Scotland Produced Enough Wind Energy To Power All Its Homes Twice Over (cnbc.com) 216
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Wind turbines in Scotland generated 9,831,320 megawatt hours between January and June 2019, WWF Scotland said Monday. The numbers, which were supplied by WeatherEnergy, mean that Scottish wind generated enough electricity to power the equivalent of 4.47 million homes for six months. That is almost double the number of homes in Scotland, according to WWF Scotland. By 2030, the Scottish government says it wants to produce half of the country's energy consumption from renewables. It is also targeting an "almost completely" decarbonized energy system by 2050. "Up and down the country, we are all benefiting from cleaner energy and so is the climate," Robin Parker, climate and energy policy manager at WWF Scotland, said in a statement Monday. "These figures show harnessing Scotland's plentiful onshore wind potential can provide clean, green electricity for millions of homes across not only Scotland, but England as well," Parker added.
Excess power (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excess power (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it can't be transmitted to where it needs to go? I think you should call the news station and ask them this exact question verbatim.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the fact that when you've got a fossil fuel plant operating then it wants to be going full power. It's somewhat easier to turn off a few windmills than to dial a coal plant down to 25% capacity. There are "peaker" fossil fuel plants that can be turned on to meet demand so at least those will be kept turned off due to green energy.
There's also the worry about the reliability of wind or solar power, as in "what happens if the wind slows down?" and we don't have the coal plant up and running? T
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the worry about the reliability of wind or solar power, as in "what happens if the wind slows down?" and we don't have the coal plant up and running? .... aka alien invasion or zombie apocalypse.
Something like this can not happen, as we have reliable wind prognosis since decades.
Trust me, if it is happening then we have far greater problems than no wind
Re: (Score:2)
A reliable forecast isn't the same as a reliable supply. When you can reliably forecast that further reliance on wind will have you ramping the fossil plants up and down all night to compensate, sometimes it's better just to kill the wind supply and wait till load picks up later.
bit coin (Score:2)
THey need it for bit coin.
Re: (Score:3)
Because more then 95% of the time, all the wind energy can be offload. And while it sucks that there are times we generate free energy for no use, that is not a major concert.
As the production of wind energy increases, It may be in big problem in the future, which is why there are being build new power transfer lines, and invested in huge energy storage systems.
Re:Excess power (Score:5, Interesting)
and invested in huge energy storage systems.
Scotland is already doing it. [bbc.com] This is like 40% of the country's average electricity demand in one storage unit.
Re:Excess power (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they like sitting in the dark over in Scotland.
Now I know that you are being disingenuous. This story just told you that they have generated enough energy to power its homes twice over and you think that they are going to be sitting in the dark! Face it, nuclear energy is just not going to happen these days. Renewable energy is safer, is more politically palatable, doesn't produce annoying waste, and doesn't depend on mining fuel from far off lands.
For years the naysayers around here have said that relying on renewables for the majority of power could not be done. Scotland are well on track to proving all those armchair critics wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
no, enough power to powerr Scotland's homes.
the UK has more people than just Scotland.
its like saying Somerset grows so many apples all the people in Somerset cannot physically eat them (so they have to crush them and drink the juice instead!).
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody mentioned the UK. We are talking about Scotland here.
Re:Excess power...Really? (Score:2)
This doesn't even address the devastating effect on wild life. On the other hand, hydro-electric power is a reliable, controllabl
Re: (Score:3)
1) Currently deployed solar panels are very costly to remove/recycle/recover. The Chinese-made solar panels, which flooded the USA market, are an environmental hazard
Actually, US-made solar panels [firstsolar.com] are the environmental hazard, seeing as they contain cadmium, which the Chinese panels, being practically exclusively silicon panels, don't contain at all.
It is cheaper to install a new wind turbine than to repair an exising, in-place one. Because of this, they are also an environmental nightmare.
First, if it's cheaper, then quite likely because of the fact that they're improving so quickly (on the scale of years) that replacing an old turbine with a new one can potentially brings substantial benefits. Second, the other part is a non sequitur.
This doesn't even address the devastating effect on wild life.
Don't make me spill my coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind turbines are excessively expensive to repair. It is cheaper to install a new wind turbine than to repair an exising, in-place one. Because of this, they are also an environmental nightmare.
That is nothing compared to the environmental costs of nuclear. You still have to mine the fuel, and when you remove a wind turbine you don't have to spend billions to decontaminate the area.
This doesn't even address the devastating effect on wild life.
Give me a break. Isn't it amazing that the only time conservatives care about the wildlife it is when it is to argue against wind power. They don't give a damn any other time. And how much of a problem is it really? I think it has all been hyped-up by the fossil-fuel lobby.
Nuclear works all the time, no just when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
But this story is about Scotland. You don't hav
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland are well on track to proving all those armchair critics wrong. ... I believe they have a line to Norway and Ireland, too.
And it is selling power all over UK
Re: (Score:3)
Wind plus storage cannot provide enough energy gain to sustain their economy. Sure, there's more energy out than they put in but if there isn't enough energy left over to keep the lights on then... well, the lights go out.
So basically you think that Scotland will run out of electric power whenever the wind stops blowing? You have never been in Scotland, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they like sitting in the dark over in Scotland.
The sun only shines one day a year so they already are.
Re: (Score:2)
Even years or odd years?
Re:Excess power (Score:4, Informative)
The energy system itself needs to balance supply with demand within a certain degree at all times.
This means that suppliers are not allowed to feed more energy onto the grid than what there is demand for.
The power is regulated by automatically starting up and shutting down power sources as demand changes.
That requires that there are always power sources available that don't depend on the weather (directly), and which are able to start and stop relatively fast. In other words, these need to be available to meet demand when the wind isn't blowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was the wind farm located? Electric companies are often required to purchase the cheapest electricity available to them, and off-shore wind is the most expensive.
Modern gas powered plants can be slightly cheaper than on-shore wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and off-shore wind is the most expensive.
No, nuclear is the most expensive, followed by coal and gas plants.
Offshore wind is more expensive to build than onshore, in terms of $/MW.
But it is the cheapest to farm in terms of $/MWh. Not the subtile change in units.
Re: (Score:3)
When operating a Grid the generation needs to match the load, so if you are generating 200 and your load is 100 you have a big problem. Also visa versa. If these two do not match you will crate a under frequency or over frequency situation which can cause huge damage as well as Grid collapse. Damage here would be to grid infrastructure, transformers, substations.
Solution is you generate more than you need and have a big heater that you use to maintain balance (normally m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typically this is managed by for any power station at all renewable or not the System manager will have another power station producing enough for that power station to give 0 output at 0 notice.
Zero production is not happening without knowing it hours in advance, if not even days. Your implied idea that a renewable plant drops from 100% production to 0% and needs an instant replacement is just nonsense.
Stuff like this only can happen if there is a majour accident and the connection to the grid is lost. And
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not just have batteries?
Because batteries cost money and take resources. Since solar and wind power are so dilute it takes a lot of resources already to collect this energy. Since solar and wind power are so unreliable it takes a lot of batteries to make it reliable. One way to measure this is with energy returned on energy invested.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Solar power is already shit and wind is only half bad. Add batteries and wind turns to shit and solar only gets shittier.
I'm sorry, maybe using such language is not
Re: (Score:3)
... energy returned on energy invested. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com] Solar power is already shit and wind is only half bad. Add batteries and wind turns to shit and solar only gets shittier.
Interesting. The study was from 2013, though, and refers to a study from 2007 for the energy cost of PV production. Part of why PV panels have dropped in price so much over the last 10 years must be due to more efficient and less energy-intensive production.
As for buffering costs: the study assumes 10 days of storage capacity, which strikes me as a quite a lot for PV in places with consistent clear weather (not Northern Europe where I live, though).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Power Systems Engineer Here.
Possible reasons:
1: Insufficient transmission capacity
2: Power was reduced automatically for system stability reasons (rising frequency means too much generation is operating). This is usually temporary (seconds or minutes)
3: Power was reduced by the operator in order to ensure overall system stability.
Number 3 is the most interesting case. It happens in countries with low overall demand, weak interconnection and high renewables penetration. Ireland is hit hard by this issue.
Basi
Re: (Score:2)
Often its capacity constraints - the wind farms are set up in far away places and the cables can only carry so much power to where its needed. Upgrading that infrastructure costs a lot. (eg in Scotland when the demand is all down south in places like London)
So when too much power is generated the government pays generators to turn off for a bit. Now, who do you want to turn off? clean wind, or dirty fossil plants? obviously the latter - so you pay them to turn off, and it looks like some grubby fossil fuel
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you want to google the term "reserve power".
The problem is that if you didn;t pay them to turn off, they'd give up generating completely - no point running a power station that will be used only half the time after all. But the problem there is that the power station is needed the other half the time - if you didn't have it, there'd be days when not enough power is generated and the lights (and wifi!) would go off.
That is why we have:
a) primary reserve power plants - alternative name: seconds reserv
Re: (Score:2)
I think your have confused energy and power (rate of change of energy) as kWh is a unit of energy.
Note the SI unit (metric) term for energy is Joule (J) so really we should be using MJ (megajoules) and GJ (gigajoules) rather than the made-up term kWh (not an SI unit). So people get confused because kW (kilowatt) is a SI unit (metric) term for power which is measured in Watts and is equivalent to Joules per second (rate of change of energy).
Power consumption relies on there being sufficient demand to consume
Because we like keeping the lights on..... (Score:2)
Last week I watched a report from a location in my country producing an excess of 100 KWh because they couldn't offload the power. That financially made them shut down some windmills. Can anybody explain me like I'm an 5 year old why we are generating in excess of green energy that apparently cant be offloaded because we are still using fossil fuels?
I'll try like you're 10. I think I can manage that.
We can't trust wind turbines to supply power when we need them, so when there's too much power for the system demand, they press a button and apply the brakes. When demand is bigger and the variability of wind supply can disappear in the 'noise' of the total demand, they can turn them back on again.
The power plants you can rely on take hours to start up and shut down, and ramp power up and down over several minutes to several hours- but they do it when you
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing cause and effect there.
The term "baseload" only exists because these power plants take hours to start up and shut down and are slow to ramp up and down.
Take them out of the equation, replacing them with either load following plants (hydro) or massive overcapacity that can be ramped up and down very quickly (wind) and the whole baseload concept becomes irrelevant at once and for good.
Re:Excess power (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "homes" are not the only thing that use electricity.
Those numbers are wildly off. (Score:4, Informative)
2016 numbers. [service.gov.uk]
Chart 2 on page 10 shows in Scotland, 43% of electricity use was domestic. Slightly higher than Great Britain's average of 38%.
Much much bigger than your 10% 'guess'...
2012 numbers. [service.gov.uk] (2012 it was 44% and 40% So fairly stable, no way is 10% realistic)
Re:Excess power (Score:4, Interesting)
Germany made a big deal about how much energy they got from wind and solar in one year, but then the next year was cloudier and calmer which kind of rained on their parade.
What year would that be?
Looking at a chart of Germany's renewable energy production [www.bmwi.de] shows that there is no year from 2000 through 2017 when Germany produced less renewable energy than the year before.
Don't you ever get tired of makin' stuff up?
Re:Excess power (Score:4, Informative)
What year would that be?
2015 to 2016
https://energytransition.org/2... [energytransition.org]
Solar is very dependent, and it produced less power than in 2015 even though slightly more was added. Apparently, 2016 simply wasnâ(TM)t as sunny as 2015. Such fluctuations will not go away; we will have to learn to live with them in a future based largely on solar. And then there was the drop in wind power. After 70.9 TWh in 2015, onshore wind fell to 66.8 TWh last year even as new installations grew strongly.
Your chart included hydro and biomass in the total, I said only wind and solar made losses. This is especially notable as Germany added capacity those years and output still dropped.
Don't you ever get tired of makin' stuff up?
Your failure to comprehend what I said does not make it a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this matter that solar and wind output in Germany dropped (very slightly, ca. 1% over the year) from 2015 to 2016? Total renewable power generation still constantly increased substantially evvery year in Germany. This are the number in TWh for the last ten years: 96.0 105.5 123.8 143.5 152.5 162.5 188.6 189.9 216.2 226.4
Re:Excess power (Score:5, Informative)
How does this matter that solar and wind output in Germany dropped (very slightly, ca. 1% over the year) from 2015 to 2016? Total renewable power generation still constantly increased substantially evvery year in Germany. This are the number in TWh for the last ten years: 96.0 105.5 123.8 143.5 152.5 162.5 188.6 189.9 216.2 226.4
He's employing basic Trumpian logic. Because we are in the post truth era here, facts are what you want them to be at any one time. If solar and wind production dropped by 1% but you want it to be 10% then that's what it was because you feel that's what it should have been and that makes it fact ... simple.
Re: (Score:2)
And we're in the moron era of comprehension.
You are discussing two different facts. That doesn't make either of those facts "made up" or "fake news".
Which facts matter more to the conversation is highly relevant, but then that doesn't boil down into sound bytes very easily.
Dude, you tried to lay that usual trope on us that conservatives always do about the lights going out when the wind does not blow and tried to make your case by cherry picking two years of data out of a multi decade transition. A 1% drop in wind/solar output between years is hardly a world ending event for renewables that will send people scurrying back to the safety of good old patriotic coal and oil, but hey, facts are what you feel they are, not what other people have documented them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol ... you never learn
a) read your own links: renewables and power exports hit a record high in 2016
b) the site you linked has no citations, is not an official site, so no idea why you hunt on such sites for your weak arguments
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu] That is obviously EU and not Germany.
If you e.g. look at this graph: https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org] you see a significant increase every year in renewable power production.
But, as you are annoying me, I'm not searching *for you* for a perfect web
This is why they are buying a really big battery (Score:5, Insightful)
As you may have noticed, Scotland is buying a really big battery to handle the wind solar and tidal energy fluctuations on the interties, to store excess electricity like this.
While at first it will only be exported to England and Wales, we can expect it to also go to nearby places as well.
Renewables are here, and they're making continuing operation of coal plants, nuclear fission plants, and other fossil fuels even more uneconomical in comparison.
If it weren't for the massive tax subsidies and tax exemptions and expensed depreciation for fossil fuels, they would already have been shut down by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. In what world is this a troll?
(No, wait - don't tell me, it's in the climate denier world)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives massive subsidies and tax exemptions? - Trump? In Europe it's the opposite. Coal power plants need to buy quotas for emission which in some countries, have had a drastic impact on electricity prices. People are getting pissed off and I don't blame them. Especially if their countries consume more CO2 than they produce (with the help of an ingenio
Re: (Score:2)
Fertilizer can be made from seaweed and shells, just like it used to be made.
Asphalt pretty much the same.
Maybe you should realize all these things have existed for a lot longer than Western Europe has been civilized?
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:5, Informative)
Fertilizer can be made from seaweed and shells, just like it used to be made.
Right, because that won't have any environmental impact. I'm sorry, did my sarcasm drip on your shoes?
In fact I'm quite certain that would be an environmental disaster.
I propose using basalt for the pH balance and mineral depletion in agriculture instead of seashells. There's plenty of evidence of it being superior.
https://www.growingagreenerwor... [growingagreenerworld.com]
For the nitrogen we can synthesize ammonia based fertilizers, only don't use natural gas for the hydrogen source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For the hydrogen use something like the copper-chlorine cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That requires temperatures of 530 C, which we can get from solar thermal or molten salt cooled nuclear fission reactors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Molten salt nuclear would be preferred since at the temperatures they reach the 530 C required for hydrogen production is what is typical for the "cool" side of the turbines. The fertilizer would be from "waste heat". They'd be taking in seawater as raw material and then output drinking water, hydrogen for fertilizer or other uses (such as synthetic diesel fuel), and electricity. What's not to like?
More on synthesized diesel fuels...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Maybe you should realize all these things have existed for a lot longer than Western Europe has been civilized?
Maybe we should look back to what we did in the 1930s and 1940s instead for ideas on how to do proper agriculture. We got the "Green Revolution" in the 1950s and 1960s based on that technology. That's not "green energy" but fields of green crops, it's that boom in crop production that allowed us to finally leave starvation behind for much of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Right, because that won't have any environmental impact. I'm sorry, did my sarcasm drip on your shoes?
In fact I'm quite certain that would be an environmental disaster.
Turns out, probably due to nitrogen runoff into the ocean, the amount of sargassum in the Atlantic is at an all time high, and growing. [theguardian.com] The seaweed on Mexico beaches is not a localized problem; it stretches from the Gulf of Mexico, through the Caribbean, clear across the Atlantic to the west coast of Africa. We have plenty of sea weed, it is readily availabke and easy to harvest, and it makes an excellent fertilizer [ashs.org].
Exactly what fantasy environmental disaster are you imagining?
I propose using basalt for the pH balance and mineral depletion in agriculture instead of seashells. There's plenty of evidence of it beinf superior
Good idea, except harvesting b
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason we stopped building reactors is because they are too expensive, and today cost $10B.
Solar power was expensive once too, prices went down with some research and development. I believe research and development will bring down the costs of nuclear power too, and bring them down significantly.
Also, what happens to prices of solar and wind power if China decides that they want those rare earth elements and refined silicon for their own wind and solar power?
Prices shift and we're running out of room to improve wind and solar energy, there's real physical limits on the availability and efficiency that we have already hit or will soon. We barely started on nuclear power research. That's the price today, and still worth it, but in the future that price will come down.
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason we stopped building reactors is because they are too expensive, and today cost $10B.
I believe research and development will bring down the costs of nuclear power too, and bring them down significantly.
The NRC commissioned this research to be conducted by manufacturers and operators of nuclear power plants and the recommendations that would make them safer made them cost *more*. Reactors being placed underground is one example.
EPR adopted some of the NRC recommendations (the four "trains" separating reactor activities for example) in that design. However whilst EPR increases the amount of concrete and adds a double layer containment building resistant to military air strikes, the AP1000 went the other way, reduced concrete, added untested features to a containment building that is like an egg shell in comparison.
That's how the nuclear industry makes reactors cheaper, they offload the risk onto the unsuspecting community that has no idea what the impact of an accident will be sometime in the future. What we do know is that the community itself is what is usually destroyed.
The sheer amount of concrete used in the construction of a nuclear reactor is what makes them expensive. So I think your beliefs are strongly attached to your idealism which prevents you from seeing those kinds of facts and rationality.
Also, what happens to prices of solar and wind power if China decides that they want those rare earth elements and refined silicon for their own wind and solar power?
We will engage in standard business practices to ensure continuity of the supply chain like any normal business does.
Prices shift and we're running out of room to improve wind and solar energy, there's real physical limits on the availability and efficiency that we have already hit or will soon.
So what you're saying is wind and solar all almost ready to be mainstream and be funded through the energy act instead of the small business act?
We barely started on nuclear power research.
So what you're saying is 70 years hasn't been enough time to produce an economical, safe nuclear reactor. We're going to need at least another hundred years of research before we can produce any form of viable nuclear industry so by inference of your statement we should stop deploying nuclear reactors until we can design one with a service life long enough to make it viable.
You heard it here first folks, blindseer wants to end nuclear reactor deployment.
That's the price today, and still worth it, but in the future that price will come down.
So when we start building nuclear reactors again in a century or two the price of electricity will still be too cheap to meter the way everyone was sold on nuclear power the first time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you put a few links to sources in that lengthy post I'd have a reason to believe you. I can't respond to it all but I thought this was an odd reply...
We will engage in standard business practices to ensure continuity of the supply chain like any normal business does.
That's a meaningless non-answer answer. This isn't a street vendor that loses his supplier for fish and chips and so decides to sell corndogs instead. This is the windmill industry potentially losing access to 2/3rds of the rare earth metals that come from China because of a trade war. There is no substitute for this. The "standard business pract
Re: (Score:2)
This is the windmill industry potentially losing access to 2/3rds of the rare earth metals that come from China because of a trade war. There is no substitute for this
Why do you repeat this idiotic argument nearly every day?
Yes, there is a substitute, and it is called: "nothing" for a reason.
Wind mills don't need rare earth metals. We use them because they are available and cheap.
If we use copper instead, we lose what? 1% efficiency? No big deal, albeit it adds up over 30 years.
You sound like a charlatan do
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear has been getting more expensive since the beginning.. for decades now.
You ignore the question why. Solar has been getting cheaper because of technology. Nuclear has been getting expensive because of overhead.
Disclosure: I worked in the industry, as a contractor it was lucrative. Oh man I missed the epic parties. Doing almost identical projects in the chemical industry now I realise just how much waste there really is in the world. Hey maybe we can produce biomass energy from the pointless paperwork required to build a nuclear power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
This should be modded up, not down.
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:4, Informative)
Well, right now, I'm sure Mexico would love it if someone would take some off their hands [bbc.com].
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:4, Interesting)
How are you going to make fertilizer?
Using electrolytic hydrogen and the Haber process, obviously.
What about jet fuel? Bunker oil?
Uhhh...synthetic fuel, perhaps?
Re: (Score:3)
Do wind turbines receive subsidies in Scotland? They sure do where I live.
And do you think oil and natural gas don't?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And do you think oil and natural gas don't?
Sure they do, they are getting a cut from the wind and solar industry with the backup power they provide.
Look at this...
https://powerpastimpossible.or... [powerpastimpossible.org]
All kinds of glowing remarks on how oil and gas will reduce our CO2 output. They talk nice nice about wind and solar power then the wind and solar power people give them a cut of the subsidies. You really think that if the government writes a big check to a utility for being "green" that some of that doesn't go to build more natural gas turbines? Of cour
Analysing BS's claims (Score:2)
To end the subsidies on oil and natural gas means ending the subsidies on wind and solar power.
Well let's look at the facts in the US Energy Policy Act [energy.gov] and determine exactly what half truth is being offered to manipulate people's opinions.
Section 300 on Oil subsidies has 91 sections, with one section allocating funding for the Denali Commission for research and development activities into and assortment of things including: fuel cells, hydroelectric, solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy; the construction of energy transmission, in-cluding interties; the replacement and cleanup of fuel tanks; the cons
Re:This is why they are buying a really big batter (Score:4, Informative)
How are you going to make fertilizer?
What fertilizer are you imagining that requires any petrochemical at all?
Oil produces no potassium or phosphorus, so you must be thinking of nitrogen. Currently the cheapest way to make nitrogen fertilizer is using natural gas -- because it is the cheapest source of hydrogen -- but no carbon is required to make it -- you only need air for the nitrogen, water for hydrogen, and heat (plus a catalyst). Electricity makes nitrogen fertilizer fine.
Jet fuel can ultimately be made from synthetic fuel using carbon captured from the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
The cheapest source of fertilizer is algae. It grows almost anywhere, in almost any water, it does not deplete its substrate of anything, and it is made mostly out of atmospheric carbon so it's carbon-negative. It composts rapidly.
Natural gas is NOT cheap. Using it releases carbon into the atmosphere, which has costs. And in a fair system, those costs would be monetary.
Making fertilizer out of fossil fuels is as wrongheaded as making fuel from topsoil (corn ethanol.)
Re: This is why they are buying a really big batte (Score:2)
You do realise that it's possible to use renewable energy sources whilst still making asphalt, fertiliser and jet fuel the traditional way? That's still a net gain in terms of pollutants.
You're just playing the 'no perfect solution' fallacy card.
We'll make up for the loss (Score:2)
I applaud them (Score:2)
That's awesome, and I'm glad it works for them. Hopefully they are in a position that they can sell the excess and pay for the generation gear, maintenance, and net out an income stream as well.
But let's face it, Scotland is an anomaly- sparsely populated, a crazy good coast mile : square mile ratio... wind still isn't terribly viable for the rest of the world. And here in the US we have to deal with the "But it kills birds!" (it doesn't) crowd and similar idiocy.
Oddly, I was thinking just this morning a
Re: (Score:2)
And here in the US we have to deal with the "But it kills birds!" (it doesn't) crowd and similar idiocy.
More like from the "Dead Kennedys" singing, "But it will spoil our ocean view!"
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it kills birds.
But a minuscule fraction of the number of birds that cats kill.
And I think fewer birds than skyscrapers kill.*
* One night at work there was a loud "CRACK" and the window 30' from me was completely shattered. We thought it was a rock or maybe even a bullet. It was a hawk. Dead as a doorknob on the ground below where it had hit the window.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons why the "myth" of wind turbines killing birds occurred was some of the first wind farms deployed in the US really did kill a load of birds. After this, wind turbines were placed in more bird friendly areas and technology improved to be less lethal to birds. So unfortunately, the misinformation continues to be associated with modern wind farms which is not helpful. Of course some birds get killed by wind turbines but not in the large numbers reported by the "myth".
Also domestic cats killin
Re: (Score:2)
And here in the US we have to deal with the "But it kills birds!"
Insects as well apparently.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Little rock with few exports can manage it but the supposedly greatest nation can't? We must really fucking suck
50% renewable energy by 2030? Not happening. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the fine article...
By 2030, the Scottish government says it wants to produce half of the country's energy consumption from renewables. It is also targeting an "almost completely" decarbonized energy system by 2050.
There's quite a few experts that believe this simply cannot happen. Not unless nuclear power is included. Those experts included a very intelligent and educated UK citizen, Dr. David MacKay.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
His CV...
https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com]
The costs of going without nuclear power is simply too high. Dr. MacKay doesn't argue that 100% renewable is impossible, quite the opposite. He's spelled out in considerable detail how to do it but the costs make it too high for it to be practical.
Here's another pair of smart people that did the math...
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
And more very intelligent and educated people from IEA that did the math...
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Again, it's not that a switch to 100% of energy from wind, water, and sun, can not happen. It's that it will not happen. The cost is far too high.
Re:50% renewable energy by 2030? Not happening. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would rather ask people, who really did the math.The IEA has long been criticized by scientists for not acknowledging the potential of renewables.
For example here (Nature Energy): https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Here is a full simulation for south and central america showing that a completely renewable energy system is cost effective:
https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org]
So, yes, 100% energy from renewables can happen and will be relatively cheap (in contrast to nuclear).
Re: (Score:3)
I would rather ask people, who really did the math.The IEA has long been criticized by scientists for not acknowledging the potential of renewables.
How about instead of these scientists go about criticizing the IEA they go make their case to some investors and get them to build out this renewable energy infrastructure? Unlike nuclear power, that needs government permits printed unicorn skins with unobtainium ink, they can put solar panels on rooftops all they want.
Here is a full simulation for south and central america showing that a completely renewable energy system is cost effective:
So, yes, 100% energy from renewables can happen and will be relatively cheap (in contrast to nuclear).
Scotland is not in South America.
I just gave links to websites that went through the math in considerable detail on why the UK and USA cannot do without nuclear power. If some scientists di
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland is not in South America.
I just gave links to websites that went through the math in considerable detail on why the UK [...] cannot do without nuclear power.
Yeah, Mr. blindidot. Scotland is not South America. Brilliant. And that exactly is why they don't need nuclear, as wind is enough. How dumb can you be?
It must be really difficult for you to grasp the concept of different climate/weather, sizes of countries, coast length, etc. p.p.
Hint, this is a map, you can look on it (cant be so hard): https: [windfinder.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're so obsessively posting on this topic I can only assume you're some sort of crazy nuclear power shill.
Re:50% renewable energy by 2030? Not happening. (Score:5, Informative)
David MacKay died in 2016. So any of his opinions and research are by definition three years old now, in a fast changing field.
The IEA made the same statements 2 months ago as Dr. MacKay did 3 years ago. Just how fast is this field changing exactly?
There simply will not be a zero carbon energy supply without nuclear power before 2050. Technology doesn't move that fast. We can look at the work Dr. MacKay did to prove this to ourselves, updating his numbers as required. The sooner we figure this out the better.
If you don't like the numbers I cited above then I'd like to see the math on how people propose we replace our fossil fuel and nuclear fission driven economy with one powered by wind, water, and sun.
I'll link to the numbers I gave above again, with some more for good measure.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
That last one on energy return on investment is important. Resources are limited and so it's always in our best interest to choose those energy sources with the highest return. Table 2 on that page shows wind and solar being low on return, especially solar. These are also highly location dependent while nuclear power is not. That doesn't mean we can put a nuclear power plant anywhere, only that we have far more choices than those from wind, water, and sun.
Oh, and before anyone complains that the link is to a nuclear power advocacy site I'll point this out... They merely collected information from numerous sources and put it on a nice table for us to read, if you don't like the sources they cited then find your own sources.
Re:50% renewable energy by 2030? Not happening. (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like you're getting overly defensive about your specific favourite energy source, when no one's attacking it.
So, this No 2 Nuclear website is a figment of my imagination?
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org... [no2nuclearpower.org.uk]
And these from GreenPeace?
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/... [greenpeace.org.uk]
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa... [greenpeace.org]
Then all the posts here on Slashdot opposing nuclear power? For a website dedicated to technology and science it does seem odd that so many people here can't do the math and figure out that there is no zero carbon energy future without nuclear power. There's been plenty of stories posted that are supportive of wind and solar to reduce global warming, and I'm having difficulty recalling any that show how well nuclear power could do on this. It's not like they are hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is literally insane right on its face.
Solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, even when you add in battery storage. That makes the entire idea that we need nuclear power for cost-effectiveness completely batshit. Further, Scotland in particular has reliable offshore wind. They will actually need less storage than others, making your argument particularly ridiculous.
You are a nut case.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is literally insane right on its face.
Your argument lacks any citations.
Solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, even when you add in battery storage.
I don't believe you.
That makes the entire idea that we need nuclear power for cost-effectiveness completely batshit. Further, Scotland in particular has reliable offshore wind. They will actually need less storage than others, making your argument particularly ridiculous.
Then why did the Scotland government spend about a billion dollars on a hydro storage dam?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sc... [bbc.com]
Here's a more recent plan to build a big battery pack for a wind power project.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/... [engadget.com]
You stated Scotland needs less storage than other places in the world. How does this compare to storage needs in, as one example, the US tornado alley?
You are a nut case.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
yawn [utilitydive.com]
(Ironically, someone just recently tried to use this study to prove that nuclear was cheaper, and I shot them down by reading the report back to them, and showing that they didn't understand it. Now I get to cite it to prove that it isn't.)
The simple truth is that we don't need nuclear for any purpose any more [climatenexus.org], possibly outside of powering aircraft carriers, or deep space probes. And I'm not necessarily convinced that they actually make sense for carriers today, either, mostly because it's not clear tha
Re: (Score:2)
Your first citation says nothing about batteries being included in the costs, as you said it would.
Your second citation mentioned Mark Jacobson as a source for being able to go 100% without nuclear or fossil fuels. I read a rebuttal that tears his paper apart, using his own numbers.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Yawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Roadmap to nowhere is just as ludicrous as suggesting 100% solar or wind with no storage, because it over-promotes nuclear. Even with nuclear you'll still need either storage or peakers, because nuclear is so slow to follow load. Changing this requires mythical (because so far they do not exist) efficient, cheap, safe, convenient, small reactors. Having more reactors increases costs, because more units means doing the dangerous things more times — both fueling, and decommissioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Roadmap to nowhere is just as ludicrous as suggesting 100% solar or wind with no storage, because it over-promotes nuclear.
This just tells me you didn't even read the very first section of the first chapter. I say this because in the the first few paragraphs they make it clear they have no problems with renewable energy, it's actually the very first sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not necessarily convinced that they actually make sense for carriers today, either, mostly because it's not clear that carriers make sense in a world with supersonic torpedoes.
The americans always think they can turn against their allies, because of "world dominance". I guess they always only ever calculated what "they" can do. But not really what we can do.
E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (Swedish submarine of Gotland class against a Carrier task force)
3 Month without supplies from germany an
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did the Scotland government spend about a billion dollars on a hydro storage dam?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sc [bbc.com]... [bbc.com]
Don't forget that Scotland has mountains which are a natural resource. In specific places the geology is favourable for pumped hydro storage systems. Overall in the UK, Scotland and Wales have the best geology for pumped storage so it makes sense to exploit this by building pumped storage solutions to bolster the electricity grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did the Scotland government spend about a billion dollars on a hydro storage dam?
To store energy. What has that to do with the topic?
Do you want them to rather spend 20billion to build (not operate) a new nuke? Against the wish of the population? With what kind of weapon would you subdue the population?
Homes aren't the major user of electricity (Score:2)
There is a lot of industrial and commercial use. So Scotland is probably still net negative.
For those talking batteries, Scotland has plenty of mountains, which suggest pumped hydro would be the way to go.
It's cold and windy in Scotland.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Scottish electricity is exported to England via transmission lines and other nearby countries export is done via undersea interconnect cables typically rated at 1GW.
The population of Scotland is about 5 million people. The population of Greater London is about 8 million people. Therefore there are more people in London than in the whole of Scotland.
It is relatively easy for Scotland to have sufficient renewable electricity for its people due to the low population density.
Wind into electricity lowers the amount of wind. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Like any process, it converts from whatever to heat. Unfortunately, we can't do the reverse."
It appears you haven't heard of thermoelectric generators, or heat engines, or even boilers and turbines.
Still cold (Score:2)
No - the climate in Scotland is still terrible. Lots of wind, lots of rain, not a sign of warming.
Re: (Score:3)
The climate in Scotland is very mild for its latitude. Even in Shetland, which is ~50 kilometers further to the south than Anchorage, the record low is just -9 degrees Celsius.
Re: (Score:3)
For people who have never been to Scotland, let me enlighten you. The depression above Scotland is world famous, at least in Europe. That depression hovers between Iceland and Scotland, so it is never far away. That depression directly influences most of the northern European weather. Off course depressions travel, but around Scotland and Iceland there is a zone where all depressions from the Atlantic go to die, circling around each other. Especially in October, the weather map looks like a stable "depressi
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, they have less freezing in winter, like every other country in Europe.
History monks (Score:2)
--OK, so - serious question. If you've ever read Terry Pratchett, the History Monks have a series of "spinners" that take up excess load - a series of tiny ones going all the way up to huge+heavy.
--If there's too much power being generated, can we route it to a series of gear-reduction spinners that can wind up like a spring, and then "unwind" later to provide more power when the generation is low?
REF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
--If the "spinners" can lift a load off the ground (or wind something up)
Re: (Score:3)
There's enough wind in DC to power twice the annual needs of the entire population of the planet...
Re: (Score:2)
Well with global warming going the way that it is, the SouthEast of the US should be able to produce enough wind energy to power the entire nation with all the tropical storms they're having.
If only tropical storm hype generated power...
Re: (Score:2)
Sightings of the Loch Ness monster are a higher probability now thanks to all of the excess generation that allowed for installation of baseball stadium lighting around the loch.
In an effort to recapture some of the energy from this lighting there will be steam collectors put in place to make use of all the water that will be boiled off from the loch with these lights. This heated steam will be used to provide clean drinking water and the cooking of fish and chips.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the bellowing from all that which powers the wind turbines.
Re: (Score:2)
The French have the lowest CO2 emissions and the cheapest electricity by far.
I think you have forgotten about Norway that has 98% of its electricity from hydro-electric power. Electricity costs less in Norway than France.