Wow. Boris's admirers are now blaming Remainers for Boris's ultra-hard Brexit.
Johnson believes in nothing other than personal gratification/advancement and Brexit, of any flavour, is no exception to this. He chose Leave because he knew that when he got to run for leader of a heavily Leave party he'd need that badge. When Leave won, which surprised him, he mismanaged his tilt for the crown and May got it. She blew the Con majority in a snap election and rendered herself abject, unable to get Brexit through. Johnson leeched on the chaos and brought her down, telling everyone what they wanted to hear about his intentions in order to secure power. Once installed in Number 10 he lied to the EU to get the Brexit deal he needed for his general election platform and he lied to the voters about the deal in order to win that election. All of this worked for him, it's worked at every stage, and so he continues on his merry way. He breathes, he lies, he breathes, he lies ... until the day comes when enough of the public both see it and decide they care.
Depressingly accurate summary of recent British political history.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
I agree that an Anti-Sleaze candidate wouldn't be the right way to go, as Paterson isn't standing again. Any new Tory candidate would presumably be "clean". The interesting idea would be if Johnson was suspended for 30 days due to his corruption over wallpaper and holidays. If he was recalled and stood again, an anti-sleaze candidate would be ideal. Someone like Rashford?
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Perhaps more one for @JosiasJessop - first thing I saw on a few days' holiday exploring nooks and crannies in and around Ironbridge was a pool of water into which a steam engine pumped water to ensure a supply of water to power the ironworks never mind the state of the rivers at the time. No leccy but it was about 1750 I think!
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
That's chemical storage which is extremely expensive. The race for physical storage (potential energy) is already underway, private companies like gravitricity are raising private money to solve these big problems. Canada has got an incredible emerging energy tech fund that is advancing the world's best shots at energy storage, an oversupply of intermittent power with storage will be the short to medium term solution, eventually it will be fusion. There's now serious money going into both from investors rather than relying on slow and, frankly, pointless schemes like ITER.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
There are lots of options. It looks like batteries will have an advantage because there is so much investment, research and development going into the more demanding use of batteries for use in cars, which will also mean there will be lots of second-hand batteries available once their no longer quite good enough for using in cars.
There's also various technologies at a more experimental stage - compressed/liquified air, flywheels, mine weights, pumped hydro - great to see so many good ideas competing to make this work.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Wow. Boris's admirers are now blaming Remainers for Boris's ultra-hard Brexit.
What do you mean now? It’s been going on since day 1.
Having said that, it’s remarkable how varying interpretation of even very recent history can be.
In my view, May deserves a lot of the blame and she needed no help from Remainers…
If she had said "Brexit means Brexit, welcome to Greater Norway" all but the swivel-eyed would be reasonably content.
I don't think she could've got away with keeping FOM. That was totemic. Also a super soft Brexit would imo have seen her ousted by the party. Her deal, for me, was an ok outcome and I wish it'd been passed. Probably would have been if she'd won a good majority at GE17. So, dark irony here, those moderate non-left Remainers who voted for Corbyn to stop a hard Brexit might have been better off voting for May. But they weren't to know, looked sensible at the time. Ditto for the various players in the parliamentary Brexit wars. I don't think any faction "screwed up" as such. They were all working rationally to their own agendas which put together caused the bizarre outcome. Not a "hard" or a "soft" Brexit but a "bad" Brexit and power delivered to Boris Johnson. We've been freakishly unlucky.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
I said at the time, and many occasions since, that pro-EU MPs (primarily Labour but some also Conservative and from other parties) voting the same way as Conservative sceptics meant that someone was screwing up, and it was plainly the pro-EU types. Their advantage would've been in seeking compromise and middle ground. Instead they tried to hardline it, which only shifted things more and more the sceptical way.
This was exemplified by Dominic Grieve, an apparently intelligent man, shrieking it was 'too late' when he got the exact concession he had sought only to still vote against it. Great work, but cui bono?
Likewise those who voted against May's deal. If she went, did they really think the Conservative Party was going to vote for someone perceived as softer than her on the EU? Of course not. And if course they didn't.
Sir John Major: "This government has done a number of things that have concerned me deeply: they have broken the law, the illegal prorogation of parliament. They have broken treaties, I have in mind the Northern Ireland Protocol. They have broken their word on many occasions." https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1456899066604949505
I greatly admire Sir John Major, but any thoughtful analysis of how we got to Brexit, and Boris as the only leader who could get it done, and it only doable by a fair bit of conjuring will have to go back in time.
The top problems were: a SM including FOM; the democratic deficit in the EU; the sense of the EU heading towards a sort of state; the Euro; and the failure over decades to consult the people over great constitutional change.
For this John Major has huge responsibility. He was a key player for many of the crucial years. And by the use of referendums he (and Mrs T and T Blair) could have avoided all this, and created a more modest EU.
This, and not Brexit, is the greatest post war policy failure - the view that the UK population could be taken into an ever closer union without being asked.
Not sure that I agree with that. Maastricht allowed the UK a range of opt outs and different geometry within the EU with its various pillars. Had both his successors and the EU kept that going then we would almost certainly still be in the EU. Unfortunately, the EU zealots both on the continent and in the UK emphasised ever closer union and completely undermined the concept of subsidiarity which could have been useful. Eventually the majority in the UK said, enough, but Major did produce a viable and arguably superior option.
Wow. Boris's admirers are now blaming Remainers for Boris's ultra-hard Brexit.
What do you mean now? It’s been going on since day 1.
Having said that, it’s remarkable how varying interpretation of even very recent history can be.
In my view, May deserves a lot of the blame and she needed no help from Remainers…
If she had said "Brexit means Brexit, welcome to Greater Norway" all but the swivel-eyed would be reasonably content.
I don't think she could've got away with keeping FOM. That was totemic. Also a super soft Brexit would imo have seen her ousted by the party. Her deal, for me, was an ok outcome and I wish it'd been passed. Probably would have been if she'd won a good majority at GE17. So, dark irony here, those moderate non-left Remainers who voted for Corbyn to stop a hard Brexit might have been better off voting for May. But they weren't to know, looked sensible at the time. Ditto for the various players in the parliamentary Brexit wars. I don't think any faction "screwed up" as such. They were all working rationally to their own agendas which put together caused the bizarre outcome. Not a "hard" or a "soft" Brexit but a "bad" Brexit and power delivered to Boris Johnson. We've been freakishly unlucky.
If her deal had gone through Parliament on Opposition votes (or even abstentions), the Tories would have been torn to bits and we’d probably have a Labour government now. Oh, and we’d stil be basically in the EU, stuck in the backstop and with the government happy with that position.
But the Oppositon voted against the deal, and now we have “Hard Brexit” and Johnson as PM.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
There are lots of options. It looks like batteries will have an advantage because there is so much investment, research and development going into the more demanding use of batteries for use in cars, which will also mean there will be lots of second-hand batteries available once their no longer quite good enough for using in cars.
There's also various technologies at a more experimental stage - compressed/liquified air, flywheels, mine weights, pumped hydro - great to see so many good ideas competing to make this work.
Although it's very inefficient, there's probably room for the deal JCB did with Oz recently. They have stacks of potential for renewable electricity (wind, solar, a smattering of hydro - the Snowy river Scheme 2.0), but most of the 'best' places for this are hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from any potential large-scale usage. Using that power to convert water to hydrogen seems a good way of storing and transporting that energy - as long as water can be found.
Having said that, there are vast mines in the Oz outback that have their own power stations attached. It'll be interesting to see if these turn to renewables instead - they're certainly doing it for new mines.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Yet you are rude about everything and everyone one you don't like which appears to be everything and everyone.
No one can abuse Boris enough , he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town
Boris is the only person he is not rude about and complains when others are, yet he also claims to hate Boris also (we don't believe him). He hates everyone and everything. He doesn't even wait until the heat of an argument to be rude, it is straight off with the first post.
I was about to say he is unique to this site but then I forgot about you @malcolmg. But you are not the same. You do it with panache.
Wow. Boris's admirers are now blaming Remainers for Boris's ultra-hard Brexit.
Johnson believes in nothing other than personal gratification/advancement and Brexit, of any flavour, is no exception to this. He chose Leave because he knew that when he got to run for leader of a heavily Leave party he'd need that badge. When Leave won, which surprised him, he mismanaged his tilt for the crown and May got it. She blew the Con majority in a snap election and rendered herself abject, unable to get Brexit through. Johnson leeched on the chaos and brought her down, telling everyone what they wanted to hear about his intentions in order to secure power. Once installed in Number 10 he lied to the EU to get the Brexit deal he needed for his general election platform and he lied to the voters about the deal in order to win that election. All of this worked for him, it's worked at every stage, and so he continues on his merry way. He breathes, he lies, he breathes, he lies ... until the day comes when enough of the public both see it and decide they care.
Depressingly accurate summary of recent British political history.
I settle myself down by saying "but at least he's not a monster like Trump" and it works - but that's in itself a bit depressing when you think about it. Talk about your warped metrics!
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
AIUI it's precisely the gas stations wehich are turned off and on to adjust for any shortfall in wind etc. It's the nukes and the coal stations that are happier with a more permanent load. But I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
If you can find evidence for that in the gas/coal consumption statistics then please do share it, otherwise you are sharing a falsehood. It is absolutely the case that we burn less gas when there is more electricity from wind.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Perhaps more one for @JosiasJessop - first thing I saw on a few days' holiday exploring nooks and crannies in and around Ironbridge was a pool of water into which a steam engine pumped water to ensure a supply of water to power the ironworks never mind the state of the rivers at the time. No leccy but it was about 1750 I think!
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
I think I've walked past Cruachan. The West Highland Way descends into Kinlochleven beside massive pipes that carry water down from the ?Blackwater? reservoir. The pipes go to a power station that used to provide power for the aluminium smelter. As I've passed, I've wondered what'd happen if one of the pipes sprung a leak ...
This has been discussed and debated on here in the past, but I'm unsure we have much unrealised potential for pump-storage in the UK. You need a large vertical height difference, preferably without much horizontal (to reduce the distance the water has to go), and a large area at the top and bottom for the reservoirs. The geology has to be good, as well. Ideally, it needs to be near existing power lines or power stations, and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
There are a few sites, and a few prospective schemes, but nowhere near enough. It'd be a helpful small part of the solution, rather then the full solution.
Not a bad view, more proper fans here and fewer prawn sandwich brigade no-shows.
You really are in the middle east aren't you? You must be having fun - hope it's not too dry for you.
Had there been some doubt? I spent one of the matches @Sandpit attended looking closely at everyone in a red England shirt, his self proclaimed attire for the day.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
AIUI it's precisely the gas stations wehich are turned off and on to adjust for any shortfall in wind etc. It's the nukes and the coal stations that are happier with a more permanent load. But I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong.
Yep the specific advantage of gas power stations is that they are so responsive to sudden demand changes. It is one of the arguments for retaining them as a backup to a primary renewable system.
Not a bad view, more proper fans here and fewer prawn sandwich brigade no-shows.
You really are in the middle east aren't you? You must be having fun - hope it's not too dry for you.
Had there been some doubt? I spent one of the matches @Sandpit attended looking closely at everyone in a red England shirt, his self proclaimed attire for the day.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Perhaps more one for @JosiasJessop - first thing I saw on a few days' holiday exploring nooks and crannies in and around Ironbridge was a pool of water into which a steam engine pumped water to ensure a supply of water to power the ironworks never mind the state of the rivers at the time. No leccy but it was about 1750 I think!
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
I think I've walked past Cruachan. The West Highland Way descends into Kinlochleven beside massive pipes that carry water down from the ?Blackwater? reservoir. The pipes go to a power station that used to provide power for the aluminium smelter. As I've passed, I've wondered what'd happen if one of the pipes sprung a leak ...
This has been discussed and debated on here in the past, but I'm unsure we have much unrealised potential for pump-storage in the UK. You need a large vertical height difference, preferably without much horizontal (to reduce the distance the water has to go), and a large area at the top and bottom for the reservoirs. The geology has to be good, as well. Ideally, it needs to be near existing power lines or power stations, and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
There are a few sites, and a few prospective schemes, but nowhere near enough. It'd be a helpful small part of the solution, rather then the full solution.
I thought that the pipes went into Loch Awe in the brilliantly named and looking Pass of Brander.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Perhaps more one for @JosiasJessop - first thing I saw on a few days' holiday exploring nooks and crannies in and around Ironbridge was a pool of water into which a steam engine pumped water to ensure a supply of water to power the ironworks never mind the state of the rivers at the time. No leccy but it was about 1750 I think!
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
I think I've walked past Cruachan. The West Highland Way descends into Kinlochleven beside massive pipes that carry water down from the ?Blackwater? reservoir. The pipes go to a power station that used to provide power for the aluminium smelter. As I've passed, I've wondered what'd happen if one of the pipes sprung a leak ...
This has been discussed and debated on here in the past, but I'm unsure we have much unrealised potential for pump-storage in the UK. You need a large vertical height difference, preferably without much horizontal (to reduce the distance the water has to go), and a large area at the top and bottom for the reservoirs. The geology has to be good, as well. Ideally, it needs to be near existing power lines or power stations, and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
There are a few sites, and a few prospective schemes, but nowhere near enough. It'd be a helpful small part of the solution, rather then the full solution.
Thanks - that's interesting.
BTW I think the Kinlochleven pipes must be Loch Treig - IIRC not a pumped system but fed by waters from Laggan and Spey, on the other side of the watershed, through long tunnels.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
AIUI it's precisely the gas stations wehich are turned off and on to adjust for any shortfall in wind etc. It's the nukes and the coal stations that are happier with a more permanent load. But I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong.
You are right about nuclear. Coal is currently 0% of the electricity supply: this website shows how it changes with time.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
The biggest battern storage in the world is 1600MWh, which is enough to power the UK for 2 minutes. We are so far from wind being a viable solution on its own it's laughable, and yet people keep making misleading claims about how good the economics are whilst ignoring that it requires an entire parallel generation option to be subsidised and kept ready for the inevitable cold, windless days (i.e. Tuesday) when it generates nothing of note and demand is at peak.
Sure, there's not much battery, or other storage now but it's the nature of such a major transition as we are seeking to make that this will change dramatically, just as the proportion of our electricity generated by coal has also changed dramatically, something that many people said would never happen.
Until we get some serious storage built isn't the wind power largely eco-virtue signalling (greenwashing?) How much less gas and biomass do we actually burn when the wind is blowing?
Scotish Power website (for instance) says 40% renewable averaged out over 2020-2021. So a good chunk. Obviously more at times when it is really windy; less, when less.
Yes, but the percentage of energy production counts even when there's a massive surplus being produced - so if particularly windy at night, wind could be producing 90% of the total energy produced, but the gas stations won't get turned off.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
AIUI it's precisely the gas stations wehich are turned off and on to adjust for any shortfall in wind etc. It's the nukes and the coal stations that are happier with a more permanent load. But I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong.
Yep the specific advantage of gas power stations is that they are so responsive to sudden demand changes. It is one of the arguments for retaining them as a backup to a primary renewable system.
I was aware that they could be turned on and off more easily than coal or nuclear, but I didn't realise that they actually are being turned on and off depending on the wind.
Are there times when it's so windy that we don't need/use gas at all? Or if not, do you know how much less gas we use when the wind is blowing as hard as it can?
That's surely a more pertinent stat than what percentage of total generation, including that wasted, is wind..
Not a bad view, more proper fans here and fewer prawn sandwich brigade no-shows.
You really are in the middle east aren't you? You must be having fun - hope it's not too dry for you.
This last week it’s noticeable cooler, about 30°C during the day. We have six months of lovely weather to come, after the horrible hot and humid of the summer. Plenty of events on too, after a year off for the pandemic.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
It's not really an opportunity when storage scale is so comically small compared to the requirement, and windfarms are all built on contracts which pay out regardless of the electricity is needed. Just means consumers are paying twice, once for green tech pretending to now be economic, and a 2nd time for the necessary gas turbines to actually provide certainty of supply.
There is excess electricity. This provides an opportunity for people to store it and sell it when the grid price of electricity is higher.
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
How is electricity stored?
Batteries, which will become increasingly relevant with the millions of moving batteries in the next decades. Also things like pumped storage, flywheels.
Perhaps more one for @JosiasJessop - first thing I saw on a few days' holiday exploring nooks and crannies in and around Ironbridge was a pool of water into which a steam engine pumped water to ensure a supply of water to power the ironworks never mind the state of the rivers at the time. No leccy but it was about 1750 I think!
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
I think I've walked past Cruachan. The West Highland Way descends into Kinlochleven beside massive pipes that carry water down from the ?Blackwater? reservoir. The pipes go to a power station that used to provide power for the aluminium smelter. As I've passed, I've wondered what'd happen if one of the pipes sprung a leak ...
This has been discussed and debated on here in the past, but I'm unsure we have much unrealised potential for pump-storage in the UK. You need a large vertical height difference, preferably without much horizontal (to reduce the distance the water has to go), and a large area at the top and bottom for the reservoirs. The geology has to be good, as well. Ideally, it needs to be near existing power lines or power stations, and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
There are a few sites, and a few prospective schemes, but nowhere near enough. It'd be a helpful small part of the solution, rather then the full solution.
I thought that the pipes went into Loch Awe in the brilliantly named and looking Pass of Brander.
Yeah, sorry, I was unclear. I've walked past the Cruachan scheme in the past. I then went on to talk about a very different scheme - the Blackwater / Kinlochleven scheme, which provided power for the aluminium smelter there (and now for the grid).
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Yet you are rude about everything and everyone one you don't like which appears to be everything and everyone.
No one can abuse Boris enough , he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town
Boris is the only person he is not rude about and complains when others are, yet he also claims to hate Boris also (we don't believe him). He hates everyone and everything. He doesn't even wait until the heat of an argument to be rude, it is straight off with the first post.
I was about to say he is unique to this site but then I forgot about you @malcolmg. But you are not the same. You do it with panache.
Anyone know how to work out what run rate England need to stay ahead of either Australia or South Africa is they lose this match, given that SA look at scoring today at 9 per over?
Comments
The nature of an opportunity is that it is not currently being served, so the fact that there currently isn't the storage capacity to make use of this excess electricity is implied in the use of the word "opportunity".
At some point there will be enough excess wind energy available for storage that the economics will mean there is a rapid increase in the amount of storage capacity to shift that electricity to times when the wind isn't blowing. Every extra bit of wind capacity added to the grid brings us closer to that point.
https://twitter.com/Everton/status/1456691960664760323?s=20
I think he's still the only professional footballer to do time for on-pitch activity.
PS and nice pic of the rather more modern pumped storage system at Cruachan:
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/1045121
There's also various technologies at a more experimental stage - compressed/liquified air, flywheels, mine weights, pumped hydro - great to see so many good ideas competing to make this work.
They know they not only need to win, but need to win with a very good net run rate.
I said at the time, and many occasions since, that pro-EU MPs (primarily Labour but some also Conservative and from other parties) voting the same way as Conservative sceptics meant that someone was screwing up, and it was plainly the pro-EU types. Their advantage would've been in seeking compromise and middle ground. Instead they tried to hardline it, which only shifted things more and more the sceptical way.
This was exemplified by Dominic Grieve, an apparently intelligent man, shrieking it was 'too late' when he got the exact concession he had sought only to still vote against it. Great work, but cui bono?
Likewise those who voted against May's deal. If she went, did they really think the Conservative Party was going to vote for someone perceived as softer than her on the EU? Of course not. And if course they didn't.
But the Oppositon voted against the deal, and now we have “Hard Brexit” and Johnson as PM.
Right, enough politics, back to the cricket.
And I suspect that that's the energy that green energy bill providers buy to get their certificates. Completely wasted "green" energy.
Until we have the storage it's rather illusory.
Having said that, there are vast mines in the Oz outback that have their own power stations attached. It'll be interesting to see if these turn to renewables instead - they're certainly doing it for new mines.
I was about to say he is unique to this site but then I forgot about you @malcolmg. But you are not the same. You do it with panache.
This has been discussed and debated on here in the past, but I'm unsure we have much unrealised potential for pump-storage in the UK. You need a large vertical height difference, preferably without much horizontal (to reduce the distance the water has to go), and a large area at the top and bottom for the reservoirs. The geology has to be good, as well. Ideally, it needs to be near existing power lines or power stations, and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
There are a few sites, and a few prospective schemes, but nowhere near enough. It'd be a helpful small part of the solution, rather then the full solution.
Thanks - that's interesting.
BTW I think the Kinlochleven pipes must be Loch Treig - IIRC not a pumped system but fed by waters from Laggan and Spey, on the other side of the watershed, through long tunnels.
https://canmore.org.uk/site/277888/loch-treig-dam
As David says the Cruachan system is related to Loch Awe IIRC.
Edit: six more…
Coal is currently 0% of the electricity supply: this website shows how it changes with time.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Are there times when it's so windy that we don't need/use gas at all? Or if not, do you know how much less gas we use when the wind is blowing as hard as it can?
That's surely a more pertinent stat than what percentage of total generation, including that wasted, is wind..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5kvxb79E3Y
Oh, and here's what happens if hydropower fails:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfW5MqT7CSA