He thought that when wind turbines are curtailed they store the energy for later. He was wrong, obviously, thats how Andy rolls.
Wind Turbines
- Thread starter Hysteresis
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
It was just a wind up.
Maybe someone will patent a system of pulleys to lift a polo mint shaped mass of rock, so when the wind drops the polo drops and spins the whizzy bit.
---
It sounds like they're busy at COP persuading each other that gas is green.
(Shhh about the methane leaks).
Meanwhile, some geezer on the box t'other day said that carbon capture from a power station chimney pot cost 4p per kWh.
If gas usage were reduced more, to say 10%, then overall cleanth could be viable.
D
Deleted member 18243
I'm not talking about pumped storage.
How windfarms charge you twice for the same electricity
I recently noted that Moray East, a very large and very new windfarm situated off the Scottish coast, is spending a remarkable amount of time switched off - something like a quarter of the time, in fact. As is widely known, windfarms can receive so-called constraint payments when the transmission
www.netzerowatch.com
But is anything as costly as nukes?
That is just epically stupid stuff.I'm not talking about pumped storage.
How windfarms charge you twice for the same electricity
I recently noted that Moray East, a very large and very new windfarm situated off the Scottish coast, is spending a remarkable amount of time switched off - something like a quarter of the time, in fact. As is widely known, windfarms can receive so-called constraint payments when the transmission
The flywheel is using all the power!
D
Deleted member 18243
Lozza (Lawrence Fox) on the 5 biggest climate change lies.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
www.theguardian.com
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
That's full of lies. I only checked a couple of his claims but he's clearly not trying to be honest. That discounts his whole monologue. That's unfortunate, because it also discounts any valid points he may have.
Sure there's a lot of people keen to predict disaster.
For stakeholders (not me, I'll be dead) the alarm and squealing at relative inaction isn't surprising.
But creating and riding a bandwagon of lies in the other direction doesn't help either.
That video is fake news.
It's always the same people who think it's clever to post this sort of propaganda, usually with no comment whatsoever because they can't be bothered to check anything, as a start.
Do these people add anything to the forum? Only as a reminder that there are stupid people everywhere.
I'd be inclined to accept the experts views not just assume electricity that way is more expensive. Even some greens are mentioning them now - lots of power from a small space. Life now is probably out to 80 years. Another way of putting it is as most want them there is likely to be some sense in the argument. As Blair put it - if you want the lights kept on we will need them. Our problem is getting the things built. Effectively in a PFI fashion as wind will be. However having decided to go in that direction is far more likely to be correct than say the UK's Green's comments aimed at getting elected.
This seems to be the latest estimate of where CO2 comes from
It's interesting to look at heating and road transport. A lot but by no means all.
The latest COP doesn't sound too good. Gas seen as greener than what - oil maybe? It's an expedient due to current problems. LNG even needs power to produce it and storage facilities are being built at a rate of knots. The first COP was in 1995. There are suggestions from the latest that targets will not be met. It's interesting that countries can commit % of GDP to war but no chance on climate change. Levies that produce very little return may get used instead as they are here but have near zero impact. So called green taxes. More substantial amounts would need general taxation increases but think it through - intent means we will be paying anyway. Mid £20s k per house is the official figure. That doesn't include the increased cost of your car.
Actually I get the impression they expect less of those to be around.Weather changes? Most have probably noticed. Talking to a woman a lot younger than me a couple of years ago - she had noticed that summer temperatures where either higher or lower than usual. More or less cyclic with periods where they are where they usually are. Seems to be much the same throughout the year now.
Then comes deforestation. Loss of rainforest - it was pointed out that this will have an effect on weather patterns as early on as the 70's. Europe was deforested from it's natural state yonks ago. That thought to have had it's effects as well.
Last edited:
Experts agree that nukes are the most expensive type of power. You pay for the publicised consistency, a lot.
But thankfully Hinkley Point C will start generating power next year. Good old reliable nuclear power.
So they decide to go that way and spend more money etc and put up with the long build time? Just for fun.
You could take 3,260MW and convert to 60years of mw/hrs. You could then use total cost less the costs of the benifits to the UK in terms of work and training etc. The 60 years may get increased. Something the French have been looking at for some time.
You could then do much the same with wind to give the same power. Deciding on cost and need for storage wont be so easy.
One problem is that "experts" favour certain solutions but until some one does something similar to the above comments are meaningless. Remember that a wind turbines life has been said to be 20 years, What life are you going to use? What average winds speed are you going to use.
How long does it take to build 3,260mw of wind power not using the rate they are stated to produce but at the UK's average wind speed where they are installed.
Yes but very much a first step with lots of work still to do.
CF for offshore wind is around 45%, slightly higher for new systems. 3.2GW means 7.1GW nameplate. Of course the reality of nuclear is it only averages about 80-90% so we're being unfairly easy on nuclear.
We approved 7GW of offshore power in 2022 as part of the CfD round. All that power will be at £37.50 to the £92.50 for Hinkley. The 2022 wind will be coming online in 2026/2027.
Hinkley will probably only come online in 2027 and then we're stuck paying nearly triple the rate for 35 years. And we have to buy every watt of power they generate of course.
It's predictable power, which is worth more, but worth that much more? I doubt it, not compared to pumped hydro or flow batteries or hydrogen. And we don't even need that storage for at least a decade or two as we can just keep some gas turbines going a bit longer as backup.
The decision on HPC was not made on value for money, it was decided that nuclear was wanted and a justification was written to give what was wanted.