General Chat

I sit corrected. In my days in the CEGB I do not recall there being any combined systems.
Having just read the Wikipedia article I see that they are almost twice as efficient as 'conventional' stations. Unless I missed it, there is no mention of poor CO2?

Nuclear: Yes they are being phased out - they are coming to (or already past) the end of their useful life. So until any new ones are commissioned there will be a reducing % of nuclear plant capacity. And an increasing legacy left to our future generations - what to do with all the radioactive waste.

"Dungeness A Site is located on a 22 hectare site of special scientific interest on the Kent coast. The site stopped generating electricity in 2006 with a lifetime output of 120 terawatt hours.
The site is now in its decommissioning phase and is making steady progress, including demolishing its turbine hall and decontaminating its ponds.
Priorities for the site now include draining reactor one pond, resin retrieval and packaging."
So, 16 years on and not fully decommissioned.

Nobody has come back on my imports quip. So lets try something else:-

VAT. Compared to some other countries we get away with a low charge on energy? There are surely going to be some tax changes to pay for the pandemic. Maybe the energy tax could be increased?

No, I mean combined cycle gas turbines.
These use Natural Gas to power a Turbine which turns a Generator. A second system uses the heat to produce steam which is used to turn a turbine which powers a generator. There are 39 CCGT power stations in the UK.

BrianW
Gas turbines? I think that you mean gas fired power stations?

https://www.smart-energy.com/regional-news/europe-uk/uk-10-rise-in-electricity-imports/
"In 2019 gas-fired power stations generated 38% of all power, renewables 35%, nuclear 18%, imports 7% and coal-fired power stations 2%."

It's more that 50yrs since I was employed in the CEGB. In those days gas turbines were 'attached' to some of the big base-load stations: especially nuclear. They were primarily there for emergency situations. But sometimes were used when the overall power demand was reaching the maximum availability.
Their main benefit being that they could be spun-up and connected to the national grid quickly.

Turning to imports:-
Post Brexit, will the UK have to pay more? Maybe the EU hasn't thought of that. Yet
.

If you want to compare power sources on a real-time basis then look at wwww.gridwatch.co.uk.
At the moment, the figures for the main sources are Nuclear 15%; Gas turbines 23%; Biomass (wood chips) 8%; Wind 33%; Coal 4%; Bought in from abroad (France, Netherland and Ireland) 13%.

So 35% from burning gas, wood and coal. The contribution from wind happens to be unusually high, it is generally in the low teens. Gas turbines then may make up 50% of demand. And gas turbines are very inefficient when it comes to CO2, that 23% of generation accounts for 53% of generation CO2.

There are times when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine during the day when wind and solar together account for less than 10% of demand.

Anyone who thinks that renewables (sun and wind) will cope with rechargeable cars and electric home heating by 2030 is, quite frankly, deluded.

Finger pointing - not me. I was just saying.

Nor did I need a lecture on power provision in Texas.

Don’t point too many fingers at Texas wind turbines, because they’re not the main reason broad swaths of the state have been plunged into darkness.

While ice has forced some turbines to shut down just as a brutal cold wave drives record electricity demand, wind only comprises 25% of the state’s energy mix this time of year. The majority of outages overnight were plants fueled by natural gas, coal and nuclear, which together make up more than two-thirds of power generation during winter.

Texas is suffering from unexpectedly low temperatures. Apparently in one part of Texas the wind turbines, which don’t produce much power at this time of year, froze! So nothing from them to help with the power cuts.

One of the central problems is time scale - projects such as Dinorwig don't happen overnight. Wind power has it's downsides including problems for birds and the possibility of battery farms as in S Australia. It can be used to generate hydrogen. More than anything though it is by far the quickest to install. HS2, including construction, has a truly terrible carbon "foottprint".

Scotland stands to make more £ from windpower than it ever did from oil. Once the penny drops on that they will be away on their toes. Goodwin Sands is too costly - experience has shown that infinitely thick mud makes a poor foundation while the area is key to wild birds and of course fishermen.

Whilst I totally agree with renewable energy and reducing pollution etc etc I do have a

problem with being wedded to electricity or nuclear power.

Whilst electricity is the answer in so many cases I worry that with our constant reliance

on one thing will be a problem with power cuts.

I’m with Joy on nuclear and think all those power stations will be phased out.

Been to Llanberis many times, Rollo. Once stayed at The Victoria Hotel there and got lucky when we woke to see a helicopter landing on the lawn outside our window to drop off some armed forces personnel who were taking part in the three peaks' challenge.

Our grandchildren loved the miniature train that ran alongside the lake.

Water power would be my choice as, unlike with nuclear power, we are leaving behind no problems for future generations to deal with.

That fire looks very nice, by the way.


Edit: I remember visiting Pitlochry power station well over fifty years ago. I wonder if it's still operational?

The problem with tidal power is that there are very few suitable sites, the negative impact on wild life is immense, capital costs are very high and at the end of it all the power provided miniscule compared to UK requirement.

However the same trick, of using water and turbines, can achieve a lot - all that is needed is a small mountain . There are lots of those in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
nb: the BBC ran a one hour special on this and which is prob lurking in an archive somewhere.

For those who must have a real fire there is lots of choice with synthetic flame firest the high end of which is extremely realistic.

https://www.direct-fireplaces.com/resources/best-realistic-flame-effect-electric-fires/

Not helped by some burning any wood rather than properly seasoned firewood.

It still remains a mystery to me why a lot of those burning wood do not realise that by so doing there is a reduction in the ability of nature to absorb/counteract harmful pollutants. Although some attempt is made to offset this by new planting, it takes some time for growth while large-scale clearance is sometimes never replaced.

I still think we should pursue tidal power.

the traffic data used was pre-covid.

The environmental problem is not so much what we do but how we do it.
Thus any type of heating or transport using carbon is not good news. Electric cars and trucks produce significant pollution from tyre wear.

It is a basic of economics that both heating and transport are a response to a derived demand rather than primary demand per se. As such the current technologies can be replaced by something else which will satisfy the primary demand. Clipper ships and horses were replaced by steam ships and railways.

The current electrical grid system does not have anything like the capacity required while installing new technology heating and the super efficient insulation that goes with it could be an impossible ask for the UK.

'Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire? '

Blake

The only surprise is that wood-burning has overtaken traffic as a major cause of air pollution in the UK. It ought not to be a surprise though, as traffic is much decreased in the last year or so because of the virus.

Personally, I do not like the smell of log fires so I have never thought of them as something cosy to snuggle up beside. There's enough pollution in my preferred method - switch on for the almost-instant warmth of radiators.

My bestie would disagree with me as would some others. She loves her wood-burner even though she hates cleaning the ashes out.

Time to train your dragon.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/16/home-wood-burning-biggest-cause-particle-pollution-fires