That is real time data on a calm day. Not the same as capacity, is it.
That is real time data on a calm day. Not the same as capacity, is it.
it's useful to illustrate your lies, good and proper.
So it would appear that your definition of lie as something you don't like, even though it is the truth.
So it would appear that your definition of lie as something you don't like, even though it is the truth.
o look, win is making 3gw, about as much as one power station!
And wind is generating between 27% and 32% today depending on your source.
Plenty more space for turbines...
@rational but it would have to cover base load at all times, at present gridwatch says wind is 30% or half the baseload we expect. In five minutes it will be different, have you ever worked in a coal or oil fired power station.my job was to manage the control systems in this one (it's oil fired btw).It was not as easy as you think to match demand to production, you are a foolish amature who would trust to luck, given the chance, piss off and leave this to proper engineers who at least have solar panels and ride an ebike, not a car or train.
@rational ion, you are a foolish amature who would trust to luck, given the chance, piss off and leave this to proper engineers who at least have solar panels and ride an ebike, not a car or train.
Failure of manners here....but for clarification.
Do you mean amateur?
or parhaps............. Armature?
You will have found these in the generation hardware.
And wind is generating between 27% and 32% today depending on your source.
Plenty more space for turbines...
So rarely more than a third of the baseload, which would double once we convert to electric cars. And that's without mentioning home heating and commercial transport, it is time for you to admit, you will never catch up unless you look at tidal, more nuclear, and even geothermal?
wrt plenty more space for turbines, just what we need hundreds of extra bird mincers and blots on the landscape .
So it would appear that your definition of lie as something you don't like, even though it is the truth.
i have check each day, and wind never gets close to 25%. so that was definitely a lie.
No it isn't a lie. You find it quite easy to make such statements, without foundation.
.......... ~32% at the moment. 2:30 on 26 Jan 2022
@rational you're finding ever more inventive ways to lie.
There will periods when the circumstantial rise in wind strength temporarily meets circumstantial drop in demand, but the system must deliver peak baseload at all time, there may be some sly political ways to time slice/coerce demand, but no flexibility to manage delivery with the systems you imagine, and that's how it is, when you can boost delivery to meet unpredictable demand, please be sure to let me know, and let me know if you do as i do and have 4KW of panel of your roof and use an ebike instead of a car. Otherwise be silent, and accept, only Tidal or/and nuclear can bridge the gaps.
Not really, just an attempt to introduce wrong information.
Find a number, use it out of context and pretend it is the truth. Just like the politicians....
Here are the facts:
The situation is especially acute in the U.K., where wind is currently providing only 7% of the country’s energy makeup—a steep drop from the 25% it generated on average across 2020.
The U.K.’s offshore wind sector had been a success story of the energy transition, drastically cutting emissions by rolling out 24GW of wind power over the past decade—enough to power 7.2 million homes. But as wind slowed and the price of carbon credits rose to record highs, the electricity market has experienced extreme volatility.
“We have very steep targets for increased renewable energy penetration, and the growing problem alongside of that is this fluctuation in prices that we’re seeing,” says Finlay Clark, an offshore wind analyst from Wood Mackenzie.
As a result, gas- and coal-fired electricity plants have been brought online to fill the gap. Gas now makes up more than half of the electricity in the U.K., and while the U.K.’s offshore wind is covered by subsidies and operating at zero marginal cost, gas is not.
Even coal, the most carbon-emitting energy source, has returned to the stage; it now accounts for 3% of the British energy makeup after a record-breaking two coal-free months. Faced with the power crunch last week, the electricity market operator National Grid asked EDF to restart the West Burton A coal power station in Nottinghamshire. But with a looming deadline to close all coal plants in the U.K. by 2024, this may not be an option in the future.”
Here are the facts:
The situation is especially acute in the U.K., where wind is currently providing only 7%
Posted by: @clivepinder
a steep drop …as wind slowed and … this fluctuation gas- and coal-fired electricity plants have been brought online …So wind and solar do not cut it. no way no how can it cover the baseload demand.
The remaining low carbon options are tide and nuclear. And that's all she wrote. four tidak barrages stretching across estuaries at the Solway Firth, Morecambe Bay, the Mersey and Dee rivers could be capable of meeting approximately half of the north west's electricity needs.A good sized nuclear site could give the rest, where are the plans. oh, none exist.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/river-dee-barrage-could-provide-2795343
Requoting in full, since there was some unreasonable editing.
"The situation is especially acute in the U.K., where wind is currently providing only 7% of the country’s energy makeup—a steep drop from the 25% it generated on average across 2020."
@rational it has to make up all the base load all the time, which it never does hence that's how the bastard is lying.
@clivepinder Those who are interested in real performance of the system could use this site: https://grid.iamkate.com/ which is quite useful.
The generation part of the system is not as much of a problem as some might think, but distribution could be. I know for a fact that if every house in my street tried to charge cars simultaneously, there could be problems with the (relatively new) buried cable and so on. Load diversity should not be used (according to IET standards) for estimating this kind of demand, although it is used for some domestic loads to avoid providing excess capacity which is underused, much of the time.
It’s worth noting that most vehicle charging would take place during off-peak hours (encouraged by unit pricing) so could be absorbed by the generation part of the system. Many of the users would be creatures of habit as well. The availability of certain sources could be a different story, though.
@clivepinder It’s worth noting that most vehicle charging would take place during off-peak hours (encouraged by unit pricing) so could be absorbed by the generation part of the system. Many of the users would be creatures of habit as well. The availability of certain sources could be a different story, though.
Even if the powers that be can influence users, flat out averaged over even a year, there is just nowhere near enough low carbon energy to cover the total demand. And no realistic plan to improves that. - it would need huge tidal and nuclear systems. It is a sly way of lying to say otherwise, Politicians often lie like that, because they think you are stupid and might fall for it?
Bottom line, however you time slice it the base load will be tens of GW, more than what the grid can deliver now, however it is time sliced. The system is just far, far too feeble. And that's just how it is.The grid needs to cope with min 60 GW peak demand, at present moment demand is 47 GW. We are nowhere near ready to cut carbon, even if (slim chance ) that were desirable.
When these greenies deliver a plan, we will know, at present, the plan is to run out of power, even though global warming is all worst case of all worst case hypothesis. Nobody should plan on such slender risks. esp when cutting co2 is akin to cutting crop yields. It's just too dangerous to risk that.
btw; I have 4 kw panels on the roof and no car before these hypocrite punks pipe up.
I'm just telling it as it is here.
As well as your childish name calling, there seems to be some confusion in your head.
1. You seem to be saying climate change is not real and that CO2 is actually a good thing.
2. You get hot under the collar when someone talks about wind power capacity, to the point when you call them a liars or ba****ds for quoting what are checkable facts.
3. You are correct that the generation capacity is subject for conditions and say it doesn't meet baseline needs. While this is correct, I can't see any claim that it did, yet someone is a liar. Clearly any power generated by such means does mean less gas burning and less CO2 emissions.
4. In spite of your objection to these sustainable generation methods, you seem to support tidal and nuclear options. You are not wrong in these thoughts but it is confusing.
5. You ask that it is left to proper engineers, but you don't know the vast difference in efficiency between Internal combustion engines and electric motors.
6. Despite your love of CO2, you want credit for having an e-bike and a PV panel on your roof. Isn't this against your principles?
