How Many More Wind Farms do we Need?

[petermisc]

In its latest energy policy, it looks like the government is looking to encourage more wind farms, both off-shore and now on-shore again.  Do we really need them?  My understanding is that many days we now get most if not all our electricity from non-carbon sources, so why do we need yet more wind-farms?  Aren't we just going to get ever-more wind-farms that are shut down for large periods because we don't need the power?  Aren't we in danger of becoming over-reliant on one source of supply, in particular one that cannot be relied on 24/7.

What we surely need now are alternative sources that can supply the power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.  In my view, we should not be authorising any new wind farms unless they also include sufficient storage so that they can supply power 24/7 for a sustained period (at least a week of no wind).  Currently, they just provide cheap power when the wind is blowing, and leave it up to someone else to do the hard work when the wind isn't blowing.  The reason that the price of renewables is cheap, is because they are leaving the expensive part of the job to others. 

Likewise for solar farms, we should not be authorising any that do not include sufficient storage built-in.  And certainly not yet more built on prime agricultural land.  Unfortunately they seem to prefer building them on flat, dry land, which tends to be the best farm land.

There are a number of technologies that could pick up some of the slack, such as tidal.  But again, that only provides part-time power.  It is good that the government is increasing the size of our hydrogen supply, but in reality double diddly-squat is still diddly-squat.  If hydrogen is going to make much of a dent, then most towns are surely going to need a hydrogen plant, just as every town used to have a coal-gas plant.  Can't see the nimbies being too happy about that.  Likewise if we are going to rely on energy storage, we are going to need it on a massive scale.  A few portacabins full of batteries here and there really isn't going to cut it.  And batteries use increasingly-expensive, heavily-polluting rare-earth metals, so are hardly a green option.

Although the nimbies are up in arms about nuclear, I really don't see much alternative to it, to ensure that we still have power 24/7 when there is a sustained cold period with no wind.  Having left the EU, it is surely very unwise (if not hypocritical) to rely too-heavily on European-generated nuclear power.  One of the side-effects of the EU decoupling itself from Russian energy, could well be that it has less available for us.

[mr.bluesky]

Fracking looks like it could be looked at again. Expect the demonstrators to be back out in force. We will just have to put up with the minor earthquakes it causes 

[JontyR]

You make some good points but I am more supportive of greater use of wind than you appear to be.

Firstly I think we need not to just look at demand as it is now, but as demand is scheduled to be in the future. It's quicker to buy and plug in a kettle than it is to build another power generator so planning ahead isn't a problem for me.

You are right too about the reliability of wind. But wind isnt uniform across the country, more wind farms means the possibility of there being generation somewhere being possible. So what if it is calm in Cornwall if it is windy in Dumfries or vice versa?

I reckon that there is much more benefit in using domestic generation possibilities. Rather than requiring an upfront investment on behalf of a tenant / owner why can't the Government/Electricity generators rent the space on your roof for a panel or a turbine?

[Pillowtalk]

Nuclear all the way I think. The rest are just expensive vanity projects. Time to get real on national energy policy.

[petermisc]

You make some good points but I am more supportive of greater use of wind than you appear to be.

Firstly I think we need not to just look at demand as it is now, but as demand is scheduled to be in the future. It's quicker to buy and plug in a kettle than it is to build another power generator so planning ahead isn't a problem for me.

You are right too about the reliability of wind. But wind isnt uniform across the country, more wind farms means the possibility of there being generation somewhere being possible. So what if it is calm in Cornwall if it is windy in Dumfries or vice versa?

I agree that electricity demand is likely to increase as gas usage drops.  But currently wind and solar seem to be the stock answer.  The more of our power generation goes over to these, the more important it will be to have something else with sufficient capacity to cover the periods when they are not generating.   

Yes, it may be windy in Dumfries when it is calm in Cornwall, but that means you have to get all that electricity from Dumfries down to Cornwall, and vice-versa when the opposite applies.  The National Grid currently isn't engineered to do that.  And even if we do spend billions upgrading the Grid, it still leaves the question of what do we do on those occasions when the whole country is becalmed? 

If we go on like we are now, investing in wind and solar and little else, we are going to be in trouble.  There will be increasing numbers of times when large areas of the country get blacked-out.  Often at times when we most need heating and lighting.

[petermisc]

I reckon that there is much more benefit in using domestic generation possibilities. Rather than requiring an upfront investment on behalf of a tenant / owner why can't the Government/Electricity generators rent the space on your roof for a panel or a turbine?

Because it would be uneconomic?  Putting panels and turbines in large farms gives you the economies of scale that you don't get with itty-bitty domestic installations.

I have long been concerned that domestic solar panels have been over-hyped.  My next door neighbours spent a lot of money on such an installation (their roof needed strengthening to support it), and were enthusing about it to me, suggesting I should do likewise.  Ten years later, they were telling me not to bother, and they were considering removing theirs.  They are not maintenance-free, which on a domestic roof can be difficult, and do not have a particularly long life (talking about the solar panels, not my neighbours).   I calculated that I was unlikely to make my money back in the time I was likely to spend in the house.

The same goes for extra insulation.  Things like simple loft insulation and double-glazing are quick-hits and may be worth it.  But getting someone in to rip down all the ceilings in my dormer rooms in order to put insulation in, and then make-good after, no way am I going to get my money back.  Even if the government were to pay all the cost, I am not sure I could be bothered with all the disruption.

But the bottom line is, whether you put the solar panels and wind turbines in big farms or spread out over lots of domestic roofs, you have still got to have something that provides the power at times when they aren't.

[Gordon Bennett]

One thing that struck me during ongoing hoo-ha about rocketing energy prices was how the Standing Charge element of our bills varies across the UK.

This makes me think that going forwards it would be possible to "reward" regions or communities that embrace say, windfarms or fracking with a lower standing charge. Conversely, NIMBY-minded areas that object to a single pylon anywhere within their vision should be hammered via the standing charge.

[GingerNuts]

One thing that struck me during ongoing hoo-ha about rocketing energy prices was how the Standing Charge element of our bills varies across the UK.

This makes me think that going forwards it would be possible to "reward" regions or communities that embrace say, windfarms or fracking with a lower standing charge. Conversely, NIMBY-minded areas that object to a single pylon anywhere within their vision should be hammered via the standing charge.

Not a new idea. It's already happening in some areas and expansion is being considered.

External Link/Members Only

[lostandfound]

The Windy stuff is all about hydrogen - as has been discussed on here before. From that perspective more wind makes sense.

Tidal remains unproven whereas wind has been coming on leaps and bounds and 40% of the wind energy in Europe is within UK territory.

What is unusual is basing the strategy on Floating Wind Turbines. As yet this is experimental with the first trials underway off Scotland.

Although Floating Wind is the future as it can provide many times the power the entire world needs, the wind blows more reliably out at sea, and noone complains it is blocking the view.

We cannot compete on Solar. Saudi, Sahara, Africa, Australia, South America - all of these places can be solar superpowers, but we do not have the land mass lying idle as they do - or the constant sunshine.

The strategy is about making the UK a mid level world power in energy, which we can be - and take a leading position in Europe, and be a tech leader in off shore wind - or rather continue to be as it already an area in which the UK is world class.

Nuclear - Boris wants to tie up with a Silicon Valley startup - Last Energy - because they promise faster results than Rolls Royce. I'm not sure how the Startup philosophy of "move fast and break things" ties in with nuclear power!

Longer term the Uk is starting to take a lead in Nuclear Fusion, just as the UK has been developing strongly in many areas of Deep Tech.

In any case, as regards the strategy, much of it is post 2024. This administration has been incumbent for the pandemic, and now a cost of living crisis which is going to get much worse. So will they ever get to implement it?

[ronthebrummie]

Should have mothballed the coal fired power stations till we have suitable alternatives, could be reopened now.

[Colston36]

Should have mothballed the coal fired power stations till we have suitable alternatives, could be reopened now.

70% of French energy is nuclear derived.

[JontyR]

Because it would be uneconomic?  Putting panels and turbines in large farms gives you the economies of scale that you don't get with itty-bitty domestic installations.

Granted it isn't as easy as a specialist site. But it can be implemented without constant public enquiries, planning objections, high court injunctions, site squatters etc.
The inefficiencies are actually one of the appeals to me, the possibility of gainful ongoing employment for a fleet of installers / maintanence engineers
We constantly hear complaints about how the country is too full, how little land there is. And yet there is all this unused space at the top of buildings, looking at town centres and the heat island effects show about the sheer vastness of urban development that is actually underutilised in terms of active hours and space.
Not suggesting this is the answer, we agree there is a need for a greater range of diversity in terms of methods of supply to reduce the risk.

[lostandfound]

Granted it isn't as easy as a specialist site. But it can be implemented without constant public enquiries, planning objections, high court injunctions, site squatters etc.
The inefficiencies are actually one of the appeals to me, the possibility of gainful ongoing employment for a fleet of installers / maintanence engineers
We constantly hear complaints about how the country is too full, how little land there is. And yet there is all this unused space at the top of buildings, looking at town centres and the heat island effects show about the sheer vastness of urban development that is actually underutilised in terms of active hours and space.
Not suggesting this is the answer, we agree there is a need for a greater range of diversity in terms of methods of supply to reduce the risk.

Yes - but it's bollocks and not true. A tiny part of our landmass has been built upon. We are a nation of Nimbys. "We" want to live in a "green and pleasant land". Ha ha! Most of us live in overpriced cities surrounded by vast areas of green and pleasant land. What are we saving it for?

[PepeMAGA]

Yes - but it's bollocks and not true. A tiny part of our landmass has been built upon. We are a nation of Nimbys. "We" want to live in a "green and pleasant land". Ha ha! Most of us live in overpriced cities surrounded by vast areas of green and pleasant land. What are we saving it for?

You don't want it, stick to the city and the rest of us can enjoy the countryside 

[PepeMAGA]

The Windy stuff is all about hydrogen - as has been discussed on here before. From that perspective more wind makes sense.

Agree, it's the best way to store energy and could be used in other areas, like vehicles, boilers etc

[Blackpool Rock]

Agree, it's the best way to store energy and could be used in other areas, like vehicles, boilers etc

Yeah we need to increase wind farms ten fold and store Hydrogen when times are good, we could then even export the excess stuff 

Even before the recent price hikes I believe wind was the cheapest source due to the scale and technology coming on in recent years, also probably the quickest to build on any meaningful scale.
We also need to get to grips with insulating houses properly then you don't need as much energy to begin with but that's too simple a link for Boris to figure out 

[petermisc]

Yeah we need to increase wind farms ten fold and store Hydrogen when times are good, we could then even export the excess stuff 

Even before the recent price hikes I believe wind was the cheapest source due to the scale and technology coming on in recent years, also probably the quickest to build on any meaningful scale.

One of the arguments being raised against nuclear is that wind power is much cheaper.  But wind is only cheap because they leave the difficult bit, storing the power, for someone else to pay for.

There is no point in building more wind farms unless we also build the storage to match.  Without the storage, all that will happen is that with more and more turbines, they will spend more and more time switched off because there is nowhere for the electricity to go.  Unfortunately while the government is in a dash to build turbines, they are doing almost nothing about storage.  Probably because they know that building industrial-scale hydrogen storage plants in the numbers required is going to be about as popular as building nuclear power plants.

I think that we have now got to the point that approval to build more turbines or solar farms should be conditional on the proposer also providing the storage to match, so that they can provide a constant supply 24/7 for say a week regardless of weather conditions.  Then we would see the true cost of these renewables.

[lostandfound]

One of the arguments being raised against nuclear is that wind power is much cheaper.  But wind is only cheap because they leave the difficult bit, storing the power, for someone else to pay for.

There is no point in building more wind farms unless we also build the storage to match.  Without the storage, all that will happen is that with more and more turbines, they will spend more and more time switched off because there is nowhere for the electricity to go.  Unfortunately while the government is in a dash to build turbines, they are doing almost nothing about storage.  Probably because they know that building industrial-scale hydrogen storage plants in the numbers required is going to be about as popular as building nuclear power plants.

I think that we have now got to the point that approval to build more turbines or solar farms should be conditional on the proposer also providing the storage to match, so that they can provide a constant supply 24/7 for say a week regardless of weather conditions.  Then we would see the true cost of these renewables.

The plan is to use excess wind power for electrolytic hydrogen and to use interconnects to sell power to the European continent.

Two large electrolytic hydrogen projects underway -

One in Scotland External Link/Members Only

And another in the North East External Link/Members Only

The idea is to seed an entire hydrogen economy, fuelling heavy industry, and transportation such as trucks, ships, and airplanes.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Yes more wind and even more wind but come the high pressure blocking little power, like today 1.5 GW wind right now..

Demand 30 GW - think it through!...

[lostandfound]

Yes more wind and even more wind but come the high pressure blocking little power, like today 1.5 GW wind right now..

Demand 30 GW - think it through!...

Boris's plan is for floating wind, out at sea, where the wind blows more reliably and consistently.

[FiveKnuckles]

stray from the topic slightly,  I've seen a tall buildings in London with a row of vertical wind turbines on top   They never spin.   Is it due to noise?   

I guess with 10 small turbines running there would be plenty to run communal lights and stop/reverse the electric meter

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Boris's plan is for floating wind, out at sea, where the wind blows more reliably and consistently.

To some extent thats true, but a decent high pressure system can affect the surounding costal waters..

Problem is no matter how much you install wind when the wind isnt there what are you going to fall back on?, any idea how much batteries will cost to provide a GW or Giga watt backup capacity?..

The real problem is the UK goverments have screwed up aidated and abetted by the stupid Green lobby.

The French got it right, mainly  Nuclear capaity they supply other countties inc us in Europe!. And that have all that Hydro lucky beggars.

External Link/Members Only

.

[lostandfound]

To some extent thats true, but a decent high pressure system can affect the surounding costal waters..

Problem is no matter how much you install wind when the wind isnt there what are you going to fall back on?, any idea how much batteries will cost to provide a GW or Giga watt backup capacity?..

The real problem is the UK goverments have screwed up aidated and abetted by the stupid Green lobby.

The French got it right, mainly  Nuclear capaity they supply other countties inc us in Europe!. And that have all that Hydro lucky beggars.

External Link/Members Only

Erm - that's WHY floating wind goes out at sea rather than at the coast. 

The Global Weather System has Prevailing Winds that blow consistently.

External Link/Members Only.

At the moment 16% of power to our grid is from interconnects. The wind is always going to be blowing somewhere, and accessible via interconnects.

And, er, for umpteenth, zillionth time, POWER WILL BE USED TO CREATE ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN NOT STORED IN BATTERIES. 

And, in case you haven't noticed, Boris's plan is also all out on nuclear as well as wind.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

"And, in case you haven't noticed, Boris's plan is also all out on nuclear as well as wind."

Yes a most sensible idea that one! Really is. But once you get enough installed Nuclear what do you need the wind for?..

The only problem with Nuclear is timescales, mind you with the right wind behind them outfits such as Rolls Royce may get that on the go sooner!..

Yes your right the wind is blowing somewhere all the time, the sun shines somewhere all the time, but their never where you need them at the time!.

[lostandfound]

"And, in case you haven't noticed, Boris's plan is also all out on nuclear as well as wind."

Yes a most sensible idea that one! Really is. But once you get enough installed Nuclear what do you need the wind for?..

The only problem with Nuclear is timescales, mind you with the right wind behind them outfits such as Rolls Royce may get that on the go sooner!..

Yes your right the wind is blowing somewhere all the time, the sun shines somewhere all the time, but their never where you need them at the time!.

Once you have enough installed wind what do you need the Nuclear for?

There are extreme views on both sides of the wind vs nuclear debate.

In any long term strategy it is sensible to spread your bets in order to minimise risk. Ask any pension fund manager.

Rolls Royce have been bunged £200M to get a move on - they are still saying 2030s at the earliest. Last Energy have the Theranos / Musk philosophy "Fake it till you make it" and are promising results next year or the year after- like Musk always does - and Boris, ever the ideas merchant - is going with them.

[petermisc]

Erm - that's WHY floating wind goes out at sea rather than at the coast. 
The Global Weather System has Prevailing Winds that blow consistently.
External Link/Members Only.

Not sure what a map of the prevailing winds around Africa has got to do with us in the UK - unless that is where we are going to moor our floating wind farms - that is going to be one long interconnect!  That article also states that the prevailing winds are predictable, it does not say that they are consistent.  The Atlantic trade winds, for example, that facilitated the cotton/slave trade were predictable, and usually fairly consistent, but that didn't mean ships didn't sometimes became becalmed (with tragic results for the slave ships).

With the EU having to wean itself off Russian energy, I think it would be foolish to assume that they will always have spare energy available for us.  And of course we now have much less leverage in obtaining it.

[petermisc]

"And, in case you haven't noticed, Boris's plan is also all out on nuclear as well as wind."

Yes a most sensible idea that one! Really is. But once you get enough installed Nuclear what do you need the wind for?..

When you can use wind power, you do, as it is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly.  In the ideal world, the nuclear would never actually be turned on, it would just be "there in case". 

Unfortunately that makes the nuclear even more expensive, as you still have to pay for the maintenance and other on-going costs even if it is not generating.

[lostandfound]

Not sure what a map of the prevailing winds around Africa has got to do with us in the UK - unless that is where we are going to moor our floating wind farms - that is going to be one long interconnect!  That article also states that the prevailing winds are predictable, it does not say that they are consistent.  The Atlantic trade winds, for example, that facilitated the cotton/slave trade were predictable, and usually fairly consistent, but that didn't mean ships didn't sometimes became becalmed (with tragic results for the slave ships).

With the EU having to wean itself off Russian energy, I think it would be foolish to assume that they will always have spare energy available for us.  And of course we now have much less leverage in obtaining it.

I was making the general point that a low pressure system localised over the UK mainland and its coastal areas is not representative of wind conditions out at sea - including the seas around our island - which are determined by global wind and weather systems.

As many have pointed out the published energy strategy covers the energy needs of the UK several times over. It will not be us relying on EU interconnects to keep the lights on, but rather the other way around.

[lostandfound]

When you can use wind power, you do, as it is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly.  In the ideal world, the nuclear would never actually be turned on, it would just be "there in case". 

Unfortunately that makes the nuclear even more expensive, as you still have to pay for the maintenance and other on-going costs even if it is not generating.

I believe the plan will be to run the nuclear plants all the time, and for the UK in general to generate far more energy than it needs, using the excess to generate hydrogen and profiting from that.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I believe the plan will be to run the nuclear plants all the time, and for the UK in general to generate far more energy than it needs, using the excess to generate hydrogen and profiting from that.

Well looking ahead we will have to replace the domestic cental heating demand mainly Gas and Oil!!

We will have to power transport inc domestic cars replacing Oil and as far as railways go they can and do use Leccy anyway, the main other is Aviation and heavy haulage..

Not quite so easy!

[lostandfound]

Well looking ahead we will have to replace the domestic cental heating demand mainly Gas and Oil!!

We will have to power transport inc domestic cars replacing Oil and as far as railways go they can and do use Leccy anyway, the main other is Aviation and heavy haulage..

Not quite so easy!

Er - did you read the part about meeting the UK's energy requirement many times over?

IIRC plan is for 8 "Sizewells" which will replace the current nuclear baseload, and maybe extend it a little. The Last Energy mini reactors are on top of that. Boris wants there to be one in every city ...


Heavy industry cannot run on leccy as its energy needs are too intense - Thyssen Krupp have said they will build no more conventionally fuelled steel smelters,
Rolls Royce have tested all their aero engines on fuel derived from 50% hydrogen with 100% success,
large ships can run on fuel derived from hydrogen, smaller ones can run on actual hydrogen as some ferries do already,
hydrogen fuelling facilities placed at 24 motorway service stations will enable the UK haulage fleet to run on hydrogen,

Hydrogen is a very reactive element and can be used in countless ways in industry - replacing current hydrocarbon based methods.

Do try and keep up, Watts!

[chrishornx]

Yes more wind and even more wind but come the high pressure blocking little power, like today 1.5 GW wind right now..

Demand 30 GW - think it through!...

I am thinking it through. I can accept the 30gw demand (if that is what you claim and can be substantiated) but stuck with the 1.5 gw wind available right now - what is that figure of 1.5w based upon - the current size of wind farms and turbines or the absolute maximum available even we built another 2 million turbines

thinking it through I assume you mean that based upon the current capacity of turbines and current wind strength the capacity is 1.5gw  - that makes a very good argument for building more

what is the optimum figure available on a very windy day as compared to 1.5w today?

[Blackpool Rock]

I am thinking it through. I can accept the 30gw demand (if that is what you claim and can be substantiated) but stuck with the 1.5 gw wind available right now - what is that figure of 1.5w based upon - the current size of wind farms and turbines or the absolute maximum available even we built another 2 million turbines

thinking it through I assume you mean that based upon the current capacity of turbines and current wind strength the capacity is 1.5gw  - that makes a very good argument for building more

what is the optimum figure available on a very windy day as compared to 1.5w today?

30GW is the typical average demand as stated on this link.

The figure of 1.5GW is how much energy is currently being generated by wind and I would have thought it would have been a bit more as there is a reasonable amount of wind (In Blackpool anyway) but they may well have some strange fucked up contracts that require them to use a certain amount of Gas, who knows 

The thing is you need to realised that Watts E Dunn hates wind power and just wants to push Nuclear therefore he is only highlighting that wind isn't currently producing much to try and discredit it.

Looking at the charts wind has generated Almost 9GW on average in the last week so way above the current 1.5 and just shy of an average of 6GW in the last 12 months

On that basis we would need 5 times as many turbines as we currently have to satisfy our average requirement however no energy strategy should be relying on just 1 source but a good combination of sources

External Link/Members Only

[daviemac]

Er - did you read the part about meeting the UK's energy requirement many times over?

IIRC plan is for 8 "Sizewells" which will replace the current nuclear baseload, and maybe extend it a little. The Last Energy mini reactors are on top of that. Boris wants there to be one in every city ...


Heavy industry cannot run on leccy as its energy needs are too intense - Thyssen Krupp have said they will build no more conventionally fuelled steel smelters,
Rolls Royce have tested all their aero engines on fuel derived from 50% hydrogen with 100% success,
large ships can run on fuel derived from hydrogen, smaller ones can run on actual hydrogen as some ferries do already,
hydrogen fuelling facilities placed at 24 motorway service stations will enable the UK haulage fleet to run on hydrogen,

Hydrogen is a very reactive element and can be used in countless ways in industry - replacing current hydrocarbon based methods.

Do try and keep up, Watts!

Aluminium smelters need electricity. The one at Lynemouth in Northumberland, before it closed, had a powerstaion next to it to supply the electricity and a colliery over the road to fuel the powerstation.

[lostandfound]

Aluminium smelters need electricity. The one at Lynemouth in Northumberland, before it closed, had a powerstaion next to it to supply the electricity and a colliery over the road to fuel the powerstation.

Thyssen Krupp's furnaces use coal, but committed at COP26 that all future plants would replace coal with hydrogen.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

[daviemac]

Thyssen Krupp's furnaces use coal, but committed at COP26 that all future plants would replace coal with hydrogen.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

You have missed the point, Thyssen Krupp's furnaces are blast furnaces for producing steel. Aluminium needs electricity, it's part of the process. No electricity = no electrolysis = no aluminium extracted from the ore.

That's why they built Alcan's Linemouth smelter and powerstation close to the pits.  BTW they built the powerstation at the same time as the smelter to power it.

[lostandfound]

You have missed the point, Thyssen Krupp's furnaces are blast furnaces for producing steel. Aluminium needs electricity, it's part of the process. No electricity = no electrolysis = no aluminium extracted from the ore.

That's why they built Alcan's Linemouth smelter and powerstation close to the pits.  BTW they built the powerstation at the same time as the smelter to power it.

I don't think that's the point. Electricity is not excluded, just not enough on its own, at least not from batteries or the grid.

AIUI there is general agreement power as delivered from batteries does not suffice for heavy industry.

I believe it's often cited as a key advantage of hydrogen.

[daviemac]

I don't think that's the point. Electricity is not excluded, just not enough on its own, at least not from batteries or the grid.

AIUI there is general agreement power as delivered from batteries does not suffice for heavy industry.

I believe it's often cited as a key advantage of hydrogen.

I'm using aluminium smelters as a case in point to show heavy industry can and does run on electricity. Without electricity and masses of it aluminium can not be produced, that's why smelters have their own power stations, what fuels the powerstations is a different matter altogether.

To produce iron the ore just has to be melted, it makes no difference what the heat source is, it isn't a reactive process.

Lynemouth powerstation was also connected to the national grid supplying power to the local area.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I'm using aluminium smelters as a case in point to show heavy industry can and does run on electricity. Without electricity and masses of it aluminium can not be produced, that's why smelters have their own power stations, what fuels the powerstations is a different matter altogether.

To produce iron the ore just has to be melted, it makes no difference what the heat source is, it isn't a reactive process.

Lynemouth powerstation was also connected to the national grid supplying power to the local area.

Yes Volts and Watts!! a lot of them needed, heres the Electric village the story of an Ally smelter and the Hydro electric system that went with it!..


External Link/Members Only

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I am thinking it through. I can accept the 30gw demand (if that is what you claim and can be substantiated) but stuck with the 1.5 gw wind available right now - what is that figure of 1.5w based upon - the current size of wind farms and turbines or the absolute maximum available even we built another 2 million turbines

thinking it through I assume you mean that based upon the current capacity of turbines and current wind strength the capacity is 1.5gw  - that makes a very good argument for building more

what is the optimum figure available on a very windy day as compared to 1.5w today?

Currently the UK installed wind power under ideal wind speeds and conditions can make around 12 GW. Earlier on today it was hovering around 1.2 ish GW so in order to make up the lack of supplied windpower the Gas powered plant makes up the missing wind. However we're supposed to be doing away with Gas as its a fossill fuel and if the wind isn't there t'aint no power!

OK so lets increase our wind capacity by say a factor of Five so on a blowy day we now see 12 x 5 is 60 GW now if that was there all the time then thats great! But its not, so you might say lets charge some batteries all well and good but thats Giga-watts of power.  A gigawatt is a Billion watts 1000 x 1,000,000 wot a lot of watts! Now if that was going to fall from that 60 G/W under ideal conditions then we will have to make up the times when it will fall below that. Last year there were a few weeks of sod all wind so what are we to do to plug that shortfall? 

Also consider that we're to stop using Domestic Gas heating, we also will need to do away with Oil power transport let alone industreial demands thats a lot of extra power.

Where is that to come from?, where is it to relaibily come from too?.

Mr Blackpool Rock thinks i've got a grudge 'agin wind power t'aint so, but for the UK its not a practial long term proposition if we're serious about C02 reduction.

Yes you can spilt O2 to Hydrogen but that takes power too. A frined of mine an excllent practical competnet engineer has done a lot of computations  on this i sometimes wish he were on this group he can demo that you can cover almost all the UK with windmills and it still wont be relaile to supply us with what we "will" need.

And yes I do know that boris is planning extra big reactors and  SMR's too, lets hope they just get on with the bloody things the old ones wont last forever!...

[lostandfound]

I'm using aluminium smelters as a case in point to show heavy industry can and does run on electricity. Without electricity and masses of it aluminium can not be produced, that's why smelters have their own power stations, what fuels the powerstations is a different matter altogether.

To produce iron the ore just has to be melted, it makes no difference what the heat source is, it isn't a reactive process.

Lynemouth powerstation was also connected to the national grid supplying power to the local area.

But the example I quoted was Steel smelting.

Steel smelting using Direct Electrolysis is not commercially viable whereas Thyssen Krupp are switching to Direct Reduced Iron using hydrogen because it is commercially viable.

So this is an example of hydrogen being effective in heavy industry whereas electricity is not.

[daviemac]

But the example I quoted was Steel smelting.

Steel smelting using Direct Electrolysis is not commercially viable whereas Thyssen Krupp are switching to Direct Reduced Iron using hydrogen because it is commercially viable.

So this is an example of hydrogen being effective in heavy industry whereas electricity is not.

I have only said you can't make aluminium without electricity, a blast furnace for steel making can be fired by any fuel that will generate enough heat. However, just as you can't make tea without mixing water and tea, you can't make aluminium without nixing Bauxite and electricity.

I appreciate electricity isn't viable in every situation but you are comparing chalk and cheese. One process has options the other doesn't, it's use electricity or don't have aluminium. 

[Blackpool Rock]

Current demand 33.1GW and wind producing 10.74GW which is almost a third of the demand, what a difference a day makes 

External Link/Members Only

[lillythesavage]

Current demand 33.1GW and wind producing 10.74GW which is almost a third of the demand, what a difference a day makes 

External Link/Members Only

Any idea what demand would be if, say 10 million, EV,s replaced some of what we have?

[lostandfound]

I have only said you can't make aluminium without electricity, a blast furnace for steel making can be fired by any fuel that will generate enough heat. However, just as you can't make tea without mixing water and tea, you can't make aluminium without nixing Bauxite and electricity.

I appreciate electricity isn't viable in every situation but you are comparing chalk and cheese. One process has options the other doesn't, it's use electricity or don't have aluminium.

Erm - I was talking only about steel production, it was you who introduced aluminium production by comparison!

Yes - producing virgin aluminium uses electrolysis (though we have already made a lot of aluminium, and recycling it does not use electrolysis) and the electrical energy for that electrolysis can be produced from hydrogen!

The OP complained that there is not effective storage for electrical energy from wind farms. Watts also alleges that a lot of batteries are needed.

I replied, as I have before on similar threads - that the solution is to store the energy as hydrogen. From the point of view of energy storage hydrogen is viable in heavy industry in many cases where electrical energy stored in batteries is not. And hydrogen can also directly replace fossil fuels.

[petermisc]

Any idea what demand would be if, say 10 million, EV,s replaced some of what we have?

The idea of millions of cars being charged at the end of the working day just as evening peak electricity demand hits is not viable.  Realistically, we have to go to intelligent charging.  Ideally, with the cars feeding back into the grid during peak demand.

Perhaps a signal could be put out over the supply to tell the chargers which mode they should be in.  I believe something like this is used in some places to turn street lighting on and off.

[Proton]

 On a smaller scale power source and relevant in a way, I was watching CBS new a couple of nights ago 

Tokyo — Nissan is working with NASA on a new type of battery for electric vehicles that promises to charge more quickly and be lighter yet safe, the Japanese automaker said Friday.
    The all-solid-state battery will replace the lithium-ion battery now in use for a 2028 product launch and a pilot plant launch in 2024, according to Nissan.
     The battery would be stable enough to be used in pacemakers, Nissan said. When finished, it will be about half the size of the current battery and fully charge in 15 minutes instead of a few hours.

                  For more information~ External Link/Members Only

[daviemac]

Erm - I was talking only about steel production, it was you who introduced aluminium production by comparison!

Yes - producing virgin aluminium uses electrolysis (though we have already made a lot of aluminium, and recycling it does not use electrolysis) and the electrical energy for that electrolysis can be produced from hydrogen!

The OP complained that there is not effective storage for electrical energy from wind farms. Watts also alleges that a lot of batteries are needed.

I replied, as I have before on similar threads - that the solution is to store the energy as hydrogen. From the point of view of energy storage hydrogen is viable in heavy industry in many cases where electrical energy stored in batteries is not. And hydrogen can also directly replace fossil fuels.

I replied to your statement - 

Heavy industry cannot run on leccy as its energy needs are too intense -

Pointing out that aluminium production is heavy industry and can only run on electricity.   

[petermisc]

Message deleted, as Davie has already replied.

[lostandfound]

On a smaller scale power source and relevant in a way, I was watching CBS new a couple of nights ago 

Tokyo — Nissan is working with NASA on a new type of battery for electric vehicles that promises to charge more quickly and be lighter yet safe, the Japanese automaker said Friday.
    The all-solid-state battery will replace the lithium-ion battery now in use for a 2028 product launch and a pilot plant launch in 2024, according to Nissan.
     The battery would be stable enough to be used in pacemakers, Nissan said. When finished, it will be about half the size of the current battery and fully charge in 15 minutes instead of a few hours.

                  For more information~ External Link/Members Only

Not to rain on Nissan's parade and exciting plans for a new lithium battery, but the type of battery used in pacemakers at the mo is ... lithium?!

It's exciting that they plan to pilot the tech in 2024 and product launch in 2028 - but it sounds kind of similar to Quantumscape, except QS already has a pilot plant in operation and hopes to go into production in 2024 / 25