Tidal Lagoon - Energy from the Ocean, UK Gov is putting money in it

[tom66]

A whole week? Man, those generators take a long time to spool up!

...so you DO agree that we need conventional  power to cover shortfalls during wind and solar drop outs?

[tggzzz]

...so you DO agree that we need conventional  power to cover shortfalls during wind and solar drop outs?

Obviously. I never said otherwise. It's hard to have a debate when you make all these ridiculous assumptions based on your own prejudices about people who disagree with you.

Putting the best possible interpretation on your previous posts, you have repeatedly and deliberately given the impression that tom66's question is very valid!

Shame you can't articulate and convey your beliefs more unambiguously.

[Someone]

...so you DO agree that we need conventional  power to cover shortfalls during wind and solar drop outs?

Obviously. I never said otherwise. It's hard to have a debate when you make all these ridiculous assumptions based on your own prejudices about people who disagree with you.

We only need conventional thermal plants for now, its possible to imagine a future where renewables and storage are able to deliver sufficient electricity. Fossil fuel is going to become uneconomic at some point in the next few decades or century, and at some point in the several centuries following fission will also come to a sharp increase in operating costs. Enjoy cheap energy while it lasts, I sure am.

[tggzzz]

Eclipse experience from http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/despite-bright-sun-its-european-grid-operators-1-solar-eclipse-0 with my emphais showing the reason for success and other interesting points

[Transmission System Operators] TSOs thus confronted the possibility of solar swings with overwhelming force. German TSOs had double the normal personnel on hand in their control rooms. They also had enough gas- and coal-fired power capacity on standby to double the effectiveness of their standard contingency plans for keeping the grid balanced, says Bruno Burger, an expert in renewable energy integration at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg. “The TSOs really massively prepared,” says Burger.

and

Terna, whose Italian power plants are less conventional than the ones its German TSO counterparts can call upon, took an additional measure to balance this morning’s eclipse-driven solar swings: For the first time ever, it exercised its authority to order the nation’s largest, most advanced solar power plants to regulate themselves.
“Those plants were ordered to limit their output to about 30 percent of total capacity from 7 am to 2 pm CET,”

and

Burger says Germany’s TSOs could have also shut down solar capacity, but chose not to because German law requires TSOs to compensate the solar plants. An analysis by Berlin-based research group Energy Brainpool estimated that would be more expensive than ramping fossil-fired power plants up and down. As reported by PV Magazine yesterday, shutting down solar generation could nearly triple the cost of handling the eclipse to €9.95 million (US$10.7 million).

[Zero999]

The solar eclipse was only partial for most of Europe. A the total eclipse only occurred over a small part of north-western Europe where there isn't a significant about of solar power anyway.

I wonder what it would've been like if the total eclipse occurred over most of Germany?

[tggzzz]

Putting the best possible interpretation on your previous posts, you have repeatedly and deliberately given the impression that tom66's question is very valid!

Care to quote any such statements?

See https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=showposts;u=2294

[tom66]

Renewables can work. Happy to see success for Costa Rica - 75 continuous days on renewable only. Sadly, they couldn't run the whole year, but not too bad.
http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days

How long until the UK can run a single day on renewables?  Costa Rica's power consumption per km^2 and per capita is much smaller than the UK. I have no problem with renewables in themselves but would like to see more continuous sources such as hydro and geothermal investigated. Sadly the UK is not really that good at either.

[tggzzz]

Thanks for proving my point.

I deserve that. My apologies.

You use all the classic techniques to stifle argument. Frame questions in a way that makes it impossible to answer them any way but the way you want them answered.

That is the art of asking a question: force the respondant either to address the issue or to be seen to be ignoring it. Since my points are important and relevant, I make no apologies whatsoever for doing exactly that.

When questioned yourself avoid answering by either responding with a question or dumping a torrent of data and expecting the questioner to wade through it.

That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[coppice]

Renewables can work. Happy to see success for Costa Rica - 75 continuous days on renewable only. Sadly, they couldn't run the whole year, but not too bad.
http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days

How long until the UK can run a single day on renewables?  Costa Rica's power consumption per km^2 and per capita is much smaller than the UK. I have no problem with renewables in themselves but would like to see more continuous sources such as hydro and geothermal investigated. Sadly the UK is not really that good at either.

Costa Rica is in the unusual position of being able to generate most of its electricity by hydro-electric means. That just won't work for most countries. Its also very distorted to say "Costa Rica powered with 100% renewable energy for 75 straight days ". They only got their electricity from renewable source. As well as using things like oil for transportation, a country with little industry has a lot of its overall energy usage embedded in the goods it imports. In other words quite a lot of Chinese and other countries coal was supporting Costa Rica's way of live over those 75 days.

Other than some limited geothermal work, i didn't see Costa Rica doing anything innovation towards a move renewable future for the world.renewable

[dannyf]

a country with little industry has a lot of its overall energy usage embedded in the goods it imports.

To be fair, something that simple has proven too difficult for our renewable advocates to comprehend.

[SeanB]

Yes, look at the countries that have aluminium smelters: South Africa, Mozambique ( powered from South Africa mostly, though there is a little power from Cahora Bassa) and Iceland. Only common thing is cheap electricity, all the other raw materials are imported.

[mtdoc]

a country with little industry has a lot of its overall energy usage embedded in the goods it imports.

To be fair, something that simple has proven too difficult for our renewable advocates to comprehend.

To be truthful, I've never seen anyone on this forum deny that embedded energy is an important element to be considered in the evaluation of energy resources.  Quite the opposite - many times on this forum that issue has been discussed and evaluated with references cited regarding the net energy from various sources of electricity production.

All sources of energy production, renewable or otherwise have energy embedded in their means of production and distribution. When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

To often the discussion strays away from discussion of these facts, as those with a political agenda seeks to steer the discussion in the direction of their ideology.

[NiHaoMike]

How come nobody mentioned that the biggest residential energy uses - HVAC, refrigeration, and hot water - are all well suited for cheap and reliable thermal storage?

[coppice]

To be truthful, I've never seen anyone on this forum deny that embedded energy is an important element to be considered in the evaluation of energy resources.  Quite the opposite - many times on this forum that issue has been discussed and evaluated with references cited regarding the net energy from various sources of electricity production.

People don't deny that embedded energy is an important element, but many seem to keep forgetting it when they make an argument.

[zapta]

When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

It's interesting that the externilizers choose to ignore the cost of intermittent and unreliable power.

[rolycat]

When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

It's interesting that the externilizers choose to ignore the cost of intermittent and unreliable power.

It's interesting that some people are so blinded by political prejudice that they are incapable of reading the statement "with all costs accounted for".

[zapta]

When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

It's interesting that the externilizers choose to ignore the cost of intermittent and unreliable power.

It's interesting that some people are so blinded by political prejudice that they are incapable of reading the statement "with all costs accounted for".

Check the thread history here. Externalization is one sided.

[mtdoc]

When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

It's interesting that the externilizers choose to ignore the cost of intermittent and unreliable power.

It's interesting that some people are so blinded by political prejudice that they are incapable of reading the statement "with all costs accounted for".

Yes, especially when I've repeatedly posted about the fact that intermittency is the reason why there is no way to completely replace fossil fuels for electricity production at the scale it is currently done. In fact that was a major point of my post in this thread (see post #148) just 2 days ago!. 

It just proves the point that "too often the discussion strays away from discussion of these facts, as those with a political agenda seek to steer the discussion in the direction of their ideology"

As far as the issue of intermittency - I don't see it as a cost so much as it is a major omission from the benefit column.   But regardless of how you slice it, it is the Achilles heel of most renewables (hydro being the major exception).

As far as external costs go, those who try to avoid discussing them are just demonstrating their political nature.

It's really too bad on an engineering forum we can't just keep the discussion focused on the facts.

(BTW - one cannot be an "externalizer" and one cannot "externalize".  That's just nonsense political speak.  Something either has external costs or not. One can choose to ignore them or not, but they exist nevertheless)

[zapta]

It's really too bad on an engineering forum we can't just keep the discussion focused on the facts.

The fact is that the abundance of reliable fossil fuel based energy enabled never imagined before life style and longevity but the haters keep demonizing it.

[tggzzz]

I agree with your other sensible points, but I have a niggle with this:

It just proves the point that "too often the discussion strays away from discussion of these facts, as those with a political agenda seek to steer the discussion in the direction of their ideology"

... economic agendas also play a significant part. As does ignorance and stupidity.

[tggzzz]

It's really too bad on an engineering forum we can't just keep the discussion focused on the facts.

The fact is that the abundance of reliable fossil fuel based energy enabled never imagined before life style and longevity but the haters keep demonizing it.

Fossile fuels do have significant "demons", as do all alternatives.

The point is to recognise - and not to deny - the existence and magnitude of the "demons".

Once that is done, progress can be made.

[mtdoc]

It's really too bad on an engineering forum we can't just keep the discussion focused on the facts.

The fact is that the abundance of reliable fossil fuel based energy enabled never imagined before life style and longevity but the haters keep demonizing it.

Fossile fuels do have significant "demons", as do all alternatives.

The point is to recognise - and not to deny - the existence and magnitude of the "demons".

Once that is done, progress can be made.

Agreed.  And doing a thorough cost/benefit comparison means looking these "demons" as they exist for all electricity generation options.

As far as economics goes - yes - important for sure and part of the cost/benefit analysis. Unfortunately this is where too many jump in to politicize the discussion.

 The difficult part when once starts to look at the economics is that it is all to easy to see only the short term economics.  Also - classic economic theory does not account for finite resources nor does it pay attention to thermodynamics - so that the concept of net energy is not generally considered.

[Someone]

When it comes to electricity generation, the question in the end is, over the lifetime of production, what is the cost/benefit - with all costs accounted for - including embedded energy, consumption of finite resources, and externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects).

It's interesting that the externilizers choose to ignore the cost of intermittent and unreliable power.

It's interesting that some people are so blinded by political prejudice that they are incapable of reading the statement "with all costs accounted for".

Yes, especially when I've repeatedly posted about the fact that intermittency is the reason why there is no way to completely replace fossil fuels for electricity production at the scale it is currently done. In fact that was a major point of my post in this thread (see post #148) just 2 days ago!.

All the numbers I have looked at say that there is sufficient space/geography available in the UK and Australia to install pumped hydro storage capacity to enable 100% renewable generation for each nation respectively. Intermittency is solvable with current technology, and is economically profitable when it is operated in the current markets so it is not an external cost that needs to be added renewables, it could be counted as a profit against any generation type other than the fast gas turbine plants (with which it currently competes). The problem the UK faces with going 100% renewable is that the generating energy density per unit area of renewables isn't compatible with the limited land area.

[tggzzz]

All the numbers I have looked at say that there is sufficient space/geography available in the UK and Australia to install pumped hydro storage capacity to enable 100% renewable generation for each nation respectively.

Really? Where in the UK? (I make no comment about Australia)

What does your unnamed source know that David MacKay doesn't? See http://www.withouthotair.com which is lauded by everybody with any axe to grind.

Intermittency is solvable with current technology,

That must be for a definition of "solvable" that I'm not familiar with. Probably one which is similar to "the world has enough food for hunger to be a solvable problem".

and is economically profitable when it is operated in the current markets so it is not an external cost that needs to be added renewables, it could be counted as a profit against any generation type other than the fast gas turbine plants (with which it currently competes).

You will have to point to a justification for that, which must include accounting for the increased cost of operating conventional plants since it will require them to be operated in a less economic manner. "Somebody" has to pay for conventional plants reduced efficiency, and that should be whoever" is causing the inefficiency. After all, if renewables are so efficient, their reduced cost should be more than capable of offsetting the inefficiency.

There are good reasons for using renewable sources, but making disingenuous (at best) claims about costs and profitability makes people doubt the claimed advantages.

The problem the UK faces with going 100% renewable is that the generating energy density per unit area of renewables isn't compatible with the limited land area.

There are other problems.

[coppice]

The problem the UK faces with going 100% renewable is that the generating energy density per unit area of renewables isn't compatible with the limited land area.

The continental shelf gives the UK and Ireland considerable concentrated tidal power. Only one place in the world has more. As the first land the Atlantic winds hit, the UK and Ireland receive considerably more wind than anywhere on the mainland. By the same mechanisms the UK and Ireland also get lots of wave power against their shores. They are certainly certainly weak on solar, as much from endless cloud cover as from their northern location, but compared to most of the world they are quite renewables rich. If they can't support themselves renewably, what hope is there for most of the planet?