Archive for Wind Energy
We weren’t blinkered in the CEGB. We were well aware that wind energy CAN be credited with firm capacity [see Swift-Hook, D. T., 1987 “Firm power from the wind” Wind Energy Conversion, Ed. J. M. Galt, (MEP : London) p. 33] and that the cost of off-setting the variability of wind is modest, see attached by David Milborrow. Read More→
Popularity: 3% [?]
Cash boost for alternative energy
The level of UK Government spending on
development of alternative sources of energy is to
increase by 60%. In a White Paper last month
the Government announced plans for P6m-worth of
research and development, to supplement PlOm
already committed. Almost half of the extra
money (P2.9m) will go on wave power, and a
quarter (415m) will go on detailed studies of the
feasibility of Severn Barrage tidal schemes. Read More→
Popularity: 2% [?]
This note argues that environmentalists will have to recognise that part (and a small price) of the price we pay for creating significant additional capacity of intermittent / variable renewables is the continued existence of coal fired plant, operating at a very low capacity factor.
(And of course it will make us less vulnerable to Vladimir Putin. The fact that we get little gas from Russia does not reduce his ability to screw up our supply. Part of the deal would be that the coal stations should keep significant coal stocks on hand.
Thus there is no need to de commission these old stations.
It matters not a jot that they are polluting for a few weeks per year, because clearly by having a massive wind component of generation, in the extreme case, you would have reduced the annual output of filth by these stations by a factor of say 3 weeks / 41 weeks (say) ie 1/13th in this high wind scenario.
Hence, the cost of back up to a very large penetration of wind is going to be very low – since you are relying on plant that would otherwise have been closed.
No one in the Claverton group, has as yet come up with any evidence or calculations to refute this line of argument.
People who used to run power stations agree with this point of view, and have pointed out that investment decisions will be taken by the owners soon as to whether or not to let them go to rack and ruin – ie do no or little maintenance so that when they are forced to close they are economic write offs.
Thus it is argued, the situations needs a clear signal from the government that these old plant will be rewarded with some form of capacity payment otherwise we will lose perfectly usable plant.
If we build enough wind, which we can do if we have some central planning and targets we can meet our carbon targets and have security of supply.
Popularity: 2% [?]
EXTRACT FROM CLAVERTON MAILING LIST:
Hugh Sharman wrote:
>> Nuclear may be cheap to run; I have no expertise in that area. But
>> it is brutally expensive and slow to build.
Paul M wrote:
> £1270 a kilowatt according to MIT and £6/MWh to run
The main problem there being that you can’t contract MIT to build a
nuclear plant for you at that price. If you ask the people who *can*
build you a plant, they’ll give you a build price quite a lot higher
than that. As Florida Power & Light (ca. £4000/kW), and Canada
(£5000+/kW) have recently found out. And nuclear build costs continue
to escalate: when countries start competing for limited supply capacity,
and industry bottlenecks squeeze tighter, costs will rise further. Read More→
Popularity: 2% [?]
Two Terawatts average power output: the UK offshore wind resource
Posted by: | CommentsThis paper presents a calculation of the offshore wind resource, and shows that the theoretical resource from offshore wind turbines in UK waters is approximately 2.2 TW of average (ie continuous output) of electricity. The figures are calculated across four ranges of sea depth: waters to 25 metres; 25-50 m, 50-100 m and deep waters to 700 m. The chart below shows the potential generation, with figures split out by sea depth and by distance from shore.

The available power is calculated by comparing power from an established wind farm, with the power available across the study area. Read More→
Popularity: 10% [?]
