View Full Version : a glimmer of hope to all windfarm haters
NickInTheNorth
27-Jul-07, 11:36
Ofgen are planning on charging "remote" generators such as those in the north of Scotland for the "cost of transmission losses".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6918637.stm
anneoctober
27-Jul-07, 13:37
Ofgen are planning on charging "remote" generators such as those in the north of Scotland for the "cost of transmission losses".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6918637.stm
So , the grass may not be greener on the other side??? :evil
From National Grid website:
Table 7.4 - System Power Losses at Peak
Category
2007/08
Transmission Heating Losses excluding GSP Transformers (MW) 779.5
Fixed Losses (MW) 272
GSP Transformer Heating Losses (MW) 125.2
Generator Transformer Heating Losses (MW) 127.7
Total Losses 1304.4
ACS Peak Demand (MW) excluding Losses and Station Demand 60353
Total Losses as percentage of Demand 2.16
Right so we are losing 1304.4MW of energy. Total installed wind capacity is 344MW (asuming the wind is blowing)
Which means that all the windfarms in the UK don't generate enough to offset the transmission losses as a whole, told you they were a waste of time didn't I?
That means we lose 4 times the amount we generate.....pathetic.
Which means that all the windfarms in the UK don't generate enough to offset the transmission losses as a whole, told you they were a waste of time didn't I?
That means we lose 4 times the amount we generate.....pathetic.
You don't understand the problem. Windfarms are there to mitigate fossil fuel useage. They aren't there to offset transmission losses, close power stations or even to provide a nice feature on the landscape.
Total installed wind capacity is 344MW (asuming the wind is blowing)
THe total installed capacity has exceeded 2GW, are you using old data?
Right so we are losing 1304.4MW of energy.
and another nitpick, MW is a unit of power not energy.
You don't understand the problem. Windfarms are there to mitigate fossil fuel useage. They aren't there to offset transmission losses, close power stations or even to provide a nice feature on the landscape.
I understand the bit about mitigating fossil fuel losses but how can they do that if they don't close a power station? Wouldn't mitigating transmission losses, help reduce the number of turbines or make the ones installed more efficient which would help to close a power station or help mitigate fossil fuel usage?:confused:
Wouldn't mitigating transmission losses, help reduce the number of turbines or make the ones installed more efficient which would help to close a power station or help mitigate fossil fuel usage?:confused:
Total losses are 1.3GW at a peak power of 57GW, some 2.3% losses. (i used Riffman's figures and a remembered figure of 57GW at peak power from a National grid source)
So lets assume we can get 100% no losses from our transmission system, (not achievable anyway) then we can make one good size coal station redundant, hurray, but is it a big deal? However, that is not achievable, and we still have to provide 60% of electricity from renewables by 2050, so we still need windfarms. We wouldn't reduce transmission losses to mitigate windfarm proliferation but rather to mitigate fossil fuel useage. Only overall electricity demand would have the effect of reducing the need for wind energy. Some 20% of energy can be generated by wind so it makes sense to proliferate windfarms than it is to reduce transmission losses to solve our energy problem.
However, I am sure a new Beauly-Denny line will be made of the latest conducting materials to help reduce losses.
All I am pointing out is that for power generation wind turbines are useless compared to inproving the efficency of power transmission.
Throw up some nuclear power stations, shut all the fossil fueled ones and flatten all the windfarms. Problem solved.
percy toboggan
27-Jul-07, 22:58
When does a farm become a factory?
I find the odd turbine moderately pleasing on an aesthetic level. Great banks of them towering over the landscape though are visually and aurally intrusive. The constant movement can drive me crackers!
Nuclear power stations don't bother me at all.
robglysen
27-Jul-07, 23:00
Well, theres enough coal to last another hundred years and it'll be clean cos we can bury the carbon in the hole left by all the oil we ran out of.
percy toboggan
27-Jul-07, 23:28
Well, theres enough coal to last another hundred years and it'll be clean cos we can bury the carbon in the hole left by all the oil we ran out of.
Indeed - Carbon capture IS a way forward. Incidentally, estimates range to up to three hundred years worth of coal under these fine islands. I almost bought 5,000 shares in UK Coal eighteen months ago when they were dragging along at £1.49. now, I'm gutted. Possibly the biggest mistake of my life!
Check the FSTE index for details of how much I've lost - it's the pits!
"They are concerned that such a move would encourage firms to locate in the south of England instead."
That means the idea is a non-starter right away, you don't think they will allow the monstrosities to spoil the "Garden of England" do you?
The first thing this lot up here did was to suddenly decide Scotland had to have a National Park. They then fell over themselves in the rush to create the Trossachs National Park so they could stop any being built on their local beauty spot.
These are the same people who dump them on everybody else and scream NIMBYs when somebody says they don't want their local beauty spots ruined.
Well, theres enough coal to last another hundred years and it'll be clean cos we can bury the carbon in the hole left by all the oil we ran out of.
I have just a few questions for you.
1. When coal/oil burns to form carbon dioxide, the resulting gas occupies a larger volume, how efficient at mitigating climate change will sequestering carbon be, based on this gas expansion?:confused
2. Energy for at least another 100 years, then what?
3. How can we guarantee that the gas does't escape back into the atmosphere?
4. What is the energy balance of carbon sequestering,considering the gas needs to be compressed and pumped hundreds of miles and all the infrastructure needs to be constructed?
I tend to think that carbon capture is an impractical pipedream.
captainpugwash
28-Jul-07, 17:49
2. Energy for at least another 100 years, then what?
Who cares, we'll all be pushing up the daisies.
2. Energy for at least another 100 years, then what?
Let's imagine it's 2020 and we've met your (20%) target of 34GW of installed wind capacity with around 15 thousand wind turbines whirling away all over the country.
Billions of pounds of investment will result in the following -
a tiny reduction in carbon emissions that'll hardly make a dent in meeting our binding target.
a population with as little sense of responsibility for electricity/energy usage as exists today
an old, tired and wasteful centralised generation/transmission system
at least 80% (on a good day) of our electricity from dirty fossil fuel generators
increased reliance on imported dwindling gas supplies
no improvement in security of supply
peak demand continuing to rise
around 25 - 30% of existing generators either retired or due to be retired - that can't be replaced by wind energy
rising levels of carbon emissions as each nuclear power station is closed and replaced with 'whatever' - probably imported gas.
What then?
IMO that's a far more worrying prospect than your concern about running out of coal in a hundred or two years time.
Billions of pounds of investment will result in the following -
a tiny reduction in carbon emissions that'll hardly make a dent in meeting our binding target.
a population with as little sense of responsibility for electricity/energy usage as exists today
an old, tired and wasteful centralised generation/transmission system
at least 80% (on a good day) of our electricity from dirty fossil fuel generators
increased reliance on imported dwindling gas supplies
no improvement in security of supply
peak demand continuing to rise
around 25 - 30% of existing generators either retired or due to be retired - that can't be replaced by wind energy
rising levels of carbon emissions as each nuclear power station is closed and replaced with 'whatever' - probably imported gas.
Please quantitate 'tiny'.
How can you link windfarms with people's ignorance of energy use?
I think a decentralised transmission system has to be on the way, it is more conducive with having windfarms.
80% from fossil fuels? Are you forgetting the other renewables and nuke?
How come there will be no improvement on supply? We will be generating more of our own energy from renewables so we won't be bullied as much by Russia et al.
Power plants being retired is just a fact of life, windfarms included. As they close we need to decossion and replace, I can't see that as a fault of windfarms.
Please quantitate 'tiny'.
Electricity production accounts for only 30% of energy usage. The target for 2020 is for a reduction of total carbon emissions of around 24 - 30%. I'll let you do the maths. Keep in mind that nobody has a scooby how much CO2 will be saved by injecting 34 GW of wind energy into the mix.
How can you link windfarms with people's ignorance of energy use?
Easy - in the short to medium term the targets can only be met if we, as individuals, communities, business, councils, governments etc rise to the challenge of reducing our energy consumption. The huge amount of propoganda extolling the unbelievable virtues of wind energy simplifies the problem to such an extent that people don't believe there's really a problem at all. eg If the nimbys would just shut up everything would be fine and dandy - electricity sorted.
I think a decentralised transmission system has to be on the way, it is more conducive with having windfarms.
Don't understand. Local wind, yes. Wind for export, no. Problem is decentralised transmission is being more or less ignored (along with most of the other solutions) in favour of windfarms.
80% from fossil fuels? Are you forgetting the other renewables and nuke?
When the other renewables come on line and if new nuclear is developed and if we finally decentralise transmission - we won't need onshore wind. If not, we have to rely on 80% from fossil fuels.
How come there will be no improvement on supply? We will be generating more of our own energy from renewables so we won't be bullied as much by Russia et al.
That depends on the final mix of generators, doesn't it? If we increase our dependence on gas to replace coal, nuclear etc then we end up even more reliant on Russia.
Power plants being retired is just a fact of life, windfarms included. As they close we need to decossion and replace, I can't see that as a fault of windfarms.
What are they going to be replaced with then? Given that in this little scenario with 34GW of installed wind capacity we'll have to increase overall capacity to balance this level of intermittent generation on our antiquated grid system in addition to replacing retired plant.
To summarise - too much attention is being given to a technology that can do very little of any worth. Better to take time and get it right rather than charge on blindly.
I was going to post some words in on this but will give up,much too technical for my grey cells.Shall just keep my own council, me an the cat.:D
Electricity production accounts for only 30% of energy usage. The target for 2020 is for a reduction of total carbon emissions of around 24 - 30%. I'll let you do the maths. Keep in mind that nobody has a scooby how much CO2 will be saved by injecting 34 GW of wind energy into the mix.
That is a lot of CO2 being mitigated in the crucial area of electricity generation. Other areas such as transport and heating are outwith the discussion topic of windfarms as windfarms can't mitigate CO2 there.
Local wind, yes. Wind for export, no.
There is a huge grey area there, what is local wind and what is wind for export? Hmmm, under a truly decentralised system, some would argue that an Ormlie association windfarms in Shebster would be wind for export if it was going to Ormlie. Then again, some would argue that windfarms in the highlands supplying lecky to the central belt to be local.
When the other renewables come on line and if new nuclear is developed and if we finally decentralise transmission - we won't need onshore wind.
Wishful thinking, but what about in the meantime?
That depends on the final mix of generators, doesn't it? If we increase our dependence on gas to replace coal, nuclear etc then we end up even more reliant on Russia.
So if we increase our reliance on renewable energy then that won't happen.
What are they going to be replaced with then? Given that in this little scenario with 34GW of installed wind capacity we'll have to increase overall capacity to balance this level of intermittent generation on our antiquated grid system in addition to replacing retired plant.
Quite possibly, there is the interconnectors and we could export to France?
To summarise - too much attention is being given to a technology that can do very little of any worth. Better to take time and get it right rather than charge on blindly.
Have you not been reading the papers etc?
The orkney wave pelamis m/c, the study group into the Pentland firth tidal scheme, the Nuclear fusion scheme, the new drive to get consumers to recycle and lobby big packagers etc, the future is bright but we really need those windfarms up and running and then wait for the other technologies to catch up, that way we can do the best to stop as much CO2 from entering the environment.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.