Real shame
This is where Lewis Page is missed. That is not to skip the respect to Andrew Orlowski for continuing to keep an eye on the unquestionable religion we must all knuckle under.
Nice article Andrew
The head of the wind industry’s trade body in the UK has admitted England isn’t windy enough for any more wind farms. “We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new plants in England. The project economics wouldn’t work; the wind speeds don’t allow for it,” Hugh McNeal, head of Renewable UK told the …
Nice article, but doesn't Sir David MacKay FRS, FInstP, FICE deserve to have his name mentioned?
"In his final interview before his untimely death, DECC’s chief scientific advisor called it an “appalling delusion” that the UK could meet its energy needs from renewables."
Perhaps In his final interview before his untimely death, DECC’s chief scientific advisor David McKay called it an “appalling delusion” that the UK could meet its energy needs from renewables. might work just as well?
Also, it should be noted the the conductor of the interview asks viewers to "please do not quote him out of context or sensationalise what he said."
Facty bit: “We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new plants in England."
Reg hack conclusion: "...the UK isn’t windy enough for wind...".
The ghost of Lewis Page lives on.
By all means bash the hippies (we love it), but please try to stay honest. And if you can't resist over-interpreting and putting words in peoples' mouths, at least try be much funnier than this. Lewis usually was.
It's NOT a reg hack conclusion. The full context is that, without subsidy, onshore wind will never be cost competitive with gas. Because the turbines don't generate enough electricity, because there's not enough wind...
Which is strange when you think that, 15 years ago we were being told that wind power would solve our need for low carbon electricity and that issues surrounding intermittent operation were idiotic because 'the UK is very windy, and the wind is always blowing somewhere'.
Now, we're confronted with wind and solar operators installing DIESEL generators to cash in on the need for short term power generation to meet peak margin requirements. You couldn't make it up.
Against this, we have the clear difficulty that gas is not renewable, will run out and is causing significant damage to the environment. In otherwords, gas would never be cost competitive with wind power if dumping the waste were not subsidised (i.e. free).
The world we operate in is changing. The correct response to these statistics is, "we have to use less energy" or "we have to make wind power more effective", not "burn, baby, burn".
The actual article states "England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.
ONSHORE!
"Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.
But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy."
So Scotland or Wales then, or replace the smaller turbines with larger ones - as suggested by Scottish Power.
Basically a click baited article missing almost all the key facts.
We may not be windy enough or sunny enough but that doesn't mean we have to cut down on energy use because the only alternative is carbon fuels. The solution to our energy problems is at hand and has been for decades - nuclear power. We should of course supplement nuclear with offshore wind and solar farms but our base generation should be modern, safe nuclear power.
Look at our neighbour across the channel - France is 90% nuclear and the remainder mostly hydro. That hasn't stopped them wasting huge amounts of money on wind turbines though.
"France 90% nuclear", maybe when I was last in school. The World Nuclear Assoc. have it as 75% in March 2016.
As a percentage it's fallen year on year since 2004, from nearly 88%. That may not seem much but that's just under 80+TWh coming from somewhere else. Given France export "cheap" energy across Europe they must be making their model work (low carbon) even if nuclear is a diminishing percentage of total production. Nuclear,is predicted to dip to 50% of total production by 2025.
we have to make wind power more effective
I do love ideologically driven engineering.
I get to do huge belly laughs.
And how, Mr Phil Lord, do you propose to 'make wind power more effective' when its pushing the absolute limits of Betz' law and you can't make a windmill out of dreams and fairy dust: It takes energy.
The WHOLE POINT is that wind power cannot be made 'more effective'.
You sir, are a rampant Cat-beller*, and so are those who upvoted you.
Naïve to the point of being dangerous.
* Belling the Cat
LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.”
This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said:
“IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES.”
And how, Mr Phil Lord, do you propose to 'make wind power more effective' when its pushing the absolute limits of Betz' law and you can't make a windmill out of dreams and fairy dust: It takes energy.
Betz' law only applies to the blades themselves. there are other areas where efficiency can be increased such at the generator stage, bearings etc. For example, we could replace the present generators with those based on high temp superconductors which have been trialed. I don't think we have reached peak efficiency in any way or form
Generators are already at about 80% efficiency. Even if we could by some miracle get to 99.999% efficiency it will not solve the problems of wind power.
We need a true breakthrough in grid level storage if we want to depend on wind and solar for a major part of our electric power needs. Without viable grid level storage of some kind we must have some alternative power generation for the nights when the wind doesn't blow.
"We need a true breakthrough in grid level storage"
Likely to be P2G - power to gas. That's for when the low hanging fruit of readily available sites for pumped storage and uprated hydro and the effect of strengthened continent scale interconnection are used up and only more expensive options remain. Storing energy in the gas grid from wind/solar/tidal when electricity from that source is cheap, will lose about 50% of the stored renewable electricity in conversion costs. Given the likely variations in electricity spot price this will still be economic in helping eliminate the massive subsidies we all pay the carbon burners through untimely urban pollution deaths and excessive extreme weather insurance or uninsured flood and gale losses.
Superconductors? Really? Cool down your dreams using liquid Helium? How many watt-hours just to power the compressors to keep it liquid? How many effing Pounds Sterling is this going to cost for your anticipated "improvement"? You have any idea of the increase in efficiency you are proposing? Call back when you do.
Superconductors? Really? Cool down your dreams using liquid Helium? How many watt-hours just to power the compressors to keep it liquid? How many effing Pounds Sterling is this going to cost for your anticipated "improvement"? You have any idea of the increase in efficiency you are proposing? Call back when you do.
Call me back when you work for a company that is developing that technology
Call us back when you work for a company that is able to increase the output power to a level greater than the input power.
Betz's law gives an absolute limit to the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind by a perfect "actuator disk" aka turbine. So the efficiency figures AMSC claim are with respect to Betz's limit, hence their 94% efficient "HTS generator" at its output terminals will deliver at best circa 55.7% of the energy originally contained in the wind; although I note that AMSC do not actually give an efficiency figure for a complete tower and hence the above is based on an assumption...
Whilst AMSC's 94% efficiency is a big improvement on previous generation of equipment with 75~80% efficiency, it would seem that there is little room for further significant efficiency gains, yes they might be able to creep up to 98% but that ain't going to deliver significant increases in energy output. Nor are they going to resolve the problem of when the wind doesn't blow...
Roland6 - well lets not short change a 5% increase in efficiency. Airliners are sold on smaller improvements. Also unlike fossil fuel generators, once the turbine is setup there are no other major costs, so that 5% will continue delivering for the lifetime of the generator.
Also making the generators small and light reduces base costs and allows you increase the number of areas which makes placing wind turbines.
OK there are no magic solutions and you can't beat physics, but there are a lot of things you can do within those limits and I don't think we have go there yet.
hammarbtyp - I wasn't trying to short change the increases in efficiency we have seen in wind turbines, just the idea that there is room for technology enhancements that could enhance a 10MW wind turbine beyond 11MW...
As for making generators small and light, I have no problem with, just that we're not seeing manufacturers addressing micro-generation, where these attributes really come to the fore.
Looked at one way, you will NEVER reach 'peak efficiency' - it's asymptotic.
Looked at another way, we are ALWAYS at peak efficiency - we are always doing the best that we and current technology can. The minute you make optimistic assertions about the future of your favourite technology, you allow me to counter with optimistic assumptions about mine - including the assumption that we will invent a much better form of energy production next year...
Betz's law limits the energy you can take from the wind, You could make the rest of the system 100% efficient, and you would still get no more than the Betz limit...
@Phil Lord
"""
Against this, we have the clear difficulty that gas is not renewable, will run out and is causing significant damage to the environment. In otherwords, gas would never be cost competitive with wind power if dumping the waste were not subsidised (i.e. free).
"""
re "gas is not renewable, will run out" in 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 or 500 years? i know! soon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bro-WwwroEA&feature=youtu.be&t=3)
re "is causing significant damage to the environment" as opposed to what? coal? diesel? hydro? nuclear? we change the environment with our sole existence, not to speak about numbers. we live, therefore we need energy. the real question should be how to provide, not how to stiffle it. if (more people) => (more energy needed) then conversely (less energy provided) => ??? (careful, borders on mass genocide)
"""
The world we operate in is changing. The correct response to these statistics is, "we have to use less energy" or "we have to make wind power more effective", not "burn, baby, burn".
"""
re """The correct response to these statistics is, "we have to use less energy" or "we have to make wind power more effective""""
WRONG. the only land that uses "less energy" is yesterdayland. throughout _all_ history we (genus homo, homo sapiens species) used progressively more energy. arguably that's what progress _means_. again, not to speak about numbers. ever heard of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
in fact the _real_ correct reponse is "we have to stop wasting energy" and related "we have to stop polluting environment" -- and by pollution i don't mean by product heat or co2. had we not poisoned the oceans and felled down the forests we could have used them for changing heat and co2 to food.
"""
not "burn, baby, burn"
"""
agreed, burning is stupid when you have e.g. nuclear energy. correction: _if_ you have nuclear energy.
...Against this, we have the clear difficulty that gas is not renewable,....
Yes it is.
... will run out...
No it won't
... and is causing significant damage to the environment....
No it doesn't
... In otherwords, gas would never be cost competitive with wind power...
Yes it is...
Do you own a hat? I can supply some nice hot gochujang sauce to make it go down easier.
... never say never ...
See: Historic gas prices, note the factor 5 price decrease in the last ten years, and extrapolate at will.
"environmental impacts on wildlife"
ISTR reading about tests at Strangford quite some time ago which concluded that this wasn't really a problem. It's a good test site given that there's the QUB marine station immediately adjacent, that the turbines occupied a reasonable percentage of the opening and that the tidal flows are very strong with the entire tidal volume of the Lough rushing in and out through a very narrow opening.
Swansea tidal lagoon would be closer
Because I can see the site out of the window, here are some links:
I also saw an analysis somewhere that claimed their figures for generation were out - they would not be able to generate for as long on each tide as they claimed. However, the idea of a chain of tidal lagoons around the country, taking advantage of staggered tides, is interesting and in some ways the Swansea project is too small.
Gotta be better than the Severn Barrage which would not only have wrecked the tidal mudflats upstream, but stopped for ever the awe-inspiring Severn Bore.
M.
> I think Scotland are sorted for Tidal power.
We get 9 metre tides in Fleetwood and Liverpool, the Bristol channel is truly epic on springs 13m at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and_sea/tide_tables/12/523
I think Strangford Lough hits 4 knots, which - in theory - could provide substantial amounts of power for the small village of Belfast.
We've actually got quite a lot of renewable stuff up in Scotland (quick check suggests it's around 57%) and iirc we're a net exporter to the national grid. There probably is some loss, but not as much as you might think since the whole reason for high voltage pylons is to reduce power loss during transfer from remote power stations
Honestly though, while I'm all for renewables as a power source, they are going to need more research and investment in pilot schemes since it's heavily dependent on regional conditions. Until then the best way to reduce carbon emissions is probably to invest more in nuclear, but good luck getting that passed in parliament
Why would you take tidal energy from Scotland down to Birmingham? That seems wasteful to start with. There are massive sections of coast far closer to Birmingham than Scotland and it's likely some of those would be more likely but generally Tidal energy would like be used for the closest areas first meaning the coastal towns first and then further inland with excess. However this energy reduces the total amount of energy needed in the UK completely. Somewhere like Birmingham which is nearing the point furthest away from any coast possible, would likely be on a different type of energy source but you don't need to use that same type of source for coastal areas powered by tidal power.
...Why would you take tidal energy from Scotland down to Birmingham? That seems wasteful to start with. There are massive sections of coast far closer to Birmingham than Scotland and it's likely some of those would be more likely ...
Tidal energy, like hydro, is critically dependent on suitable geography. There are actually very few sites in the UK suitable for either, so any proposal suggesting widespread use of either is an immediate failure...
"...Birmingham..."
Power from Labrador (a.k.a. northern Quebec, LOL) is sold to the USA.
I'm not an expert in geography, but I'm pretty sure that the UK is about the size of a small coconut by comparison.
The real problem with tidal is that it must be on the same truck as my flying car. Delayed by endless decades...
Don't believe it's an issue.
As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
well because its not a review of all possible renewables.
I agree completely however . Tides are a great natural resource almost completeley unused. All that water sloshing around , the potential energy must be immense. Also we have some of the highest and strongest tides in the world. Storm damage to kit sounds like a trifling problem, and also one that applies to sun n wind.
..or we could start off the water power revolution by damming all these rivers up and getting some turbines going. Rivers are another massive (and reliable!) source of energy and again untapped ( in this country)
..or we could start off the water power revolution by damming all these rivers up and getting some turbines going. Rivers are another massive (and reliable!) source of energy and again untapped ( in this country)
Er... are you sure that's a good idea? Have you not noticed what happens when rivers fill up with too much water? Blocking the outflow seems like a perfect way of ensuring that large inhabited parts of the country are, er, flooded.
You could put floating waterwheels on many rivers.
These are anchored but can rise or fall with river levels.
These would use the flow of water to turn the wheels. As the majority of rivers flows 24/7/52 then there is always a flow of power.
These could be placed under bridges (where the water speeds up) or at the sides in multiples
It wouldn't take an enginnering genius to get a design that could be mass produced thus lowering the cost.
Ok, so it might not be in the mega or goga watt range but as the tesco advert says
'Every little helps'.
Just think what a thousand of these on the River Thames/Severn/Trent might produce?
Maintenance? just lift them out of the water, replace with another one and cart the old one off to a base for work.
But hey, I'm just dreaming. The planners would put a stop to this sort of thing in an instant.
..It wouldn't take an enginnering (sic) genius ....
On the other hand, it looks as if it DOES take an engineering genius to point out that the energy density of a flowing stream is about 50 watts per square foot (assuming 10% efficiency, which is generous). That really isn't enough to harvest...
"we could start off the water power revolution by damming all these rivers up and getting some turbines going."
Are you serious ?. Where in this small island is there enough catchment to collect sufficient water and free land to flood to a depth sufficient to generate meaningful amounts of electricity at an altitude that will give a sufficient head - well I can tell you, just about nowhere including most of the Highlands.
I'm in Switzerland at the moment. In the Valais from Martigny to Visp ~60km the side-valleys almost all contain dams for flood-control and hydro purposes. Many of the dams have heads of ~1000m with rainfall and meltwater from 4000+ m peaks and yet this area stiil only produces electricity equivalent to ~15% of Switzerland's consumption