Deloitte on UK electricity to 2020

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2006, 07:54

skeptik wrote: Suggest Iceland. Bit more practical. They seem to be doing quite nicely on Geothermal. They've only got a few vehicles running on Hydrogen so far but the potential is there to do the whole Hydrogen economy schtick..

Not just geothermal, they also have a lot of hydro-electricity. Hence their aluminium industry.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2006, 14:09

Whoops, we don't quite seem to be getting the message across:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4765884.stm

Post by **clv101** » 02 Mar 2006, 14:25

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Any government that wants to expand airports and turn down wind farms is simply not fit to govern.

I think Tindale is right. This is clear message to the optimists that even though a solution to the UK energy gap in 2020 is technically possible... it's unlikely to happen. I can guarantee you that the key objectors to this wind farm are not aware of the status of the North Sea, the existing nuclear fleet and the cost of importing 70% of our gas supply from Russia. There's no way anyone could object to building a wind farm knowing what the UK energy landscape looks like.

Here's a quote from the DTI in Feb:

Provisional figures for 2005 show total production to be 216.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent, 9.3 per cent lower than in 2004. Within this production of petroleum fell by 11.2 per cent, production of Natural Gas fell by 8.2 per cent and production of co

Latest three months
Total production of indigenous primary fuels in the three months to December 2005 stood at 54.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent, 9.9 per cent lower than the corresponding period a year ago.

For the three months October 2005 to December 2005 compared to the same period a year earlier:
- production of petroleum fell by 12.1 per cent;
- production of natural gas fell by 8.8 per cent;
- production of coal and other solid fuels fell by 11.7 per cent;
- electricity produced from nuclear sources fell by 1.6 per cent;
- electricity produced from wind and natural flow hydro fell by 10.4 per cent.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/ene ... ndex.shtml

Post by **mikepepler** » 02 Mar 2006, 16:16

clv101 wrote: For the three months October 2005 to December 2005 compared to the same period a year earlier:
- production of petroleum fell by 12.1 per cent;
- production of natural gas fell by 8.8 per cent;
- production of coal and other solid fuels fell by 11.7 per cent;
- electricity produced from nuclear sources fell by 1.6 per cent;
- electricity produced from wind and natural flow hydro fell by 10.4 per cent.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/ene ... ndex.shtml

Well that's just great. I shall go out to the pub this evening with a real spring in my step! Not! You'd think this would be headline news, wouldn't you? If it was hospital beds, school results or unemployment figures there'd be an outcry!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2006, 20:36

>electricity produced from wind and natural flow hydro fell by 10.4 per cent.

Why was that? I thought we were expanding the turbine numbers (albeit far too slowly) and the rivers havn't stoppped running.

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 02 Mar 2006, 20:43

Drought ?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:46

Ballard wrote:Hmm, it's daft I know but..

If the UK land area is 241590 square kilometres

Wind turbines, spacing what? 300M between each one so 9 per square Km

95,000 turbines divided by 9 = 10,555 Sq km

241590 / 10555 = 22.88%

So we need to cover approx 25% of the UK with wind turbines.

What sort of maths is this ?

i think you meant 10555/241590 = 4.3%

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:47

No hydro stations in Dover and Folkestone - it rains as much as ever in Scotland.

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 02 Mar 2006, 21:55

What sort of maths is this ?

i think you meant 10555/241590 = 4.3%

How embarrassing, quite right ....

4.3% , almost sounds do-able.

You would think we could find 4.3%, which could get past planning objections.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 02 Mar 2006, 22:00

Ballard wrote:
What sort of maths is this ?

i think you meant 10555/241590 = 4.3%
How embarrassing, quite right ....

4.3% , almost sounds do-able.

You would think we could find 4.3%, which could get past planning objections.

Apologies for being picky , your point is still valid though, we are in deep sh*t!

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 03 Mar 2006, 00:51

Totally_Baffled wrote:
Ballard wrote:Hmm, it's daft I know but..

If the UK land area is 241590 square kilometres

Wind turbines, spacing what? 300M between each one so 9 per square Km

95,000 turbines divided by 9 = 10,555 Sq km

241590 / 10555 = 22.88%

So we need to cover approx 25% of the UK with wind turbines.
What sort of maths is this ?

i think you meant 10555/241590 = 4.3%

About the maths . . .

If that's 9km2 per turbine, X 90,000 turbines, the land requirement is 810,000 km2.

810000/241590 = 335.3% of UK land area.

Sounds somewhat tricky in practice -

Regards,

Bill.

PS why is it that no one is criticizing the scope of the options being considered ?

Isn't that exactly the limitation that has over 30 years brought us to this mess ?

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 03 Mar 2006, 02:03

Er, no

300m is 0.3km, so 0.3kmx0.3km is 0.09km^2 -> x 95000 = 8550km^2 (3.5%)

The idea of "divide a 1km^2 plot by 9 turbines" leaves a L-shaped 100m strip in each plot so it is a fair approximation.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Mar 2006, 08:11

I think 300m spacing is a bit generous. The Ecotricity turbines near me seem to be at a density of at least 20 per square kilometre, giving 16megawatts per square km (when the wind blows). And remember that the actual footprint on the grass is very small so you can fit a lot of sheep in the spaces in between. If the sheep are harvested for wool and it gets converted into 'thermafleece' house insulation and knitted jumpers, socks and bobble hats, we might be almost there. Or you could grow elephant grass as a biofuel between the turbines to keep you warm on the calm days.

Neily at the peak · Post by **Neily at the peak** » 03 Mar 2006, 11:15

We already have 3 turbines just outside our village more than enough for the local communities, this had enough opposition in the first place. There is now an application for another four going in. The problem I face is that I have to be fairly diplomatic due to our business in the village and not wanting to upset people. However the main objection apart from the looks of the thing and it's impact on tourism e.t.c. is the intermittancy of the power produced. Does anyone have any ideas as to how I could answer this objection?

Neil

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 03 Mar 2006, 11:23

Neily at the peak wrote: However the main objection apart from the looks of the thing and it's impact on tourism e.t.c. is the intermittancy of the power produced. Does anyone have any ideas as to how I could answer this objection?

Neil

Say that if the country doesn't build 95,000 of these things/30 nuclear power stations /whatever the other options were, in the next 14 years, the last thing people are going to be worrying about is visiting nice bits of Devon? And the power supply will then be either exceedingly intermittant, or non-existent,

Peter.