Oh look. More things the Eel has made up in his head.

Nope, that would be you..


Nope. They're part of the 'levelised costs' scam used to make wind look even close to competitive. By scattering windmills across the rugged landscape of Scotland, we've increased the number of pylons and cables that are then vulnerable to storm damage.

But I guess the way Scotland's natural beauty is being industrialised is a demonstration of the way Greens care about the environment.

Shouldn't you be back under your bridge, sheltering from the coming storm?

I don't think "Greens" need to take lessons in caring about the environment from the only man on the planet who thinks that "CO2 prevents warming during the day".

Maybe not, but that's nothing to do with its energy density, the subject of this conversation.

Or maybe

1) It is cheaper to use our home-generated electricity first (even if that means we hit the safety level)

or

2) We haven't needed to resort to imports as demand has not been as great.

And that respect they are identical to nuclear, although that applies globally to nuclear.

Perhaps you should read Post#1 so we don' go over old ground.

We've had two power cuts in the last fortnight. The only other power cut I can recall in about ten years was a planned outage for a few hours to do work nearby (and we got plenty of advance notice for that).

I am sure it's just a coincidence, but it did get me wondering about what to do given we'd survive with torches and candles for lighting, but would struggle when the heating didn't work (gas OR electric).

We don't have solar panels, but I can see in the future that we might invest, in addition to batteries that could kick in if the mains power fails. I'll be watching what Tesla does quite closely, and as prices fall.

Surely it highly variable energy density is the main reason for its unreliability.

The UK produces only about 2% of the Worlds Carbon Dioxide so if we switched the whole bloody country 'off' it would not make an iota of difference and China would 'fill-in' the missing 2 percent in about a week!
For the Green alternative energy prophets I suggest you read the report on why the whole of Southern Australia was recently plunged into darkness due to excessive contributions of 'alternative energy' onto their National Grid.
Apparently the Grid was unable to stabilise the frequency of the additional green energy (i.e Wind) and the whole grid became unstable and 'locked out'.
Current technology makes stabilising large amounrs of unregulated power i.e wind power onto the grid almost impossible to control.
We seem hell bent on deystroying our industry through unsustainable energy bills because of an obsession with alternative energys that are,at the most,ever going to be able to contribute very small amounts of energy.

Your post #1 (which I read) doesn't really make any substantive points, but instead refers to a report by some group of MPs that receives a ringing endorsement from a failed banker who now spends his time denying climate science, so I'm afraid the further reading you require of me is not to my taste!

A couple of rather obvious points:

1) A lot of China's emissions are our embedded emissions, since they make a lot of stuff for us, so we are responsible for rather more than 2% of global emissions.

2) Your claim about China "making up" that 2% in "about a week" is complete nonsense.


I notice you didn't provide a link. Presumably because it would have to be to one of the conspiracy nutter websites, and we might notice.

I've had a quick look at the actual (AEMO) report into the event, and I can immediately see that the description you have given is completely wrong. The event started because there were 5 system faults within 88 seconds on the transmission lines that were caused by storm damage. These faults caused 6 voltage disturbances that exceeded the "ride-through" settings in 9 of the 13 wind farms that were online, causing them to disconnect from the grid. So the grid then had too little power, not too much, as you claimed.

So the fix is to change the ride-through settings, basically. Really not beyond the wit of "current technology".

We are not far from that in this country.

That is your prerogative.
Now back to your earlier post.
How do you propose we wean ourselves off fossil fuels?

Given that what he claimed wasn't true in Australia, what are we not far from here, do you think?

Electric generation in the UK? It used to be efficient, a source of national pride in the CEGB and the National Grid. Now it's a pale shadow, privatised almost to death and leaking fortunes to the snake-oil renewables salesmen. It is a national disgrace.

Ah, well.. This is the problem with our rigged market. 'Renewables' have preferential grid access, and a pricing structure that means even though it's the least reliable and most expensive energy, it gets priority.

And, as it's unreliable, government then auctions off capacity allocations, which guarantee a price 2-3+ times more than current market prices for stand-by generation. So when the wind doesn't blow, CCGT gas turbines can spool up and keep the lights on. Except even with those high & artificial prices, there's no certainty in reserve/stand-by mode, so hard to get the investment to build them, even though they're essential for grid stability due to wind's variability.


We have on occasion, but we really shouldn't need to. And there's insufficient capacity to cope with any extended outages anyway. The good* news is the EU's decided that member states should have national interconnectors capable of carrying 20% of their capacity. So for the UK, at least 10GW.. But due to the way wind gets rated based on theoretical maximum capacity in perfect conditions.. more like 20GW+.

*By good news, I mean good news for companies beginning with 'Siemens' who make HVDC interconnectors and cabling. And also renewables scumbags who can then try flogging their energy when there's no demand for it here. But bad news for everyone else as we'll be paying for this.

Yey for quotology! Naturally, you missed some points.

Investigations now show that there was a total sustained reduction of 445 MW of wind generation across nine wind farms, plus further transient reductions of 39 MW in each ride - through event. The transient reduction in output was spread across all wind farms online at the time, including those that did not suffer a sustained reduction in output.

..Information provided to AEMO indicates that damaged transmission lines were subjected to actual wind speeds that were much higher than forecast. (120km/h)

..The instantaneous loss of 900 MW of supply across the Heywood Interconnector could not be met by the generators remaining online within SA. The sudden and large deficit of supply caused the system frequency to collapse more quickly than the Under-Frequency Load Shedding (UFLS) scheme was able to act,resulting in the SA region Black System. (Much the same as happened in Germany, and for much the same reason).

..At the time of this report, five of the wind farms that suffered sustained output reductions in the event have been removed from the reclassification..Ten wind farms were subject to the reclassification. This included nine that were online and suffered output reductions at the time of the event, and one other wind farm that was not online at the time of the event.(output reduction= feathering or going into self-protection mode to avoid the fan hitting the sh.. ground)

But engineers know that as more unreliable power gets added to the network, system reliability is obviously going to decrease.. But if you're not liable for compensation, keep adding those windmills!

None of the drivel you have written in any way changes the reality that my summary of the event was a) correct and b) completely different from the claim made about it by the other poster, who no doubt got his "analysis" from one of the conspiracy nutter websites you favour.


I don't think any actual engineers will be requiring any of your insights into the steps required to ensure the grid remains resilient in the face of the changing requirements placed upon it.

The interconnect isn't working fine.

http://gcaptain.com/how-a-loose-anch...k-with-france/

That's 1GW or 2% of our consumption.

Even when all the interconnects are working it still only represents 7% of capacity.

The Irish interconnect is also buggered.

T'other poster summed it up just fine. You, presumably got your insight from your favorite 'Hot Whopper'. Windfarms tripped out the grid. That they now understand why it tripped out doesn't change the results if future storms exceed winmills safe operating speeds.


Pretty much every power engineer knows the problems with intermittent supply when you're trying to run a reliable network.. But that's why it's costing so much. Most engineers also know that trying to scale adds it's own complications, ie a larger number of unreliable generators doesn't make the overall system more reliable.

Yup. Storms have a nasty habit of doing that.. Plus remedial works are stonkingly expenisve compared to splicing in new fibre when that's damaged.

Reduced access to British exports of cheaper electricity has increased the chance of power cuts in France this winter, French grid operator Reseau de Transport d’Electricite SA said Thursday. The grid operator warned last month that it may need to take measures such as rolling blackouts.

So that's the French burgered, and so will we if we get any major outages.

But...but...but...the French have oodles of Nuclear!!!

By making a claim about the cause of the blackout that was completely untrue? Yes, I can see why you would regard a pack of lies that supports your peculiar beliefs as being "just fine".


No, Eel. I looked at the report to which I gave you a link, from which you then plucked sentences at random and applied your own unique interpretive skills. But I note that whilst I provided a link to something sensible, neither you nor the other poster have provided a link to whatever trash you read. But I'm sure I can guess.


Clueless as ever. This wasn't about wind turbines' safe operating speeds being exceeded. It was about how they responded to abnormal voltage conditions on the transmission lines, that occurred because of storm damage to those lines.


Fortunately, they don't have to rely on people like you (very much not a power engineer), who have no understanding of any of the problems!