The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
I'm in the central belt of Scotland and wind is 10-12mph at 250m where I live. That's fairly calm here.kingstongraham said:
Offshore most likely.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
Intermittent wind becomes a non issue if you have an excess capacity and energy can be stored. It is not an excuse for persisting with gas.
Offshore wind won't be popular because we will be able to see them from most of our coastline, but it's a lot less intrusive than onshore, and so will be a lot less unpopular. We have a huge resource available offshore in our territorial waters, so pushing offshore wind is a sensible strategy imo. We shouldn't need any onshore wind, honestly.0 -
Offshore windfarms have capacity factors* of close to 50%. Whilst everyone thinks that nuclear is always on, it's not (see France for a case in point at the moment), so nuclear only manages around 80%.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
To get close to 50% for offshore wind is pretty amazing.
*Capacity factor = actual output / theoretical max.0 -
Nuclear is always on, essentially, but the reaction can be moderated. I know it's a boron topic though.
It is slow to ramp up and down though, even compared to coal. I think.
Safety issues mean frequent inspections and high maintenance costs, hence why even 80% is high for nuclear.
Neutrons degrade steel and make it brittle, basically. The same issue will be present if fusion ever takes off, which means it may never ve a cheap energy panacea.1 -
That's 23.5% of UK electricity generation currently coming from wind, nothing to do with the capacity factor.TheBigBean said:
Offshore windfarms have capacity factors* of close to 50%. Whilst everyone thinks that nuclear is always on, it's not (see France for a case in point at the moment), so nuclear only manages around 80%.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
To get close to 50% for offshore wind is pretty amazing.
*Capacity factor = actual output / theoretical max.
Up to 24.1% now.0 -
I think you twoare agreeing.kingstongraham said:
That's 23.5% of UK electricity generation currently coming from wind, nothing to do with the capacity factor.TheBigBean said:
Offshore windfarms have capacity factors* of close to 50%. Whilst everyone thinks that nuclear is always on, it's not (see France for a case in point at the moment), so nuclear only manages around 80%.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
To get close to 50% for offshore wind is pretty amazing.
*Capacity factor = actual output / theoretical max.
Up to 24.1% now.
Capacity factor ls are why "will generate enough energy to power X,000 homes" claims from developers should generally be read as "X,000 ÷ 2" or much lower for a lot of the borderline viable sites they take a punt and put applications on. Normally they take the rating of the turbine X number of turbines and if the planning authority is diligent, float a balloon with an anemometer on it to measure wind at the statistically windiest time of year, then extrapolate over the whole year and over promise based on that.0 -
First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.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 was blowing in my face on the uphill section of my run!Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.0 -
We need to get beyond what is popular when it comes to energy production (in the same way as we do with car usage). If all unpopular options are ruled out we'll be having blackouts in no time and if we rule out renewables on how they look from certain vantage points then some of those coastlines will be part of the sea in a few decades anyway.First.Aspect said:
I'm in the central belt of Scotland and wind is 10-12mph at 250m where I live. That's fairly calm here.kingstongraham said:
Offshore most likely.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
Intermittent wind becomes a non issue if you have an excess capacity and energy can be stored. It is not an excuse for persisting with gas.
Offshore wind won't be popular because we will be able to see them from most of our coastline, but it's a lot less intrusive than onshore, and so will be a lot less unpopular. We have a huge resource available offshore in our territorial waters, so pushing offshore wind is a sensible strategy imo. We shouldn't need any onshore wind, honestly.0 -
-
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.0 -
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.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 need to dig out Mr Goo's views on it and the blight it would have on the poor folk down on the Dorset coastline.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
0 -
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.0 -
Yes, thanks, I just grasped what TBB was saying. It's an impressively (and surprisingly) high number.First.Aspect said:
I think you twoare agreeing.kingstongraham said:
That's 23.5% of UK electricity generation currently coming from wind, nothing to do with the capacity factor.TheBigBean said:
Offshore windfarms have capacity factors* of close to 50%. Whilst everyone thinks that nuclear is always on, it's not (see France for a case in point at the moment), so nuclear only manages around 80%.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
To get close to 50% for offshore wind is pretty amazing.
*Capacity factor = actual output / theoretical max.
Up to 24.1% now.
Capacity factor ls are why "will generate enough energy to power X,000 homes" claims from developers should generally be read as "X,000 ÷ 2" or much lower for a lot of the borderline viable sites they take a punt and put applications on. Normally they take the rating of the turbine X number of turbines and if the planning authority is diligent, float a balloon with an anemometer on it to measure wind at the statistically windiest time of year, then extrapolate over the whole year and over promise based on that.0 -
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields to green energy
Wave = a bit pants0 -
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pantsThe 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 mean, there is already a tonne of offshore wind and a load that is already signed off to go.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
If people are objecting, they haven't been doing a very good job.0 -
Give it time. But hopefully it's just going to be accepted.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is already a tonne of offshore wind and a load that is already signed off to go.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
If people are objecting, they haven't been doing a very good job.
This should be a major manufacturing industry in the UK. Of course, we've been left behind and are buying them in instead.0 -
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants0 -
I think you're stretching there, wind farms tend to rely on exposure which generally means either a coastal location or altitude. The average wind speed maps in this suggest there is are reasonable grounds for them being located in Scotland (or Wales) than in Southern England.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/windiest-place-in-uk
As for solar, there is a lot of it it southern Britain. Unsurprisingly this map suggests there is way more of it 'dahn sarf' than 'oop north' https://www.mygridgb.co.uk/map/
That's not to say that if Southern England were more suited to wind power the Tories wouldn't try to stop it and their recent attempts to make solar farms harder show their true colours.
Geothermal and hydro would probably be less controversial but the locations for hydro in particular seem pretty limited (I don't understand the reasons why geothermal isn't being pushed more but assume there are some).0 -
Yeah, I should just retire before I become dangerous. 😉First.Aspect said:
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants
That's why I apologised way back up thread.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 -
Hard to see where else we could put hydro, tbh. Think it's been looked at.Pross said:
I think you're stretching there, wind farms tend to rely on exposure which generally means either a coastal location or altitude. The average wind speed maps in this suggest there is are reasonable grounds for them being located in Scotland (or Wales) than in Southern England.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/windiest-place-in-uk
As for solar, there is a lot of it it southern Britain. Unsurprisingly this map suggests there is way more of it 'dahn sarf' than 'oop north' https://www.mygridgb.co.uk/map/
That's not to say that if Southern England were more suited to wind power the Tories wouldn't try to stop it and their recent attempts to make solar farms harder show their true colours.
Geothermal and hydro would probably be less controversial but the locations for hydro in particular seem pretty limited (I don't understand the reasons why geothermal isn't being pushed more but assume there are some).
Is there any geothermal resource in the UK?
Obviously it's windier on the coast and at elevation, but the cut off can't be explained that way. At least in my opinion.0 -
I frequently read my posts and think, what semi literate idiot wrote that.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I should just retire before I become dangerous. 😉First.Aspect said:
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants
That's why I apologised way back up thread.
Would never openly admit it though.1 -
An aside observation. From my place I can see several dairy farms which have wind turbines; these are not wind farms but self-powering. Very gentle breeze here today, could hardly feel anything when working outside but those turbines are turning. So it does not need much wind strength to get generating.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.
0 -
Makes no difference if people are thinking it anyway.First.Aspect said:
I frequently read my posts and think, what semi literate idiot wrote that.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I should just retire before I become dangerous. 😉First.Aspect said:
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants
That's why I apologised way back up thread.
Would never openly admit it though.
Reference the genius that is Trump. 😉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 think I may have been insulted.pblakeney said:
Makes no difference if people are thinking it anyway.First.Aspect said:
I frequently read my posts and think, what semi literate idiot wrote that.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I should just retire before I become dangerous. 😉First.Aspect said:
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants
That's why I apologised way back up thread.
Would never openly admit it though.
Reference the genius that is Trump. 😉0 -
The power that is generated goes something like to the cube of wind speed though.orraloon said:
An aside observation. From my place I can see several dairy farms which have wind turbines; these are not wind farms but self-powering. Very gentle breeze here today, could hardly feel anything when working outside but those turbines are turning. So it does not need much wind strength to get generating.Dorset_Boy said:
Not sure where the wind is blowing!kingstongraham said:
https://grid.iamkate.com/Dorset_Boy said:
Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.First.Aspect said:
That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.rjsterry said:
Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.First.Aspect said:
Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?rjsterry said:
All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.First.Aspect said:Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.
Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.
Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.
On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.
Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):
So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.
Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.
23.5%
Last january was similar, with no wind.0 -
Nah, just an extreme example to make a point. 😉First.Aspect said:
I think I may have been insulted.pblakeney said:
Makes no difference if people are thinking it anyway.First.Aspect said:
I frequently read my posts and think, what semi literate idiot wrote that.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I should just retire before I become dangerous. 😉First.Aspect said:
You are getting to the age where the wrong word comes out though. Brain sees the sea, thinks waves, types tides. It happens.pblakeney said:
Which is what I said at the beginning.First.Aspect said:
Don't understand.pblakeney said:
I meant the difference in outlook in your two posts.First.Aspect said:
Sorry thought people were interested.pblakeney said:First.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
https://orbitalmarine.com/
That's an interesting debate you are having with yourself. 😉First.Aspect said:
Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.pblakeney said:
My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.pblakeney said:
Too early in development and lacking efficiency.Pross said:It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."
The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.
Your second one ties in with my point that wave power isn't up to scratch. Yet.
Tidal = ready to go
Wind = well established
Solar = tories prefer green fields than green energy
Wave = a bit pants
That's why I apologised way back up thread.
Would never openly admit it though.
Reference the genius that is Trump. 😉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 -
Vestas build some turbines on the Isle of Wight. Plus there are a load other industries that support offshore wind.First.Aspect said:
Give it time. But hopefully it's just going to be accepted.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is already a tonne of offshore wind and a load that is already signed off to go.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
If people are objecting, they haven't been doing a very good job.
This should be a major manufacturing industry in the UK. Of course, we've been left behind and are buying them in instead.0 -
True, but most of the really big kit is coming from countries halfway good at making stuff, not us.TheBigBean said:
Vestas build some turbines on the Isle of Wight. Plus there are a load other industries that support offshore wind.First.Aspect said:
Give it time. But hopefully it's just going to be accepted.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is already a tonne of offshore wind and a load that is already signed off to go.First.Aspect said:
Er. Not sure what you are saying.rick_chasey said:Offshore is popular? There's a tonne of it already and loads more planned!!
Everything is popular until it affects people personally, then is wildly unpopular. Which is why, as I've argued before, there are essentially no wind farms in the south of England. It is not because the wind stops bowing at Watford, it is because most. Tories are southerners. Same applies to solar.
Of all the options, offshore seems to me to be least likely to give rise to objection, because it will be tens of miles away from any house. And we have such extensive coastal waters there is no reason not to use them in this way.
There is more than enoygh room for more than enough capacity and we really could be exporting wind energy. Also makes use of a really effective marine service industry we already have.
If people are objecting, they haven't been doing a very good job.
This should be a major manufacturing industry in the UK. Of course, we've been left behind and are buying them in instead.0
