View Full Version : Wind Energy, 9.15pm 7th January 2010
ywindythesecond
07-Jan-10, 22:51
The country is frozen, has been for a couple of weeks, and is likely to be frozen for at least the next week. One of the highest demands for energy recorded this winter happened about 5 o'clock tonight, and out of the 58,000 MW the country needed at the time, wind provided about 100MW.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1923/windenergy21157thjan201.jpg
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm Click on General and go down to Generation by Type, first the table and then the graph below it.
Not much to go down the Beauly Denny line tonight but here in Caithness we will be nice and cosy because we still have reliable, efficient, coal gas and nuclear (Grey, green, and yellow). But not for long!!
Look for the Orange on the graph- that's the wind input.
I agree with your last part of your comment. We need coal gas etc. And that is what the energy groups are saying like wind farm Tidal powers they need each other. So what is your point off objecting to Wind farms? When we need all together to make sure we have power when ever we need it
ywindythesecond
08-Jan-10, 10:39
I agree with your last part of your comment. We need coal gas etc. And that is what the energy groups are saying like wind farm Tidal powers they need each other. So what is your point off objecting to Wind farms? When we need all together to make sure we have power when ever we need it
The point is that the UK Government want 20% of our electricity to come from renewables by 2020. Tidal wont be developed by then. Much of our nuclear will be shut down. Last night, most of that 20% wasn't available.
In 2020 under these conditions, Scotland would be switched off, because England would find it politically unacceptable to share their nice new nuclear power when Scotland ie Alex Salmond cannot see the reality of energy generation.
-21.6 degrees in Altnaharra overnight, 5% of connected wind capacity generated, 95% shortfall.
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/566/201001080905.jpg
Even Chance
08-Jan-10, 13:24
Proves the point that we NEED more wind turbines really!!!! Is that what your getting at? Do you want more? I hope so.
roadbowler
08-Jan-10, 13:49
perhaps part of the point ywindy is making is that more turbines won't make a difference if we continue to have strongly negative NAO winters like this one. It is my belief negative NAO winters will be the norm for the next 20 years at least. If they are, we can expect what we are having now, cold, dry and less windy winters. Meaning more electricity demand but, turbines not putting out their full output because of low wind factor?
ywindythesecond
08-Jan-10, 15:02
Proves the point that we NEED more wind turbines really!!!! Is that what your getting at? Do you want more? I hope so.
Ten times a spit in the ocean is ten spits in the ocean. If the blades are not turning then you get no power. Ten thousand turbines not turning give you no power. In the 24 hours ending at 9am today, coal and nuclear provided 61.2% of our power, gas supplied 37.2% and wind supplied 0.2%. By 2020, due to the run-down of nuclear and coal we will have no means of providing alternative power to wind in conditions like we have at present. No number of windfarms will solve this problem, and these conditions happen at least once a year. This year is different because it has been almost continuous for the best part of three weeks.
Watch it unfold on here http://www.bmreports.com/ it is updated every five minutes.
redeyedtreefrog
08-Jan-10, 15:48
So we need more nuclear plants?
We should get rid of the coal, its running out and is doing wonders for our atmosphere...
You know what the problem is???
Each 'anti group' wants their say in this, and the poor Gov't., who are always trying to get re-elected, do their surveys and attempt to keep everyone happy.
It's the same for all Countries. I do wish that for once, someone would make a decision and 'go for it'. i.e. lets just review what is out there and make a 'b..... decision.
Here they were going to build wind farms on one of the Great Lakes ....wait for it...until some group decided that is wouldn't look good, so back to more horribly expensive Environmental Assessments, and months of delay.
Necessity is the mother of invention. We all have it too good nowadays.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh just blowing steam!
ps
Just think in a positive manner..
We have No Problems compared to Tiger Woods.
peter macdonald
08-Jan-10, 20:15
Whats all the gripe about Alex Salmond regarding energy regeneration ??
It was Thatchers government who decided to shut down the Dounreay PFR and John Majors government who implemented the shut down ,Our very worthy MP John Thurso resigned from the Liberal Democrats front bench because of his parties opposition to Nuclear power
"The third and final UKAEA-operated reactor to be built on the Dounreay site was the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), which achieved criticality in 1974 and began supplying National Grid power in January 1975. The output of PFR was 250 MWe. The reactor was taken offline in 1994, marking the end of nuclear power generation at the site. PFR was a pool-type FBR, cooled by liquid sodium and fueled with MOX. The Reactorsaurus will be sent in to remove waste and contaminated equipment from this reactor as it is too dangerous a task for a human."
Bearing in mind what Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher did with the UKs coal industry and Gordon Browns sale of Westinghouse (at a knockdown price)I am not sure Westminster is interested in a balanced energy supply
Now because of the ineptitude of Westminster Governments ..to build a nuclear energy source the experience of the Finns now seems to show this effort is expensive and littered with difficulties
"European Pressurized Water Reactor
The first license application was made in December 2000[2] and the original commissioning date of the third reactor was set to May 2009.[3] Then the commissioning deadline was moved to summer 2011,[4] and postponed to June 2012 for "completion",[5][6] leaving some uncertainty as for when commercial operation will actually start. The project was started by Areva NP, a joint venture of AREVA and Siemens, but Siemens withdrew and sold its share to AREVA.[7] Work began on the Olkiluoto EPR in 2005, but various problems with workmanship have created delays:
First to come to light were irregularities in foundation concrete, which caused work to slow on site for months. Later it was found that subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up to project standards and which had to be re-cast. An apparent problem constructing the reactor's unique double-containment structure has also caused delays...
The Olkiluoto 3 reactor was supposed to start producing power in May 2009. However, "the plant is at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget." According to Professor Stephen Thomas, "Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors".[9] Areva and the utility involved "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default".[9] The project has also been criticized by the Finnish nuclear safety regulator, Stuk.[12][13][14][15] Stuk has noted that "instructions have not been observed in the welding of pipes and the supervision of welding."
"I agree with your last part of your comment. We need coal gas etc. And that is what the energy groups are saying like wind farm Tidal powers they need each other. So what is your point off objecting to Wind farms? When we need all together to make sure we have power when ever we need it"
Probably the most sensible post on this subject I have read for a long time
At least the Scottish Govt seems to seek other alternatives whether tidal, wind or what ever ,its just a pity Westminster managed to effectively get rid of a couple of possibilities
PM
ywindythesecond
08-Jan-10, 23:32
At least the Scottish Govt seems to seek other alternatives whether tidal, wind or what ever ,its just a pity Westminster managed to effectively get rid of a couple of possibilities
PM
Don't you think that the search for alternatives should be complete, and that these alternatives should be tested and proven to be viable before they are adopted as policy?
Whitewater
09-Jan-10, 00:43
Proves the point that we NEED more wind turbines really!!!! Is that what your getting at? Do you want more? I hope so.
What a load of crap, wind turbines are only 20% efficient, no wind, they can't generate, too much wind, they can't generate. What use is that when we need continuous power supply. Tidal power is a far better option, it least it is continuous. Too many fingers in the governments pie regarding wind turbines.
Proves the point that we NEED more wind turbines really!!!! Is that what your getting at? Do you want more? I hope so.
How much proportion of the UK's energy requirement do you think wind power can or needs to provide? 20%, 50% perhaps? The next issue I'd like to ask you about is how much area of the UK's landscape do you think those wind turbines will occupy?
peter macdonald
09-Jan-10, 01:28
"Don't you think that the search for alternatives should be complete, and that these alternatives should be tested and proven to be viable before they are adopted as policy?"
Bearing in mind the huge windfarms being announced in Westminster recently that will be built on the Dogger Bank and off Angelsey perhaps you should encompass all politicians who favour windfarms with your comments instead of picking on one
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/01/09/huge-windfarm-planned-off-the-coast-of-anglesey-55578-25559101/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241548/Energy-bills-rise-fund-75bn-dash-wind-power-Britain-tries-hit-climate-targets.html
PM
ywindythesecond
09-Jan-10, 11:48
[quote=peter macdonald;642440 Bearing in mind the huge windfarms being announced in Westminster recently that will be built on the Dogger Bank and off Angelsey perhaps you should encompass all politicians who favour windfarms with your comments instead of picking on one
PM[/quote]
You are right Peter M, most of our politicians have their heads in the sand over this. If I seem to be picking on Mr Salmond, it is because his "aspirations" are twice as lunatic as Mr Brown's. Look at this quote about the French Interconnector from the National Grid's
Procurement Guidelines Report
1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 (Page 21) http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/D1DCB680-0D15-4493-99A9-29DBED5E26F6/34217/Procurement_Guidelines_Report_200809v3.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/D1DCB680-0D15-4493-99A9-29DBED5E26F6/34217/Procurement_Guidelines_Report_200809v3.pdf)
"The rise in imports has led to SO-SO (System Operator ywy2)costs increasing from £31m last year to £34m this year. This is because import volume is priced at or above French market prices whereas export volume is sold to the French at £0/MWh, hence export volume has no impact on costs. "
Mr Salmond wants to sell our surplus wind generated electricity, which would have been zero over the last couple of weeks, at its market value which is zero at all times.
Zero times zero is even less than 10,000 spits in the ocean. 30 Gigawatts times zero is still zero.
Last night's BBC News introduced the proposed massive expansion in offshore windpower as a possible solution to the shortage of gas currently being caused by three weeks of very cold weather. :eek:
Had they not noticed how still it's been? :lol:
Last night's BBC News introduced the proposed massive expansion in offshore windpower as a possible solution to the shortage of gas currently being caused by three weeks of very cold weather. :eek:
Had they not noticed how still it's been? :lol:
Could they not use the gas which they'd save on windy days to use on days like today? Is that not what it's all about?
Yes but that's not how they presented it and anyway these conditions are rare and they don't usually last for this long so they probably wouldn't have planned for them and there wouldn't be any more gas in reserve.
Yes but that's not how they presented it and anyway these conditions are rare and they don't usually last for this long so they probably wouldn't have planned for them and there wouldn't be any saved gas.
So in the absence of any wind farms the Grid would always be faced with the same shortages of gas under the current temperatures, windy or no wind?
The country is frozen, has been for a couple of weeks, and is likely to be frozen for at least the next week. One of the highest demands for energy recorded this winter happened about 5 o'clock tonight, and out of the 58,000 MW the country needed at the time, wind provided about 100MW.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm Click on General and go down to Generation by Type, first the table and then the graph below it.
That's a fascinating site YW2, thanks for the link. Wind is providing a total of 40MW at the moment but it's forecast to be 785MW tomorrow evening.
So in the absence of any wind farms the Grid would always be faced with the same shortages of gas under the current temperatures, windy or no wind?LOL! No of course not. As you may have realised I was being a little facetious in my use of Sod's Law. ;)
Wind is providing 49MW at the moment but is forecast to be 785MW tomorrow evening.
Indeed.
Yes wind is variable, wowee, nobody is under any allusion that it isn't, so why the regular drumbeat from our resident anti-windfarmers into trying to fool us into thinking that our decision-makers think otherwise? :confused
I wouldn't get too excited about offshore wind if this article is anything to go by http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6981585.ece
Given Gordon Brown's record I have absolutely no faith in this, or any other British govt., having any kind of sensible policy for energy in the future. Some of the billions being squandered on windfarms would be much better spent making every home in the country more energy efficient - far more insulation, micro generation, modernising all heating systems - all this would be much greener and more sensible for the future. Instead of which we are going to be landed with huge electricity bills, no guarantee of reliable supply and the same old energy hungry housing stock.
The Govt. that said it would listen doesn't - they mess up education, health, the economy - the list goes on. If they don't like what their scientific advisors say, they sack them. Scottish Govt. is no better. They approved the Beauly Denny line without any detail - will any be underground, will they need more planning consents, when will it happen? They don't know the answer to any of this. Pathetic.
Where are they going to get the 2 million tonnes of steel to build all the offshore windfarms?:eek:
And what is the carbon footprint of it all? :confused
Are those rhetorical questions Rheg and if so which direction are you trying to take us in?
Rheghead: "Where are they going to get the 2 million tonnes of steel to build all the offshore windfarms?
And what is the carbon footprint of it all?"
Suppose you could ask the same if they build on-shore windfarms too?
"A Windfarm is not the answer."
'The green movement's fixation with technology reveals that we are asking the wrong questions'
What?, hang on, this is the Guardian! - what's going on here? Someone talking sense it this publication..
How would you imagine an environmentalist would react when presented with the following proposition? A power company plans to build a new development on a stretch of wild moorland. It will be nearly seven miles long, and consist of 150 structures, each made of steel and mounted on hundreds of tons of concrete. They will be almost 500 feet high, and will be accompanied by 73 miles of road. The development will require the quarrying of 1.5m cubic metres of rock and the cutting out and dumping of up to a million cubic metres of peat. [Shetland]
The answer is that if you are like many modern environmentalists you will support this project without question. You will dismiss anyone who opposes it as a nimby [heard that one on here] who is probably in the pay of the coal or nuclear lobby, and you will campaign for thousands more like it to be built all over the country..
It also sounds like an environmental movement in danger of losing its way. The support for industrial wind developments in wild places seems to me a symbol of a lack of connectedness to an actual, physical environment.
Well there you are; fancy that! (the writer Paul Kingsnorth is an environmentalist, he is a left-liberal)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists)
tonkatojo
09-Jan-10, 23:16
Where are they going to get the 2 million tonnes of steel to build all the offshore windfarms?:eek:
And what is the carbon footprint of it all? :confused
It won't come from Middlesbrough that's for sure or Ravenscraig either nor Consett.
Are those rhetorical questions Rheg and if so which direction are you trying to take us in?
Do you know the answers?
"A Windfarm is not the answer."
Well there you are; fancy that! (the writer Paul Kingsnorth is an environmentalist, he is a left-liberal)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists)
Yeah, go ahead cherry-pick and object to wind farms on the basis of his views but then you would have to de facto accept his other left-liberal ideas like accepting the existence of Climate Change. :lol:
Do you know the answers?
No. I was hoping you'd enlighten us yourself.
No. I was hoping you'd enlighten us yourself.
I was hoping that someone would do all the research and report back.
It's just that I noticed a long letter in the Groat a bit before Xmas from a committee member of CWIF saying that windfarms don't repay the energy or the carbon footprint over the lifetime of the turbines. I was interested to find out on which information that they formed the basis of that conclusion? If so, I'd like someone to demonstrate to me that this is so. If the author of the letter is correct then here endeth all my ramblings about wind farms. It's a challenge that I will gladly honour. :Razz
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-10, 12:48
Could they not use the gas which they'd save on windy days to use on days like today? Is that not what it's all about?
The problem with relying on wind energy is that it won't necessarily be there when you need it. Imagine the situation in 2017 if we have the same cold spell.
"The UK Government is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80%
by 2050 under the Climate Change Act. The draft UK Renewable Energy
Strategy is aimed at supplying 15% of energy from renewable sources by
2020.
Prior to these dates, implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive
will mean that 12GW of generation capacity in use today will need to stop
generating before 2016. We may see further early generation closures driven
by the proposed Industrial Emissions Directive."
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/55610D9A-C53A-4E28-88C6-29AE5DF72EF2/39178/Future_Balancing_Services_Requirements_Reserve.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/55610D9A-C53A-4E28-88C6-29AE5DF72EF2/39178/Future_Balancing_Services_Requirements_Reserve.pdf )
This was the generation situation at 0905 on 8th January 2010.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5962/inbalance.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5962/inbalance.jpg)
This is the effect of the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4359/blackhole12g.jpg (http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4359/blackhole12g.jpg)
If the same demand and the same weather conditions occurred on 8th January 2017,
This is the problem we would facehttp://img443.imageshack.us/img443/381/whitehole12g.jpg
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/381/whitehole12g.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/381/whitehole12g.jpg)
Now I know that this is very simplistic and that new gas plant will fill some of the gap, but most new generation capacity built between now and 2017 will be onshore wind, and on 8th January 2017, if demand is the same and the weather is the same, a large part of the UK will have its power cut off at peak demand. I know too that there is always a reserve of power for unexpected outages, but that reserve will mostly need to be maintained for the purpose it is designed for, and might not be enough anyway to cover the generation shortfall caused by wind, or the lack of it.
The problem with relying on wind energy is that it won't necessarily be there when you need it. Imagine the situation in 2017 if we have the same cold spell.
I'm sure experts greater than us are advising government and are covering all the angles. Wind power is a baseload supplier, it is not meant to be there when we want it so why do you keep going on about it? :roll:
As we get a further intrusion of wind into our energy portfolio then how we use energy will have to dramatically change like smart appliances that come on when the renewable energy is plentiful. Also, as we electrify private transport then that will provide a huge resource of backup when the wind isn't blowing.
I'm afraid you aren't seeing things on the big picture, the bottom line is that the world is changing and we have to change wuth it. The days of big polluters and plentiful fossil fuels are numbered and with that we need to change how we use our energy. You won't see these dramatic changes in your lifestyle but my daughter will so any inaction on using renewable energy will have serious consequences for future generations. Your generation is ending so give a thought to them instead of thinking about your house price and your view.
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-10, 13:56
I'm sure experts greater than us are advising government and are covering all the angles. Wind power is a baseload supplier, it is not meant to be there when we want it so why do you keep going on about it? :roll:
.
I am a little confused by windpower being a "baseload supplier", but "not meant to be there when we want it". I always thought that baseload was the generation required to supply the minimum expected demand at all times? If there is no wind how can it provide a baseload?
I am a little confused by windpower being a "baseload supplier", but "not meant to be there when we want it". I always thought that baseload was the generation required to supply the minimum expected demand at all times? If there is no wind how can it provide a baseload?
Energy suppliers that provide energy when we want it most are called peaking plants, iow, they can supply energy at peak demand. Wind energy can never be peaking because it isn't dispatchable.
Rheggy: "Yeah, go ahead cherry-pick and object to wind farms on the basis of his views but then you would have to de facto accept his other left-liberal ideas like accepting the existence of Climate Change"
'Accept his other ideas' Eh? .
Ref Paul Kingnorth (named one of Britain's 'top ten troublemakers' by the New Statesman magazine in 2001) who tells us "My personal carbon usage over the last year is …. I can't look … 25.5 tonnes. Now, hang on: this can't be right. Average carbon usage in the UK is about 9 tonnes per person; http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/energy.html (http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/energy.html) "
AND "Recently, I was having a conversation with one of the country’s most prominent campaigners on climate change. He’d been talking about what could realistically be done to prevent further emissions. He’d made a convincing case that, technologically at least, it would be possible to make the necessary transfers from carbon heavy technologies to renewables within the timeframe needed to prevent disastrous global warming. What was frustrating, he said, was the unwillingness of governments, and perhaps people in general, to make the necessary changes. We were both a bit tipsy, so I asked him to be honest with me. What chance did we really have preventing disastrous climate change, I asked. Being realistic – being honest, how likely was it? After making me promise not to take his answer outside of the room, he told me: about 5%, he said. If we’re lucky.
Technically, I suppose I have now broken that promise, but since I’m not naming him, I don’t expect he’ll mind. The point is not this one person’s opinion in any case, because it’s an opinion I’ve actually heard enunciated by other climate change campaigners I know – and as an environmentalist of 15 years standing myself, I know quite a few. Pretty much all of them, if you get them alone in a room and perhaps give them a glass or two of wine, would admit to pretty much the same thing. The technology exists, perhaps, but the political will and the economic reality doesn’t. That reality dictates that stopping climate change is nigh on impossible.
This is my impression too, so I’d like to make a controversial suggestion: that climate change campaigners themselves are in denial. Denial of how much good they can do. Denial of how much difference their actions will make. Denial of how much doodoo we are really in. http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/climatedenial.htm (http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/climatedenial.htm) Hmm suppose some I agree with (Climate change campaigners are in denial)!
But then not always de facto - Just 'cos Rheggy has posted over 8,235 times on the org and that just two of his Google searches generates about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea; http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes) does not de facto mean you are not an environmentalist, now does it?
But then not always de facto - Just 'cos Rheggy has posted over 8,235 times on the org and that just two of his Google searches generates about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea; http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes) does not de facto mean you are not an environmentalist, now does it?
Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem, I think it stifles honest debate, I'm trying too.
You cherry picked Paul Kingsnorth's world view in relation to wind farms but I doubt you would accept his other ideas. To robustly debate your anti-wind farm and AGW sceptic position, you need to put forward ideas and evidence that actually supports your own view. Conversely, I could make up a heap of pro-wind farm and AGW statements from the likes of G W Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Bjorn Lomborg but it wouldn't be accurately portrayed. :lol:
If there is no wind how can it provide a baseload?
Things are picking up. Wind well above forecasted levels at 53% of capacity and not even a breath of wind and it is supplying 1.7% of UK energy demand. :lol:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/neta7-1-10.jpg
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-10, 19:15
Energy suppliers that provide energy when we want it most are called peaking plants, iow, they can supply energy at peak demand. Wind energy can never be peaking because it isn't dispatchable.
Ok I agree with that, but wind energy can never be baseload either because it isn't dispatchable. So its not peaking and its not baseload. What is it?
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-10, 19:37
Things are picking up. Wind well above forecasted levels at 53% of capacity and not even a breath of wind and it is supplying 1.7% of UK energy demand. :lol:
Not a breath of wind in Caithness but obviously some elsewhere in Scotland.
But this was the situation at midday today:http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6842/201001101200interconnec.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6842/201001101200interconnec.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6842/201001101200interconnec.jpg)
688MW was being generated by wind and being bought by consumers at about three times the price that coal generated power costs, and about 2000MW was being sold to France for £0 per MW (See post # 15). The coal kept burning.
And actually, more than 688MW was being generated by wind because National Grid can only monitor 1588MW of connected wind generatorsand they are all in Scotland. Probably about 1500MW was generated by wind across UK,which had to be bought by UK consumers, and the equivalent surplus power was sold to the French for £0. Basically because they didn't need it but it is a quid pro quo for us buying their reliable power at commercial rates when the wind doesn't blow. AND THE COAL KEPT BURNING.
Ok I agree with that, but wind energy can never be baseload either because it isn't dispatchable. So its not peaking and its not baseload. What is it?
I'm sure I read in your own words in a public consultation with the Scottish Executive that you acknowledged that geographically diversed windfarms gave a degree of baseload application. Are you now retracting that? I've since researched your information and you are correct. I think we've gone over this before and you seemed to doubt what the National Grid are saying on their own website yet you confirm it elsewhere.
Rheghead: "Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem, I think it stifles honest debate, I'm trying too". Aw come on Reggy I'm not be personal, lets face it I don't take your tag: 'If I only had a knee!?' as personal, even if I don't have a left knee do I?
As for cherry picking.. well. Fair enough you must have missed it but I did accept his idea: "Hmm suppose some I agree with (Climate change campaigners are in denial)!"
But the fact is Paul does say wind farms are NOT the answer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists) that's not cherry picking, it's a fact.
Look we can all get it wrong, even you Reggy: "I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming, and if we are why should we try to stop it? I can see evidence for having renewable energy because fossil fuels will eventually run out but no other."
This is Caithness.org, not the Oxford Union, lightness is a blessing.[lol]
Must go, bleeding lights just went out, where's that wind; need more power.
Bekisman, have we lost some dialogue here or what? Science is also not sure. The IPCC also clearly states that mankind is more than likely the cause of most of the warming. Even the ardent climatologist don't attribute 100% certainty to that we are the cause or global warming. The point is that scientific methods allot degrees of confidence not degrees of reasonable doubt like in a courtroom. If we tried ourselves in a courtroom for warming the planet then we'd get off the charges everytime. If we wait for 100% certainty then it it will never come, that is scientific fact not fiction and that is a recipe for inaction over Climate Change which would be probably disastrous for the future of this planet.
Even in the last 24 hours when the wind hasn't been very strong, the UK has been mitigating ~4% of its carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind. That is the great thing about wind, it disproportionately displaces pollution since due to thermal efficiency characteristics of fossil fuels, most of the energy that they provide goes up the chimney.
Caithness Lass
10-Jan-10, 20:18
Even if Scotland does get new wind farms, they will never keep up with the demand the same way a nuclear plant does. They just dont produce enough energy.
#36 I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago: "That reality dictates that stopping climate change is nigh on impossible"
'World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming says Gordon Brown' oops! that was Oct 19th last year.
Well been doing my bit, light-bulbs, insulation, (can't do without me car; cripple you see), Computer occasionally on, etc
As Private Fraser said 'we're all doomed, doomed' or can we rely on the Coccolithophores?
#36 I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago: "That reality dictates that stopping climate change is nigh on impossible"
Stopping climate change isn't the game in town, that rather is a strawman. The game is limiting climate change to 2°C which experts claim would restrict the planet from the potential consequences of doing nothing.
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-10, 22:10
I'm sure I read in your own words in a public consultation with the Scottish Executive that you acknowledged that geographically diversed windfarms gave a degree of baseload application. Are you now retracting that? I've since researched your information and you are correct. I think we've gone over this before and you seemed to doubt what the National Grid are saying on their own website yet you confirm it elsewhere.
I can't remember precisely what I said or when, but geographically diverse windfarms are more likely to provide some power for more of the time than geographically concentrated windfarms, like in Caithness today when there is no wind. I doubt if I used the word "baseload" but if you can find the reference I would be grateful.
However, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to modify his views in the light of new information or persuasion by better informed people, so even if I once held the view which you attribute to me, it is more to my credit to have learned and adapted than it would be to "stick to my guns" if I had learned otherwise.
Even in the last 24 hours when the wind hasn't been very strong, the UK has been mitigating ~4% of its carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind. That is the great thing about wind, it disproportionately displaces pollution since due to thermal efficiency characteristics of fossil fuels, most of the energy that they provide goes up the chimney.
Hello again. Please can you provide a link to the above claim that the UK has been mitigating carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind generated electricity. I still haven't found any evidence of this mitigation.
The last time I checked the UK data it appeared that we're burning as much fossil fuel (and nuclear fuel) now, with 4 GW of wind, as we were prior to the addition of 4 GW of wind - and it's not down to an increase in demand.
It's really not that easy having complete confidence in the 'experts'. Take the problems Germany etc are having with their wind energy. We get told that the wind resource in the UK is 'different' and we won't experience those problems. That's all very well and good but were there no 'experts' in Germany? Did the German wind industry really forget to factor in the wind resource available in their country? (in all the excitement of meeting the targets did they overlook the requirement for wind to turn the blades?)
Hello again. Please can you provide a link to the above claim that the UK has been mitigating carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind generated electricity.
Hello to you. Given your last reluctance to accept anything complimentary towards wind energy, would you change your view of wind farms if I showed a reputable link to suggest such a thing or would it be an exercise in urination into the said wind? Be honest here. :D
How likely is a member of CWIF to break ranks and be all for wind farms? Since when have they been swayed by evidence/good info? Do you lot take it in turns?
Would it be fair to say that CWIF is a political pressure group which is aimed at stopping wind farm development? As with all political pressure groups, they aren't interested in anything that doesn't support their political aims, so why should their mantra be treated as gospel?
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 00:03
Hello to you. Given your last reluctance to accept anything complimentary towards wind energy, would you change your view of wind farms if I showed a reputable link to suggest such a thing or would it be an exercise in urination into the said wind? Be honest here. :D
I am being honest here Reggy. You are obviously very clever and knowledgeable, but you have no manners, no moral fibre, and no ability to conduct a reasonable debate if it does not cooincide with your personal beliefs. Now will you please stop disrupting reasonable debate with your personal vendettas and, I have to say, very effective diversionary tactics.
This is my thread about the effectiveness of wind generation. If you want to talk about climate change, get back to that thread. If you want to insult people, send them a PM, don't show your dirty washing in public.
And what did you edit 16 minutes after posting?
And could you please address KittyMay's question; Please can you provide a link to the above claim that the UK has been mitigating carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind generated electricity. I still haven't found any evidence of this mitigation.
And could you please address KittyMay's question; Please can you provide a link to the above claim that the UK has been mitigating carbon dioxide levels by the use of wind generated electricity. I still haven't found any evidence of this mitigation.
Can you give me any advice on her question? Because what is the point in wind energy if they don't mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, they might as well build a coal power station.
I am being honest here Reggy. You are obviously very clever and knowledgeable, but you have no manners, no moral fibre, and no ability to conduct a reasonable debate if it does not cooincide with your personal beliefs. Now will you please stop disrupting reasonable debate with your personal vendettas and, I have to say, very effective diversionary tactics.
I always treat people politely, abrupt but polite. I have no particular beef with kittymay, I asked her an honest question in response to her question as to whether I thought the effort was worth it, ie was there an ear at the end of it? I think you are seeing rudeness where there isn't any just to further your own malicious campaign against the strive for a low carbon economy because that is where you make your money isn't it?
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 02:22
Because what is the point in wind energy if they don't mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, they might as well build a coal power station.
Agreed.
I always treat people politely, abrupt but polite. I have no particular beef with kittymay, I asked her an honest question in response to her question as to whether I thought the effort was worth it, ie was there an ear at the end of it? I think you are seeing rudeness where there isn't any just to further your own malicious campaign against the strive for a low carbon economy because that is where you make your money isn't it?
Please explain how I am "malicious" and where I "make my money".
Please explain how I am "malicious" and where I "make my money".
It is malicious in the sense that I know you know better than what you spout off about wind farms yet you are prepared to misrepresent them out of spiteful hatred of wind farm development and it's entrepreneurship because it will harm your view from your house and your house price despite the greater good and prosperity for other people that such developments will provide. I'm not singling you out personally although you are a part, I'm more leaning towards selfish human behavior in general of which I also have as well.
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 10:35
It is malicious in the sense that I know you know better than what you spout off about wind farms yet you are prepared to misrepresent them out of spiteful hatred of wind farm development and it's entrepreneurship because it will harm your view from your house and your house price despite the greater good and prosperity for other people that such developments will provide. I'm not singling you out personally although you are a part, I'm more leaning towards selfish human behavior in general of which I also have as well.
OK Now you have got that off your back can we please concentrate on the important things and leave personal issues out? I don't agree with your point of view and you don't agree with mine. Lets try and change each other's views through reasoned argument, not mudslinging.
Reggys: #37 to me: "Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem" [directed against a person rather than against his arguments]..
Hmm.. kettle black etc there me thinks, judging by near vitriol directed to KittyMay & ywindythesecond
PS I'm not with CWIF re: "Do you lot take it in turns?"
OK Now you have got that off your back can we please concentrate on the important things and leave personal issues out? I don't agree with your point of view and you don't agree with mine. Lets try and change each other's views through reasoned argument, not mudslinging.
I am trying to be nice to you here but you are making it hard because you can hardly claim the moral high ground over these issues. You said it was me that had no moral fibre yet it is church leaders and politicians who are consistently saying that objecting to wind farms and being climate-change sceptical are some of the most immoral and anti-social activities of our time. I can't sit back and listen to them on the one hand and then read your propaganda on here on the other without doing something about it. I have never disagreed with the viewpoint that turbines can blight the landscape or cause flicker or bird deaths etc etc etc from anti-windfarm activists and climate-change deniers which they often not unsurprisingly seem to be the same. What I've disagreed with is the exaggeration, the downright lies, the fiddling with evidence, the double talk, the denial of facts etc etc etc. You and anybody else wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in the workings of the national grid or ornithology unless you can pluck out some exaggerated thing that can backup your anti-wind farm viewpoint that they spoils the view from your window or they can deflate your house price.
Yes, morality and honesty is at the heart of this discussion. If the discussion isn't honest and moral then it isn't a discussion or a reasoned arguement. To reason an argument then we need to strike a fair balance with the true facts fairly placed in front of us rather than propaganda from pressure groups with political agendas thrown down our necks. So to reason our own opinion on windfarms then we need weigh up what are the benefits environmentally and globally to that of local visual amenity. It is as simple as that. I've never seen anything that suggests that renewable energy from wind farms can be of benefit environmentally on the CWIF website yet it purports to give us information rather than misinformation. Since CWIF is a member of the networking organisation Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign (SHWC) it has lost any modicum of balance or respectability.
There is no place for propaganda in a message forum, it is outwith the scope of reasoned debate so why do you keep claiming the moral high ground?
Reggys: #37 to me: "Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem" [directed against a person rather than against his arguments]..
Hmm.. kettle black etc there me thinks, judging by near vitriol directed to KittyMay & ywindythesecond
I may do ad hominem attacks if provoked by them. I basically treat people as I find them.
My comment towards you was not ad hominem but your previous comment towards me was one.
Oh this one: Originally Posted by bekisman
But then not always de facto - Just 'cos Rheggy has posted over 8,235 times on the org and that just two of his Google searches generates about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea; http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ecedoes) does not de facto mean you are not an environmentalist, now does it?
But that was just to say you ARE an environmentalist (I'm right there aren't I?), and it's kinda juxtaposition ain't it?
Never being frightened of stepping into the fray, there was an interesting article in the Observer yesterday -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/10/wind-energy-power-electricity
A couple of snippets from said article -
"The whole situation is very, very difficult and we have got to stop pretending we have got anything other than chaos," says Andrew Bainbridge of the Major Energy Users' Council. He says some major retailers have reported dips in electricity supplies as the temperatures have plunged, adding to the problems of coping with the cold.
"Perhaps the biggest doubt about the dash for wind, however, is that it only provides an intermittent power supply, which is hard to store – so some back-up alternative is needed for times when the wind is low. Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users' Group, says: "Wind is a particularly useless form of power generation if you don't have a way of storing the energy. It just seems the politicians have been taken in by the wind lobby, and they've taken leave of their senses."
"Almost all analysts are agreed that solving the short-term energy crunch, as well as achieving the target of 30% of power produced from renewable sources by 2020, will be expensive. The energy market regulator Ofgem published a review of Britain's future energy requirements last year, which suggested an eye-watering £200bn of investment would be necessary to secure the UK's energy supplies by 2020 and meet its carbon targets. This means that customers could face potential price rises of anywhere between 14% and 60%".
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 17:08
Never being frightened of stepping into the fray, there was an interesting article in the Observer yesterday -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/10/wind-energy-power-electricity
.
Good article Olivia. It is pleasing to learn that the Observer and the Major Energy Users' Council are in broad agreement with the points I have been trying to get across on this thread.
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 19:45
I wonder what hoops the grid balancers had to jump through when this happened today? Not just once, but twice!
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4089/11windforecastoutturn.jpghttp://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4089/11windforecastoutturn.jpg (http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4089/11windforecastoutturn.jpg)
Never being frightened of stepping into the fray, there was an interesting article in the Observer yesterday -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/10/wind-energy-power-electricity
I agree with ywindythesecond, it was a good fair and balanced article. No one can deny that there are lots of problems with incorporating variable renewables into the old existing system, but they are not insurmountable and that is why the old ways need to be revised. Lots of problems will be addressed by the European Supergrid and a new wave of international co-operation. Yes, international co-operation rather than competition, we don't know it yet but the low carbon global economy could force the end of fuel wars and terrorism, it will bind us internationally in a way that no treaty has ever done before.
I wonder what hoops the grid balancers had to jump through when this happened today? Not just once, but twice!
I also noticed that and found it rather odd, I think it more than likely an instrumentation monitoring failure as I am sure there should have been a warning published when almost 900MW just disappears.
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-10, 22:27
I also noticed that and found it rather odd, I think it more than likely an instrumentation monitoring failure as I am sure there should have been a warning published when almost 900MW just disappears.
No, I think it was a couple of blips. The composite picture below is extracts from the NETA website at 6 o'clock tonight. From the top it shows Wind Forecast Out- turn, Generation by Type-Table followed by Chart, half hourly Interconnector Flows and finally, Recent System Prices. I continue this below the picture. http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2987/11janwindblip.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2987/11janwindblip.jpg)
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2987/11janwindblip.jpg
The Interconnector flows mirror the blips in that we exported less energy at the times the wind was dropping.
Generation by Type includes Oil for the first time since I started watching this site about two weeks ago. It also includes OCGT (Open circuit Gas Turbines as opposed to Closed Circuit) which are very expensive and not at all environmentally friendly.
I reckon that around period 27 or 28, the grid operators decided that it could not risk another major loss of wind power as output was falling steeply and the peak demand time was coming up, and called up an oil generator to stand by in case of need. This cost us very dearly as can be seen from the System Price at 15. 30 today.
And having bought oil or OCGT generated power at more than £35 a MWh, we exported the same amount to France for free, see Interconnector Flows.
All because the wind dropped suddenly.
No, I think it was a couple of blips.
Not quite correlating with the interconnector sorry so causality can't be substantiated.
Well I still think it is very unlikely to be anything other than instrumentation. For what you are proposing then the wind would have to suddenly stop everywhere simultaneously then start again within the same half hour. If you look at the curve before and after the blips the wind just carries on the same trend. If the wind did just stop suddenly everywhere then statistically it would be very unlikely that the previous trend would carry. The website is basically a data logger, I have had dealings with this sort of thing in other fields and it happens all the time.
ywindythesecond
12-Jan-10, 09:22
[quote=Rheghead;643712]Not quite correlating with the interconnector sorry so causality can't be substantiated.
Well I still think it is very unlikely to be anything other than instrumentation. quote]
When you make the charts the same horizontal scale, the second wind blip co-oincides precisely with the drop in export over the interconnector. It is not conceivable for equipment monitoring multiple wind stations to fail simultaneously with equipment monitoring a single large interconnector. The points on the output graph are at half hour intervals. The period covered by the second blip from peak to trough to peak was 2.5 hours.
I think we need some help here.
Tuggs?
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg (http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg)
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg
Tugmistress
12-Jan-10, 11:46
Have answered your PM windy :)
no idea what you lot are on about but hope what i sent clears whatever it is up :roll:
When you make the charts the same horizontal scale, the second wind blip co-oincides precisely with the drop in export over the interconnector. It is not conceivable for equipment monitoring multiple wind stations to fail simultaneously with equipment monitoring a single large interconnector. The points on the output graph are at half hour intervals. The period covered by the second blip from peak to trough to peak was 2.5 hours.
I think we need some help here.
Tuggs?
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg (http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg)
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7433/combinedcharts.jpg
Look again more closely. The 'trick' to reading graphs is trying not to see what you want to see.
On the wind forecast graph, the start of the second dip starts to drop at period 20 and the trough occurs at exactly at period 21 and the dip fully recovers at ~23. The increase from interconnector starts at 21, the peak occurs at period 22 and rests at 23, totally out of phase with the wind forecast graph, it is strange why you would want to hide the axis at this point when you have drawn a line to show exact correllation at 21??? Also on the bar graph of fuel type, the period 21 has an overall dip in height which corresponds exactly with the disappearance of the wind section from columns 20 and 23, that is an overall drop in demand which does not show in the other graph of demand/generation, go figure... This is because in the fuel type bar graph the columns are just simply a summation of all the other generation and if one disappears then there will be a corresponding dip, as shown, cf. no correlation to this in the demand/generation graph.
Also the magnitudes differ, on the interconnector graph, the height of the peak is ~1500MW and the dip in wind is just 800MW. For what you are trying to claim just doesn't add up.
The most likely reason for the dips in the wind is a failure in the monitoring system, that is why there is 2 because faults like this happen together often.
The shape of the dip in wind is too angular/acute as well, a fingerprint remark would suggest a sudden outage of signal from the monitoring system.
Hello to you. Given your last reluctance to accept anything complimentary towards wind energy, would you change your view of wind farms if I showed a reputable link to suggest such a thing or would it be an exercise in urination into the said wind? Be honest here. :D
How likely is a member of CWIF to break ranks and be all for wind farms? Since when have they been swayed by evidence/good info? Do you lot take it in turns?
Would it be fair to say that CWIF is a political pressure group which is aimed at stopping wind farm development? As with all political pressure groups, they aren't interested in anything that doesn't support their political aims, so why should their mantra be treated as gospel?
Crikey Rheghead, did I catch you at a bad time? Apologies for the delay in replying. Please don’t trouble yourself on my account. I realised quite some time ago that it’s really not that important in the grand scheme of things. The windfarms have been, are being and will be developed, regardless, so don’t fret. My fingers (and toes) are crossed that the proposed gross over-development of windfarms in Caithness is never realised.
And you’ve completely lost me re. the CWIF rant - I'm obviously not who you think I am?
Just heard the news this minute on MFR. You (and the developers/landowners etc) will be made up over the news on Baillie windfarm. Isn’t that brilliant? That’s one in the eye to those nimby councillors recommending refusal for this application.
(another 21? turbines to add to the windfarms at Causewaymire, Flex Hill, Bilbster, Forss, Boulfruich and Camster – did I miss any?)
As I said, you’ve no need to get your knickers in a knot - they’ll be developed regardless. What a waste of taxpayers money this planning process is though. Consultations, hearings, public inquiries. What is the point of it all?
What is the point of it all?
Indeed, the councillors knew that the development was a good proposal but they let who was developing it get in the way of the right decision so they left the developer with no choice but to go to Scottish Ministers wasting public expense. Same with Shebster I guess. I live and work in this community and I've heard it many a time behind the scenes that the biggest gripe local people have is with who the developers are rather than focussing upon the development. I haven't lived here long enough to be swayed by local personalities so I come to the table with the virtue of impartiality, just like the reporter and Jim Mather.
Indeed, the councillors knew that the development was a good proposal but they let who was developing it get in the way of the right decision so they left the developer with no choice but to go to Scottish Ministers wasting public expense. Same with Shebster I guess. I live and work in this community and I've heard it many a time behind the scenes that the biggest gripe local people have is with who the developers are rather than focussing upon the development. I haven't lived here long enough to be swayed by local personalities so I come to the table with the virtue of impartiality, just like the reporter and Jim Mather.
You're having a laugh, right? Either that or the fact you haven't lived here long has made you to jump to the wrong conclusion. This had nothing to do with personalities at the outset. More likely what you 'heard' was the community became disillusioned and disappointed with the people/personalities responsible. It's good to know that the reporter, Jim Mather and yourself were in agreement. That's bound to make things easier for the community.
But this is not what this thread is about so I'll leave it.
ywindythesecond
12-Jan-10, 21:20
Have answered your PM windy :)
no idea what you lot are on about but hope what i sent clears whatever it is up :roll:
Tuggs
Thanks very much for your help in finding weather data. It doesn't help me with this particular problem but it will be very useful in the future
ywy2
ywindythesecond
12-Jan-10, 22:33
[quote=Rheghead;643848]
The most likely reason for the dips in the wind is a failure in the monitoring system, that is why there is 2 because faults like this happen together often.
quote]
This is a close-up of the bar graphs around periods 15 and 21.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/410/closeup11janwindblip.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/410/closeup11janwindblip.jpg
There is almost no orange (Wind) at 15 and none discernable at 21. At 21, there has clearly been a substitution of pump storage hydro (purple) for wind. Sampling is at 30 minute intervals and a lot can happen in between samples. One possibility is the loss of a large wind resource and substitution with hydro and a reduction in the export to France. The bar chart seems to suggest that scenario.
I have put the question to the National Grid and I will post their answer when I get it.
[quote=Rheghead;643848]
The most likely reason for the dips in the wind is a failure in the monitoring system, that is why there is 2 because faults like this happen together often.
quote]
This is a close-up of the bar graphs around periods 15 and 21.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/410/closeup11janwindblip.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/410/closeup11janwindblip.jpg
There is almost no orange (Wind) at 15 and none discernable at 21. At 21, there has clearly been a substitution of pump storage hydro (purple) for wind. Sampling is at 30 minute intervals and a lot can happen in between samples. One possibility is the loss of a large wind resource and substitution with hydro and a reduction in the export to France. The bar chart seems to suggest that scenario.
I have put the question to the National Grid and I will post their answer when I get it.
And how do you account for the contribution from pumped storage being very similar in 20 (before the wind dip) to that at 21 at the trough of no wind bearing in mind there is a clear drop in overall demand/generation in 21, yet in the demand/generation graph there appears no such drop at 21?? I think you are chasing a ghost to be honest.
I'm looking fwd to what the National Grid say about this.
ywindythesecond
13-Jan-10, 01:16
[quote=ywindythesecond;644155]
And how do you account for the contribution from pumped storage being very similar in 20 (before the wind dip) to that at 21 at the trough of no wind bearing in mind there is a clear drop in overall demand/generation in 21, yet in the demand/generation graph there appears no such drop at 21?? I think you are chasing a ghost to be honest.
I'm looking fwd to what the National Grid say about this.
I can't account for it. We are only given snapshots at 30 min intervals. My money is on a drop in wind generation.
One of the big difficulties is that the Grid only monitors 1588MW of wind energy generation, and all of that is in Scotland, but it does not monitor all wind energy generation in Scotland. All English and Welsh wind generation, most Scottish embedded wind generation, and all connected micro-generation is invisible to the NG, but it still has to balance it. So whenever there is a large widespread wind resource, a large invisible input masks a large invisible demand, and apparent demand is reduced in the NG data. And the opposite is true when there is little wind resource, except the demand figures come closer to actual.
I can't account for it. We are only given snapshots at 30 min intervals. My money is on a drop in wind generation.
I hope you are wrong because if you are right then this will strike right at the heart of the notion that wind power, though variable, is extremely resistent to sudden outages like what is seen with large generators like coal and nuke. The UK government is hoping for 30+GW of wind by 2020, there will be nothing that can cope with such 90+% outages over such short periods. I'm sure it must be an instrumentation problem, if convinced otherwise I will cross the lobby floor.
ywindythesecond
13-Jan-10, 10:38
I hope you are wrong because if you are right then this will strike right at the heart of the notion that wind power, though variable, is extremely resistent to sudden outages like what is seen with large generators like coal and nuke. The UK government is hoping for 30+GW of wind by 2020, there will be nothing that can cope with such 90+% outages over such short periods. I'm sure it must be an instrumentation problem, if convinced otherwise I will cross the lobby floor.
If the country has 30GW + of wind by 2020, how would the system cope with the conditions expected over the next 24 hours?
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2760/1214janoutturnon13tham.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2760/1214janoutturnon13tham.jpg
If the country has 30GW + of wind by 2020, how would the system cope with the conditions expected over the next 24 hours?
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2760/1214janoutturnon13tham.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2760/1214janoutturnon13tham.jpg
By using the generation that is already in situ as back up? I remember a thread in which you poured doubt over my assertion that wind forecasting could be used as a tool to balance the Grid in relation to giving standby generators enough prep time to come online. Here we see it in action used very effectively, I guess I was right about that one.
ywindythesecond
13-Jan-10, 18:30
By using the generation that is already in situ as back up? I remember a thread in which you poured doubt over my assertion that wind forecasting could be used as a tool to balance the Grid in relation to giving standby generators enough prep time to come online. Here we see it in action used very effectively, I guess I was right about that one.
Firstly thanks for the edit reason.
Re using generation that is already insitu? I don't think so, not with such a big shortfall and remember 12GW will drop out in 2016 because of the Large Combustion Directive, and that is on top of nuclear run-down.
There will be no available insitu generation for back-up. It will all be working its socks off already.
As for using wind forecasting as a tool to prep alternative generation, the grid do seem to be pretty good at this in general, but look at periods 17 on the 12th to 10 on the 13th. How on earth can you plan for that?
Anyway, no degree of prediction accuracy is of any benefit if what it accurately predicts is no wind generation and no available alternative other than to warn the nation to fill their hot water bottles and flasks, although that might have a negative effect.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.