UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

[star...@yahoo.com]

Dear All

 

Over the last couple of weeks UK wind energy capacity has reached 4351MW. Despite this last week output dropped to a low of 51MW during a low wind.

 

Despite its shortcomings wind out put contines to grow in contract to UK CHP, nuclear and CCS

 

Best regards

 

Fred

[Herbert Eppel]

Dear Fred

Despite its shortcomings (after all, output regularly drops to zero at night), PV also continues to grow – see <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarstrom&id=427>

Best regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Herbert Eppel]

Dear Fred

Re. backup see <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html>

Best wishes

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 12:00 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear Herbert and Hugh

 

I am a strong supporter of wind energy on the basis that it saves fossil fuel imports. But by pointing out that wind output can fall to just a few percent of declared capacity I hope that this shows I am not blind to the need for it to have at least 95% of its declared capacity backed up from other sources.

 

At the present time I am not so enthusiastic about PV solar, mainly because the capital investment is extremely high for the power it produces. And to parphrase Hugh, we don't have any PV systems running off moonlight or starr light.

 

The one great advantage is that roof top PV solar bypasses planning hold ups, and this must be extremely beneficial in terms of NPV. But it would be far better if at least some of the available roofspace in the UK was given over to solar heating, as it is the central heating needs which dominate UK non-transport energy demands.

 

I am certain that this is one of the most viable solutions to the space heating for existing domestic housing stock.....unfortunately such simple ideas do not appeal tp the Command Economy approach as exemplified by the proponents of CHP-distirct heating schemes.

 

Fred 

From: Hugh Sharman <sha...@incoteco.com>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 10:40
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Yes, PV "regularly" drops to zero at night. I suppose you mean "always"!

-- 
Hugh Sharman  www.incoteco.com
Strøybergsvej 24
9000 Aalborg Denmark
tel dir +45 9825 1760
tel cell +45 4055 1760
fax +45 9825 2555

[John Baldwin]

As long as we drive our electric cars when its windy and boil the kettle when its windy, there are no issues

 

Regards

 

John

 

John Baldwin
MD, CNG Services Ltd
Tel office on 0121 707 8581 

mobile 07831 241 217
www.cngservices.co.uk
john.b...@cngservices.co.uk

Skype: baldwincng

 

Twitter @baldwincng

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

[Herbert Eppel]

John

Did you actually look at the reference material I sent?

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[star...@yahoo.com]

Dear Herbert

 

This is a semantic argument....by back up I mean whatever power system has to be brought into use when wind power drops. And conversely what has to be turned off when wind power is running at high levels.

 

By emphasising the turndown aspect of back up I highlight the fact that nuclear is extremely unsutable for acting as back up. I also have doubts about fossil fuel-CCS and very advanced cola fired steam plant as back up.

 

Because the UK has extremely limited hydro and very poor links to the Continent, most of our fossil plants will have to run in back up mode.This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not criticaland there is no need to build specialised stand by OCGT plants.

 

Fred

 

  

   

[Herbert Eppel]

Dear Fred

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm so used to ill-informed anti-wind campaigners perpetuating the myth that wind requires 100% back up from fossil fuels and nuclear (see some of the comments at <http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2633746-pro-wind-farms-let-s-be-for-something-for-a-ch>, for example) that it is very refreshing to have a proper discussion about the issue.

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[DENIS STEPHENS]

Herbert

 

If wind does not need 100% backup from fossil fuels what provides the backup when the wind does not blow?

 

I am with Fred nuclear does not provide backup.

 

Regards

 

Denis S

[David Milborrow]

Fred,

 

That's metered wind capacity, presumably. Total installed capacity is 6600 MW (BWEA)

 

David

 

David Milborrow

[Peter Rowberry]

How about i) pumped storage, ii) heat storage, iii) cold storage iv) hydrogen, v) ammonia, vi) methane, all of which are able to store energy for later use. I am not sufficently up with the engineering to say which will be the most cost effective and suitable, but all are technically feasible.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4887 - Release Date: 03/22/12

[Herbert Eppel]

Yes, indeed. No-one is saying that the transition is going to be sudden. As it says at <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/wind-power-managing-variability>, "A range of technological developments already underway could allow for a steadily increasing use of wind power and the phasing out of conventional carbon-based fuels as a backup technology".

Perhaps David Milborrow, who is, after all, the author of that report and appears to be following this thread, would like to clarify further?

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

On 23.03.2012 15:27 UK Time, Peter Rowberry wrote:

How about i) pumped storage, ii) heat storage, iii) cold storage iv) hydrogen, v) ammonia, vi) methane, all of which are able to store energy for later use. I am not sufficently up with the engineering to say which will be the most cost effective and suitable, but all are technically feasible.

----- Original Message -----

From: DENIS STEPHENS

To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:19 PM

Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Herbert

�

If wind does not need 100% backup from fossil fuels what�provides the backup when the wind does not blow?

�

I am with Fred nuclear does not provide backup.

�

Regards

�

Denis S

�

�

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; "energy-disc...@googlegroups.com" <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:31
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Dear Fred

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm so used to ill-informed anti-wind campaigners perpetuating the myth that wind requires 100% back up from fossil fuels and nuclear (see some of the comments at <http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2633746-pro-wind-farms-let-s-be-for-something-for-a-ch>, for example) that it is very refreshing to have a proper discussion about the issue.

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 12:25 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear Herbert

�

This is a semantic argument....by back up I mean whatever power system�has to be brought into use when wind power drops. And conversely what has to be turned off when wind power is running at high levels.

�

By emphasising the turndown aspect of back up I highlight the fact that nuclear is extremely unsutable for acting as back up. I also have doubts about fossil fuel-CCS and very advanced cola fired steam plant as back up.

�

Because the UK has extremely limited hydro and very poor links to the Continent, most of our fossil plants will have to run in back up mode.This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not criticaland there is no need to build specialised stand by�OCGT plants.

�

Fred

�

��

���

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; Claverton Discussion <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:06
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Dear Fred

Re. backup see <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html>

Best wishes

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 12:00 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear Herbert and Hugh

�

I am a strong supporter of wind energy on the basis that it saves fossil fuel imports. But by pointing out that wind output can fall to just a few percent of declared capacity I hope that this shows I am not blind to the need for it to have�at least 95% of its declared capacity backed up from other sources.

�

At the present time I am not so enthusiastic about PV solar, mainly because�the capital investment is extremely high for the power it produces. And to parphrase Hugh, we don't have any PV systems running off moonlight or starr light.

�

The one great advantage is that roof top PV solar bypasses planning hold ups, and this must be extremely beneficial in terms of NPV. But it would be far better if at least some of the available roofspace in the UK was given over to solar heating, as it is�the central heating needs which dominate UK non-transport energy demands.

�

I am certain that this is one of the most viable solutions to the space heating for existing domestic housing stock.....unfortunately such simple ideas do not appeal tp the Command Economy approach as exemplified by the proponents of CHP-distirct heating schemes.

�

Fred�

From: Hugh Sharman <sha...@incoteco.com>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 10:40
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Yes, PV "regularly" drops to zero at night. I suppose you mean "always"!

On 3/23/2012 11:35 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:

Dear Fred

Despite its shortcomings (after all, output regularly drops to zero at night), PV also continues to grow � see <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarstrom&id=427>

Best regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk



On 23.03.2012 10:31 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear All

�

Over the last couple of weeks UK wind energy capacity has reached 4351MW. Despite this last week output dropped to a low of 51MW during a low wind.

�

Despite its shortcomings�wind out put contines to grow in contract to UK CHP, nuclear and CCS

�

Best regards

�

Fred

-- 
Hugh Sharman  www.incoteco.com
Str�ybergsvej 24
9000 Aalborg Denmark
tel dir +45 9825 1760

[dave andrews]

Peter...why do you need to store electricity?  We need to heat our houses, and you are not going to do that with stored electricity.

 

Dave

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

[DENIS STEPHENS]

Peter/Herbert

 

Which of those technologies are sufficiently developed to back up the present 6GW of wind on a windless day or two?    Can  pumped storage do it?   Can heat and cold storage do it?   Is there sufficient stored hydrogen, amonia and methane available for conversion to electricity?   Will there ever be?

 

Regards

 

Denis S

 

 

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 15:31
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Yes, indeed. No-one is saying that the transition is going to be sudden. As it says at <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/wind-power-managing-variability>, "A range of technological developments already underway could allow for a steadily increasing use of wind power and the phasing out of conventional carbon-based fuels as a backup technology".

Perhaps David Milborrow, who is, after all, the author of that report and appears to be following this thread, would like to clarify further?

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 15:27 UK Time, Peter Rowberry wrote:

How about i) pumped storage, ii) heat storage, iii) cold storage iv) hydrogen, v) ammonia, vi) methane, all of which are able to store energy for later use. I am not sufficently up with the engineering to say which will be the most cost effective and suitable, but all are technically feasible.

----- Original Message -----

From: DENIS STEPHENS

To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:19 PM

Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Herbert

 

If wind does not need 100% backup from fossil fuels what provides the backup when the wind does not blow?

 

I am with Fred nuclear does not provide backup.

 

Regards

 

Denis S

 

 

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; "energy-disc...@googlegroups.com" <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:31
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Dear Fred

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm so used to ill-informed anti-wind campaigners perpetuating the myth that wind requires 100% back up from fossil fuels and nuclear (see some of the comments at <http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2633746-pro-wind-farms-let-s-be-for-something-for-a-ch>, for example) that it is very refreshing to have a proper discussion about the issue.

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 12:25 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear Herbert

 

This is a semantic argument....by back up I mean whatever power system has to be brought into use when wind power drops. And conversely what has to be turned off when wind power is running at high levels.

 

By emphasising the turndown aspect of back up I highlight the fact that nuclear is extremely unsutable for acting as back up. I also have doubts about fossil fuel-CCS and very advanced cola fired steam plant as back up.

 

Because the UK has extremely limited hydro and very poor links to the Continent, most of our fossil plants will have to run in back up mode.This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not criticaland there is no need to build specialised stand by OCGT plants.

 

Fred

 

  

   

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; Claverton Discussion <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:06
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Dear Fred

Re. backup see <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html>

Best wishes

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


On 23.03.2012 12:00 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear Herbert and Hugh

 

I am a strong supporter of wind energy on the basis that it saves fossil fuel imports. But by pointing out that wind output can fall to just a few percent of declared capacity I hope that this shows I am not blind to the need for it to have at least 95% of its declared capacity backed up from other sources.

 

At the present time I am not so enthusiastic about PV solar, mainly because the capital investment is extremely high for the power it produces. And to parphrase Hugh, we don't have any PV systems running off moonlight or starr light.

 

The one great advantage is that roof top PV solar bypasses planning hold ups, and this must be extremely beneficial in terms of NPV. But it would be far better if at least some of the available roofspace in the UK was given over to solar heating, as it is the central heating needs which dominate UK non-transport energy demands.

 

I am certain that this is one of the most viable solutions to the space heating for existing domestic housing stock.....unfortunately such simple ideas do not appeal tp the Command Economy approach as exemplified by the proponents of CHP-distirct heating schemes.

 

Fred 

From: Hugh Sharman <sha...@incoteco.com>
To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 10:40
Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

Yes, PV "regularly" drops to zero at night. I suppose you mean "always"!

On 3/23/2012 11:35 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:

Dear Fred

Despite its shortcomings (after all, output regularly drops to zero at night), PV also continues to grow – see <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarstrom&id=427>

Best regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk



On 23.03.2012 10:31 UK Time, star...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dear All

 

Over the last couple of weeks UK wind energy capacity has reached 4351MW. Despite this last week output dropped to a low of 51MW during a low wind.

 

Despite its shortcomings wind out put contines to grow in contract to UK CHP, nuclear and CCS

 

Best regards

 

Fred

-- 
Hugh Sharman  www.incoteco.com
Strøybergsvej 24
9000 Aalborg Denmark
tel dir +45 9825 1760

[Jérôme GUILLET]

But that's not the way to look at it - the system is able to provide all the power we need without wind - how easy is it to stop power plants when there is a lot of wind is the more relevant question. And the answer to that one is a lot easier, actually.

[Chris Hodrien]

Dear Fred,

‘UK wind (and small solar-PV) output continues to grow in contrast to UK CHP, nuclear and CCS’ because it is selectively subsidised (and protected from the rigours of market competition) by the ROC/FITs to an entirely unreasonable degree relative to other more economic and more reliable forms of decarbonisation such as CCS and biomass co-firing (about 8 times average normal generating costs in the case of solar FITs, and about 3-fold for large offshore wind) (.....’so what would you choose to build in that situation?’). Most of the alleged spin-off economic ‘benefits’ of wind actually arise from the subsidy, not from the RE ‘per se’.  While onshore wind might, just possibly, have some merits as a minor part of a grid mix despite its operational shortcomings, building offshore at hugely increased expense and difficulty makes no logical sense whatever and is just an admission of failure that the planning argument has been lost onshore. No one in their right mind voluntarily builds anything offshore that can equally be put onshore, due to the very aggressive/costly environmental conditions. This large selective subsidy is given to RE in the hugely mistaken ‘woolly’, illogical belief that a renewable resource in combination  with extraction turbines (the bit you actually pay for) of only half the life of a typical thermal or nuclear powerplant is somehow inherently ‘better’ than cheaper, more reliable/dispatchable decarbonisation options (including industry and transport sectors),  in an era where fossil and biomass fuels are still affordable/competitive (probably at least the next 25 years, = > typical WT lifetime). The imperative is (should be!) minimum-cost CO2 reductions (preferably using dispatchable technology, to avoid need for high-% backup) rather than RE ‘per se’.  Given that capture is c.80% of a total CCS chain cost, a jolly good start might be to add sequestration to the 100+ paid-for CO2 capture plants that already exist (for non-environmental process reasons) throughout the UK chemical/refining/NG sector, as you know. The ENA Redpoint Nov 2010 ‘Gas Futures’ study (recommended reading) has definitively shown that decarbonising the gas grid is dramatically  cheaper then RE ‘electrification’, but has yet to result in any visible shift in DECC  policy. Does anyone really believe that the much-publicised massive £200B investment needed for the RE ‘electrification’ strategy (at least £10K per UK household, and which I believe is deliberately hiding some of the true overall costs) is either affordable or desirable for ‘UK plc’? Has anyone other than Redpoint properly costed the alternatives?   Another advantage of working in non-power energy sectors is that the big constraint of the need for instant load balancing is completely absent. A proper metric for comparing options is levelised £/T CO2 avoid/captured on a ‘whole-system’ basis inc’ end-user appliances, preferably using real commercial interest/discount rates (affecting real-world investment decisions) rather than notional lower ‘whole-life’ values which have little bearing on real-world activities.

 

As for: ‘most of our fossil powerplants will have to run in back up mode. This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not critical and there is no need to build specialised standby OCGT plants’:  - these added costs/fuel losses may possibly not be ‘critical’ but they are most definitely sub-optimal when there are much better new-build gas options available, and an obvious 10-year window (arising from LCPD coal plant closures) to install same. My biggest concern is the additional CO2 and non-CO2 (NOx, SO2, Hg, PM’s.....) air emissions from such operations, of which the CO2 will significantly offset the RE CO2 savings and the rest are all net additions to UK emissions burdens. No-one in Claverton has yet succeeded in quantifying and comparing these (coal vs gas CCGT/OCGT), I invite you to do so (I have not got the time as I am very busy running a real 6-month CCS design study for the TSB), using the definitive Poyry Wind Intermittency Study as your data source for the backup plant operating regimes (ramp rates/durations etc). That would be a really useful contribution to the debate  - I  expect the results on all metrics to be very heavily weighted in favour of gas OCGT/hybrid CCGT. In the longer term, at least a major portion of such gas backup plant could be very economically fed for many decades past 2050 with decarbonised  SNG from  a UK-sourced partly-renewable biomass fuel mix using Tony Day’s excellent multi-fuel BGL gasifier SNG concept, largely avoiding gas imports for that duty.  

 

You also suggest that the reason for the lack of take-up of roof-top solar water heating in UK is because of incompatibility with a ‘command and control’ environment. The real reason is that the UK weather is simply not suitable for solar ‘anything’ (poor load factor) leading to poor economics (Morocco and Arizona are an entirely different ‘ballgame’) –we are primarily a ‘windy and wet’ country, draw your own conclusions. We have the exact opposite of a ‘command and control’ energy sector right now, and the real reason is the notorious refusal of the ‘mean-minded’ UK public (even in ‘the good times’, never mind a major recession!) to invest capex in any energy-saving device that has a payback of more than 1-2 years (what have you voluntarily invested in for your home these last 10 years?). This is why I believe that domestic microgen, heat pumps and domestic Smart Grid are all doomed to failure unless heavily incentivised by gov’t . The reality is that the only sector that voluntarily invests Capex in energy kit are the large private utilities plus a few energy-intensive users, because they are the only agencies with (relatively!) easy access to capital. Of course, DECC  would very much ‘like’ householders to voluntarily invest in such kit on a national scale because it would keep it off the books of energy utilities, and thus out of ‘visible’ energy bills,  but it’s not real (un-subsidised) UK customer behaviour. That is why the domestic solar-PV FIT has had to be so huge.

Regards, Chris.

[Andrew MCKILLOP]

CHINA'S ANNUAL ADDITION OF POWER CAPACITY ABOUT 90 GW

This in no way is intending to demean the UK increase of windpower
capacity.
It concerns the sheer size of energy supply capacity increases needed
in a fast gowing economy and high population society.
China now faces a self-imposed Peak Coal, by or before 2017, with its
ultimate peak consumption of 3.9 - 4.1 billion tons per year set by
the National Energy Administration (announced 22 March). By 2017 there
will be zero growth of Chinese coal consumption.

At this rate and for China's 1.33 billion population its per capita
average coal consumption will be about 2.9 tons/capita/year
In 1913, the then fast-industrializing UK attained its own Peak Coal,
215 million tons a year, for an average consumption for its 1913
population of about 5 tons/capita/year.
Present US coal consumption averages about 3.3 tons/capita/year

We can compare those vital energy statistics with the coal equivalent
or oil equivalent of UK windpower output, per capita.
Andrew McKillop

On Mar 23, 11:48 am, "Chris Hodrien" <chodr...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Dear Fred,
> ‘UK wind (and small solar-PV) output continues to grow in contrast to UK CHP, nuclear and CCS’ because it is selectively subsidised (and protected from the rigours of market competition) by the ROC/FITs to an entirely unreasonable degree relative to other more economic and more reliable forms of decarbonisation such as CCS and biomass co-firing (about 8 times average normal generating costs in the case of solar FITs, and about 3-fold for large offshore wind) (.....’so what would you choose to build in that situation?’). Most of the alleged spin-off economic ‘benefits’ of wind actually arise from the subsidy, not from the RE ‘per se’.  While onshore wind might, just possibly, have some merits as a minor part of a grid mix despite its operational shortcomings, building offshore at hugely increased expense and difficulty makes no logical sense whatever and is just an admission of failure that the planning argument has been lost onshore. No one in their right mind voluntarily builds anything offshore that can equally be put onshore, due to the very aggressive/costly environmental conditions. This large selective subsidy is given to RE in the hugely mistaken ‘woolly’, illogical belief that a renewable resource in combination  with extraction turbines (the bit you actually pay for) of only half the life of a typical thermal or nuclear powerplant is somehow inherently ‘better’ than cheaper, more reliable/dispatchable decarbonisation options (including industry and transport sectors),  in an era where fossil and biomass fuels are still affordable/competitive (probably at least the next 25 years, = > typical WT lifetime). The imperative is (should be!) minimum-cost CO2 reductions (preferably using dispatchable technology, to avoid need for high-% backup) rather than RE ‘per se’.  Given that capture is c.80% of a total CCS chain cost, a jolly good start might be to add sequestration to the 100+ paid-for CO2 capture plants that already exist (for non-environmental process reasons) throughout the UK chemical/refining/NG sector, as you know. The ENA Redpoint Nov 2010 ‘Gas Futures’ study (recommended reading) has definitively shown that decarbonising the gas grid is dramatically  cheaper then RE ‘electrification’, but has yet to result in any visible shift in DECC  policy. Does anyone really believe that the much-publicised massive £200B investment needed for the RE ‘electrification’ strategy (at least £10K per UK household, and which I believe is deliberately hiding some of the true overall costs) is either affordable or desirable for ‘UK plc’? Has anyone other than Redpoint properly costed the alternatives?   Another advantage of working in non-power energy sectors is that the big constraint of the need for instant load balancing is completely absent. A proper metric for comparing options is levelised £/T CO2 avoid/captured on a ‘whole-system’ basis inc’ end-user appliances, preferably using real commercial interest/discount rates (affecting real-world investment decisions) rather than notional lower ‘whole-life’ values which have little bearing on real-world activities.
>
> As for: ‘most of our fossil powerplants will have to run in back up mode. This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not critical and there is no need to build specialised standby OCGT plants’:  - these added costs/fuel losses may possibly not be ‘critical’ but they are most definitely sub-optimal when there are much better new-build gas options available, and an obvious 10-year window (arising from LCPD coal plant closures) to install same. My biggest concern is the additional CO2 and non-CO2 (NOx, SO2, Hg, PM’s.....) air emissions from such operations, of which the CO2 will significantly offset the RE CO2 savings and the rest are all net additions to UK emissions burdens. No-one in Claverton has yet succeeded in quantifying and comparing these (coal vs gas CCGT/OCGT), I invite you to do so (I have not got the time as I am very busy running a real 6-month CCS design study for the TSB), using the definitive Poyry Wind Intermittency Study as your data source for the backup plant operating regimes (ramp rates/durations etc). That would be a really useful contribution to the debate  - I  expect the results on all metrics to be very heavily weighted in favour of gas OCGT/hybrid CCGT. In the longer term, at least a major portion of such gas backup plant could be very economically fed for many decades past 2050 with decarbonised  SNG from  a UK-sourced partly-renewable biomass fuel mix using Tony Day’s excellent multi-fuel BGL gasifier SNG concept, largely avoiding gas imports for that duty.
>
> You also suggest that the reason for the lack of take-up of roof-top solar water heating in UK is because of incompatibility with a ‘command and control’ environment. The real reason is that the UK weather is simply not suitable for solar ‘anything’ (poor load factor) leading to poor economics (Morocco and Arizona are an entirely different ‘ballgame’) –we are primarily a ‘windy and wet’ country, draw your own conclusions. We have the exact opposite of a ‘command and control’ energy sector right now, and the real reason is the notorious refusal of the ‘mean-minded’ UK public (even in ‘the good times’, never mind a major recession!) to invest capex in any energy-saving device that has a payback of more than 1-2 years (what have you voluntarily invested in for your home these last 10 years?). This is why I believe that domestic microgen, heat pumps and domestic Smart Grid are all doomed to failure unless heavily incentivised by gov’t . The reality is that the only sector that voluntarily invests Capex in energy kit are the large private utilities plus a few energy-intensive users, because they are the only agencies with (relatively!) easy access to capital. Of course, DECC  would very much ‘like’ householders to voluntarily invest in such kit on a national scale because it would keep it off the books of energy utilities, and thus out of ‘visible’ energy bills,  but it’s not real (un-subsidised) UK customer behaviour. That is why the domestic solar-PV FIT has had to be so huge.
> Regards, Chris.
>

> From: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com [mailto:grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of starrf...@yahoo.com
> Sent: 23 March 2012 12:25
> To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com; grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW
>
> Dear Herbert
>
> This is a semantic argument....by back up I mean whatever power system has to be brought into use when wind power drops. And conversely what has to be turned off when wind power is running at high levels.
>
> By emphasising the turndown aspect of back up I highlight the fact that nuclear is extremely unsutable for acting as back up. I also have doubts about fossil fuel-CCS and very advanced cola fired steam plant as back up.
>
> Because the UK has extremely limited hydro and very poor links to the Continent, most of our fossil plants will have to run in back up mode.This has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel consumption. These are not criticaland there is no need to build specialised stand by OCGT plants.
>
> Fred
>

> From: Herbert Eppel <H...@HETranslation.co.uk>
> To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; Claverton Discussion <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW
>
> Dear Fred
>

> Re. backup see  <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html> <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Herbert Eppelwww.HETranslation.co.uk

>
> On 23.03.2012 12:00 UK Time, starrf...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Herbert and Hugh
>
> I am a strong supporter of wind energy on the basis that it saves fossil fuel imports. But by pointing out that wind output can fall to just a few percent of declared capacity I hope that this shows I am not blind to the need for it to have at least 95% of its declared capacity backed up from other sources.
>
> At the present time I am not so enthusiastic about PV solar, mainly because the capital investment is extremely high for the power it produces. And to parphrase Hugh, we don't have any PV systems running off moonlight or starr light.
>
> The one great advantage is that roof top PV solar bypasses planning hold ups, and this must be extremely beneficial in terms of NPV. But it would be far better if at least some of the available roofspace in the UK was given over to solar heating, as it is the central heating needs which dominate UK non-transport energy demands.
>
> I am certain that this is one of the most viable solutions to the space heating for existing domestic housing stock.....unfortunately such simple ideas do not appeal tp the Command Economy approach as exemplified by the proponents of CHP-distirct heating schemes.
>
> Fred
>

> From: Hugh Sharman  <mailto:shar...@incoteco.com> <shar...@incoteco.com>
> To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 10:40
> Subject: Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW
>
> Yes, PV "regularly" drops to zero at night. I suppose you mean "always"!
>
> On 3/23/2012 11:35 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:
> Dear Fred
>

> Despite its shortcomings (after all, output regularly drops to zero at night), PV also continues to grow – see  <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarst...> <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarst...>
>
> Best regards
>
> Herbert Eppelwww.HETranslation.co.uk

>
> On 23.03.2012 10:31 UK Time, starrf...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Over the last couple of weeks UK wind energy capacity has reached 4351MW. Despite this last week output dropped to a low of 51MW during a low wind.
>

> Despite its ...
>
> read more »

[Peter Rowberry]

You ask is there sufficient .... ?

 

No, not yet, but we don't need it yet. We need it as more fossil fuel and nuclear comes off stream. I also suspect that development of tidal power will be significant, as it is predictable, but not necessarily when we need it. This will make predicting the benefits of tidal lagoons (or similar "pumped storage" type solutions) much easier. All this is provided these technologies are not "drowned out" by the costly and always on nuclear option.

 

I also suggest that we need to look very carefully at demand, and in a way which is not unduly influenced by the power companies, who after all have a vested interest in their customers NOT saving electricity.

[Peter Rowberry]

Am I missing something here? The argument goes that "Wind is intermittent, and there is a need to provide energy when the wind does not blow". This treats our energy system as if wind were the only source and a highly centralised energy system was the only option. I would argue that if we have a good distribution system and a variety of generating options, not just wind, but tidal lagoons, energy from waste, ground source heat, solar etc. the problems with the intermittent nature of wind are exaggerated. A classic example today, no wind but great solar. We still need to provide for times when energy is at a premium. Heating houses is a significant, but not the only, demand for energy. You can't run appliances on stored heat and we may need more cooling than heating if we can't crack the carbon pollution problem.

[dave andrews]

The biggest chunk of demand we have is for heat, presently met by natural gas in most of Europe.   You can't feasibly replace that with wind or nuclear electric, because you would have to rebuilt the dist grid and massively increase the installed generating capacity.

Wind for appliances, ie the present sort of power demand and shape we have now, can easily be provided by wind, with chp stations acting during no wind periods running on probably biomass only but maybe gas as well.  Surplus wind can be stored via heat pumps to hot water accumulors, economically today. And the heat can then be piped to houses economically today.  This is a solution which works economically  .  Having  vast stores for wind or nuclear electric does not work because of the issue of getting the power to the houses, and the non-existence of cheap, high volume, long term electricity storage systems. IMHOP

Dave

[dave andrews]

Chris, can you point me to the Redpoint analysis which you state costs the true cost of  electrically heating UK please?  I have costs to pipe heat to european cities which appears to be much less than electic alternative.

Dave

[Nick Balmer]

Hello,

If I can drop my energy need by just over 25% in February & March with a 4kWp solar array and a few LED light bulbs, I must be able to cut my energy by 40% or more in the summer.

As the following interesting survey shows most people adopting solar see it as just a first step on a journey towards needing little if any external energy within a few years except for transport. 

http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/BAhbBlsHOgZmIh00ZWMyODdhZGUzNDU5YjBlYWUwMDAyY2E/GEY1.066_GeneratorSurvey_08.pdf?suffix=.pdf

The sheer rate of development in places like Germany & China is causing very similar journeys to take place, and these huge markets are fuelling investment in really interesting developments like the domestic fuel cells at the following URL.

http://www.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-2038DABF-BEA034DD/fronius_international/hs.xsl/83_18098_ENG_HTML.htm

I have realised that if I could only get my son to have his path in the morning (his internal clock runs on student hours) I could get my energy import down by another 20%.

As I only get 3.1p/kW for exporting and pay 13p for imported electricity it makes more sense to use it in my home than to export.

Which is easier, to find an intelligent switching device to prioritize the switching on and off of my domestic appliances as and when the sun comes out, or to re-programme my son?

More seriously, does anybody know where I could get a black box that would co-ordinate the turning on of washing machines, fridges etc. when my solar is generating?

If solar panels continue to drop at 15 to 20% a year for a couple more years, and then other technologies like those above come n and follow similar price trajectories, as they surely will, we will only need a few gas fired power stations in future, and much of the current gas could be diverted towards displacing diesel used in transport. 

What I (and many others) are being able to do, will presumably become quite routine in the next few years as these technologies get taken up.

Regards

Nick Balmer.

 

[David Hirst]

Nick,

It is great to hear of your energy efficiency measures, but I dispute the logic of your first paragraph. It all depends!

I am uneasy about encouraging the aspirations to become an energy independent household. There are circumstances where being off-grid can be an advantage, and individual self sufficiency a benefit, but we are urban and social creatures, and sharing energy resources is a social act, as well as being efficient.

The underlying reason for this is that much of our household energy use is intermittent and peaky, so maximum demand is much bigger than our average demand, often by a factor of 3 – 10. This means that, if we have equipment that meets our peak needs, it will be idle for much of the time. We can, of course, use storage, but, broadly, the cost of electricity from a battery is about twice the cost of electricity we put into it.

If, on the other hand, we have shared resources, the natural diversity between households (some households do not have student lifestyles, for example!) then the peak to average relationship is quite different, so we do not need anything like as much peak capacity. I once wrote to the Minister about it. www.davidhirst.com/electricity/documents/GridasaSocialActv10.pdf.

There may be very good reasons for discouraging a student lifestyle, but our consumer society encourages pretty instant gratification, and it will be hard to change that for the few pennies saved by having a bath in the morning rather than when it feels nicest. It should be our technology that changes its behaviour rather than us. And I think that is a very good idea.

So the flaw lies is the disparity between your import and export price. Your import price has embedded within it all sorts of fixed costs related to your local cable etc. as well as taxes, and, no doubt, the costs of obligations to pay others who managed to get a better FIT deal. Your export price is really a token, and not related to the cost of electricity. In my view, your electricity bill should come from two sources: your DNO, whom you pay for the connections (and reliability and meter and all sorts of other infrastructure costs), and your retailer, whom you pay for your imports, and who pays you for your exports. In that way, the value of “grid storage” can be properly reflected in the price, and the the reward you get for PV properly reflects it wider value. Your neighbour, like me, may have no South facing roof space.

I do not think a single black box can handle it sensibly. It needs more sophistication. Your fridge manufacturer would withdraw all guarantees about food preservation if the fridge could be switched off at random. It would have to be the decision of the fridge controller, and the best use of the fridge resource is system frequency stabilisation. See http://www.davidhirst.com/electricity/documents/SystemFrequencyPaperv06.pdf. Similarly, all washing machine assurances about damaged clothes would be lost if it was subject to (to it) random disconnections. It has to be influenced, not controlled.

But the sort of controller you seem to want may be available from http://www.passivsystems.com/. Let me know if you get anywhere, as I think they have some right thinking.

What technologies will be taken up, and how much impact they have, is still very much up for grabs. I suspect your wishes are a minority taste, but to make a difference we do have to influence the wider world, which is, broadly, less willing to put itself out for social and planetary benefits. And we either have to abolish the VILES, of find ways to prevent their aspirations costing us all, both in cash and freedoms.

Regards

David

 

David Hirst

!-!?!-Hirst Solutions Limited

Mobile:  +44 7831 405443

--

[DENIS STEPHENS]

Peter

 

I doubt if there will ever be a time when gas fired turbine generators are not required to provide back up to renewables.

 

I do not understand your last paragraph.   If customers consume less energy all that happens is that the cost of energy goes up so that the returns to the energy suppliers remain the same.   After all, those so called 'bad guys' still have to recover their costs.

 

The same applies to water and almost everything else we buy.

 

Regards

 

 

Denis Stephens

[dave andrews]

Denis, last time I did the rough sum, the cost of the capital to fund the existing power stations was about 0.5p/kWh. So we will all have to pay this regardless of how much we use.  Likewise the transmission is I think around 0.7 and distribution around 2.  All hte rest is the fuel. 

 

If we buy less energy, then the cost per unit will go up, but overall we will spend less. 

 

The suppliers should be happy, to recover their capital.  But hte more energy they sell the more profit for them.  so they have no untested in us purchasing less energy.

 

Dave

[Helenchaddy]

Surely this is an argument for Energy Service approach. We all want
power and heat, if companies charged us for a certain level of service
they would then want to make sure we used their supply as efficiently
as possible. It's not easy as markets don't work that way, but it
could be a solution, it would also ensure that on site renewables were
incorporated effectively. Demand management could well be part of the
mix in future.

Helen

Helen

On Mar 26, 4:08 pm, dave andrews <tyningr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Denis, last time I did the rough sum, the cost of the capital to fund the
> existing power stations was about 0.5p/kWh. So we will all have to pay this
> regardless of how much we use.  Likewise the transmission is I think around
> 0.7 and distribution around 2.  All hte rest is the fuel.
>
> If we buy less energy, then the cost per unit will go up, but overall we
> will spend less.
>
> The suppliers should be happy, to recover their capital.  But hte more
> energy they sell the more profit for them.  so they have no untested in us
> purchasing less energy.
>
> Dave
>

> On 26 March 2012 16:07, DENIS STEPHENS <denis.steph...@btinternet.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  Peter
>
> > I doubt if there will ever be a time when gas fired turbine generators are
> > not required to provide back up to renewables.
>
> > I do not understand your last paragraph.   If customers consume less
> > energy all that happens is that the cost of energy goes up so that the
> > returns to the energy suppliers remain the same.   After all, those so
> > called 'bad guys' still have to recover their costs.
>
> > The same applies to water and almost everything else we buy.
>
> > Regards
>
> > Denis Stephens
>

> >   *From:* Peter Rowberry <prowb...@btinternet.com>
> > *To:* energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2012, 16:54
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> >  You ask is there sufficient .... ?
>
> > No, not yet, but we don't need it yet. We need it as more fossil fuel and
> > nuclear comes off stream. I also suspect that development of tidal power
> > will be significant, as it is predictable, but not necessarily when we need
> > it. This will make predicting the benefits of tidal lagoons (or similar
> > "pumped storage" type solutions) much easier. All this is provided these
> > technologies are not "drowned out" by the costly and always on nuclear
> > option.
>
> > I also suggest that we need to look very carefully at demand, and in a way
> > which is not unduly influenced by the power companies, who after all have a
> > vested interest in their customers NOT saving electricity.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* Jérôme GUILLET <jeromeguil...@yahoo.fr>
> > *To:* energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2012 3:52 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> > But that's not the way to look at it - the system is able to provide all
> > the power we need without wind - how easy is it to stop power plants when
> > there is a lot of wind is the more relevant question. And the answer to
> > that one is a lot easier, actually.
>
> >  Le 23 mars 2012 à 16:50, DENIS STEPHENS a écrit :
>
> >   Peter/Herbert
>
> > Which of those technologies are sufficiently developed to back up the
> > present 6GW of wind on a windless day or two?    Can  pumped storage do
> > it?   Can heat and cold storage do it?   Is there sufficient stored
> > hydrogen, amonia and methane available for conversion to electricity?
> > Will there ever be?
>
> > Regards
>
> > Denis S
>

> >   *From:* Herbert Eppel <H...@HETranslation.co.uk>
> > *To:* energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2012, 15:31
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> >  Yes, indeed. No-one is saying that the transition is going to be sudden.
> > As it says at

> > <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/wind-power-managing-variab...><http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/wind-power-managing-variab...>,

> > "A range of technological developments already underway could allow for a
> > steadily increasing use of wind power and the phasing out of conventional
> > carbon-based fuels as a backup technology".
>
> > Perhaps David Milborrow, who is, after all, the author of that report and
> > appears to be following this thread, would like to clarify further?
>
> > Herbert Eppel

> >www.HETranslation.co.uk<http://www.hetranslation.co.uk/>

>
> > On 23.03.2012 15:27 UK Time, Peter Rowberry wrote:
>
> > How about i) pumped storage, ii) heat storage, iii) cold storage iv)
> > hydrogen, v) ammonia, vi) methane, all of which are able to store energy
> > for later use. I am not sufficently up with the engineering to say which
> > will be the most cost effective and suitable, but all are technically
> > feasible.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* DENIS STEPHENS <denis.steph...@btinternet.com>
> > *To:* energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2012 1:19 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> >  Herbert
>
> > If wind does not need 100% backup from fossil fuels what provides the
> > backup when the wind does not blow?
>
> > I am with Fred nuclear does not provide backup.
>
> > Regards
>
> > Denis S
>

> >  *From:* Herbert Eppel <H...@HETranslation.co.uk>
> > *To:* grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; "
> > energy-disc...@googlegroups.com" <
> > energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:31
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> >  Dear Fred
>
> > Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > I'm so used to ill-informed anti-wind campaigners perpetuating the myth

> > that wind requires *100% back up from fossil fuels and nuclear* (see some
> > of the comments at
> > <http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/sugg...><http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/sugg...>,

> > for example) that it is very refreshing to have a proper discussion about
> > the issue.
>
> > Regards
>
> > Herbert Eppel

> >www.HETranslation.co.uk<http://www.hetranslation.co.uk/>
>
> > On 23.03.2012 12:25 UK Time, starrf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >  *Dear Herbert*

>
> > This is a semantic argument....by back up I mean whatever power system has
> > to be brought into use when wind power drops. And conversely what has to be
> > turned off when wind power is running at high levels.
>
> > By emphasising the turndown aspect of back up I highlight the fact that
> > nuclear is extremely unsutable for acting as back up. I also have doubts
> > about fossil fuel-CCS and very advanced cola fired steam plant as back up.
>
> > Because the UK has extremely limited hydro and very poor links to the
> > Continent, most of our fossil plants will have to run in back up mode.This
> > has got some implications for increased maintenance and increases in fuel
> > consumption. These are not criticaland there is no need to build
> > specialised stand by OCGT plants.
>

> > *Fred *
>
> >  *From:* Herbert Eppel <H...@HETranslation.co.uk><H...@HETranslation.co.uk>
> > *To:* grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; Claverton
> > Discussion <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com><energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2012, 12:06
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW
>
> >  Dear Fred
>
> > Re. backup see <http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html><http://prowa.org.uk/variability.html>
>
> > Best wishes
>
> > Herbert Eppel
> >www.HETranslation.co.uk<http://www.hetranslation.co.uk/>
>
> > On 23.03.2012 12:00 UK Time, starrf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >  *Dear Herbert and Hugh*

>
> > I am a strong supporter of wind energy on the basis that it saves fossil
> > fuel imports. But by pointing out that wind output can fall to just a few

> > percent of declared capacity I hope that this shows* I am not blind to

> > the need for it to have at least 95% of its declared capacity backed up

> > from other sources.*

>
> > At the present time I am not so enthusiastic about PV solar, mainly
> > because the capital investment is extremely high for the power it produces.
> > And to parphrase Hugh, we don't have any PV systems running off moonlight
> > or starr light.
>
> > The one great advantage is that roof top PV solar bypasses planning hold
> > ups, and this must be extremely beneficial in terms of NPV. But it would be
> > far better if at least some of the available roofspace in the UK was given
> > over to solar heating, as it is the central heating needs which dominate UK
> > non-transport energy demands.
>
> > I am certain that this is one of the most viable solutions to the space
> > heating for existing domestic housing stock.....unfortunately such simple
> > ideas do not appeal tp the Command Economy approach as exemplified by the
> > proponents of CHP-distirct heating schemes.
>

> > *Fred *
>
> >  *From:* Hugh Sharman <shar...@incoteco.com> <shar...@incoteco.com>
> > *To:* grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2012, 10:40
> > *Subject:* Re: UK Wind Capacity reaches 4351 MW

>
> >  Yes, PV "regularly" drops to zero at night. I suppose you mean "always"!
>
> > On 3/23/2012 11:35 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:
>
> > Dear Fred
>
> > Despite its shortcomings (after all, output regularly drops to zero at
> > night), PV also continues to grow – see

> > <http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarst...><http://www.sunwindenergy.com/swe/content/home/details.php?rub=solarst...>
>
> > Best regards
>
> > Herbert Eppel
> >www.HETranslation.co.uk<http://www.hetranslation.co.uk/>

>
> > On 23.03.2012 10:31 UK Time, starrf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >  Dear All
>
> > Over the last couple of weeks UK wind energy capacity has reached 4351MW.
> > Despite this last week output dropped to a low of 51MW during a low wind.
>
> > Despite its shortcomings wind out put contines to grow in contract to UK
> > CHP, nuclear and CCS
>
> > Best regards
>
> > Fred
>
> > --
> > Hugh Sharman  www.incoteco.com
> > Strøybergsvej 24
> > 9000 Aalborg Denmark
> > tel dir +45 9825 1760
> > tel cell +45 4055 1760
> > fax +45 9825 2555
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Bill Bordass]

Dear Helen

Demand management can have an enormous effect. Indeed, without it I think all our supply-side efforts are doomed as demand will continue to grow.

However, I am less happy about the energy services approach. In my experience:
1. The most profitable bit of management that management companies do, is the bit they don't do: so there are many incentives to take short cuts and past costs on to the unsuspecting customer.
2. Often we don't really need the services: so provision to a particular level is wasteful.

With good wishes

Bill

[DENIS STEPHENS]

David

 

We all know that the fossil based electricity Generators would use less fuel if we were all to reduce our consumption.  But this does not figure into the cost per kWh equation because when they are generating they are using fuel.  However because they are using less fuel, (the handling costs of which have to be recovered by the fuel supplier), the cost of the fuel might be higher and so the cost of the electricity generated might increase. 

 

If we reduce our demand the electricity Generator still needs to recover his capital costs and the costs of his opertional staff, overheads and profit etc., the cost of which would be spread over the reduced kWh's that he operates.  

 

Also, the cost of the electricity sold to the electricity Distribution companies would increase due to the need for the National Grid to spread their costs over the reduced demand.

 

In summary as demand reduces the overall selling price per kWh from the National Grid to the electricity Distributors goes up. 

 

The Distributors costs are recovered through the selling price to the Consumer.  These cost include the capital and maintenance of the equipment as well as operating staff etc., profit and future extensions to the local grid.    As demand goes down, just like the Generators  and National Grid, the Distributor  recovers his costs by spreading them over the reduced number of kWh's that he sells.

 

My electricity bill breakdown per kWh, as supplied by my electricity Distributor, is as follows.

 

Electricity bought from the national grid  5.35 p

Delivery to my house 3.66p

Government obligations 2.676 p

Operating costs 1.69p

profit  0.704 p

 

Total 14.08 p per kWh.

 

These numbers bear no relation to the numbers you quote.

 

If overall demand was to substantially reduce I suspect that the 14.08 p charge per kWh would increase in direct proportion.

 

With regard to your last sentence 'profit' seems to be a dirty word.  Without profit companies cannot invest in developing their systems for our overall benefit.

 

Responsible companies, (I would argue that inspite of the severe criticism that they get most electricity Generation and Dstribution companies are) know that the political climate is such that they have to promote energy saving as part of their contribution to our society and that it is in their interest to be seen to actively encourage reduced consumption.  Why else would they promote home insulation and other energy reduction measures which take time and manpower to implement and divert their energies from their core business?

 

 

Regards

 

Denis Stephens

[Steve Browning]

Tidal flow Power is useful if you can install it at a number of sites.  Because high and low tides (minimum flow) occur at different times, the aggregate output of Tidal turbines should be stable.  The plant can also be regulated with the same proviso as for wind; if you pull back you waste the 'free' enegy.  

 

We have a very fast tidal flow in the Pentland Firfth (between John O'Groats and Orkney) and there are various ideas for putting marine generators in that are.  Again, as with Hyrdo, there are capital cost and Infrastructure/Environment issues.

 

Steve

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4887 - Release Date: 03/22/12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4887 - Release Date: 03/22/12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.