The Day of the Electric car is nigh

[kwackers]

But I meant total cost so one could compare to Hinkley, High speed rail, etc

It's a meaningless comparison.

I'm not even sure the figures are available - you can get total 'green energy' figures but they include stuff like giving people money off boilers, insulation and a whole host of stuff bundled together.
The quick look suggests this was around 6bn last year although it's been slashed and is set to fall to almost zero in the next few years.
A couple of years ago it was around 2bn - although by then the 44p FIT had long disappeared so it's a fair assumption that the 44p costs very little - there weren't that many solar panels installed when it was 44p.

[Mick F]

Ships' propellers are made of phosphor bronze and that stuff ain't cheap.

As a lump of PB it ain't cheap, but it's a making of the propellers that is by far the most expensive bit.
Casting, and then sharpening and balancing - skilful manual task - plus the initial design. Very very difficult to do to get as little cavitation as possible.

Maybe need variable pitch to cope with tidal speed variations as well.

Yes, Pentland Firth isn't a good seaway. It's a funnel for the tides and the winds and weather.

[irc]

In contrast solar is a bargain.

Don't take my word for it. The late Prof David MacKay said the numbers didn't justify solar energy in the UK. Civil servants advised ministers against solar energy being part of the UK energy mix and said it shouldn't be subsidised. MPs though listened to lobbying and got solar subsidies brought in.



From 16.16 onwards in his last interview......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ

Some quotes from the interview

“whatever combination of renewable energy is used it will always fall far short of actual consumption in the UK” min 8+
“power the UK with renewable energy is an appalling delusion” min 9.10+
“ pay attention to mathematics, the laws of physics, the realities of engineering” min 9.40
“intermittency is a real problem” min 9.50
“renewable proponents haven’t done the numbers to achieve proposed solutions” min 10.10
“winter” min 10.30
“batteries are not scalable” min 11.05

“if you can get through the winter, there is no point in adding expensive intermittent Renewables particularly wind and solar” min 14 – 15

[thirdcrank]

No because they are still being paid at that level.
The money could be better invested in new sustainable capacity .IMHO.

Payments at the current level won't continue for long because they are index-linked and so rise annually.

The govt., launched the scheme at those levels to tempt people to get the ball rolling. They did get themselves in something of a mess with the FIT rates initially which caused some problems. There were three sizes of system, which were called something like, "commercial, community and domestic." Domestic is up to 4KW which is just about what fits a normal house roof. The money men spotted the advantages of the big schemes and large areas of land were under solar panels ... er PDQ Big schemes apparently made the biggest call on the fixed budget and forced the govt., to pull the plug, so to speak, more quickly than expected. I had a few sleepless nights because although my system was installed before the cut-off date, there was such a rush to beat the deadline that things became chaotic at the big six electricity companies who administer this. (Even more chaotic than usual.) Systems registered after the cut-off date only attracted the lower late. When the dust settled, my system had been registered in time. Arguably, the biggest losers were the "community" systems, ie those intended for a school roof and the like, since the decisionmaking was often slow. It was reported that Leeds City Council missed the bus, but there are a lot of solar panels on council buildings in Bradford, where they probably acted more quickly.

AFAIK, in legal terms, the contract isn't with the govt., but the relevant electricity company. The govt's role was to set the regulations and also AFAIK, if they were to change the regs to the disadvantage of anybody signed up, then they would be obliged to pay compo for the loss, in much the same way that whenever something legal is banned, eg certain types of firearm, existing owners are compensated.

With apologies for a mixture of metaphors.

[kwackers]

In contrast solar is a bargain.

Don't take my word for it. The late Prof David MacKay said the numbers didn't justify solar energy in the UK. Civil servants advised ministers against solar energy being part of the UK energy mix and said it shouldn't be subsidised. MPs though listened to lobbying and got solar subsidies brought in.
<snip>

I've seen this before (if it's what I think it is).
You can actually use a lot of similar arguments to demonstrate there is in fact no viable energy system for the UK.
Oil, gas, coal - short term, polluting.
Nuclear - medium term, polluting & expensive.
All require a fair ramp up of power station construction far higher than we currently have.

In the meantime things are apace far faster than MacKay thought. It's not his fault, he didn't reckon on lots of things.

His basic problem imo is that he's too much of a one trick pony concentrating on individual aspects. The actual solution to energy isn't wind or solar or tidal or nuclear or gas or batteries or energy saving or smart energy use, it's a combination of pretty much everything.
Pick any individual thing and it looks hopeless, chuck the whole thing into the mix, form a proper strategy and you can make it all work.

[Mick F]

Pick any individual thing and it looks hopeless, chuck the whole thing into the mix, form a proper strategy and you can make it all work.

Thats the truth in all things.

[irc]

You can actually use a lot of similar arguments to demonstrate there is in fact no viable energy system for the UK.
Oil, gas, coal - short term, polluting.
Nuclear - medium term, polluting & expensive.
All require a fair ramp up of power station construction far higher than we currently have.

I beg to differ. A viable system is one that produces reliable electricity at 6pm in January. Wind and solar don't. In the case of Scotland the existing nuclear and hydro station already produce low carbon power which covers the majority of demand. In 2006 there was 2 coal and one gas power stations to ramp up to meet peak demand.

As a result of the drive to increase wind generation (resulting in coal stations closing) Scotland is no longer self sufficient in electricity and relies on England having surplus power to send north when there is no wind.

We had a viable system and it has been broken. Millions of ££££s spent on wind to end up with a worse system.

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env ... 1.2016.pdf

[reohn2]

I've seen this before (if it's The actual solution to energy isn't wind or solar or tidal or nuclear or gas or batteries or energy saving or smart energy use, it's a combination of pretty much everything.
Pick any individual thing and it looks hopeless, chuck the whole thing into the mix, form a proper strategy and you can make it all work.

That's how I see it,it ain't going to be,nor should be one source but all sources,refining each one as time goes on.

[pete75]

Ships' propellers are made of phosphor bronze and that stuff ain't cheap.

It is compared to the costs of somewhere like Hinckley Point particularly if you include decommissioning costs.

Sealing the shaft isn't difficult, although all seals need routine maintenance which is a bit expensive when the machine is on the seabed in a high tidal flow area. Commercial divers cost around £1000/hr, I am told.*
Anyway, no ship stays at sea continually for its whole life. Most of them are drydocked annually for antifouling, replacement of anodes, and other maintenance.

Yes and it won't be overly difficult to build in a facility to raise the machines form the sea bed when they need maintenance. Anyhow many will be on the surface like the Rance tidal power station in France.

[

[Dawesboi]

@pete75
If you don't believe me that tidal/wave is difficult to make cost effective, what is your explanation for why it isn't more widespread?

(By the way, I happen to work with boats for a living... and have a close friend whose job is to develop tidal and wave energy generators. And a family member who works in that sector as well. But hey, I might be wrong and it turns out it's really easy after all)

[PH]

But hey, I might be wrong and it turns out it's really easy after all)

Wind it in, no one says it's easy, are nuclear power stations easy? It's doable, probably not economically viable but that shouldn't stop us, there's other ways to judge success.

[kwackers]

I beg to differ. A viable system is one that produces reliable electricity at 6pm in January.

It's only viable if you ignore its shortcomings.

Renewable is the future, if it isn't renewable then by definition it has no future.

[[XAP]Bob]

I beg to differ. A viable system is one that produces reliable electricity at 6pm in January.

It's only viable if you ignore its shortcomings.

Renewable is the future, if it isn't renewable then by definition it has no future.

L

I could do that - just get a load of people on bikes with dynamos for that minute...

A viable system can deliver power when needed. The key word is needed - particularly as we get better at shifting load...

[pete75]

@pete75
If you don't believe me that tidal/wave is difficult to make cost effective, what is your explanation for why it isn't more widespread?

(By the way, I happen to work with boats for a living... and have a close friend whose job is to develop tidal and wave energy generators. And a family member who works in that sector as well. But hey, I might be wrong and it turns out it's really easy after all)

I'm not saying it's really easy just that it's not as hard as you make out. Rance produces electricity at 0.12 euros per kwh. It's been in operation for over 50 years.

If tidal energy was as unfeasible as you seem to think your friend and family member would be in pointless jobs wouldn't they? I hope you've told them.

[Dawesboi]

@pete75
If you don't believe me that tidal/wave is difficult to make cost effective, what is your explanation for why it isn't more widespread?

(By the way, I happen to work with boats for a living... and have a close friend whose job is to develop tidal and wave energy generators. And a family member who works in that sector as well. But hey, I might be wrong and it turns out it's really easy after all)

I'm not saying it's really easy just that it's not as hard as you make out. Rance produces electricity at 0.12 euros per kwh. It's been in operation for over 50 years.

If tidal energy was as unfeasible as you seem to think your friend and family member would be in pointless jobs wouldn't they? I hope you've told them.

The equivalent project here would be the much mooted Severn barrage. Perhaps we will see it one day, and it would probably be cost effective, but there are significany ecological reasons not to build it.

I asked my friend in the industry which type of generator was most cost effective- he just laughed and said "none of them". Wholesale electricity prices need to be higher to make these projects competitive.

Anyway, I wasn't asserting that it was impossible or pointless, merely addressing a query about why hydro/wave/tidal makes up so little of our energy mix. You simply get far more bang for buck in solar and wind.