World's largest offshore windfarm starts generating
Discussion
Last covered over a year ago, as the build started.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-62307...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-62307...
plfrench said:
Not sure how the data supports that conclusion? This year we're on track to equal fossil fuel electricity generation with renewable for the first time. This is from a near standing start in the space of 11 years shown on the graph below. Why on earth would we want to wed ourselves to an increasingly expensive and inefficiency commodity when we have this huge opportunity for wealth generation?
https://grid.iamkate.com/
This is purely referring to the energy source for electricity generation. https://grid.iamkate.com/
80% of total UK energy use is from oil and gas eg heating, cooking, IC vehicles, industrial etc. etc.
From the Dogger Bank website:
"When complete Dogger Bank will deliver clean energy to six million homes annually."
Which is misleading. It will supply clean electricity to six million homes. Those homes will still have about 80% of their energy supplied (kWh) from gas.
Edited by Hammersia on Thursday 12th October 11:32
Hill92 said:
Essarell said:
Do wind farms (renewables) ever manage to produce their installed capacity? On paper we should easily be energy self sufficient but that’s not the reality.
They can and do.Edited by Essarell on Thursday 12th October 03:46
This page charts load duration curves, both for individual wind farms and the overall offshore fleet, to the end of May 2022. These charts show what percentage of time a given capacity factor or higher was achieved.
https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capaci...
But most of these wind farms are the older, smaller onshore ones. Moray East and Triton Knoll were still under construction. But if you look at Hornsea One and East Anglia One, they were delivering 90-95% of their installed capacity 20% of the time and at least 40-45% capacity 50% of the time.
And the m Hywind Scotland floating demonstrator site was out in front delivering >90% of capacity almost 30% of the time and >60% capacity half the time.
Hornsea One and EA1 used 7 MW turbines. We're now building with 14 MW turbines - larger and further offshore, where winds are stronger and more consistent.
And we're bring them to more diverse locations like the Celtic Sea, which significantly increase the available power at any given time.
Essarell said:
Alternatives? What’s the rest of the world using? Coal & Gas. Why not use those resources to perfect new technologies? The US sells millions of tons of coal to China, we could do the same and use the income to improve our balance of payments deficit and update our crumbling infrastructure, all off the back of the Yen. Instead we’ve got the cart right in front of the horse and ours and much of Europes economy is going to pay very dearly for it.
The same China that built 37 GW wind last year and added another 23 GW in just the first six months of this year? In addition to 87 GW solar in 2022 and 78 GW in H1 2023.Everyone is investing in wind and solar because they are now cheaper than existing, let alone new, coal capacity.
I know that China invests in renewables but not at the expense of other forms of generation. Probably why their electricity is many times cheaper than ours as they've put economic performance as a priority.
Nomme de Plum said:
Essarell said:
As we can see wind isn’t the solution, data supports that conclusion, storage? We’d be looking at many. Many Twh’s of it, at least 2-3 weeks worth of current UK which is expected to increase to circa 60Gwh if we go EV and GSH / ASH pumps.
Alternatives? What’s the rest of the world using? Coal & Gas. Why not use those resources to perfect new technologies? The US sells millions of tons of coal to China, we could do the same and use the income to improve our balance of payments deficit and update our crumbling infrastructure, all off the back of the Yen. Instead we’ve got the cart right in front of the horse and ours and much of Europes economy is going to pay very dearly for it.
Why would you want the UK to continue to be reliant on imported fuels we do not produce enough to be self sufficient?Alternatives? What’s the rest of the world using? Coal & Gas. Why not use those resources to perfect new technologies? The US sells millions of tons of coal to China, we could do the same and use the income to improve our balance of payments deficit and update our crumbling infrastructure, all off the back of the Yen. Instead we’ve got the cart right in front of the horse and ours and much of Europes economy is going to pay very dearly for it.
What will you do with the CO2 that emanates from these new coal and gas stations you want built? Do you really want many millions more migrants trying to move away from places that have become inhabitable?
With sufficient capacity in the wind and solar generation systems we will reduce our reliance on imported energy and the cost of these renewables is substantially less than the FF alternatives.
Nuclear will probably be needed as well.
TX.
What The Deuces said:
Epic news and superb progress towards making the UK self sufficeint in Energy generation.
Massive strategic military target(s) if we ever get into conflict. Hard to defend i'd imagine
Harder to take out completely than a Gas / Nuclear power station I would have thought?Massive strategic military target(s) if we ever get into conflict. Hard to defend i'd imagine
Burrow01 said:
What The Deuces said:
Epic news and superb progress towards making the UK self sufficeint in Energy generation.
Massive strategic military target(s) if we ever get into conflict. Hard to defend i'd imagine
Harder to take out completely than a Gas / Nuclear power station I would have thought?Massive strategic military target(s) if we ever get into conflict. Hard to defend i'd imagine
Finland suspects that the recent sub-sea gas pipeline issue could be sabotage.
Good news, and it should be being pushed harder in the mainstream media. A UK engineering success story in the face of the embarrassment and international laughing stock HS2 has made the UK.
The sooner we can decouple from imported energy and get all the interconnects up and running the better, and the rewards will be substantial.
As for the poster that thinks coal is still the answer, thats such an illogical and off the wall position you have to wonder about their motivations. Fossil fuels stooge.
The sooner we can decouple from imported energy and get all the interconnects up and running the better, and the rewards will be substantial.
As for the poster that thinks coal is still the answer, thats such an illogical and off the wall position you have to wonder about their motivations. Fossil fuels stooge.
dvs_dave said:
Good news, and it should be being pushed harder in the mainstream media. A UK engineering success story in the face of the embarrassment and international laughing stock HS2 has made the UK.
The sooner we can decouple from imported energy and get all the interconnects up and running the better, and the rewards will be substantial.
As for the poster that thinks coal is still the answer, thats such an illogical and off the wall position you have to wonder about their motivations. Fossil fuels stooge.
I’m guessing you mean me? I’ve never said Coal was the answer, i have however suggested continuing to use coal to smooth the transition to renewables. Renewables that actually deliver, not spend 20 years building wind turbines (circa 10000) on land to discover that they don’t work and that we should have waited and developed as we are now into (the claim is more reliable) offshore wind. Or not rush into contracts that lo and behold are good for the generator but turn out to be a bad deal for the customer / consumer. We’ve closed down perfectly serviceable power stations to now find ourselves reliant on the French or Norway just to try and keep the lights on. The sooner we can decouple from imported energy and get all the interconnects up and running the better, and the rewards will be substantial.
As for the poster that thinks coal is still the answer, thats such an illogical and off the wall position you have to wonder about their motivations. Fossil fuels stooge.
Use the profit from the available resources that we have to upgrade the grid ready for the future instead of what we currently have is power being generated but no ability to move it round the country. Surely that sounds sensible?
Why can’t we sell India, China or Poland coal? Or is that a luxury only afforded to the Americans or Australians? They also have climate change policies but somehow seem to be a little more tolerant to emissions when it means a boost to their respective economies.
I don’t see the need to rush the transition to renewables, as is plain to see we lead the world in economic mutilation and for what? Some of the most expensive energy prices in the world.
Essarell said:
I’m guessing you mean me? I’ve never said Coal was the answer, i have however suggested continuing to use coal to smooth the transition to renewables. Renewables that actually deliver, not spend 20 years building wind turbines (circa 10000) on land to discover that they don’t work and that we should have waited and developed as we are now into (the claim is more reliable) offshore wind. Or not rush into contracts that lo and behold are good for the generator but turn out to be a bad deal for the customer / consumer. We’ve closed down perfectly serviceable power stations to now find ourselves reliant on the French or Norway just to try and keep the lights on.
Use the profit from the available resources that we have to upgrade the grid ready for the future instead of what we currently have is power being generated but no ability to move it round the country. Surely that sounds sensible?
Why can’t we sell India, China or Poland coal? Or is that a luxury only afforded to the Americans or Australians? They also have climate change policies but somehow seem to be a little more tolerant to emissions when it means a boost to their respective economies.
I don’t see the need to rush the transition to renewables, as is plain to see we lead the world in economic mutilation and for what? Some of the most expensive energy prices in the world.
why the focus on 'upgrading the grid'? the national grid has 25% of its capacity following the reduction in overall power pull since 2005. yes, there will be in increase in demand but gradually over the next couple of decades. this is being planned and executed.Use the profit from the available resources that we have to upgrade the grid ready for the future instead of what we currently have is power being generated but no ability to move it round the country. Surely that sounds sensible?
Why can’t we sell India, China or Poland coal? Or is that a luxury only afforded to the Americans or Australians? They also have climate change policies but somehow seem to be a little more tolerant to emissions when it means a boost to their respective economies.
I don’t see the need to rush the transition to renewables, as is plain to see we lead the world in economic mutilation and for what? Some of the most expensive energy prices in the world.
connecting the dispersed power generation to the fringes of the grid (mostly offshore wind) is largely a planning issue and nimbyism. my one hope for a labour government is that they'll stamp all over nimbyism for the good of national energy security. the conservatives are too scared of annoying their donors/ electorate to do so.
you hinted at leaning on coal and gas again, presumably until every facet of intermittency of renewables is thought through and a solution in place. i'd much rater a few pylons, a storage facility or onshore turbines in my view rather than a coal fired station. so we build out roughly 50GW of fossil fuel capacity to power EVs and heat pumps, and in parallel develop an all singing and dancing renewable solution, then turn decommission the fossil fuel plants? this sounds expensive. ironically exactly what china are doing, but things are a bit different there.
Terminator X said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Essarell said:
As we can see wind isn’t the solution, data supports that conclusion, storage? We’d be looking at many. Many Twh’s of it, at least 2-3 weeks worth of current UK which is expected to increase to circa 60Gwh if we go EV and GSH / ASH pumps.
Alternatives? What’s the rest of the world using? Coal & Gas. Why not use those resources to perfect new technologies? The US sells millions of tons of coal to China, we could do the same and use the income to improve our balance of payments deficit and update our crumbling infrastructure, all off the back of the Yen. Instead we’ve got the cart right in front of the horse and ours and much of Europes economy is going to pay very dearly for it.
Why would you want the UK to continue to be reliant on imported fuels we do not produce enough to be self sufficient?Alternatives? What’s the rest of the world using? Coal & Gas. Why not use those resources to perfect new technologies? The US sells millions of tons of coal to China, we could do the same and use the income to improve our balance of payments deficit and update our crumbling infrastructure, all off the back of the Yen. Instead we’ve got the cart right in front of the horse and ours and much of Europes economy is going to pay very dearly for it.
What will you do with the CO2 that emanates from these new coal and gas stations you want built? Do you really want many millions more migrants trying to move away from places that have become inhabitable?
With sufficient capacity in the wind and solar generation systems we will reduce our reliance on imported energy and the cost of these renewables is substantially less than the FF alternatives.
Nuclear will probably be needed as well.
TX.
tamore said:
why the focus on 'upgrading the grid'? the national grid has 25% of its capacity following the reduction in overall power pull since 2005. yes, there will be in increase in demand but gradually over the next couple of decades. this is being planned and executed.
connecting the dispersed power generation to the fringes of the grid (mostly offshore wind) is largely a planning issue and nimbyism. my one hope for a labour government is that they'll stamp all over nimbyism for the good of national energy security. the conservatives are too scared of annoying their donors/ electorate to do so.
you hinted at leaning on coal and gas again, presumably until every facet of intermittency of renewables is thought through and a solution in place. i'd much rater a few pylons, a storage facility or onshore turbines in my view rather than a coal fired station. so we build out roughly 50GW of fossil fuel capacity to power EVs and heat pumps, and in parallel develop an all singing and dancing renewable solution, then turn decommission the fossil fuel plants? this sounds expensive. ironically exactly what china are doing, but things are a bit different there.
China's cost base is quite different and I do not expect they care too much about those workers in the coal industry that suffer pretty unpleasant and terminal diseases from coal dust and mining. connecting the dispersed power generation to the fringes of the grid (mostly offshore wind) is largely a planning issue and nimbyism. my one hope for a labour government is that they'll stamp all over nimbyism for the good of national energy security. the conservatives are too scared of annoying their donors/ electorate to do so.
you hinted at leaning on coal and gas again, presumably until every facet of intermittency of renewables is thought through and a solution in place. i'd much rater a few pylons, a storage facility or onshore turbines in my view rather than a coal fired station. so we build out roughly 50GW of fossil fuel capacity to power EVs and heat pumps, and in parallel develop an all singing and dancing renewable solution, then turn decommission the fossil fuel plants? this sounds expensive. ironically exactly what china are doing, but things are a bit different there.
They have however laid out quite clearly their route to decarbonisation and to date that have been ahead of the timescales they stated.
It seems there are others here that do not consider the health impacts of coal are a big thing.
We in the UK have done amazingly well but CO2 per person is still substantially above many of the developing nations. We have also offshored some of our emissions.
Nomme de Plum said:
China's cost base is quite different and I do not expect they care too much about those workers in the coal industry that suffer pretty unpleasant and terminal diseases from coal dust and mining.
They have however laid out quite clearly their route to decarbonisation and to date that have been ahead of the timescales they stated.
It seems there are others here that do not consider the health impacts of coal are a big thing.
We in the UK have done amazingly well but CO2 per person is still substantially above many of the developing nations. We have also offshored some of our emissions.
watched a programme that said some of the coal plants being commissioned this year will be decommissioned in 2025. mental, but all to reach their targets. the rollout of renewables in china is staggering. regardless of what we think, they don't want their masses suffering horrible smog related lung diseases either.They have however laid out quite clearly their route to decarbonisation and to date that have been ahead of the timescales they stated.
It seems there are others here that do not consider the health impacts of coal are a big thing.
We in the UK have done amazingly well but CO2 per person is still substantially above many of the developing nations. We have also offshored some of our emissions.
tamore said:
watched a programme that said some of the coal plants being commissioned this year will be decommissioned in 2025. mental, but all to reach their targets. the rollout of renewables in china is staggering. regardless of what we think, they don't want their masses suffering horrible smog related lung diseases either.
They have a major age demographic issue so I suppose killing off people or working age is not a good plan.Essarell said:
Thanks for the detailed response, my point is we've rushed into renewables before we perfected or optimised their performance benefits. We closed down Coal way too early, under invested in Nuclear and completely neglected the National Grid, as a post above points out we signed contracts that now make renewables expensive.
I know that China invests in renewables but not at the expense of other forms of generation. Probably why their electricity is many times cheaper than ours as they've put economic performance as a priority.
You can't wait until something is 'perfected' or 'optimised' in order to use it. Technology improves in steps.I know that China invests in renewables but not at the expense of other forms of generation. Probably why their electricity is many times cheaper than ours as they've put economic performance as a priority.
Do you think that John Logie Baird looked at his invention of the TV and thought 'I can see this has shortcomings, I had better wait until I can build a 75" version that's 2cms thick with billions of pixels before I can sell it'.
You build, learn, technology improves, funding comes on sales etc etc.
It's a similar argument that the anti-EV people have "it's a stop-gap technology". But we can't skip to, what, a Star Trek style matter transporter because the technology isn't anywhere near that. But it might be in the future.
We'd all be stuck with walking with that mindset.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff