Bang Goes The Theory

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

Wave is highly predictable though!

Since when? It's reasonably predictable about 24 to 48 hours ahead. Anything longer than that, just like a weather forecast, is no more than guesswork.

Dave P.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by muldonach

Sorry to nit pick but neither tidal nor wave energy potential is constant

Yes, you are of course correct, perhaps I should have been more precise.
Tidal is far more predictable than wind, wave less so, but still certainly worth exploring as much as wind.
Dorts.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

When oil runs low and then out, few of us will drive cars. So there will be no car manufacturers (sure we might run a few cars on batteries created in the this new decade - but once they die out that will probably be it - until someone creates something incredible).

Cars will continue to be made, powered using the many other forms of fuel that by necessity will become available. Be it hydrogen or battery or some kind of bio-fuel, or even something we have yet to consider worthwhile. We may drive less, not so far and at slower speeds, but you cannot put the cork back in the bottle; in years to come, we will still be driving cars. No, the horse and cart will not be making a comeback, (as much as I would enjoy it if it did!)

It's not a case of whether or not I 'care'. I am a realist, I don't live in some utopian green-dreamworld. I'm sure the generations to come will still want the freedom of driving cars, to have a house with the modern comforts that you and I have enjoyed, the internet, lap-tops. tv , washing-machines, dishwashers, central-heating etc. etc.. They are not going to be spending there evenings in candlelit living-rooms, knitting and reciting poetry. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Dorts.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....I'm pretty sure that when Ecotricity for instance can provide electricity for for over 350,000 homes under their current wind turbine stock that they could manage a lot more power needs after peak time....

Not with any certainty they couldn’t!

How many times does it need to be said? – When the wind isn’t blowing it doesn’t matter if you have a thousand wind turbines or a million of them, or whether there is one on every street corner in the land – they won’t be generating any electricity! In fact, when the wind isn’t blowing, they will be consuming it. Electricity which is generated by other, more reliable sources via the grid!

Are you aware that industrial wind turbines require a constantly available source of electricity for such things as:-
• Operating the pitch and yaw mechanisms which keep the blades in correct orientation.
• Heating and pumping of the oil around the gearbox and filtration systems.
• Heating & dehumidification of the nacelle.
• Operation of the blade furling mechanisms.
• Operation of the braking mechanisms which lock the blades in high wind conditions.
• Heating of blade rotational mechanisms to prevent icing up. (And in colder regions, heating of the entire blade).
• Power for the nacelle lighting, metering, control & communications systems, etc. etc.
• Power for routine maintenance requirements.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....I have asked you one simple question too guys - which is how do you propose to keep nuclear power plants open (globally mind) if peak oil were to hit in 2020 say? or even in 2050 / 2100?

The truth here is - I don't think you care....

Good grief! – Your comprehension of world economics and global energy systems is naïve beyond belief!

If peak oil occurred today, it wouldn’t particularly affect me, the next generation, and probably the one after that. Why can’t you get it into your head that the world won’t suddenly shut down because of peak oil?

As I’ve said very recently on this very thread, the only effect that peak oil will have, is to gradually increase the cost of its use. Which, in turn, will have the effect of gradually reducing its use over many years, and during which time, other technologies – including many of the renewables currently being developed, most probably nuclear fusion too by that time, and I don’t doubt a few other things which haven’t yet hit the drawing board, will also have come on stream.

I’m becoming disinclined to respond, as each of your individual posts seems to flit from one end of the spectrum to the other, giving little chance of meaningful response without writing at inordinate length.

I have asked you one simple question too - several times!
Why don't you answer that one instead of continually side tracking ? - The effects of peak oil won't have any marked effect for a good many years. Our energy policy of wind wind and yet more wind, will begin to have a significant effect within ten years.

Don't want coal? don't want gas? don't want nuclear? - With present policy, will most definitely have lots more wind. 10 year timescale - I ask again, what is your answer?

Regards,
Mike.

[Financial Enviro]

What are you guys going to be using as tyres for your wheels once oil runs out?

In terms of alternatives - well maybe check out Searle. His little device might revolutonise energy production...

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but perhaps Tesla had the answers last century to some of our current problems. Hey you know what guys lets watch what happens in the next 10 years. Speak to you again when I am in my 40s.

[John D]

[quote=Financial Enviro;875351] And I read somewhere that nuclear has to be running at full blat to be economic - that due to this nuclear gets priority over all other forms of energy when being bought for the grid. That raises some big questions in my mind, because as you know we consume the energy as it is being made, coal / nuclear stations vamp up power to meet demand. Coal has to be kept warm to allow it to suddenly create more energy (spinning). Nuclear you cannot stop once it is started - and so in both cases we lose energy when demand is not there.

Yes wind and wave across the country could provide a stable gentle ebb of electricity at all times. I'm pretty sure that when Ecotricity for instance can provide electricity for for over 350,000 homes under their current wind turbine stock that they could manage a lot more power needs after peak time.////////

I have been following this thread with great interest and found both sides of the 'debate' very interesting. However only one side appears to have any understanding of 'the basics' and that in my opinion is NOT FE.
It appears when I read the above quote that his understanding of electricity reliability and sustainability is negligible at best.

Of course Nuclear PS run constantly and are thus the the main 'base load provider' followed by coal/oil/gas etc. The inherent methods of operating such stations dictate that this must be the case and the most practical and economic method of operation. The more constant any power station/system is run the more efficient and economic it will be.
This is where wind power fails. It is not reliable and certainly not sustainable. At best if managed properly and integrated into the electricity system with careful planning it can be a real contributor. The problem is windturbines are being installed in such a way and numbers that they will become a real problem when it comes to being part of the energy mix. The overall control of the electricity system including generation and transmission will become near impossible and definitely uneconomical.

His mention of having to keep 'coal warm' is also an indication of lack of knowledge. Had he said coal fired stations require to be continually 'fired up' so as the necessary steam was available at very short notice I would have agreed. However what he also doesn't understand is, the more windturbines that come on stream the more coal, gas/ oil fires station will required to be 'fired up' continually and generating plant maintained in 'spinning mode'(ready for when there is no or to much wind).Unfortunately large amounts of steam cannot be obtained at the 'flick of a switch'. Neither can steam be introduced into a turbine within minutes. Turbines require to be run at near operating temperature to avoid damage due to 'thermal shock'. Operating a power station isn't as simple as some seem to think.

Sure someday there will be alternative methods of generating energy not just electrical energy. However at present all alternative methods are very much at a trial stage at best. Unless steps are taken to increase the proven methods and the sources that provide reliable and sustainable energy 24/7/52 we will shortly be in real trouble.

I will continue to follow this thread with interest.

John D

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

What are you guys going to be using as tyres for your wheels once oil runs out?

I have heard that Rubber works quite well.
Dorts.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I have asked you one simple question too - several times!
Why don't you answer that one instead of continually side tracking ?

Oh Mike, don't you read FE's posts? He has stated that he is a politician. Of course he doesn't answer questions. Do try to keep up.

henrya

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Agreed. Neither tidal flow nor wave energy are “constant” in the strict sense, and wave energy is also highly dependent upon prevailing weather conditions. (Sometimes great distances away).

However, tidal flow, whilst not being constant, is most definitely predictable to a high degree of accuracy for any given location. Thus, unlike wind, it can be incorporated into an energy system knowing with certainty, that the designated amount of electrical energy to be extracted will definitely be generated.Which, since the two of us have already discussed the issue in this: -
Just when you thought Guvmint energy policy was as daft as it could get . . .
and preceding posts on that thread, you will already be aware.

Regards,
Mike.

Yes we have debated the point before and I responded to this debate because of the use of the word "constant" by another poster.

While I have no wish to take this thread off topic I will propose that we agree to differ on the section in bold - all tidal forecasting is approximate and both rise of tide and timing for any location are subject to significant variation.

You most certainly cannot predict with any certainity that a designated amount of electrical energy will be generated at a given location on a given date, I accept that both amount and timing can be approximated.

That does not mean I am opposed to the use of tidal energy or sceptical as to its value - quite the reverse. It is, of course dependable in the way that wind and wave energy are not.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by muldonach

....You most certainly cannot predict with any certainity that a designated amount of electrical energy will be generated at a given location on a given date, I accept that both amount and timing can be approximated....

Sorry Mac, but I guess we will have to agree to differ, as I see nothing which can't be accounted for, but I'm hoping that this might be due to misunderstanding of each other's thinking rather than diametrically opposed viewpoint.

For any given location, tide times, heights, periods of slack water and periods of greatest water movement etc. etc. can be predicted for months in advance. (I accept that we may have different opinions on this regards what constitutes accuracy. ).

The period of time when the bulk of water movement will be occuring can be approximated for any individual tide cycle.

So, to give an example, it might be known that at our chosen location, a current with a minimum strength of "x" will flow for at least 3 hours during the overall tide cycle period.

If our submerged generator is set up to commence generating when that minimum flow strength is reached, it will continue to operate through maximum flow, and until such time as that minimum flow reoccurs.

To give leeway for innacuracy of prediction, it might be decided to designate only 2 hours worth of generation within that expected 3 hour period, but it would be an easy matter for the control room to remotely programme generating to start /stop at any given flow rate.

Along with any innacuracy of prediction, the time at which our minimum flow of "x" occurs, will vary with tide times, and the duration might also vary, dependent upon tide heights - spring/neap tides etc.

So, all the necessary variables can be accounted for, to ensure that the turbine will operate for a specified period of time. (The only thing that might remain in some doubt, would be the exact time at which generating starts. I accept that this would be almost impossible to predict accurately).

It would be where turbine operation outside of the minimum parameters for the location was expected, that generated output couldn't be guaranteed.

Hence, unless I'm missing something basic, I stand by my statement.

Regards,
Mike.