point they actually claimed power would be generated for all of Caithness and Sutherland - haven't checked to see if they stand by this)
That leaves Boulfruich and Forss - not certain what they claimed but surely given the previous claims that's Caithness completely energised.
Wouldn't it be fun if we could disconnect Caithness from the grid and rely on our locally generated wind energy.
I think Mareng should take a look at the minutes of HC's Sustainable Dev Committee and see for herself the plans for all the grid upgrades required to ship wind energy south. Why do you suppose they need the supergrid from Beauly to Denny? That's only the first stage. These upgrades wouldn't be required if not for covering the Highlands in wind turbines.
What happens to Dounreay Power?
I don't think they produce power any more. it was only ever a sideline anyway!!
the real purpose of a nuke station is more sinister........
Causeymire claimed all of Caithness would be powered by their 21 turbines. (At one point they actually claimed power would be generated for all of Caithness and Sutherland - haven't checked to see if they stand by this)
With the extra two or three turbines they have planning permission for Npower claim electricity for 28,000 homes from the Causwaymire windfarm. Caithness has 10,000 homes.
I don't think they produce power any more. it was only ever a sideline anyway!!
the real purpose of a nuke station is more sinister........
Please explain?
I would say that the Average Household Energy Consumption in Caithness is approx 24000 kwh ,that breaks down to 25 % electricity and 75 % on heating .That is if you have another form of heating like gas or oil , if would obviously be 100% electrical if you have total heating ....Hope it helps ...
Test the Windfactory Developers figures ... No wind = No power ....
Please explain?
We could tell you...but then we'd have to kill you.
ywindythesecond
09-Jan-07, 22:48
Keep the maths very approximate to make it simple. Let's say that we end up with 2,000 turbines which are so inefficient they only produce 1,000Mw, that still works out at 100kw per home in Caithness, 100 bars on an electric fire, around a £7.00 an hour electricity bill.
Like I've said before, I don't see how they will have any choice but to build heavy industry in Caithness just to soak up the power.
We are lucky to have HIE and CASE to sort this out for us.
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 10:23
Wouldn't it be fun if we could disconnect Caithness from the grid and rely on our locally generated wind energy.
I don't think they (nuclear power stations) produce power any more. it was only ever a sideline anyway!!
the real purpose of a nuke station is more sinister........
We are lucky to have HIE and CASE to sort this out for us.
I must be losing it. I'm no longer certain whether these comments are intended to be serious or funny :roll: and I think re-reading the whole thread would result in SLOTWTL - an increasingly common condition sometimes known by its full name of Sudden Loss Of The Will To Live.
One thing's for sure; there are huge reserves of hot air in Caithness. Maybe we could pipe some over to Orkney? Oh no, I forgot. We already have the Council.
Have a nice day, y'all
I must be losing it. I'm no longer certain whether these comments are intended to be serious or funny :roll: and I think re-reading the whole thread would result in SLOTWTL - an increasingly common condition sometimes known by its full name of Sudden Loss Of The Will To Live.
One thing's for sure; there are huge reserves of hot air in Caithness. Maybe we could pipe some over to Orkney? Oh no, I forgot. We already have the Council.
Have a nice day, y'all
The reactors at Dounreay were prototypes, never were going to be commercially viable, not while uranium was so cheap and reprocessing so expensive. It was built here because nobody knew for certain if it would work or not and the people of Caithness were expendable. Its main purpose was to produce nuclear bombs not electricity, the byproduct of reprocessing was plutonium, it was a different type of power the government wanted to get their hands on.
The reactors at Dounreay were prototypes, never were going to be commercially viable, not while uranium was so cheap and reprocessing so expensive. It was built here because nobody knew for certain if it would work or not and the people of Caithness were expendable. Its main purpose was to produce nuclear bombs not electricity, the byproduct of reprocessing was plutonium, it was a different type of power the government wanted to get their hands on.
Correct Fred. I was about to explain the "more sinister reason" but you have beaten me to it. This is the only reason any Nuclear Power Station is built, and the power is just a sideline and a good front and screen for what the main purpose is / was.
It's a bad crack, but true that the government think the Caithness people are expendable, but must be true, otherwise why choose such a remote location with huge transport costs from the south?
the government think the Caithness people are expendable, but must be true, otherwise why choose such a remote location with huge transport costs from the south?
How do you come to this conclusion? Dounreay was not the first ever Nuclear Power Station, was never meant to be, It was a prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, and a Admiralty Research Establishment for submarine nuclear engines.
Calder Hall in Cumbria was the first Nuclear Power Station to commercially produce electricity in 1956.
IMO Dounreay did more for Caithness than any other type of industry, it increased the population in the 50's, housing became available, education became better, Physics and the Sciences appeared on the school ciriculums. As a result of Dounreay, I wonder how many more university graduates came from Caithness, I know of at least 3 personally.
Dounreay is still the major employer in Caithness, and will be for a few more years yet.
Tescos cannot lay a claim such as that
But no doubt Fred will correct me and tell us Dounreay was all a conspiracy and a Zionist plot to cause genocide till Kaithness
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 16:47
This is the only reason any Nuclear Power Station is built, and the power is just a sideline and a good front and screen for what the main purpose is / was.
It must rank as the first time the Government ever did anything that had a useful sideline to offset the costs, then. I didn't think they were that clever.
It's a bad crack, but true that the government think the Caithness people are expendable, but must be true, otherwise why choose such a remote location with huge transport costs from the south?
Land availability? Land price / acre? Necessity for seawater to cool heat exchangers? If it's just that people in Caithness are expendable, you'd wonder why nuclear power stations were built in Essex (Bradwell), Suffolk (Sizewell), Kent (Dungeness), and on Edinburgh's doorstep (Torness). Be thankful - Dounreay has put a huge amount of money into Caithness over the years.
No conspiracy, I think. No (as Kenneth Williams said) "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!!"
Do you really think that wind turbines are going to be exporting power south of Inverness?
Do they really need to? I'm sure Inverness will be glad of the power.
The developers of the 3 turbines originally proposed at Lieurary stated that they would provide all the electricity needed by Thurso.
The developers of the 2 turbines at Achairn claimed they would generate enough power for all of Wick.
Causeymire claimed all of Caithness would be powered by their 21 turbines. (At one point they actually claimed power would be generated for all of Caithness and Sutherland - haven't checked to see if they stand by this)
That leaves Boulfruich and Forss - not certain what they claimed but surely given the previous claims that's Caithness completely energised.
Wouldn't it be fun if we could disconnect Caithness from the grid and rely on our locally generated wind energy.
I think Mareng should take a look at the minutes of HC's Sustainable Dev Committee and see for herself the plans for all the grid upgrades required to ship wind energy south. Why do you suppose they need the supergrid from Beauly to Denny? That's only the first stage. These upgrades wouldn't be required if not for covering the Highlands in wind turbines.
Any sources to back up your claims?
Any sources to back up your claims?
Pop along to the library (Thurso and Wick) with a flask of coffee and packed lunch, dinner, and breakfast and trawl your way through the EIA's available for all the developments.
If it's the minutes you're asking about then HC website has everything you need.
Land availability? Land price / acre? Necessity for seawater to cool heat exchangers? If it's just that people in Caithness are expendable, you'd wonder why nuclear power stations were built in Essex (Bradwell), Suffolk (Sizewell), Kent (Dungeness), and on Edinburgh's doorstep (Torness).
Did they build prototype fast breeder reactors in all those places?
Or was it the ones they knew for a fact would work they built there?
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 21:03
Nope, and it's a fair point. As fair as pointing out that the prototype reactor didn't come online until the mid-seventies when the technology was better understood.
The secret microphones have been at work again in fred's kitchen..... (http://www.carryonline.com/carryonline/Downloads/audio/infamy.wav)
Nope, and it's a fair point. As fair as pointing out that the prototype reactor didn't come online until the mid-seventies when the technology was better understood.
The first test reactor came online at Dounreay in 1958.
The first prototype fast breeder reactor in 1959.
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 21:33
Gee, fred, I'm sorry. Thought you meant >>>this one<<< (http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.ophis.htm?country=GB&site=PFR%20DOUNREAY&units=&refno=15&opyear=1991&link=HOT) .
That's a lot of windmills, isn't it? :eek:
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-07, 22:14
Gee, fred, I'm sorry. Thought you meant >>>this one<<< (http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.ophis.htm?country=GB&site=PFR%20DOUNREAY&units=&refno=15&opyear=1991&link=HOT) .
That's a lot of windmills, isn't it? :eek:
Love it Jabberwock!
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-07, 22:19
Do they really need to? I'm sure Inverness will be glad of the power.
Sorry Rheghead, that was not my post, it was a quote from Mareng. Please concentrate.
Anyone heard from Mareng recently?
Gee, fred, I'm sorry. Thought you meant >>>this one<<< (http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.ophis.htm?country=GB&site=PFR%20DOUNREAY&units=&refno=15&opyear=1991&link=HOT)
Then you hadn't bothered to read the thread before commenting.
That's a lot of windmills, isn't it? :eek:
What are you talking about? Windmills were not a consideration when Dounreay was being built.
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 22:51
Ah, freddie, you know better than that. It's possible, I suppose, you expressed yourself less than precisely; the prototype fast reactor, or PFR, came onstream in 1974. Prototype being the word you used, not me.
As for windmills - yes. freddie, I know. It was a sort of lighthearted, off-the-cuff, observation, and I'm sorry if it was entirely lost on such a serious intellectual as yourself.
Jibbergob there's enough wind coming out of your mooth to keep quite a number of windmills tirlin, Give google a rest man
Pop along to the library (Thurso and Wick) with a flask of coffee and packed lunch, dinner, and breakfast and trawl your way through the EIA's available for all the developments.
If it's the minutes you're asking about then HC website has everything you need.
I guessed not, thanks
I guessed not, thanks
Sorry, must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the developers claims that I quoted. What claims did you mean? I'll be more than happy to oblige with sources etc. No problem.
I know nuclear will always have a sinister side but...
Was part of Dounreay's remit to provide sustainable power? We are not a country bursting with uranium and the breeder program provided a sustainable source of fuel.
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-07, 01:44
Jibbergob there's enough wind coming out of your mooth to keep quite a number of windmills tirlin, Give google a rest man
Yeeeeessss.... that would be about the best you can do, I suppose. When I last went riding with the Northern Constabulary motorbike instructors, a Citroen Saxo (perhaps your vehicle of choice?) was right up there with Volvos as a stereotype of the most dangerously unpredictable vehicles on the road.
Now, put your baseball cap on the right way round and pay attention.......... :lol:
northern constabulary motorcycle intructors wow still a learner then? on your horizontally opposed scooter
Bill Fernie
11-Jan-07, 23:44
To Tristan
What makes you thnk the UK has not got heaps of Uranium? Quite a lot lies just over the water in Orkney and there was great deal of worry in Orkney about the discovery. See here http://www.maxopus.com/works/yellow.htm
If it is in Orkney then might it not be in Caithness. Well yes see British Geological Profile on Uraniaum Nov 2005 http://www.mineralsuk.com/britmin/uranium_nov05.pdf
Deposits are at Houstry and Ousdale as well as in other parts of the Uk - see the map in the report.
According to the report uranium is imported to Britain from Namibia and Australia. But having the resource on UK soil might mean it willbe looked at again one day. Understandably the Orcadians did not want any possible pollution to be placed on their doorstep.
The Orcadians did not want it mined.
Perhaps you are of a younger generation and have not been aware of this. It has not been exploited as far as I am aware. The discovery of uranium in a number of parts of the world and suprisingly in the UK might have had something to do with the rundown of the programme at Dounreay.
What do people currently think about exploiting this mineral in the UK rather than importing it if new nuclear power stations are built. Will wind farms pale into insignificance beside this possibility? Or will people be happier to have uranium mined rather than have wind farms? Quite dilemma and I am not saying this will happen but it does pose a range of intersting questions.
I'll be more than happy to oblige with sources etc. No problem.
The ball is in your court then...
Naefearjustbeer
12-Jan-07, 12:00
The Orcadians did not want it mined.
Try getting one of the ground hog monitors over to Orkney to monitor the beaches over there? There is not much chance of getting one on the ferry The orcadians dont want anything to damage the tourism industry that the are so effective at using to generate income. I am sure that things lost from the caithness coast have washed up on orkney coast so why not dounreay hot spots? Or even there own naturaly occurring radiation. No they would rather not no for sure than take the risk of damaging the Islands reputation.
How do you come to this conclusion? Dounreay was not the first ever Nuclear Power Station, was never meant to be, It was a prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, and a Admiralty Research Establishment for submarine nuclear engines.
yes, but it was an experimental reactor.... how often to expiriments go wrong?
They don't even have a proper plan for the decommissioning, they make up the procedures and processes as they go.
You all wouldn't be so happy with the employment is provided if the same happened here as at Chernobyl, where the local people were not evacuated from the area for a couple of days. Are you sure you would have been informed if there had been a large radioactive leak some years ago? Everybody knows that it would cause mass panic, and can you imagine all of Caithness trying to escape down Berriedale at once!!
Okay, let's assume that right now - Caithness is (with the right winds) - self sufficient in electricity generation (commercial and domestic).
Surely that is a good thing?
Or, are Caithnesians not prepared to tollerate some windmills to attain this level of self-sufficiency?
northern constabulary motorcycle intructors wow still a learner then? on your horizontally opposed scooter
We've seen your spelling and grammar - I wouldn't touch a "learning" jibe if I were you.
ywindythesecond
14-Jan-07, 22:34
[quote=mareng;181561]Okay, let's assume that right now - Caithness is (with the right winds) - self sufficient in electricity generation (commercial and domestic).
Surely that is a good thing?
quote]
Yes, you are right Mareng, Caithness has just about the right number of wind turbines to be self sufficient when the wind blows, and that is a good thing.
The wind blows enough to power Caithness from existing Caithness turbines about one third of the time.
But adding more turbines won't help. They all stop at the same time. They don't work to a schedule. Even when they work it is unpredictable.
You could carpet Caithness in wind turbines wall to wall and that wouldn't change.
The extra power generated from the surplus turbines when the wind blows can be sold elsewhere, but the money won't stay in Caithness, it will go to shareholders in generating companies.
Here is my personal view on windfarms in Caithness which might surprise you.
The Causewaymire Windfarm provides most of Caithness's need when it is working. It feeds directly into the grid system without need for new distribution network. When it is operating, it saves power generated from other sources which has to be sent firstly to Beauly and then sent all the way from Beauly to Caithness.
It is in a vast landscape which can absorb it visually from most angles though I accept that other people are passionate about the loss of that part of the landscape.
It provides three local jobs.
I have no problem with Causeymire windfarm, other than the inflated cost of electricity produced by it which we as consumers pay for.
There is no logical reason for Caithness to have any more windfarms.
Money is the motive for more windfarms.
We pay through our quality of life.
We also pay through our electricity bills.
ywindythesecond
One of the big resources Caithness has is wind.
If it were gas or coal nobody would question the need to explore those resources, but for wind it appears to be different. Wind is predictable (wheaterforecasts) and therefore the standby power can be adjusted accordingly. And the surplus power can always be stored with pumped hydro schemes or pressurised mines. That is technology available today, the future might bring even better storage facilities throuh hydrogen or else.
Today there is almost 1GW of wind power capacity in Scotland, which is equivalent to a permanent supply of 333MW based on an efficiency of 30%. Not bad for a start or is it?
And of course we have to pay for it.
We also pay for the decommissioning of Dounreay.
ywindythesecond
14-Jan-07, 23:30
One of the big resources Caithness has is wind.
Wind is predictable (wheaterforecasts) and therefore the standby power can be adjusted accordingly.
Thanks rambler
Where can I find the prediction for windpower from Caithness on 22nd February 2007? And what standby power is assigned to the task if it fails to arrive?
ywindythesecod
[FONT=Verdana]Today there is almost 1GW of wind power capacity in Scotland, which is equivalent to a permanent supply of 333MW based on an efficiency of 30%. Not bad for a start or is it?
But where is it going to end?
Thanks rambler
Where can I find the prediction for windpower from Caithness on 22nd February 2007? And what standby power is assigned to the task if it fails to arrive?
ywindythesecod
Why do you need a prediction and why are you bothered? If there was a problem then they wouldn't be operating, pretty simple stuff really?:confused
Thanks rambler
Where can I find the prediction for windpower from Caithness on 22nd February 2007? And what standby power is assigned to the task if it fails to arrive?
ywindythesecod
Try the metoffice during the week commencing 12 February. There is actually a jobmarket for meteorologists predicting wind for the power generating companies. And a couple of days notice is plenty of time to fire up conventionally power stations to make standby power available.
A hydro scheme can be started up in minutes rather than hours.
So no problem there, just check shortly before the 22nd February.
One of the big resources Caithness has is wind.
And tidal and wave and to a lesser but quite useful extent solar and geothermal.
If it were gas or coal nobody would question the need to explore those resources, but for wind it appears to be different. - Explore yes - build dozens of power stations? I think not.
Wind is predictable (wheaterforecasts) and therefore the standby power can be adjusted accordingly. OK - except for the predictable bit.
And the surplus power can always be stored with pumped hydro schemes or pressurised mines. That is technology available today, the future might bring even better storage facilities throuh hydrogen or else.
OK so let's start storing it now. That'll greatly reduce the number of wind power stations so gets my vote.
Today there is almost 1GW of wind power capacity in Scotland, which is equivalent to a permanent supply of 333MW based on an efficiency of 30%.
It's not a permanent supply though is it? 30% is the average over a year. At ten o'clock it might be 750MW at eleven o'clock it might be 50MW. With the current levels of wind power this isn't a problem but watch this space. Some of our existing generators might be only slightly more efficient over the year but they have the ability to supply a steady source of electricity 24/7 with only breakdowns causing the grid any problems.
Not bad for a start or is it?
Not very clever either. I would certainly hope that with todays technology we'd have the ability to erect steel structures - it's not rocket science.
And of course we have to pay for it.
I agree - do the windys know how much they're paying for it though.
We also pay for the decommissioning of Dounreay.
Agree again - a dreadful waste of money however we in this county have long since been reaping substantial rewards due to Dounreay - we can't undo the past.
We need to learn from past mistakes - all's not always as it seems.
ywindythesecond
16-Jan-07, 00:21
Try the metoffice during the week commencing 12 February. There is actually a jobmarket for meteorologists predicting wind for the power generating companies. And a couple of days notice is plenty of time to fire up conventionally power stations to make standby power available.
A hydro scheme can be started up in minutes rather than hours.
So no problem there, just check shortly before the 22nd February.
Good answer Rambler. I'll try again. Where can I find the predicted windpower for 9.59 am on Thursday 22nd February 2007, and which conventional power stations are fired up to stand in?
Have you noticed in the last few days that the wind is not terribly constant or predictable?
ywindythesecond
Where can I find the predicted windpower for 9.59 am on Thursday 22nd February 2007, and which conventional power stations are fired up to stand in?
In a world without windpower, could you predict what a coal fired power station will be running at with any degree of certainty at that time?
Good answer Rambler. I'll try again. Where can I find the predicted windpower for 9.59 am on Thursday 22nd February 2007, and which conventional power stations are fired up to stand in?
Have you noticed in the last few days that the wind is not terribly constant or predictable?
ywindythesecond
Of course the wind was predictable over the last couple of days. I agree that there are always local turbulences, but that is part of the reason that the towers are so high. The higher the turbine is located, the more wind it will catch and the less turbulences it will encounter.
With a fair amount of windfarms spread throughout the country the impact of the local turbulences to the combined output is negligible.
On the next windy day, when you think that the wind has ceased at your local spot, than have a look at the clouds. They normally are running at a steady pace eben if the conditions at the ground vary.
Metorology is a science and some people are really good at it.
We may not need any conventional power stations as a backup on the 22nd February at 9.59am, but don't worry we still have the diverse mix of hydro schemes, nuclear and other power stations that would be up to the job if required.
ywindythesecond
17-Jan-07, 01:01
Of course the wind was predictable over the last couple of days. I agree that there are always local turbulences, but that is part of the reason that the towers are so high. The higher the turbine is located, the more wind it will catch and the less turbulences it will encounter.
With a fair amount of windfarms spread throughout the country the impact of the local turbulences to the combined output is negligible.
On the next windy day, when you think that the wind has ceased at your local spot, than have a look at the clouds. They normally are running at a steady pace eben if the conditions at the ground vary.
Metorology is a science and some people are really good at it.
We may not need any conventional power stations as a backup on the 22nd February at 9.59am, but don't worry we still have the diverse mix of hydro schemes, nuclear and other power stations that would be up to the job if required.
Rambler
I am prepared to bet £10 that the Causewaymire windfarm will be producing less than 60% of its potential output at 9.59am on 22nd February 2007. I am also prepared to bet another £10 that exactly one hour later, this percentage will be significantly different. Are you on?
Rambler
I am prepared to bet £10 that the Causewaymire windfarm will be producing less than 60% of its potential output at 9.59am on 22nd February 2007. I am also prepared to bet another £10 that exactly one hour later, this percentage will be significantly different. Are you on?
I'm not a betting person but I bet that another type of power station will be producing 60% less than its potential and an hour later it will be significantly different.
ywindythesecond
17-Jan-07, 22:50
I'm not a betting person but I bet that another type of power station will be producing 60% less than its potential and an hour later it will be significantly different.
Absolutely true Rheghead, but that will be through a concious managed process to balance the grid.
The wind gets up and down, and from one minute to the next you can't tell what it will be. Part of the reason why controllable power stations vary in output is to balance out the unpredictable output from windfarms.
Like the kettle on the AGA, they get put to the front when someone drops in for tea, but the fire burns all the time.
ywindythesecond
I've been reading this thread with interest over the last few days. I am currently neutral in my opinion about wind power - figures and stats seem to change in every argument. The only thing I am sure of is that as a race we are continuing to use up the fossil fuels that the planet has at a high rate. If the wind power available can recoup the power it takes to create the units and pay back power in excess of that, then we make the fossil fuels last longer for future generations. I believe that all alternative sources of energy need to be explored and tried out to allow us to plan for the futures of the generations to come. A naive and hopeful idea, but, while we have international moneymaking driving research none of the alternatives will get to the efficiency levels we truly need. So we all keep banging our gums and hoping!
Absolutely true Rheghead, but that will be through a concious managed process to balance the grid.
The wind gets up and down, and from one minute to the next you can't tell what it will be. Part of the reason why controllable power stations vary in output is to balance out the unpredictable output from windfarms.
Like the kettle on the AGA, they get put to the front when someone drops in for tea, but the fire burns all the time.
ywindythesecond
I am sure they allow for the unpredictability of when everyone trots off to the kitchen all at once to put the kettle on in the middle of films, corrie etc:roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.