Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 10th Aug 19, 7:41 AM
    • 3,500Posts
    • 2,646Thanks
    GreatApe
    First blackout of the wind power heavy system
    • #1
    • 10th Aug 19, 7:41 AM
    First blackout of the wind power heavy system 10th Aug 19 at 7:41 AM
    So it seems a power station tripped and some wind turbines went offline

    This is not abnormal, However what was abnormal is that we had only a few CCGTs in the system yesterday due to high wind output

    If you have 5GW CCGT in the system that's not a lot of inertia so if 1GW goes offline you lose 20%+. If it was low wind and there was 20GW CCGT in the system that same 1GW would be only 5% and wouldn't have caused the frequency to dip so much

    So anyone want to cost yesterday's blackout in �� and misery thanks to a wind heavy system which is not forced to have backup battery and hence weaken security of supply?

    Wind farms and PV farms should be forced to have big batteries else they are freeloading

    Also right now the grid really doesn't like going below 5GW so installing more wind just results in less clean imports rather than displacing CCGTs further. So to integrate more renewables is going to need large batteries perhaps as much as 4GW+ of batteries to support frequency control.

    Another hidden cost

    https://theenergyst.com/national-grid-two-generators-cause-big-frequency-drop/
    Last edited by GreatApe; 10-08-2019 at 7:48 AM.
Page 4
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 11:11 AM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    it will last you 24,100 years before the nuclear battery is half depleted. by then we will have solved nuclear fusion and we will al have a fustion generator in our garden sheds. until then we need to solve the unsolvable home heating crisis and that can only be solved with highly fission systems. solar destroys the sun and wind turbines destroy the wind and so the only answer is radiation

    I and my nuclear team are not cranks
    Originally posted by Great Ache
    Hi

    I wish you'd stop posting misleading information on such a serious thread .. .. everyone knows that even in 24100 years time the latest rumour will be that commercial fusion reactors are only 30years over the horizon! ....

    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • mmmmikey
    • By mmmmikey 13th Aug 19, 11:25 AM
    • 278 Posts
    • 447 Thanks
    mmmmikey
    Kinda but you are putting some propaganda spin on it

    I am saying wind needs to be forced to invest in stability because it is more risky

    Also it's not the same because a CCGT will be connecting to the grid directly via a AC AC connection. These tend to be very robust

    The wind farm will have more points of failure
    First you have the converter station offshore which converts AC to DC then you have the converter station onshore which turns this DC back into AC. You have added two additional points of failure. Actually three additional points of failure because the DC cable from the wind farm to onshore is also a point of failure. So that is there points of additional infrastructure that can and will at Some point fail Taking out instantly the whole output of the wind farm

    Actually perhaps even a fourth layer of weekness which might be software
    Presumably these have much more software than a gas fired stations which might be only run by analogue instrumentation or digital but independent from the internet


    This isn't the end of wind power it just means they need to account for and mitigate the additional risk to the grid they pose. This might be as simple as collectively the wind farms having to build and operate a 1GW 2GWh battery which night add a cost of £500 million to 20GW of wind power which isn't a huge additional cost but an additional cost nonetheless
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Firstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge

    Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.

    What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.
    Last edited by mmmmikey; 13-08-2019 at 11:28 AM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 13th Aug 19, 12:06 PM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Firstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge

    Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.

    What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.
    Originally posted by mmmmikey


    No system is 100% reliable but the existing fossil fuel system has been quite reliable because it has few points of total instant failure. Even if you have some of the gas problems you note it's typically not instant because there is momentum/inertia in the system. Think of it like this of you car fails while moving you don't come to an instant stop which would smush you, instead you come to a gradual stop as you have momentum

    What's more the whole system has momentum
    If there are 30 gas fired stations and one goes off instantly the other 29 pump out more juice because the frequency goes down so they automatically by design all pump more out this is a physical property it's not programmed in or someone presses a button. That's to say the frequency tried to go down but it can't because there is inertia in the system. One of the problems when we had the blackout was that there was less inertia in the system because there were fewer CCGTs in the system (because wind output was higher)

    This is why 'synthetic' inertia is now needed and more is needed as you have more and more wind power in the system

    This isn't an impossible problem
    It just means the wind farms will have to invest in batteries somewhere else on the grid
    It won't make wind uneconomical because it's not the vast batteries needed for storage it's a modest amount needed for frequency control. Something like 1GW power 2GWh capacity would be sufficient for this job and that might cost £500 million but shared among 30GW of wind capacity would not make wind power much more expensive (but will make it marginally more expensive)
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 2:55 PM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    Firstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge

    Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.

    What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    Hi

    With the distances involved on the Hornsea projects, I'd be surprised if the energy would be transmitted as DC as the cost viability crossover point (160-200km, power capacity dependent *1) is greater than the distances involved (~145km). With most developed sites being much closer to shore the advantages of using HVDC transmission don't really make economic sense.

    Anyway, looking at the Hornsea presentation to Ofgem (link), the infrastructure seems to be describing AC transmission & connectivity to the grid ... if not, why else would a 'Reactive Compensation Station' be necessary? ...

    HTH
    Z


    (*1 - Source - AC/DC Offshore Wind Connection )
    Last edited by zeupater; 13-08-2019 at 2:57 PM. Reason: formatting
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 5:01 PM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    how very dare you question whether dc will be used! GreatApe has spoken and the question has therefore been aswered for all eternity. if greatape says dc then dc it is. you renewable boys will soon learn to respect the nuclear boys authority and power in our forum!

    we have taken over and no one can stop us!

    ken and greatape will soon be here to duff you up
    Originally posted by Great Ache
    Hi

    On a purely technical basis, I'd like to see them try, particularly considering the weight of evidence & relevant qualifications that have already been stacked up to rage & spin against! ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 13th Aug 19, 5:44 PM
    • 563 Posts
    • 2,439 Thanks
    JKenH
    Hi

    On a purely technical basis, I'd like to see them try, particularly considering the weight of evidence & relevant qualifications that have already been stacked up to rage & spin against! ...

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Flattered as I am by Great Acheís continued support, ( I am struggling to cope with the adulation - itís like being a rock star) I wonít be putting forwards any technical arguments for you to rage and spin against.
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 6:50 PM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    Flattered as I am by Great Ache’s continued support, ( I am struggling to cope with the adulation - it’s like being a rock star) I won’t be putting forwards any technical arguments for you to rage and spin against.
    Originally posted by JKenH
    Hi

    Unlike the example of a typical spinning approach quoted above, there's no spin involved in the Hornsea post from this end, sources provided stand on their own merit ...

    ... If anyone wants to spin against them or claim that they're just another example of RE propaganda then it's up to them ... wouldn't be too wise on the credibility front though, so I'd reckon that the post will be left to stand as a matter of supported & supportable fact as opposed to the finger in the air postulation we've recently come to expect from some repeatedly displaying an anti-RE technology bias similar to that employed over many years by a serial disruptor under various guises ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • mmmmikey
    • By mmmmikey 13th Aug 19, 8:43 PM
    • 278 Posts
    • 447 Thanks
    mmmmikey
    Returning briefly, if I may, to the point of this thread, nobody has yet really responded or commented on what to me seems to be the central point here. I'm not sure if this has been overlooked in the merriment or whether you are avoiding the issue because of the somewhat embarassing situation that GreatApe may, indeed, have made a valid point on this occasion. Or perhaps it's just me, in which case happy to have this explained....

    Put aside, for a moment, the question of how resilient wind farms are, whether transmission is AC-DC, whether this can be called a wind farm failure or whether it would be better characterised as a grid failure. All interesting stuff, and I understand the points made.

    My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.

    As I understand it, what normally happens when a power generator fails (wind or otherwise) is that other power stations should ramp up and cover the shortfall between them until something else comes on line. This works fine most of the time when we have a large proportion of gas / FF which are by and large able to do this pretty much instantly. This didn't happen on Friday because a large proportion of the other power sources were themselves wind farms and unable to ramp up because you can't make the wind blow harder (or whatever). Obviously there is always going to be a limit and if enough power stations fail there's going to be power cuts, but the question is, are we more likely to have power cuts on windy days because if a power station goes offline it's less likely that there will be enough responsive power elsewhere to take up the shortfall?

    This isn't meant to be anti-RE, and I'm a big fan of wind (which I've suffered from most of my life). It's a genuine question and I'd be interested to hear views on this.

    At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.

    p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
    Last edited by mmmmikey; 13-08-2019 at 8:46 PM.
    • EricMears
    • By EricMears 13th Aug 19, 9:20 PM
    • 2,467 Posts
    • 4,292 Thanks
    EricMears
    At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    Put a header tank in the loft then fill WCs from it by gravity.
    NE Derbyshire.
    4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 13th Aug 19, 9:45 PM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Returning briefly, if I may, to the point of this thread, nobody has yet really responded or commented on what to me seems to be the central point here. I'm not sure if this has been overlooked in the merriment or whether you are avoiding the issue because of the somewhat embarassing situation that GreatApe may, indeed, have made a valid point on this occasion. Or perhaps it's just me, in which case happy to have this explained....

    Put aside, for a moment, the question of how resilient wind farms are, whether transmission is AC-DC, whether this can be called a wind farm failure or whether it would be better characterised as a grid failure. All interesting stuff, and I understand the points made.

    My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.

    As I understand it, what normally happens when a power generator fails (wind or otherwise) is that other power stations should ramp up and cover the shortfall between them until something else comes on line. This works fine most of the time when we have a large proportion of gas / FF which are by and large able to do this pretty much instantly. This didn't happen on Friday because a large proportion of the other power sources were themselves wind farms and unable to ramp up because you can't make the wind blow harder (or whatever). Obviously there is always going to be a limit and if enough power stations fail there's going to be power cuts, but the question is, are we more likely to have power cuts on windy days because if a power station goes offline it's less likely that there will be enough responsive power elsewhere to take up the shortfall?

    This isn't meant to be anti-RE, and I'm a big fan of wind (which I've suffered from most of my life). It's a genuine question and I'd be interested to hear views on this.

    At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.

    p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
    Originally posted by mmmmikey



    Simplifying it a bit but the way electricity generation works is you have a thermal plant (coal gas nuclear). These are big spinning generators and the spinning itself has energy

    When a plant trips, say there are 30 gas fired stations on the system and nothing else, when one trips the other 29 have this inertia this momentum in the spinning itself. So it takes a while for the frequency to fall (the spinning turbines still in the system to slow down a bit)

    I'm not sure how long this is it might only be half a minute to a few minutes but this is enough time for a response of pumped hydro or perhaps spinning reserve gas turbines to kick in.

    Now if you don't have this inertia, as wind farms don't then you don't have this vital few seconds to a few minutes to respond so you have to shed load and being the frequency back up to normal range. If you don't you can risk a total failure or disorganized cascading disconnections of generators which will have to disconnect themselves if the frequency gets too low

    As I have said this isn't something that puts an end to wind power it just means wind power has to invest in 'synthetic inertia' aka batteries so as to provide this vital few seconds to fee minutes for other generators to kick in

    However I'm guessing national grid will get the blame and nation grid will end up buying huge batteries and then pass this cost onto all generators when it should really only be placed onto wind and PV



    What you're thinking of is the more medium term the period say after 5-10 minutes when you have to get a very rapid source of energy onto the grid to make up for the lost wind. Be that pumped hydro be that mass batteries or be that rapid response gas turbines or diesel generators
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 13th Aug 19, 10:09 PM
    • 2,581 Posts
    • 3,788 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
    Originally posted by mmmmikey

    As someone who has done a bit of sailing, although thankfully not too often on such spartan boats I'd have to point out that the technique is "bucket and chuck it"...
    • Hexane
    • By Hexane 13th Aug 19, 10:16 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 111 Thanks
    Hexane
    Now if you don't have this inertia, as wind farms don't
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Actually these ridiculous wind turbines that are nearly 200 metres high and have blades well over 100 metres long, precisely in fact do have inertia ....
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 10:36 PM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    Returning briefly, if I may, to the point of this thread, nobody has yet really responded or commented on what to me seems to be the central point here. I'm not sure if this has been overlooked in the merriment or whether you are avoiding the issue because of the somewhat embarassing situation that GreatApe may, indeed, have made a valid point on this occasion. Or perhaps it's just me, in which case happy to have this explained....

    Put aside, for a moment, the question of how resilient wind farms are, whether transmission is AC-DC, whether this can be called a wind farm failure or whether it would be better characterised as a grid failure. All interesting stuff, and I understand the points made.

    My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.

    As I understand it, what normally happens when a power generator fails (wind or otherwise) is that other power stations should ramp up and cover the shortfall between them until something else comes on line. This works fine most of the time when we have a large proportion of gas / FF which are by and large able to do this pretty much instantly. This didn't happen on Friday because a large proportion of the other power sources were themselves wind farms and unable to ramp up because you can't make the wind blow harder (or whatever). Obviously there is always going to be a limit and if enough power stations fail there's going to be power cuts, but the question is, are we more likely to have power cuts on windy days because if a power station goes offline it's less likely that there will be enough responsive power elsewhere to take up the shortfall?

    This isn't meant to be anti-RE, and I'm a big fan of wind (which I've suffered from most of my life). It's a genuine question and I'd be interested to hear views on this.

    At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.

    p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    Hi

    In a nutshell, until the investigation is complete everything is pure speculation for anyone & everyone, including academics with far more relevant & impressive qualifications than anyone would be able to claim on this board ...

    Here's a link to what the a number of those experts think may be the issue ... expert reaction to the major UK power failure .... not really much to go on and, as mentioned, plenty of speculation, have a read & make your own mind up if you need to jump the gun ...

    As it played out it's quite possible that the headlines wouldn't have been so sensationalised by the press if the trains had a push button reset/start button when the power was restored and hospital contingency measures were tested regularly, in which case the very act of raising the profile of such things may actually be a bonus ... trains need an engineering review & contingency measures need better & formalised maintenance & test schedules (UPS, standby generators, recovery plans etc) ...

    Whatever the final report says the root cause was, it's likely that the explanation would involve a combination of balancing supply to demand at a time of day where demand is normally volatile anyway, grid failure event(s), rapid changes to ~48.8Hz (/out-of-specification) frequency conditions (related automated connectivity issues!?) and potentially even timescale sensitive human or procedural errors at the grid management centre ...

    ... additionally, I've no idea what the weather was like in the area at the time, but it was alternating between periods of hammering down with rain with the occasional rumble of thunder in the distance and blue sky where we were at around the time it happened, so add the potential of shorting & spiking tripping relays into the mix and there's something else to consider & write a report section on ....

    The issue that needs to be recognised is that even while ongoing cause & effect analysis is looking for the root cause and associated event sequence, it's important that focus is turned to 'lessons learned' by affected sectors with appropriate actions being implemented ....



    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 13-08-2019 at 10:40 PM. Reason: formatting & grammar
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Aug 19, 11:14 PM
    • 4,880 Posts
    • 6,595 Thanks
    zeupater
    Actually these ridiculous wind turbines that are nearly 200 metres high and have blades well over 100 metres long, precisely in fact do have inertia ....
    Originally posted by Hexane
    Hi

    Agree ... and with the turbine blade tip speed at nominal generation typically being around 200mph and often weighing upwards of 50tonnes the combination of mass & velocity can be described in terms of kinetic energy, momentum & rotational inertia ... all of which would suggest that it would take quite an event to stop rotation in a universe where laws are respected and F does actually equal ma!

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 13-08-2019 at 11:17 PM. Reason: formatting
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 14th Aug 19, 6:50 AM
    • 202 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    joefizz
    Hi

    In a nutshell, until the investigation is complete everything is pure speculation for anyone & everyone, including academics with far more relevant & impressive qualifications than anyone would be able to claim on this board ...
    Originally posted by zeupater

    Yes and No. The correct answer is underinvestment and failure to build a resilient network.


    What the actual answer people will focus on is to be decided and probably immaterial to the scheme of things because processes will be put in place to ensure that that particular set of random events will not occur again whereas the overall view of any set of correlated random events could make it happen again (and will).


    I mentioned as much in a previous post on the battery thread. The UK grid network is creaking but its not solely a UK problem. Its aging infrastructure, technology developing to extending the life of certain components, maximising shareholder/stakeholder value and amongst others, complacency with the fact we have gotten away with it for years.


    As other posters have mentioned this sort of thing is common elsewhere in the world and yes green energy has become a 'problem'. Im a great advocate of green energy but fully recognise you cant just plug it in to a network designed for large single power stations scattered about the country in a 'grid' and that in all likelihood we need to progress to a network of smaller discrete grids with more definited areas, interconnections, trips and fallbacks etc (essentially what we have now) but a lot more use case what if scenarios just as last week.


    As I mentioned in an earlier post all the stuff that 'went wrong' or 'went right' depending on your point of view (shutting down when irregularities occur) was a cascade effect and most of it was recovered quite quickly. Most of the issues were caused by undocumented features of either restoration from total power loss or the fact that total power loss was allowed in the first place.


    In a previous post I mentioned the STOR facilities popping up around the place which are precisely to deal with this sort of thing.

    Again one of the 'problems' with the push for green energy is that the loudest voices are heard and developments on how to store the excess and manage fluctuating supply coupled with shareholder/stakeholder returns means that there will be over-reliance in continuity of supply from a number of sources.


    Ive never been a nuclear energy advocate, but I do understand the role it plays in any modern interconnected electricity network. Having friends who have worked in the UK nuclear industry though the nightmare scenarios for them (and pretty much all of us) is what happens when it doesnt work, forced shutdown or they press that big red button and nothing happens. What then? Thats of course what we have to deal with and consider, particularly as the UK nuclear stations get older and get to the end of their serviceable life. Technology may or will extend that life but to paraphrase what Dr Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, your scientists were preoccupied with with you could, you didnt stop to think if you should.
    The idea of building a new nuclear power station in 3 or 4 years is laughable (as is the UKs 20 years) and it scares the bejesus out of me that people would take that seriously, and probably a few will. Id encourage any local nimbys to object to that sort of development as it might affect house prices for the next 10,000 years.
    When I say 'went right' above, wind farms dont all just shut down instantaneously but something was tripped and of course people blame wind power. I dont know but would take an educated guess that in the pecking order of shutting things down suddenly its probably better to trip a wind farm and deal with it later than a nuclear power plant...



    In a recent conversation a friend who had just returned from China threw out the idea to me that China has been going balls to the wall with coal fired power stations in order to produce the electricity to produce renewables. Now it was a conversation point but its an interesting one and one that a lot of the green lobby skip over, we cant (yet) make renewables from renewables so its a case of least worst option. Now of course I dont think for one minute that the minute China reaches the renewable goal they will just mothball the coal plants (although if any country in the world will, they will) or maybe convert them to burn their waste but it is an interesting concept. We have outsourced a lot of our manufacturing to China (which has allowed our grid to run on renewables) so manufacturing plastic tat that can be sold for 99p does also take a lot of the blame for coal fired power and people point the finger at china when we are also to blame.



    We face a lot of energy issues in the not too distant future and the answer will be a combination of all of the above, but primarily the answer will be that we will have to change our habits and like other parts of the world get used to power going off for certain periods or it being too expensive to use at certain times etc etc.
    I mentioned on the battery thread the conference I was at last summer where different new storage methods were being discussed and that should frame it roughly. We arent there yet (obviously from last week) but it will become more of a focus, particularly with the potential upcoming QE infrastructure binge. It still wont stop individual trains needing rebooting and blocking the tracks for all in the event of a power failure but should ensure that main lines remain powered so it shouldnt really happen (yeah I know!).
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 14th Aug 19, 7:01 AM
    • 8,880 Posts
    • 13,829 Thanks
    Martyn1981

    My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.
    Originally posted by mmmmikey
    I'm not sure if that much concern is actually warranted though.

    A gas power station, or the connection can fail today, and that means a large singular loss to the system, in both cases.

    But there are already a very large number of wind farms, and the number keeps growing, so the impact of losing a single wind turbine (v's a gas power station) is tiny, negligible perhaps, and with a far larger number of wind farms, than gas powerstations, then the impact of losing one is diluted.

    Is the National Grid concerned about the the issue of WT's or WF's on the grid, presumably there's a report somewhere.

    The benefits of having a far larger number of generation points, which themselves have multiple modular elements, would I assume, strengthen the grid, not weaken it?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 14th Aug 19, 10:54 AM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Actually these ridiculous wind turbines that are nearly 200 metres high and have blades well over 100 metres long, precisely in fact do have inertia ....
    Originally posted by Hexane
    Yes they do

    But it's not useable
    The reason is wind turbines work differently
    You might have 100 turbines all turning at a different frequency
    Power electronics convert this to be the same or almost the same for all
    This is fed to a central point which then sends the power out either in DC or AC
    If it sends it out in DC that means the inertia is independent and can't be used
    If it sends it out in AC again there is no inertia to be used because the turbines turn according to the wind not according to the load placed on them


    Even the national grid says they have invested in trying to create synthetic inertia aka wind turbines inertia isn't of use.
    Last edited by GreatApe; 14-08-2019 at 11:07 AM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 14th Aug 19, 10:57 AM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Hi

    Agree ... and with the turbine blade tip speed at nominal generation typically being around 200mph and often weighing upwards of 50tonnes the combination of mass & velocity can be described in terms of kinetic energy, momentum & rotational inertia ... all of which would suggest that it would take quite an event to stop rotation in a universe where laws are respected and F does actually equal ma!

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater

    Limited knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 14th Aug 19, 11:06 AM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I'm not sure if that much concern is actually warranted though.

    A gas power station, or the connection can fail today, and that means a large singular loss to the system, in both cases.

    But there are already a very large number of wind farms, and the number keeps growing, so the impact of losing a single wind turbine (v's a gas power station) is tiny, negligible perhaps, and with a far larger number of wind farms, than gas powerstations, then the impact of losing one is diluted.

    Is the National Grid concerned about the the issue of WT's or WF's on the grid, presumably there's a report somewhere.

    The benefits of having a far larger number of generation points, which themselves have multiple modular elements, would I assume, strengthen the grid, not weaken it?
    Originally posted by Martyn1981



    You assume wrong

    A conventional generator is in effect a power station and a small (but very powerful) battery all in one

    If a CCGT 'trips' it doesn't lose power instantly as there is stored momentum
    If a CCGT line trips then the other 30 CCGTs momentum keeps things going long enough to fire up more CCGTs (or ramp up those already online)

    So there is a degree of protection
    This isn't the case with wind turbines

    Plus why are all the pro wind people trying to argue against this?
    It just means wind farms need batteries
    You guys want Batteries anyway
    So what's the deal?

    You're upset because someone called your baby ugly?
    Dress it up in batteries and it's not do ugly

    I've said from the start this doesn't make wind power unviable it just means that they need to install batteries too. You lot keep jumping up and down saying batteries keep getting cheaper so what's the problem?
    Last edited by GreatApe; 14-08-2019 at 11:19 AM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 14th Aug 19, 11:18 AM
    • 3,500 Posts
    • 2,646 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Yes and No. The correct I was at last summer where different new n (yeah I know!).
    Originally posted by joefizz
    We will not accept blackouts in the name of climate change, not even limited blackouts

    Wind power works and as manufacturing and construction get better and better they will oversized blades (relative to generators) to achieve 50% + CF maybe even 60% CF

    Nuclear works very well too


    The road ahead is clear I've been saying this since 2005

    #1 fossil fuel useage will go up because it's cheap works well and has few actual problems (plenty of imagined ones)

    #2 the rich countries will deploy wind PV and nuclear very slowly

    #3 the developing countries will opt for #1 because wind power & PV is too expensive and needs fossil fuels to work anyways and the rich countries wouldn't want the poor countries to go cheap nuclear as that would give them the capacity to potentially make nukes

    #4 at some point software will solve transport, production, mining, refining and manufacturing making fossil fuels unnecessary as wind farms PV farms and nukes will become more or less 'free'

    Fast forward 15 years and I was right about #1 #2 #3 and #4 was always the last one. I think we will get #4 before 2050 bit when is unknown
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

934Posts Today

6,913Users online

Martin's Twitter