OT - Wind Turbines


J

John

It just occurred to me after reading of a local utility wanting to erect a
wind turbine on its site:

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have their
own turbine on their own property? Why don't they sponsor a large and
efficient one elsewhere.

I guess the answer is to look good to the local green people.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

John said:
It just occurred to me after reading of a local utility wanting to erect a
wind turbine on its site:

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have their
own turbine on their own property? Why don't they sponsor a large and
efficient one elsewhere.
It might be too complicated to sort out the buying and selling of
kWh units the sponsored one would generate. If they have their own,
then all the kWh it generates which they use themselves is free,
and if they generate more than they need, they can sell it back
to the grid (making the meter run backwards).
 
T

Tim Streater

John said:
It just occurred to me after reading of a local utility wanting to erect a
wind turbine on its site:

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have their
own turbine on their own property? Why don't they sponsor a large and
efficient one elsewhere.

I guess the answer is to look good to the local green people.
I suppose the answer is locally produced locally consumed. But you are
right in that the investment payback time reduces quickly as the turbine
size goes up.

My niece who is keen on these things and works in that business says
that the 200k people to be supplied by the new Thanet offshore jobby is
about right and based on about a 30% load factor. I've asked her to
quote me a business case that one might make to build such a setup -
i.e. all the figures involved so we can see how it stacks up. She also
said that the cost of Thanet (about £750M, as I recall) was a bit high
but not too far off (I think she was expecting about £600M).

She also made the point that:

It is often said that as wind is intermittent, we need backup for all
wind sourced electricity. But gas/nuclear have non-100% load factors
too, so there is extra capacity to cope with that. She felt that the
backup issue wouldn't become significant until such time as 15% or so of
our leccy came from wind.

My feeling is having built e.g. Thanet we can then see how it works,
whether 30% is reached and whether it costs trillions in ongoing
maintenance. Point is that bullshit greenwash will - if it exists in a
particular case - be found out in the long run. Just saying "No more
boom and bust!" don't actually make it so.
 
D

Dave Liquorice

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have
their own turbine on their own property?
These days FITs (Feed In Tarrifs) get paid 40 odd p/unit(*) for every
one you generate wether you use it yourself or export it to the grid
(if you do export you get a few pence more).

(*) Sliding scale depending on the capacity of the set small ones, up
to 15kW IIRC, get 40+p/unit, big ones (mega watt) are down to few
pence/unit.
 
H

harry

It just occurred to me after reading of a local utility wanting to erect a
wind turbine on its site:

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have their
own turbine on their own property? Why don't they sponsor a large and
efficient one elsewhere.

I guess the answer is to look good to the local green people.
When it comes to the harsh economics, they are a waste of space. The
gov. is trying to encourage private individuals to buy PV panels and
windmills by making elecricity supplyers offer high prices for "green"
electricity generated (whether you use it yourself or feed it into the
grid.) We all pay for it through our electricity bills.
The thinking is that at present, if you have money in the bank, you'll
get a bigger income from a windmill. There are lots of pitfalls
however, I have looked into this.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

John said:
It just occurred to me after reading of a local utility wanting to erect a
wind turbine on its site:

As we have a National Grid, why do organisations see a need to have their
own turbine on their own property? Why don't they sponsor a large and
efficient one elsewhere.
They cant trade carbon certificates if its someone elses. These are
trading at high value.


I guess the answer is to look good to the local green people.
Well that as well.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Ronald said:
It might be too complicated to sort out the buying and selling of
kWh units the sponsored one would generate. If they have their own,
then all the kWh it generates which they use themselves is free,
and if they generate more than they need, they can sell it back
to the grid (making the meter run backwards).
There is no point in using the electricity themselves. It is worth three
times or more as much if sold to a unsuspecting grid. Its cheaper to buy
nuclear and resell it as wind.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Tim said:
I suppose the answer is locally produced locally consumed. But you are
right in that the investment payback time reduces quickly as the turbine
size goes up.

My niece who is keen on these things and works in that business says
that the 200k people to be supplied by the new Thanet offshore jobby is
about right and based on about a 30% load factor. I've asked her to
quote me a business case that one might make to build such a setup -
i.e. all the figures involved so we can see how it stacks up. She also
said that the cost of Thanet (about �750M, as I recall) was a bit high
but not too far off (I think she was expecting about �600M).

She also made the point that:

It is often said that as wind is intermittent, we need backup for all
wind sourced electricity. But gas/nuclear have non-100% load factors
too, so there is extra capacity to cope with that. She felt that the
backup issue wouldn't become significant until such time as 15% or so of
our leccy came from wind.
Your niece needs to study some engineering.And get a new job. Nuclear
is 95% or more uptime and load factor, and it rarely suffers unscheduled
downtime. Ditto CCGT etc etc.

Wind is always unscheduled downtime, every minute of every day. Means
the backup plant has to be at least partly spinning reserve. Burning
gas, going nowhere.


My feeling is having built e.g. Thanet we can then see how it works,
whether 30% is reached and whether it costs trillions in ongoing
maintenance.
And carbon fuel to put in the helicopters ad boats. And backuyop generators.

The experience of Denmark is with 100% plus wind CAPACITY, at best they
are generating 6-10% AVERAGE from windpower, and burning MORE gas to do
it than if they had no sodding mills at all.. And electricity is 2-3
times the price it is anywhere else.

Total disaster on cost, carbon reduction and efficiency.



Point is that bullshit greenwash will - if it exists in a
particular case - be found out in the long run.
But far too late to save a nations power supply sadly.


Just saying "No more
boom and bust!" don't actually make it so.
Renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money, and should be
banned.

Apart from waste burning, which makes complete sense.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Grimly said:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher


<listens for sound>

Ah yes, the NP's drum.

Istr that Denmark uses Norway's and Sweden's hydro schemes as pumped
storage.
Did you just forget that little snippet?
Indeed they do. It STILL doesn't make for any useful carbon reduction.

If they can't do it, we haven't a cats chance in hell.
 
A

Another Dave

It is often said that as wind is intermittent, we need backup for all
wind sourced electricity. But gas/nuclear have non-100% load factors
too, so there is extra capacity to cope with that. She felt that the
backup issue wouldn't become significant until such time as 15% or so of
our leccy came from wind.
The reason conventional power sources have non-100% load factors is that
they are turned down or even off when nobody wants the electricity, e.g.
at 2 am.

Pixie power can produce 100% power at 2 am and zero power at 6 pm when
everybody switches the kettle on.

It is also hugely expensive. IMO it is also dangerous in that
well-meaning people think they are doing something about climate change
when it is irrelevant.

We only need a mix of power sources if we come to depend (God forbid) on
wind and solar. The French are all nuclear with some hydroelectric (they
have the Alps and Pyrenees, we don't).

Another Dave
 
T

Tim Streater

The Natural Philosopher said:
The experience of Denmark is with 100% plus wind CAPACITY, at best they
are generating 6-10% AVERAGE from windpower, and burning MORE gas to do
it than if they had no sodding mills at all.. And electricity is 2-3
times the price it is anywhere else.
Source pls. And is that on or off-shore wind they have. I'll see what
she says about it :)
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Clive said:
Can you tell me where you got those numbers from?
Cant remember now..some danish reports on average actual windpower
generated in the last three years, taken up by the danish grid. ad their
actual last 5 years gas imports.

here we go
CEPOS Center for Politikishe studier
WIND ENERGY
THE CASE OF DENMARK
Sept 2009

"The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind
overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently
(2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual electricity consumption
with an average over the last five years of 9.7%."

"Over the last eight years West Denmark has exported (couldn’t use), on
average, 57% of the wind power it generated and East Denmark an average
of 45%.The correlation between high wind output and net outflows makes
the case that there is a large component of wind energy in the outflow
indisputable."

"The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel
consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By
necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely
carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor
are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway."

Or if you prefer the German viewpoint:

RUHR economic papers
Economic Impacts
from the Promotion of
Renewable Energy Technologies
The German Experience
NOV 2009

"Although renewable energies have a potentially beneficial role to play
as part of Germany’s energy portfolio, the commonly advanced argument
that renewables confer a double dividend or “win-win solution†in the
form of environmental stewardship and economic prosperity is
disingenuous. In this article, we argue that Germany’s principal
mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through feed-in tariffs,
in fact, imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts
on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological
innovation.
First, as a consequence of the prevailing coexistence of the
Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS), the increased use of renewable energy technologies triggered by
the EEG does not imply any additional emission reductions beyond those
already achieved by ETS alone, if the two instruments are not
coordinated. This is in line with Morthorst (2003), who analyzes the
promotion of renewable energy usage by alternative instruments using a
three-country example. If not coordinated, this study’s results
suggest that renewable support schemes are questionable climate policy
instruments in the presence of the ETS.
Second, numerous empirical studies have consistently shown the
net employment balance to be zero or even negative in the long run, a
consequence of the high opportunity cost of supporting renewable energy
technologies. Indeed, it is most likely that whatever jobs are created
by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support
is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from
the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such
as the US.
Third, rather than promoting energy security, the need for backup power
from fossil fuels means that renewables increase Germany’s dependence on
gas imports, most of which come from Russia. And finally, the system of
feed-in tariffs stifles competition among renewable energy producers and
creates perverse incentives to lock into existing technologies.
Hence, although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is
commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in
providing a harvest for the world†(The Guardian 2007), we would instead
regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively
expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of
economic and environmental benefits. As other European governments
emulate Germany by ramping up their promotion of renewables, policy
makers should scrutinize the logic of supporting energy sources that
cannot compete on the market in the absence of government assistance."


The most tragically telling comes from this scholarly Estonian study

"The following questions are analysed:
- How much wind power capacity will it be technical possible to
inte grate into the Estonian power system and the Baltic power system?
- How to deal with uncertainty about forecasting of the wind power
production?
- What are the additional costs for the system of wind power
integration?
- How does wind power deployment influence the electricity prices in
the region?
- What is the role of the electricity market in the integration of
wind power?

Other aspects regarding wind power integration are the technical
requirements for connection of wind power to the grid (grid code
issues), and the economic viability of wind power deployment from a
socio economical viewpoint and from a stakeholder viewpoint (economic
evaluation). These aspects are not dealt with in detail in this study."

Note that nowhere is the question ASKED, let alone answered 'what impact
on fossil fuel use (if any) will all this windpower have?

Ther are so many studies I have read, that its hard to track down any
given factoid out of the miles of verbiage. Suffice to say the most
optimistic estimate was irish, that you might be able to use half teh
windpower you generated to save fossil fuel. The most pessimistic was
that you would in fact burn more fuel backing up windmills than not
having them at all. I think that as in the context of Lithuanian oil
shale existing plant, which does not dispatch well. Alternatively they
could install new gas turbine plant, and become dependent on Russian gas...
 
H

harry

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher


<listens for sound>

Ah yes, the NP's drum.

Istr that Denmark uses Norway's and Sweden's hydro schemes as pumped
storage.
Did you just forget that little snippet?
The Denmark scheme has the advantage that they can export surplus
power to Germany/Sweden/Norway. (They have far more windmills than
they need for home consumption.). Not an option open to us. There is
one small link to France & another in the offing.
Windmills also create instability in the system that is hard to
overcome.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Another said:
The reason conventional power sources have non-100% load factors is that
they are turned down or even off when nobody wants the electricity, e.g.
at 2 am.

Pixie power can produce 100% power at 2 am and zero power at 6 pm when
everybody switches the kettle on.

It is also hugely expensive. IMO it is also dangerous in that
well-meaning people think they are doing something about climate change
when it is irrelevant.

We only need a mix of power sources if we come to depend (God forbid) on
wind and solar. The French are all nuclear with some hydroelectric (they
have the Alps and Pyrenees, we don't).
France is 78% nuclear. They turn their nukes down at night too. 100%
nuclear is possible although its less than an ideal way to run the
plant, by modulating the reactors. In many ways its better simply to
waste the steam into the sea. Its costs no carbon to make it after all,
and the nuclear fuel is a trivial cost compared with the rest.

Or sell off peak energy at such low prices its a no brainer to put in
heat banks to store it for the next day.

My winter heat requirements peak out at 10KW. let's say I need to store
8am to midnight worth of heat. in a tank that never drops below 60
degrees, but I will allow to go to 90 degrees.

that's 160Kwh oh heat. so I will be charging at night at a healthy 20KW
rate. Pretty hard on my 100A supply and transformer, but doable just.

It would shag the grid if everybody did it mind you, but heck if we are
using electricity, not fossil to heat houses, that's gonna happen
whoever generates it.

Let's say I have a 30 degree working range, and ignore heat losses. Lots
of lovely celotex round my underground tank of hot water...with its heat
exchangers.In fact all it is is a concrete cast tank with 6 3KW
immersion heaters stuck in it on three rings. And a bloody great coil of
copper pipe coupled to a pump..that replaces my boiler and pump, and
heats my rads at anything up to 60C as well as my DHW.

I can store 30 calories per gram. 30 kilocalories per kilogram and 30
megacalories per cubic meter of hot water, with that temperature range.

30 megacalories is about 35 Kwh, and I only NEED 20.. So a 1 meter cube
tank buried in insulation, under the middle of my house, plus some DIY
pipework and readily available standard parts enables me to completely
replace a domestic 10KW oil boiler with totally cheap rate electricity.
And completely meet a large house heating and DHW requirements.

This is energy storage that really works. Make that a bath 7 meter long,
1 meter wide and 1 meter deep, and it will run me for a WEEK . Now the
ground plan of my house is about 160 square meters Put a 1 meter deep
tank under that lot, heat it to 90C and I have enough heat for 200 days
of full winter output!!

That's cost effective low grade energy storage. If I could then buy spot
power at a scalable price, I could take summer off peak and use it in
winter..pre buying my winter fuel in summer, and storing it up for the
winter.

Would I get a subsidy? Would I ****. Its simple, cheap and would really
help. Ergo its not eligible for a grant, which only goes to expensive,.
complicated and 'is no damned use'.

Lyn, Patent this if you read it.

IF such large scale hot water storage was implemented broadly, and off
peak electricity was made a little cheaper - this is cost neutral at an
offpeak price of about 4p a unit, excluding capital costs - this one
wins hands down.

Now add heatpumps..

(Note: fully utilised nuclear plant is about 4p a unit anyway: So it
works for that. Wind is about 10p-40p a unit, so you are screwed with
that of course.)
Finally, if there is a teeny bit of control gear that only cuts the
heaters in as the grid frequency rises above 50Hz, which essentially
signals that the grid is 'looking for load' you have a marvellous load
balancing system on the grid.

You will charge your heatbank when there is power surplus only. Or if
your heatbank is desperately cooling..But even that is actually doable
another way..if a weeks ultra cold weather is anticipated, the power
management can call on generation kit to keep the frequency a wee bit
high during each night, ensuring good charge, and drop it back hard for
short periods during the day to recover overall synchronisation. This
ensures everyone's heatbank is nice and hot..and during the cold spell,
run long periods of under frequency, and only shorter periods of very
high frequency to shorten everyones charging period.



Don't take this as a marvellous way to make wind power work though. The
idea of this is to try and reduce demand fluctuations to optimise
efficiency on nuclear and conventional sets, not to balance generation
instability by throwing massive circulation currents round a metastable
grid massively over specced grid subject to the random input of wildly
geographically dispersed totally unpredictable sustainable energy
sources..Oh no. we don't want that wind driven waste of grid capacity
thank you. The ideas is to make better use of what we have (already paid
for)

The idea is not to store windpower when you can, because you still have
to get it to the consumer. The idea is to fully utilise the grid and
steady generation capacity you have online, running at close to its best
efficiency ...

It's so simple cheap and clever that it has no chance of being adopted
however.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Tim said:
Source pls. And is that on or off-shore wind they have. I'll see what
she says about it :)
see earlier posting. For sources.

The MORE gas comes about because they aqre running into issues: a lot
of Denmark uses CHP for district heating. This cant use electricity
offpeak or otherwise, so they cant eat into that, nor can the switch it
off when the windblows cos they need the HEAT it produces. So although
they can ramp down coal, they have to then backup with gas instead,
because they need a LOT of backup.
Essentially what happens is that when the wind DOES blow, they either
simply dump the electricity, because no one wants it at all, or sell it
at uber low prices to Norway and Sweden, who simply switch off a few
hydro plants, which doesn't save any carbon either.

So no possible savings in carbon there, anywhere,.

When the wind doesn't blow, they have to import shitloads of hydro from
the interlinks, which is fine, but there isn't enough hydro to fully
back the sodding mills up, so they end up pusging the go button on some
gas turbine kit. And running that at part load and crap efficiency, and
Russian gas.

It's what happens when you let marketing dictated engineering policy
mate. A complete balls up.

Twas ever thus.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Clive said:
Right, so we're talking about different things. They're generating 20%
of their capacity from wind, but other countries are using a significant
proportion of that.


And when the wind is lower, is there inflow from Norway and Sweden? Coz
that would support the idea that the wind generation is doing well.
yes, but not nearly enough. And it doesn't save any carbon there anyway,
because they aren't using any (much) to start with.

So you have the position that an excess of windpower is thrown away or
exported, subsidised heavily by the Danish consumer, and saves no
carbon. It doesn't even generate DANISH carbon credits

A lack of windpower causes new expensive fast start gaq turbines that
never were used or needed before, to be swung in.

meanwhile Denmark's base load CHP kit, which really works and is very
efficient, would have to be replaced by something no ones invented yet,
and a load of heatpumps that probably would require completetely new
buildings to take advantage of the, and yet more expense.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Clive said:
That's not true. Hydro is one of the more effective ways of storing
energy, either via pumped storage, or just not running the thing and
letting the reservoir fill up.
that isn;t actually what I disputed.

I merely noted that a surplus of windpower exported into a 100% hydro
country saves no carbon in that country. And saves no carbon in the
country of origin either.

It merely displaces a cheap efficient form of carbon free energy
(hydropower) with an expensive inefficent one (wind power) run across
long expensive and not 100% efficient interlinks.

It's a lose lose situation really.

It would be nice if the hydropwer could then be used to back the
windmills up, but there isn't enough interlink and besides, the Swedes
and so on rather want to use it themselves, especially in dry (and
rather windless) years.

And don't probably see why they should turn it into pumped storage at
their expense merely to make Danish stupidity seem less so.

The Danes are free to make their electricity only 4 times as expensive
as they need be, and rent a bit of Sweden to build a measly couple of
gigawatts pumped if they want, I suppose, and their two billion Euro
interconncetor to it, but it's not the Swedes problem, really it's not.
 
L

Lyndsay

France is 78% nuclear. They turn their nukes down at night too. 100%
nuclear is possible although its less than an ideal way to run the
plant, by modulating the reactors. In many ways its better simply to
waste the steam into the sea. Its costs no carbon to make it after all,
and the nuclear fuel is a trivial cost compared with the rest.

Or sell off peak energy at such low prices its a no brainer to put in
heat banks to store it for the next day.

My winter heat requirements peak out at 10KW. let's say I need to store
8am to midnight worth of heat. in a tank that never drops below 60
degrees, but I will allow to go to 90 degrees.

that's 160Kwh oh heat. so I will be charging at night at a healthy 20KW
rate. Pretty hard on my 100A supply and transformer, but doable just.

It would shag the grid if everybody did it mind you, but heck if we are
using electricity, not fossil to heat houses, that's gonna happen
whoever generates it.

Let's say I have a 30 degree working range, and ignore heat losses. Lots
of lovely celotex round my underground tank of hot water...with its heat
exchangers.In fact all it is is a concrete cast tank with 6 3KW
immersion heaters stuck in it on three rings. And a bloody great coil of
copper pipe coupled to a pump..that replaces my boiler and pump, and
heats my rads at anything up to 60C as well as my DHW.

I can store 30 calories per gram. 30 kilocalories per kilogram and 30
megacalories per cubic meter of  hot water, with that temperature range..

30 megacalories is about 35 Kwh, and I only NEED 20.. So a 1 meter cube
tank buried in insulation, under the middle of my house, plus some DIY
pipework and readily available standard parts enables me to completely
replace a domestic 10KW oil boiler with totally cheap rate electricity.
And completely meet a large house heating and DHW requirements.

This is energy storage that really works. Make that a bath 7 meter long,
1 meter wide and 1 meter deep, and it will run me for a WEEK . Now the
ground plan of my house is about 160 square meters Put a 1 meter deep
tank under that lot, heat it to 90C and I have enough heat for 200 days
of full winter output!!

That's cost effective low grade energy storage. If I could then buy spot
power at a scalable price, I could take summer off peak and use it in
winter..pre buying my winter fuel in summer, and storing it up for the
winter.

Would I get a subsidy? Would I ****. Its simple, cheap and would really
help. Ergo its not eligible for a grant, which only goes to expensive,.
complicated and 'is no damned use'.

Lyn, Patent this if you read it.

IF such large scale hot water storage was implemented broadly, and off
peak electricity was made a little cheaper - this is cost neutral at an
offpeak price of about 4p a unit, excluding capital costs - this one
wins hands down.

Now add heatpumps..

(Note: fully utilised nuclear plant is about 4p a unit anyway: So it
works for that. Wind is about 10p-40p a unit, so you are screwed with
that of course.)
Finally, if there is a teeny bit of control gear that only cuts the
heaters in as the grid frequency rises above 50Hz, which essentially
signals that the grid is 'looking for load' you have a marvellous load
balancing system on the grid.

You will charge your heatbank when there is power surplus only. Or if
your heatbank is desperately cooling..But even that is actually doable
another way..if a weeks ultra cold weather is anticipated, the power
management can call on generation kit to keep the frequency a wee bit
high during each night, ensuring good charge, and drop it back hard for
short periods during the day to recover overall synchronisation. This
ensures everyone's heatbank is nice and hot..and during the cold spell,
run long periods of under frequency, and only shorter periods of very
high frequency to shorten everyones charging period.

Don't take this as a marvellous way to make wind power work though. The
idea of this is to try and reduce demand fluctuations to optimise
efficiency on nuclear and conventional sets, not to balance generation
instability by throwing massive circulation currents round a metastable
grid massively over specced grid subject to the random input of wildly
geographically dispersed totally unpredictable sustainable energy
sources..Oh no. we don't want that wind driven waste of grid capacity
thank you. The ideas is to make better use of what we have (already paid
for)

The idea is not to store windpower when you can, because you still have
to get it to the consumer. The idea is to fully utilise the grid and
steady generation capacity you have online, running at close to its best
efficiency ...

It's so simple cheap and clever that it has no chance of being adopted
however.
TNP, wonderful!
We will discuss tomorrow face to face!

L
 
Ad

Advertisements

L

Lyndsay

France is 78% nuclear. They turn their nukes down at night too. 100%
nuclear is possible although its less than an ideal way to run the
plant, by modulating the reactors. In many ways its better simply to
waste the steam into the sea. Its costs no carbon to make it after all,
and the nuclear fuel is a trivial cost compared with the rest.

Or sell off peak energy at such low prices its a no brainer to put in
heat banks to store it for the next day.

My winter heat requirements peak out at 10KW. let's say I need to store
8am to midnight worth of heat. in a tank that never drops below 60
degrees, but I will allow to go to 90 degrees.

that's 160Kwh oh heat. so I will be charging at night at a healthy 20KW
rate. Pretty hard on my 100A supply and transformer, but doable just.

It would shag the grid if everybody did it mind you, but heck if we are
using electricity, not fossil to heat houses, that's gonna happen
whoever generates it.

Let's say I have a 30 degree working range, and ignore heat losses. Lots
of lovely celotex round my underground tank of hot water...with its heat
exchangers.In fact all it is is a concrete cast tank with 6 3KW
immersion heaters stuck in it on three rings. And a bloody great coil of
copper pipe coupled to a pump..that replaces my boiler and pump, and
heats my rads at anything up to 60C as well as my DHW.

I can store 30 calories per gram. 30 kilocalories per kilogram and 30
megacalories per cubic meter of  hot water, with that temperature range..

30 megacalories is about 35 Kwh, and I only NEED 20.. So a 1 meter cube
tank buried in insulation, under the middle of my house, plus some DIY
pipework and readily available standard parts enables me to completely
replace a domestic 10KW oil boiler with totally cheap rate electricity.
And completely meet a large house heating and DHW requirements.

This is energy storage that really works. Make that a bath 7 meter long,
1 meter wide and 1 meter deep, and it will run me for a WEEK . Now the
ground plan of my house is about 160 square meters Put a 1 meter deep
tank under that lot, heat it to 90C and I have enough heat for 200 days
of full winter output!!

That's cost effective low grade energy storage. If I could then buy spot
power at a scalable price, I could take summer off peak and use it in
winter..pre buying my winter fuel in summer, and storing it up for the
winter.

Would I get a subsidy? Would I ****. Its simple, cheap and would really
help. Ergo its not eligible for a grant, which only goes to expensive,.
complicated and 'is no damned use'.

Lyn, Patent this if you read it.

IF such large scale hot water storage was implemented broadly, and off
peak electricity was made a little cheaper - this is cost neutral at an
offpeak price of about 4p a unit, excluding capital costs - this one
wins hands down.

Now add heatpumps..

(Note: fully utilised nuclear plant is about 4p a unit anyway: So it
works for that. Wind is about 10p-40p a unit, so you are screwed with
that of course.)
Finally, if there is a teeny bit of control gear that only cuts the
heaters in as the grid frequency rises above 50Hz, which essentially
signals that the grid is 'looking for load' you have a marvellous load
balancing system on the grid.

You will charge your heatbank when there is power surplus only. Or if
your heatbank is desperately cooling..But even that is actually doable
another way..if a weeks ultra cold weather is anticipated, the power
management can call on generation kit to keep the frequency a wee bit
high during each night, ensuring good charge, and drop it back hard for
short periods during the day to recover overall synchronisation. This
ensures everyone's heatbank is nice and hot..and during the cold spell,
run long periods of under frequency, and only shorter periods of very
high frequency to shorten everyones charging period.

Don't take this as a marvellous way to make wind power work though. The
idea of this is to try and reduce demand fluctuations to optimise
efficiency on nuclear and conventional sets, not to balance generation
instability by throwing massive circulation currents round a metastable
grid massively over specced grid subject to the random input of wildly
geographically dispersed totally unpredictable sustainable energy
sources..Oh no. we don't want that wind driven waste of grid capacity
thank you. The ideas is to make better use of what we have (already paid
for)

The idea is not to store windpower when you can, because you still have
to get it to the consumer. The idea is to fully utilise the grid and
steady generation capacity you have online, running at close to its best
efficiency ...

It's so simple cheap and clever that it has no chance of being adopted
however.
TNP,
I am running this bit of excellent kit
http://www.alertme.com/products/energy
(Cambridge company)
for just £29, an AC clamp around the electricity in my house is sent
to web browser.
I guess I have knocked off 10 to 20% of elect bill just seeing
wastage.
It's also good when I'm away from home and can spot what's happening
in my house, e.g. daughter getting up.
Kitchen activity, e.g. kettle on, oven, dishwasher. If my Mum had one
I would know Mum was safe and active at home.

Highly recommended (I have no association with the company)
Lyn
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Wind Turbines 19
Wind turbine Hack 9
Wind turbines (again ...) 18
B & Q Wind Turbine 19
B & Q wind turbines ? 63
Ridge vent or wind turbines? 10
The wind turbines were turned off... 9
New technology wind turbine for TNP 47

Top