Gas alert as demand and prices rise

[vtsnowedin]

No, it's not the plants fault - that's what they are designed to do.

Just like wind turbines do what they're designed to do - go round when it's windy and stop when it's calm.

Back to the UK, gas fired electricity went over 20GW this evening. They're burning like there's just been a tanker delivery!

The problem with wind is you can't just build three times as many to get up to 87% as it will be just as calm for a hundred of them as it is for one. At least the LNG can be delivered as long as you have the money.

[boisdevie]

At least the LNG can be delivered as long as you have the money.

And if you dont' have the money? Or if someone else is prepared to pay more?

[biffvernon]

The problem with wind is you can't just build three times as many to get up to 87% as it will be just as calm for a hundred of them as it is for one. At least the LNG can be delivered as long as you have the money.

It's not a problem. It a technology that is designed to have a 25% capacity factor.

There are three big advantages over LNG:

1. It delivers electricity after you've run out out of money.
2. It delivers electricity after the planet's run out out of gas.
3. It doesn't emit greenhouse gasses.

Win, win, win.

[PS_RalphW]

And if you spread your wind farms around the whole coastline, the chances of them all being becalmed at the same time falls sharply. It is almost always windy somewhere round the coast of Britain.

[vtsnowedin]

The problem with wind is you can't just build three times as many to get up to 87% as it will be just as calm for a hundred of them as it is for one. At least the LNG can be delivered as long as you have the money.

It's not a problem. It a technology that is designed to have a 25% capacity factor.

There are three big advantages over LNG:

1. It delivers electricity after you've run out out of money.
2. It delivers electricity after the planet's run out out of gas.
3. It doesn't emit greenhouse gasses.

Win, win, win.

#1 is wrong unless you are the owner of the windmill and it is bought and paid for. #2 is correct but #3 forgets about the GHG emitted buy the manufacturing and installation of the windmills.
Don't get me wrong. I think we should develop wind power where the wind conditions make them practical but I don't think you can replace more then five to ten percent of your power demand with wind mills without having your economy crippled by being weather dependant. Imagine telling the workers at a factory that they have the day off unpaid because it's calm today.
But five to ten percent is a good thing as that is five to ten percent you don't have to buy from Russia.
Our local wind farm was on the news this AM as they are being under utilised when the wind is blowing because they don't have first priority in the grid. Just one of those annoying little details that muddle up a good project.

[biffvernon]

#1 is wrong unless you are the owner of the windmill and it is bought and paid for. #2 is correct but #3 forgets about the GHG emitted buy the manufacturing and installation of the windmills.

The energy payback time (and that is equivalent to the money payback time - or should be) is of the order of six months.

So, give or take the six months #1 and #3 are correct.

[vtsnowedin]

And if you spread your wind farms around the whole coastline, the chances of them all being becalmed at the same time falls sharply. It is almost always windy somewhere round the coast of Britain.

I'm betting that optimistically favorable locations and build-out of wind mills are already included in the 34% capacity figure. But yes anywhere the grid is present so transmission cost are within reason should be used to catch the wind where it is blowing today. One next to Parliament should do well don't you think?

[Tarrel]

And if you spread your wind farms around the whole coastline, the chances of them all being becalmed at the same time falls sharply. It is almost always windy somewhere round the coast of Britain.

I'm betting that optimistically favorable locations and build-out of wind mills are already included in the 34% capacity figure. But yes anywhere the grid is present so transmission cost are within reason should be used to catch the wind where it is blowing today. One next to Parliament should do well don't you think?

Yep, with the added benefit that most of the wind blowing is hot air!

[Tarrel]

Quote vtsnowedin:

Imagine telling the workers at a factory that they have the day off unpaid because it's calm today.

OK, call me an idealist, but that's actually not a bad idea. Imagine a steady-state economy with a high percentage of the population employed for fewer hours, those hours being partly dictated by energy availability. In their spare time, people focus on being "prosumers", living semi-self-sufficiently, or engaged in local trade of skills or products. Alternatively, the spare time could be spent contributing to community work in return for a "community payment". I'm talking real contributory work, such as helping at the local hospital or school, not work-creation for the sake of it.

So, people spend part of their time employed in the private sector, producing genuine goods and services to satisfy local need, and to trade with other economies, part of their time being self-sufficient and reducing their need for consumption (and therefore monetary income) and part of their time contributing to public service, avoiding the need for a bloated "public sector" of full-time employees.

Just a thought-starter..

[vtsnowedin]

#1 is wrong unless you are the owner of the windmill and it is bought and paid for. #2 is correct but #3 forgets about the GHG emitted buy the manufacturing and installation of the windmills.

The energy payback time (and that is equivalent to the money payback time - or should be) is of the order of six months.

So, give or take the six months #1 and #3 are correct.

My understanding is that absent government tax breaks and rules requiring the power to be purchased at rates well above retail by the utilities none of the wind farms being built in the US would be considered as a sound investment.
At some point in the future when energy prices are much higher then today they probably will be viable and that day may come in the UK before it does in the US but for now the government has the figures muddled.

[PS_RalphW]

The US is still blessed (?) with massive amounts of cheap coal and large amounts of relatively cheap natural gas and a large number of nuclear power stations which have decades of operational life left, and no liability for clean up costs, and lots of hydro electricity virtually free.

So wind does struggle to compete in that environment, given that the wind profile is generally less favourable in the US. Solar PV or solar thermal in the southern US makes more economic sense.

The UK has world's best wind resource, has already burnt most of its coal, oil and gas, crumbling infrastructure and end of life nuclear and coal plant. And lots of clouds.

Here wind makes a lot of sense. Every KWh of electricity from wind is one less KWh of NG burnt and saved for heating our hopelessly draughty houses.

UK houses are to heat efficiency what US SUVs are to fuel efficiency.

[biffvernon]

Fossil fuel is cheap for two reasons.

1. The cost of buying a replacement planet when this one is wrecked is not included.
2. Future generations, who might want a share of the stuff, are not allowed to bid in the market place since the market rules are that you have to have been already born.

[vtsnowedin]

So wind does struggle to compete in that environment, given that the wind profile is generally less favourable in the US. .

You obviously have not visited the plains states such as North Dakota. Wind mills there have to have fail safe devices on them to turn them out of excessively high winds before the fly apart.
There is another thread here with a bubble chart of per capita oil and gas reserves. If you look down into the bar graphs and figures you can compare reserves to extraction rate and predict and end to the resource. The UK's is in about four years and the mighty US the next Saudi Arabia is in about six. There is the coal of course but if you tried to substitute coal for crude oil you would find it doesn't work in planes very well without expensive conversion to liquid form and it would not last long if you added on 20mbdoe of demand to the present use of coal. I think we both have plenty to worry about.

[mikepepler]

Lots of gas drawn out of storage in the past two days. The previous lowest storage level on record was 17 March 2010, when we had a total of 4,932GWh, split as LRS 2959, MRS 1357, SRS 616

The 4pm update yesterday showed 3,399GWh in storage, split as LRS 1150, MRS 2200, SRS 49.

It'll be interesting to see the 4pm update today, I suspect more will have been drawn out...

Also, by 28 March 2010, over 3,200GWh had already been reinjected to stores after the low, whereas this year it looks like we won't be putting much back in through the whole of April...

Even if we scrape through the remainder of this winter, we are not in a good position already for next winter...

[clv101]

I still think there's a good chance some industrial users will be interrupted over the next week or two.

We're going to have to buy/import far more gas this summer than every before. Expect another round of price hikes soon.