Maybe we are not doomed after all
Comments
-
Well done that man. 👍1
-
So in listening to a few recent posters, despite the thread title we are all doomed and may as well give up trying. Nice reassuring message.0
-
It wasn't my message, so it is up to you who to believe.Pross said:So in listening to a few recent posters, despite the thread title we are all doomed and may as well give up trying. Nice reassuring message.
0 -
I'm sure things will change the more apparent the problems start to occur. Air travel will be an interesting one to see evolve.
I think anybody who uses the internet to pontificate about the environment doesn't have a leg to stand on though.0 -
Hydro storage is only likely to be helpful to deal with short term load shifting. Batteries can also do that.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.We want to build NorthConnect to facilitate more renewable energy production and to ensure that surplus power from Scotland is able to be used, rather than switched off.
In Norway there is a large and increasing power surplus. The greatest surplus is the power surplus in the region that the NorthConnect connection is planned to be laid in Hordaland. In this power region, twice as much power is produced as it is consumed. In Scotland, there is a growing supply of wind power. Storage of this power is slowly developing, but currently, when there is insufficient wind, the power market in Scotland needs the supply of other energy that can be quickly turned on and off. Hydropower has this ability. Hydropower can be stored - and it can be turned on and off quickly. When it is not windy on the Scottish side, NorthConnect can provide the supply of Norwegian hydropower. When it is very windy, Norway can buy cheaper wind power from Scotland and save hydropower for the price and demand increases. In this way, both Norway and Scotland are guaranteed stable, cheap and renewable power.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
Also, interconnectors, such as the North Connect, don't tend to be that big.
Another way to do short term load shifting is demand side storage. This is the point of smart meters, so people will choose to charge their cars at night and not at peak hours. It's not hard to imagine having freezers that could be temporarily turned off during a peak hour.
I think the plan for when there is no wind or sun, which is the big problem, and could last for a few weeks is to use carbon capture and storage with gas.
Finally, hydrogen is essentially storage. Although that is one of the areas that needs some work as the freezing point of hydrogen is much lower than LNG.0 -
No, it was some of the others basically saying renewables and alternative ways of powering vehicles won't solve the whole issue and seemingly implying it is therefore pointless bothering. I find your posts on the subject of alternative energy interesting and assume you are involved in the sector in some way.TheBigBean said:
It wasn't my message, so it is up to you who to believe.Pross said:So in listening to a few recent posters, despite the thread title we are all doomed and may as well give up trying. Nice reassuring message.
2 -
Energy storage capacity is increasing in the UK, with the announcement of a major new deal to deliver two 50MW battery superhubs in Oxford and Kent by the end of this year. The deal between Pivot Power, part of EDF’s renewables arm and Finnish tech firm Wartsila will mean 100MW of storage capacity between sites in Cowley, Oxford and Kemsley, Kent..
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/blog/energy-storage-uk-capacity-increasing
Another system akin to Tesla's massive powerbanks in Australia, but I don't like the idea of a load of batteries depleting overtime as a waste by-product.0 -
Yes, that's a good idea.TheBigBean said:
Hydro storage is only likely to be helpful to deal with short term load shifting. Batteries can also do that.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.We want to build NorthConnect to facilitate more renewable energy production and to ensure that surplus power from Scotland is able to be used, rather than switched off.
In Norway there is a large and increasing power surplus. The greatest surplus is the power surplus in the region that the NorthConnect connection is planned to be laid in Hordaland. In this power region, twice as much power is produced as it is consumed. In Scotland, there is a growing supply of wind power. Storage of this power is slowly developing, but currently, when there is insufficient wind, the power market in Scotland needs the supply of other energy that can be quickly turned on and off. Hydropower has this ability. Hydropower can be stored - and it can be turned on and off quickly. When it is not windy on the Scottish side, NorthConnect can provide the supply of Norwegian hydropower. When it is very windy, Norway can buy cheaper wind power from Scotland and save hydropower for the price and demand increases. In this way, both Norway and Scotland are guaranteed stable, cheap and renewable power.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
Also, interconnectors, such as the North Connect, don't tend to be that big.
Another way to do short term load shifting is demand side storage. This is the point of smart meters, so people will choose to charge their cars at night and not at peak hours. It's not hard to imagine having freezers that could be temporarily turned off during a peak hour.
I think the plan for when there is no wind or sun, which is the big problem, and could last for a few weeks is to use carbon capture and storage with gas.
Finally, hydrogen is essentially storage. Although that is one of the areas that needs some work as the freezing point of hydrogen is much lower than LNG.
I remember as a kid when abroad on holiday seeing solar heating panels on most of the houses a long time ago. Such a great way of producing hot water in the right climate which would otherwise require lots of power. It wasn't done for the environment at that time, just because it made financial sense.0 -
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.0 -
...and there are a lot of cities needing power between the mountains and London.lesfirth said:Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Scale could be a slight issue for some of the ideas... But you are more or less on the right track.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
You can make a lot of difference to Co2 emissions with wind, nuclear storage, and gas turbines that cover peaks and times when wind is low.
If you can generate hydrogen using green electricity, you'd also have another good store of energy.0 -
Where will London get it's power from in this new world?lesfirth said:
Will there be enough for the whole country? Will it be prioritised?
Basically, renewables are good but they won't supply the whole country for a considerable time. It's a cheeky way of making a point.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Other countries are curious as to why we literally watch rainwater go down the drains. Then moan about a drought.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It shouldn't really happen with SuDS schemes these days but too many developments get away with paying lip service and doing the bare minimum to get planning approval. It's starting to be taken more seriously now though I think. When BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes were all the rage a decade or so back rainwater recycling was a big thing.pblakeney said:
Other countries are curious as to why we literally watch rainwater go down the drains. Then moan about a drought.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.0 -
I have little imagination. You dont need it to study electrical engineering or mend cars.( There was no money in being an electrical engineer but that is another topic).pblakeney said:
Other countries are curious as to why we literally watch rainwater go down the drains. Then moan about a drought.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
If I had imagination I would have been an artist. In that case I would know FA about this topic and I would not have posted on it but that does not stop others.
0 -
🧐 ? 🤔🤔🤔lesfirth said:
I have little imagination. You dont need it to study electrical engineering or mend cars.( There was no money in being an electrical engineer but that is another topic).pblakeney said:
Other countries are curious as to why we literally watch rainwater go down the drains. Then moan about a drought.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
If I had imagination I would have been an artist. In that case I would know FA about this topic and I would not have posted on it but that does not stop others.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I wouldn't say that, you had the imagination to use Google and consequently learnt there are such things as massive batteries, just not in the form you had imagined.lesfirth said:
I have little imagination. You dont need it to study electrical engineering or mend cars.( There was no money in being an electrical engineer but that is another topic).pblakeney said:
Other countries are curious as to why we literally watch rainwater go down the drains. Then moan about a drought.pangolin said:
Use some imagination. If no mountains are available start digging a hole and have the low point underground. Put a tank in the attic of every new build and one under the ground floor. Use a heat sink instead of gravitational potential energy. These are solvable (or in fact, solved) problems.lesfirth said:
No. The idea is that you pump the water back up when you have the surplus generating capacity to do so. It does not matter if demand is zero, if you do not have the capacity to pump back up you can not.focuszing723 said:
The idea is you pump the water back when demand is low. I'm sure more could be built given the will and requirement.lesfirth said:
Like Dinorwig in North Wales? That is by far the biggest .On its own it could power the UK for about a quarter of an hour and then be useless until a surplus of electricity was available. Building one in Norfolk would be a bit tricky. ( You need a mountain with a lake at the top and the bottom) .focuszing723 said:
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, hydroelectric. Basically a massive battery.lesfirth said:
That may or may not be correct depending where you get the data but that is an average over a period. Mass storage of electricity is not possible so we have to provide generating capacity for the winter day when we have a high pressure sat over us and the wind does not blow. We need extra generating capacity to charge all the electric cars and to allow for our reduced nuclear capacity. The massive other problem is how are we going to replace all the gas we use in industry and to heat our homes? The government seem to think we can do that with a bit of extra insulation and a heat pump in every house! I will never know but by grandkids will.elbowloh said:
I believe that, in the year to date, renewables have provided more energy to the UK grid than non-renewables?lesfirth said:I have just watched the hydrogen train on BBC news and I do not know who is trying to con the viewers.
The use of hydrogen is very clean at the point of use. However all the hydrogen on earth is combined with something else. It is impossible to separate it without using energy. All hydrogen use does is create a bigger problem somewhere else.
The tree huggers will say that we can use renewables to make the hydrogen. At this moment on this windy day, renewables are generating 30% of our electricity. A new nuclear power station on Anglesey is not going to happen.
Unless we can have deserts covered in solar panels providing the energy required and tankers moving the hydrogen around the world ,along with carbon capture, I think we are all doomed.
I have just checked on Gridwatch.co.uk. Renewables are contributing 23% at the moment.
https://northconnect.co.uk/
There is also this which is a good idea.
These schemes were designed decades ago when we used coal fired generation which was difficult to turn off and on overnight. The operation was possible because a surplus of generation capacity would be available every night. When we rely on wind power we can not be so certain when we will have a surplus. Plus as I have said you need a mountain.
If I had imagination I would have been an artist. In that case I would know FA about this topic and I would not have posted on it but that does not stop others.0 -
I can't remember the exact figures off the top of my head, but the whole UK electricity output was just shy of 50% from renewables for the first 3 months of 2020, so pre-pandemic, when demand would still be higher due to still being in winter.pblakeney said:
Where will London get it's power from in this new world?lesfirth said:
Will there be enough for the whole country? Will it be prioritised?
Basically, renewables are good but they won't supply the whole country for a considerable time. It's a cheeky way of making a point.
As long as battery storage is factored in to the network, to allow usage when need is high, but supply is low, there's no reason whatsoever that we cannot increase this dramatically.
It's a pity that the government gave in to the construction industry's lobbying and reneged on the idea of all new buildings requiring renewables to be built in at source a decade or so ago. Retro-fitting renewable generation is 3 times more costly than putting it in from scratch, but short-term profit is so much more important than the long-term health of the planet.
As for London, why should it need to be prioritised? In these new pandemic times it's not the gargantuan powerhouse it was a mere 6 months ago. WFH will massively shift energy consumption from both commuting and working in offices no-one needs to attend anymore.
However, as I've already stated further up the thread, what we do here in the UK is of little consequence if China and America don't up their game too. China have announced their intentions, but another term of Trump will offset anything happening globally over the next 4 years0 -
You missed out on my cheeky part. 😉
I was trying to make the point that renewables will not cover 100% of the UK for a considerable period of time and that any hydro power generated would be used up quite quickly. Progress is good but we've a way to go.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You know there is a grid network? If you are making the point that the current grid network doesn't have sufficient capacity for the electrification of everything, then you are correct. A major grid upgrade is required, and it will be costly. The Committee on Climate Change has done a lot of analysis of this.pblakeney said:You missed out on my cheeky part. 😉
I was trying to make the point that renewables will not cover 100% of the UK for a considerable period of time and that any hydro power generated would be used up quite quickly. Progress is good but we've a way to go.
Greater hydrogen use will reduce grid issues provided that the electrolysers are not running off the grid.0 -
BB - re batteries. I'm under the impression that effective batteries require fairly rare and exotic and harmful (either in their state or how they are mined/extracted) minerals.
Is that the case, and if so, how sustainable is that if we start moving significant parts of national grids onto batteries?0 -
no need to build it twice you use the batteries in electric carsrick_chasey said:BB - re batteries. I'm under the impression that effective batteries require fairly rare and exotic and harmful (either in their state or how they are mined/extracted) minerals.
Is that the case, and if so, how sustainable is that if we start moving significant parts of national grids onto batteries?0 -
as for London I am convinced that the Thames could be more of the solution, if you ever stand by a weir there is a colossal amount of water and power that could be harnessed, this could be enhanced with tidal power in the lower stretches and you could always build wind turbines in it (Canary Wharf is farking windy).
maybe you could double up and have a wind turbine on top and water underneath the same structure0 -
Jeez!TheBigBean said:
You know there is a grid network? If you are making the point that the current grid network doesn't have sufficient capacity for the electrification of everything, then you are correct. A major grid upgrade is required, and it will be costly. The Committee on Climate Change has done a lot of analysis of this.pblakeney said:You missed out on my cheeky part. 😉
I was trying to make the point that renewables will not cover 100% of the UK for a considerable period of time and that any hydro power generated would be used up quite quickly. Progress is good but we've a way to go.
Greater hydrogen use will reduce grid issues provided that the electrolysers are not running off the grid.
I'm talking about the required supply of renewable to meet capacity requirements.
Those requirements are only going to increase with the move towards electrification.
We need hydro, solar, wind and wave/tidal power generation combined to come close. That is a long way off.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I've said it before but I think tidal power in this country is being massively under-utilised for some reason especially in the parts of the country such as the Bristol Channel where we have massive tidal ranges. It is far more predictable than any other source of renewable I can think of. There's lots of industrial land on river estuaries so maybe the dots could be joined to have hydrogen production facilities using tidal power?0
-
Perfectly useable solution, home brew solar is usually a few leisure battery's so why not a used EV car power pack, they usually have 80% efficiency. Can easily be stored either indoors or under ground to reduce temperature variations which can limit battery capacity.surrey_commuter said:
no need to build it twice you use the batteries in electric carsrick_chasey said:BB - re batteries. I'm under the impression that effective batteries require fairly rare and exotic and harmful (either in their state or how they are mined/extracted) minerals.
Is that the case, and if so, how sustainable is that if we start moving significant parts of national grids onto batteries?
Only hurdle is they are designed for mains voltage while solar is a max of 48v so it wont charge as quick, though you could in theory run a split charge circuit to roughly double the input, doable but hassle.0 -
BB - would have thought that electrolysers running off the grid would be OK so long as it wasn't at peak times? Could they not act as batteries. Really windy at night? Run the electrolysers, still during the day? Run that hydrogen through some gas turbines (some minor mods required).TheBigBean said:
You know there is a grid network? If you are making the point that the current grid network doesn't have sufficient capacity for the electrification of everything, then you are correct. A major grid upgrade is required, and it will be costly. The Committee on Climate Change has done a lot of analysis of this.pblakeney said:You missed out on my cheeky part. 😉
I was trying to make the point that renewables will not cover 100% of the UK for a considerable period of time and that any hydro power generated would be used up quite quickly. Progress is good but we've a way to go.
Greater hydrogen use will reduce grid issues provided that the electrolysers are not running off the grid.
One subject that keeps getting pushed in my circles, but has had no (or little) traction in this thread is fusion, which does seem to be getting closer, rather than being perpetually 20 years away.0 -
Previously you were talking about London not having power which was confusing. Now you seem to be saying that electrifying everything will require lots of carbon free generation. This is true, and there are various options for the mix of that generation as I have posted previously on this thread.pblakeney said:
Jeez!TheBigBean said:
You know there is a grid network? If you are making the point that the current grid network doesn't have sufficient capacity for the electrification of everything, then you are correct. A major grid upgrade is required, and it will be costly. The Committee on Climate Change has done a lot of analysis of this.pblakeney said:You missed out on my cheeky part. 😉
I was trying to make the point that renewables will not cover 100% of the UK for a considerable period of time and that any hydro power generated would be used up quite quickly. Progress is good but we've a way to go.
Greater hydrogen use will reduce grid issues provided that the electrolysers are not running off the grid.
I'm talking about the required supply of renewable to meet capacity requirements.
Those requirements are only going to increase with the move towards electrification.
We need hydro, solar, wind and wave/tidal power generation combined to come close. That is a long way off.
0
