Just for those who think wind turbines are a joke

[Suff]

You will note that no Coal is running and gas is 7.6GW of the 35GW demand.

Also we're pushing 2.6GW to France and have been for a couple of weeks now.

[Workingman]

Nice try. Very selective, choosing a windy day to try to make a point. Your image is truncated, btw, but I can tell you that at the time solar was giving 1.71GW and wind 16.6 GW, Gas 7.6 GW

Well here's my very selective response from later that same 24 hour period..


Solar 1 GW, wind 5.9 GW. Gas 17 GW.

Notice that nuclear is always a steady baseload whatever the weather conditions, and that gas picks up the slack. This happens every day throughout the year. And France is giving back... as it always has done

Nobody says windmills are a joke, those are your words, what we do say is that they, and solar, are intermittent, as my image shows. QED.

[Suff]

As you know I am a proponent of Nuclear.

However if you go to the graphs on the site, you find that 2022 is very different from 2021 because at every opportunity they are curtailing gas and not wind.

This means wind power has never been presented at its best capacity until the cost of gas made gas power a necessary choice rather than an easy choice. It is more work to balance the grid if you actually shut down CCGT.

This situation is going to change even more over the next decade as another 40GW of wind goes live.

This is why they are spending billions on Wind whilst also delivering Nuclear.

The point I was making is that the ability to service 50% of demand at Any time, ever, is serious capacity. Nuclear certainly can't do it.

[Workingman]

I know, let's brush aside the millions of tonnes of CO2 unfriendly concrete and steel needed to provide those extra 40 GW of wind power, and never mind the loss of land / sea and the environmental damage they cause. It's all aimed at net zero, so very positive, isn't it?

And let us be absolutely clear - wind will not ever produce 50% of our needs "at any time", it can never do that. It needs serious environmentally damaging systems (storage) to come close. It is obviously a big player, but it will never be the silver bullet.

Also, questions are now being asked about the climatic effects of the extraction of so much power both locally and globally. Every action blah de blah. There is no free lunch.

[cromwell]

The BBC did an interview with John Pettigrew, Head of the National Grid. He said that for the UK to hit it's 2030 renewable energy targets, offshore wind power will have to increase by 400%.
Cables and pylons will haave to be used to transfer the power from the East Coast, where most of the energy will be produced, to the south, where most of it will be used.
Which is a problem because according to Mr Pettigrew more infrastructure will be needed by 2030 than has been built in the last 32 years.

So then you get local opposition to pylons, which are cheaper than underground cables.

This has alwayss been the problem. Local opposition to infrastructure projects and a political class that can't deliver it anyway. (One nuclear power station built in the last 30 years).

[Workingman]

And even with all those pylons and miles of cables we will still need somewhere to store the leccy and ways to produce it when the wind does not blow

Why not just build 20 or so SMR's and stop pissing about? Too easy.

[Workingman]

However if you go to the graphs on the site, you find that 2022 is very different from 2021 because at every opportunity they are curtailing gas and not wind.

Only in your head, they actually show no such thing, they show what was available and when.

As of now: Demand is 34.87 GW, supplied by gas 18.47 GW, solar 0.31 GW, wind 1.19 GW, steady Eddie nuclear 4.63 GW, plus 5.5GW from the European interconnects (they are feeding us today) + other. Yes, wind at 1.19 GW of 25.5 GW installled capacity. Wow!

Big change from yesterday and soon solar will be at 0 GW, so more slack for gas to pick up.

[Suff]

20 SMR, 6GW. No we would need 100 to support future demand as well as current.

Even 50 would be needed for real balance.

Yes Wind has its issues, there are always lows. Massive overbuilding plus storage are needed.

That is what is in the pipeline. However Nuclear and Biomass are there too in order to reduce risk.

The point is that pretty soon, when the wind blows, it will be able to service all demand for certain times of the year.

Obviously when it does not blow, then other solutions are needed.

[Workingman]

At least with SMRs we only have to build what we need, and they are available all day, every day - and night - no storage needed. Switch up - switch down. Simples!

Massively overbuilding windmills that are already inherently inefficient (actual output v theoretical capacity) is bollocks and an environmental disaster. It would be like towing a car behind the one being driven just in case that one breaks down.

Mind you, as Cromwell reports, that looks like where we are headed - 400% more needed.

[Suff]

It looks like Nuclear is a nice big fatted calf ready to slaughter in order to "get the budget in line".

This is what happens when you make the Chancellor PM.