Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

don0301

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well what I read (in English, not english) was

5% means it could replace Drax (well in theory as the barrage would provide power at peak times for the tide).

Which is garbage I'm afraid, for the reasons I have already given.

As to stupidity, well it's well recoginsed by (almost) everyone that abuse is initiated by the intellectually challenged.

oh dear graham

perhaps you just get excited

as the PM said "Calm down Dear"

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

so you spout !!!! and give !!!! poor advice , proved wrong , yet want to pretend your nothing more than a troll with an agenda.... pure comedy , pass me that popcorn!

Don't you think posts like that spoil a thread? And why would I want to pretend to be a troll with an agenda? And 'your' is 'you're' btw. (which isn't a simple typing error).

Out of respect for readers, please would you mind putting your views forward in an acceptable manner?

For example, the current topic is pumped storage. My view is Z ( and to an extent in the excellent post above by Roger) are missing a factor that pumped storgae efficiency is related to the head of water in the system. Heads of 5 or 6 ft result in very low effiencies of storage and retreival, and so higher heads are preferable, to increase efficiency.

Hence why one of the requirement for PS is suitable topography of a high lake in close proximity to a low lake (as indeed you can see from Dinorwig), together with a mountain inbetween suitable for boring. In certain circumstances, a lower head may be useful even though inefficient depending on many factors.

Do you have any views on the above?

John_Pierpoint

Does that translate into "The joy of a deep pumped storage system is that is it more or less instantly available, with a start up time delay to rival a jet engine?"
So no need for National Grid to have it sitting there on tick over "just in case"?

Smart metering anyone ?

don0301

Blossom2528 wrote: »

No fair I pop off for a week and miss all the fun and all the popcorn and pizza.Mart can't believe you didn't use 'smug mode'. Hardly an apology was it. Still at least Graham finally explained why he's been so rude and nasty for weeks "abuse is initiated by the intellectually challenged".

Got some more questions, what does put up or shut up mean -doesn't it even mean 7 Drax days?
What does disinformation mean, is it like when Graham thinks he's right but he's wrong, or when Cardew know's he's wrong but thinks he's right?
Zeupater thanks for all those solar numbers. Ihope you are right. I think you might have stolen Marts number junkie crown.

+1

I'm sure there's plenty of opportunity for more popcorn Blossom :rotfl:

Martyn1981

Thanks Blossom.

The King is dead, long live the King. All hail big Z.

Honest guv, I wuz just keeping the seat warm for you!

Mart.

PS. Z - Forgot to say before, thanks also for working out those predictions.

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

.... My view is Z ( and to an extent in the excellent post above by Roger) are missing a factor that pumped storgae efficiency is related to the head of water in the system. Heads of 5 or 6 ft result in very low effiencies of storage and retreival, and so higher heads are preferable, to increase efficiency.

Hence why one of the requirement for PS is suitable topography of a high lake in close proximity to a low lake (as indeed you can see from Dinorwig), together with a mountain inbetween suitable for boring. In certain circumstances, a lower head may be useful even though inefficient depending on many factors ....

Hi


It looks like you misread the original position regarding a low head 'lagoon' barrage system in that it "would be quite limited in scope and capacity due to the relative elevation of the water levels" and then missed my response regarding Dinorwig ....

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Not talking about Dinorwig, but something similar is possible on a larger scale, both in generating capacity and stored water volume, which could be used for generation over a period of days ..... a system comprising somewhere around 100,000 megalitres of high/low capacity with around 150m between the two levels would do for a start with a massive increase in volume of flow compensating for the loss of elevation differential available at Dinorwig, but to place that volume in context, we'd be talking about a pumped system which would be equal in scale to the Elan valley reservoirs .... we're talking massive numbers for the Severn barrage, massive numbers for windpower, massive numbers for nuclear, massive numbers for gas-fired plant, so if we need to create a hydroelectric 'battery' (or series of batteries) to smooth generation to demand, then we'll need to spend massive numbers on that too, it might just mean that less generating capacity duplication will be necessary elsewhere ....

HTH
Z

... Dinorwig has a capacity of 45 megalitres with an elevation differential of around 500m, the above describes a system with a quarter of the elevation differential, but importantly over 1000x the volume of water ..... boring and caverns wouldn't be necessary with a 150m differential on a non-compact site (unlike Dinorwig) therefore a more conventional solution would likely suit ... .

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Z. transferred from 'so now I have ...'

It is of course important to acknowledge that any new systems, will have an effect on established (and quite old) systems like we have. But I'm pretty sure I'm teaching you to suck eggs, by saying that we are going down the route of a far more diverse mix of energy supply or demand reduction. This is happening whether we like it or not.

Good engineers will resolve any problems, or at the least, anticipate and account for change as it comes.

The world is turning, best we just get on with it.

Not sure if this is fair, but the timing could be perfect, let the Germans deal with any problems, then we can copy them. I'm a big fan of British engineering, but our Bavarian cousins do have a particular knack at resolving things - then of course they sell the kit to the rest of us and their economy booms and ....... No I'm not jealous.

Cheers.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Z. transferred from 'so now I have ...'

It is of course important to acknowledge that any new systems, will have an effect on established (and quite old) systems like we have. But I'm pretty sure I'm teaching you to suck eggs, by saying that we are going down the route of a far more diverse mix of energy supply or demand reduction. This is happening whether we like it or not.

Good engineers will resolve any problems, or at the least, anticipate and account for change as it comes.

The world is turning, best we just get on with it.

Not sure if this is fair, but the timing could be perfect, let the Germans deal with any problems, then we can copy them. I'm a big fan of British engineering, but our Bavarian cousins do have a particular knack at resolving things - then of course they sell the kit to the rest of us and their economy booms and ....... No I'm not jealous.

Cheers.

Mart.

Hi

Agree in principle .... however, it must be recognised that we have what we have - we cannot start from any other start-line we wish for, so when someone very knowledgeable about a subject raises points which will need to be addressed they simply cannot be ignored, whatever inconvenience the points may cause. It seems that many live in a parallel world where actions and consequences are devolved, but we in this reality must be able to stand back and see the bigger picture and plan accordingly, lest we fail ....

PPPPPP .... it's as true today as ever :cool:

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Agree in principle .... however, it must be recognised that we have what we have - we cannot start from any other start-line we wish for, so when someone very knowledgeable about a subject raises points which will need to be addressed they simply cannot be ignored, whatever inconvenience the points may cause. It seems that many live in a parallel world where actions and consequences are devolved, but we in this reality must be able to stand back and see the bigger picture and plan accordingly, lest we fail ....

PPPPPP .... it's as true today as ever :cool:

HTH
Z

Looks like we've got some big spending to do, whatever we end up doing. I know there's no point in being retrospective, but we could have been so better prepared if we'd funnelled some of our oil and gas revenue into infrastructure over the last 20 years, rather than tax cuts. But then the economy would have slowed down, and ..... it all just goes round and round and ..

M.

John_Pierpoint

For the ordinary reader, who is having trouble keeping up with all these engineers; this bit of the discussion was sparked by this link:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=7313
It seems that Germany will be having problems with PV capacity switching on in the summer sunshine faster than the grid controllers can turn off fossil fuels, especially so as the PV generation is dispersed into all sorts of nooks and crannies in the lower voltage out lying grid.
As these outlying areas of the grid get over provided with electricity the frequency increases from 50 to 50.3 Hz (Cycles per second - I can see why this would happen with a conventional mechanical turbine revolving faster but I'm not sure why a PV inverter would follow suite) The only obvious solution is to turn off one of the local large PV sites, thus stopping its FiT payment on a really sunny day..

Have I got that right?