UK Energy Production

[Yojevol]

Did you mean "no net climatic disadvantage"?
Wind power means no CO2 production so there is potentially a massive climate change advantage over fossil fuel use. That's the whole point.
See Terry's post above no18

No, I meant 'advantage'. Spectric's question was about seeing an improvement in weather conditions, particularly wind speeds, by extracting energy from air movements. The answer is no, because that energy is merely recycled back into the atmosphere.
As you rightly say, there is certainly a climatic advantage in utilising power from wind because it replaces the need for fossil fuels.
Brian
PS, got a 'like' from Terry on my post

 

[Dermot McArdle]

There are a lot of opinions and knowledge out there on this subject.
But I'm still non the wiser.
How will electricity prices come down by us achieving net zero?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Uggghhhh...
Don't talk to me about bloody fracking....

(we got gasfields near my place, since they started fracking about fifteen years ago, the 'top' watertable has become contaminated, so every bore now needs to be fully cased down 700m plus to get to the 'clean' water (which is now also showing signs of contamination from unlined bores between the two tables...)

So bores here now cost $200k plus to get to the 'clean' water (the top table can't even be used for watering plants, let alone animal or human consumption)- it kills them...

NOT a fan...

(if that lower water table becomes contaminated, thats the entire towns water supply gone... it relies on a bore to the lagoon...) and I can't see the gas companies springing for a 600km water pipeline somehow lol)

As usual- they take the profits- and leave the taxpayers to clean up their **** left behind...
https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Petroleum/Chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-25615.aspx

Privatising profit - socialising costs and loss. Same old story every single place that we look.

 

[Blackswanwood]

There are a lot of opinions and knowledge out there on this subject.
But I'm still non the wiser.
How will electricity prices come down by us achieving net zero?

We are a few years into a transition to move away from oil and gas as the primary source of energy.

At the start of this transition most of the UK’s energy comes from burning fossil fuels. This has an adverse impact on the climate and the cost isn’t something we can control – it’s subject to global politics.

We have solar, wind and tidal energy that the UK can benefit from. It doesn’t come free as the “machinery” needed to convert kinetic energy into electricity needs to be built, installed and run. The production cost, once it’s in place, is lower than the cost of fossil fuels.

Initially there is a capital cost to build and install the machinery. This is funded via financing from the difference between the production and selling cost of the electricity produced. It may also be funded from public funds given the strategic benefit of not being reliant on external factors that influence energy costs and reducing the release of greenhouse gases. Even after the cost of financing the net cost to consumers should be lower. Effective regulation is required to ensure the market operates for the good of the consumer as well as any other stakeholders.

As it stands today, we lose the benefit of wind power as we cannot get the electricity that has been generated across the UK network due to not having the required power lines. When this happens, we burn gas that has been bought at a relatively much higher price, so bills are higher. If we build the power lines, the “grid” gets the benefit of cheaper electricity, so bills come down.

With where we are in the transition today oil and gas prices still have a significant impact on energy bills. As wind, solar and other energy sources (nuclear?) reach scale that won’t be the case.

If you feel differently why not set out your rationale?

 

[Dermot McArdle]

I can understand that with economies of scale and better connected grid, the electricity generated by renewables will be easier accessed and cheaper in an open market for wholesale prices.
But how does that account for the reserve back up which must be capable of supplying 100% of demand, if and when needed.
Who pays for all that generating capacity, even if we rarely have to use it?
And if we do have to use it, say for worst case-several weeks, how is that funded?

I'm afraid my own rational is to accept that we don't yet have the appropriate technology to produce a cheap reliable supply of electricity.
My wishful thinking is that the world will assemble a collection of the best scientists and give them an almost limitless budget to invent and develop a new source of energy.
Award them with an enormous monetary priize if they can do it within 10years and put a complete bastard in charge so none of the money gets wasted.

In WW2 the Americans corralled all their best scientists into a shanty town in Los Alamos and didn't let them out until they invented an atomic bomb.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Yes the wind is free and windmills work. But as I already have explained, they need to be matched with a back up, whether that is used or not.
What will be the back up?
If it's fossil or nuclear, then that is what the country pays for electricity.

Two points:

You actually don't need a 100% capacity backup - that is a red herring and for the birds - usually an idea that is proposed and floated by climate deniers and lobby groups through paid mouthpieces. The UK and it's territorial waters cover several degrees of latitude and the wind has never, ever been zero at all latitudes. "Weather underground" website is a decent resource (wunderground.com) for historical data - go have a look for yourself. Offshore wind is usually more effective at generation, because of the more consistent winds offshore, but the costs are higher for construction and maintenance.

Nobody is proposing a fully 100% wind generation capacity - but it does form a large part of a complete energy solution. Other parts can also be carbon zero.


Other discussion:

Technology is most certainly being funded, researched and implemented. Several things have caught my eye over the past year or so. I posted recently on the battery installation being built in central Scotland. Other large scale battery developments exist already and more are being proposed.

Long-range power connections that can supply a country from large scale solar from thousands of miles away is also in late stages of consideration and proposal - and before the detractors jump in and cal out "inefficiency", the very fact that it is being developed as a VIABLE method of supply simply shows that it is considered VIABLE as an energy source by the engineers working on the project.
So long range connections are on the cusp of development, and clearly show promise in supplying a zone where it is night time from a place where the sun is still shining - moderating the "can only get solar in daytime" detractor argument, because it is always daytime somewhere on the planet...

Small modular nuclear is also coming into vogue right now - but my personal view is that the downsides of nuclear are significant.

Then we also have domestic home-scale generating capacity being adopted - with homeowners themselves investing in solar and battery capacity. I'm looking at this myself, but currently not in a position to move forwards. It is definitely apparent that the revolution is accelerating here - with domestic solar and battery suppliers struggling to keep up with demand at the moment and I think this is only going to accelerate further... If we ever get to a large proportion of UK homes with battery storage then the dependency on large scale industrial battery storage will reduce significantly. Wind generates at night time (although not quite as well as in daytime - see details below if interested) so can be stored from wind-powered-grid in domestic batteries overnight to feed daytime use - and solar can top up in the day to provide evening high-domestic-demand-time power.

Battery EVs can also take advantage of excess wind overnight.

Other types of battery can be used to store excess night-time wind generation including pumped hydro. I personally used to loathe the idea of fossil-fuel energy being used to power pumped-hydro despite understanding the logic behind peak and off peak demands, but now with renewable being used to power renewable pumped-hydro, this is another virtuous circle that makes sense. As written above - heavy fluids are being developed to increase the energy storage capacity from pumped hydro, and is another layer in the mix.

All of these things combined together will form the overall mix of domestic and industrial supply, they all form part of the overall solution... and the mix will be engineered to work, despite the detractors saying blinkered things like "but the wind doesn't always blow".


The overall point is that the green revolution is most definitely underway - and the UK would do well to get in on the ground floor while it can. This isn't "virtue signalling" or "virtue talking", it's simply how things are currently moving forwards. The more and more energy the globe can generate in renewables means that the objects we produce to create renewables can be produced using renewables - and this sets up a virtuous circle of clean energy. China is investing heavily in renewables and drill-baby-drill USA will probably lose out in this long-term endeavour, leaving a potential vacuum of investment that the UK is well placed to tap into.



[Short meteorology lesson on horizontal air movement:
The wind at the surface/ground level is not as strong as the wind at around 2,000 feet above surface level. The wind at 2,000 feet is called the "geostrophic wind" or "gradient wind".
Wind strength is greater where isobars are closer together. UK met charts typically have isobars spaced at 4 hectoPascal (hPa) intervals (4 millibars in old money). Hence storms which are depicted on a surface pressure chart show isobars in circles that are closely stacked together, and it is this close spacing of isobars that creates very strong winds.
Friction is the reason for the wind strength decreasing below 2,000 feet. Friction between air movement and the ground is (typically) greater than friction between air and water for two reasons - ground is "rougher" than water and water is also consistently level and flat. Turbulence is also created by undulating terrain/obstacles/trees/buildings/etc. That said, in hilly terrain, it is better to place turbines at hill tops, because the venturi effect created by squeezing the horizontally moving air upwards helps to reduce the effects of friction.
Friction between air and surface is greater at night due to the ground being colder, which cools the air and makes it more dense/heavier to move, therefore the pressure gradient force moves it more slowly.
Wind direction also varies between surface and 2,000 feet gradient wind. This is because it is moving more slowly and the other force experienced by moving air - the Coriolis Force - which deflects air movement to the right in the northern hemisphere - and the reason that wind flows along the isobars at 2,000 feet, rather than at right angles which you would intuitively expect - the Coriolis force is reduced by slower moving air.
Daytime reduction in wind surface wind speed compared to gradient wind is typically 20-25% during daytime and typically 30-35% during night time.
Wind direction is typically 20deg "anticlockwise" from gradient wind during daytime and 30deg anticlockwise night time.
Wind direction is said to veer if it changes in a clockwise direction (viewed top down on a map) and said to back if it changes in anticlockwise.
The phrase "backs and slacks due to friction" ius useful in remembering how the wind varies from gradient wind to surface wind.
Surface wind is therefore not exactly along the isobars, but backed slightly.
Buys Ballot's Law (a real person's name) states that if you stand with your back to the wind in the northern hemisphere, the low pressure will be on your left.
One more factor on air movement is the sea breeze effects during an otherwise windless or low wind day. The Thermal Wind. Land heats quicker than water in daytime sunlight. Even though the air in contact with both land and sea at the coast is at the same pressure - therefore no pressure gradient force to drive winds - the thermal heating of the air over the land expands the air column over land more than that over water. The entire air column over land expands and becomes less dense. This creates a pressure differential, at height, between the two different air columns and causes horizontal air motion to start flowing at height from land to sea. A circulation effect is created from the warm air rising over land, flowing out to sea, and cooler air moving in from sea to land at surface level to "replace" the warm air that has risen away from the surface. This sea breeze typically flows strongest in the afternoon periods of hot summer days where there would otherwise be very little wind.
This is another reason why offshore wind can harness energy from otherwise slack wind days.
I think that's all I can remember to write down for now...]

 

[Dermot McArdle]

If we don't need 100% backup capacity, what percentage would be considered acceptable to cover a worst-case scenario?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

There are a lot of opinions and knowledge out there on this subject.
But I'm still non the wiser.
How will electricity prices come down by us achieving net zero?

Did you not say it yourself?
Renewable energy is less expensive to generate.

The very fact that prices are fixed at the higher level of fossil fired power stations (which is anathema to me) at peak times, and as high cost supply joins the grid to cover demand, I think you already identified that wind investment is being driven by the "excess" profit that it can make - at this present time and under this present Domestic supply pricing set up. Prices are fixed at a per unit cost related to the highest-cost bidder that is required to supply to the grid during demand times.
The highest cost bidder is the last one to join the supply grid.
Whenever fossil fuel marginal pricing can be reduced - by reducing the volume of high cost bid supply - this is when the overall energy unit costs will begin to reduce. And the less and less we need to rely on the "high demand buffer" suppliers, the more and more our energy prices will drop as a consequence, down towards the costs associated with running renewable sources.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

If we don't need 100% backup capacity, what percentage would be considered acceptable to cover a worst-case scenario?

We have experts designing our capacity - I strongly suggest that it is safe to trust the engineers.

I know that a large wedge of UK population feel that experts are somehow not to be trusted, or some-such other "balance" baloney, but, actually, they can!

 

[Sideways]

Power generators are paid at a certain amount to sit on standby, ready to ramp up within a guaranteed response time to cover demand spikes when renewable and base load generators can't cover it. Faster you can ramp and more you can produce, the more your standby rate. It's demand pull by the network / grid so there's no right to earn money.
They are also paid at a premium rate when that capacity gets called on.
The grid will never just sit there with enough fossil fuels on standbye to take over the entire national load if we had a week of no sun and no wind. It just isn't economic. Load control and management is looking at how to level out demand and reduce the peaks that cost a premium. Dynamic pricing will incentivise and push us to change our habits of use. Hospitals will be prioritised over home, over energy intensive industry over (most likely) EV charging and maybe heat pumps eventually.
It's already happening to some degree, you just may not be recognising it.
With few exceptions, losing or moving an hour of your car charging to a different time or even day has little impact and user convenience doesn't outweigh the national cost of a few extra power stations. Same if a batch of steel doesn't get melted until a day or two later. If your home is heat pump, insulated, low temp and high mass, it will hold a liveable temperature for days. We have to manage our energy (and water, and food, annd ...) resources more intelligently, all become more aware and responsible.
The kids will grow up seeing stuff like this as normal and horrified by our waste the way we look back on the Robertson's Golliwog.
Just sayin '

 

[woodieallen]

One of the few, many are in the pocket of the nuclear industry because where else can an unskilled person earn £40K a year plus perks for doing very little !
Most people pay to spend time at Butlins but this one pays you.
.....

Where do I sign up ?

 

[woodieallen]

..... and water is also consistently level and flat. .....

So, no waves around then ?

 

[Agent_zed]

Yes. When it blows. Now how hard is it to understand that ?

about as hard as understanding that Oil/gas is finite and subject to international agreements and a cause of anthropogenic climate change.

Difference is wind will blow again, oil/gas from fossil fuels take millions of years to return

 

[Agent_zed]

In most cases like this, the easiest way to work out who is likely telling the truth is to look at who stands to make the most profit.

It's not hard to see that big oil doesn't want anyone to change from their dependence on them. Why would they, they make billions upon billions. Why would they want everyone having solar panels making most of their own electric. We've already seen the switch to solar farms instead of incentives for homes to have their own. My belief - because it keeps the control (money) with the energy companies.

I do also believe that energy companies know that time is running out to milk us all from fossil fuels as it is getting more expensive to extract, hence the reluctant acceptance of moving to renewables. Weirdly trying to find the balance between not admitting renewables are doing the job enough that we don't want oil/gas as well, whilst also trying to pretend they are working hard on being better at being sustainable.

Perhaps I have been succumb to conspiracy theories but my feeling on this is that there is a big push to move everyone to electric as the powers that be know that it won't be long before gas is not an option. But they cant really stand up and say 'hey everyone don't panic but we only have about X years of gas left!' whilst we are so heavily reliant on it. Much easier when 90% of people won't be affected.

And as above we are now pushing for EV cars which aren't reliant on oil/gas in the same way as ICE.

In addition Smart meters are being pushed out to 'help' us, with the reality just as likely that the powers that be know at some point demand will exceed supply and they will be able to easily do rolling blackouts with the click of a button.

Hopefully I'm wrong, or at least if I'm right at least the powers that be are trying to get ahead of the problem.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I'm afraid my own rational is to accept that we don't yet have the appropriate technology to produce a cheap reliable supply of electricity

But we are further forward towards being able to do so than we were a year ago. It’s a transition not an immediate switch over.

 

[Spectric]

Where do I sign up ?

One of the interview questions might be what is two times five, don't say ten because you will be seen as to intelligent, say twenty five.

 

[Dermot McArdle]

Engineers will work to achieve the best balance possible given the situation made available to them.
They are not the providers or decision makers.

I'm still waiting to learn what is an acceptable level of backup generation.

I find the concept of 'dynamic' pricing and supply totally depressing.
In a modern economy, are we to tell industry that "today's not a good day to switch on. Try tomorrow when it's a bit windier".