Drax Output to be Reduced after 2027

[The Ham]

Wasnt Grenfell a fridge freezer? Are you advocating they are turned off at night and when youre not in?

It was indeed a fridge freezer (we had a similar aged one from the same brand, and checked the model number carefully).

Yes but with China burning through 5 Billion Tonnes last year when UK at its absolutely worst case never got through more than 300M Tonnes whatever we do now isn't going to materially help the globe until China is making a serious downward trend into this. Thats not to say we shouldn't keep moving in a downward direction but Ed Milibands push towards to 2030 is too fast. A more relaxed target should be followed and one that ensure maximum benefit to UK jobs not overseas manufacturers that the current rush will require as our renewables manufacturing base is very poor currently.

Part of the need for speed (and the fact that whilst China is building a lot of renewables it's still needing coal) is the uptake of EV's.

This means that you need to produce more electricity than you were the year before, although it does mean that less petrol/diesel is being used than if there wasn't the uptake in EV's.

It's also worth noting that building things slowly doesn't always result in lower costs, as construction inflation (which can be quite a bit higher than general inflation) can mean that the cost to build something in 5 years time is more than building it now.

How much varies quite a bit, however generally the sooner you build something the cheaper it is.

 

[Richard123]

The climate doesn’t care about pollution per capita, only total emissions matter.

Yes, we industrialised with coal because that was available at the time. Countries making the transition now have a choice to do it in a clean way.

A quick google suggests China might hit peak coal this year, but there are many articles claiming previous years would be the peak and it wasn’t.

It’s not that we shouldn’t do anything, but that most of what we do is fiddling round the edges when China is building more new coal plants than the entire output of the UK. We have been decarbonising fairly successfully for the last few decades, but are other countries following our lead, or just taking advantage of cheap and dirty methods we won’t use any more?

And total emissions are per capita x population. Your argument is that smaller countries don't need to do much until a big country reduces its emissions far deeper, per capita.

That country could make a very valid argument that it is doing far more, faster and at far more cost to its own development than the UK did.

I'm not going to argue further because you are clearly wedded to your views that our rate of pollution doesn't need rapid action. But excuses to delay are attractive and that's why oil and gas, and their puppets in politics, push them so hard.

 

[Class 170101]

How often do we get magnitude 9 earthquakes in the UK?

None but there are other weather phenomen that could cause just as much damage. Need I mention 1953 Floods or 1987 Hurricane Force Winds.

 

[Krokodil]

None but there are other weather phenomen that could cause just as much damage. Need I mention 1953 Floods or 1987 Hurricane Force Winds.

Did any past, present, or future nuclear site get inundated in those events?

Meanwhile on the other side of the continent engineers are working hard to keep nuclear power stations safe while under attack from an indiscriminate enemy. I don't think that the UK has much to worry about by comparison.

 

[notverydeep]

Did any past, present, or future nuclear site get inundated in those events?

Meanwhile on the other side of the continent engineers are working hard to keep nuclear power stations safe while under attack from an indiscriminate enemy. I don't think that the UK has much to worry about by comparison.

There have been significant Tsunami events in the UK in the past. Mega thrust earthquakes that could be generated in the Caribbean or close to Portugal which might lead to a UK affecting tsunami. Tsunamis related to volcanic or under sea landslides are also a hazard, such as the Storegga Slide off Norway. While these are rare, the builders of Hinckley Point C will be aware of them and will be planning mitigation measures accordingly. I would expect that tsunami mitigation will have been reviewed at all coastal nuclear sites following the Fukushima incident.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exactly. I have no intel on the subject, but after this rather prolonged spell of colder weather, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are running a bit tight on the gas stocks front. Fortunately the sun has helped a bit, and it will again tomorrow, then it warms up and the wind starts blowing. Expect 20GW+ Sunday lunchtime!

Or even now. 21.6GW wind, and nearly 3GW Solar (on a dull day in February). Drax has been turned down, perhaps the new regime is being applied already

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Or even now. 21.6GW wind, and nearly 3GW Solar (on a dull day in February). Drax has been turned down, perhaps the new regime is being applied already

Declared wind production was nearly 24GW at midday but nearly 3GW has had to be constrained off due to transmission constraints in North Scotland although as solar falls off NESO can make use of some of this wind.

 

[Bald Rick]

Declared wind production was nearly 24GW at midday but nearly 3GW has had to be constrained off due to transmission constraints in North Scotland although as solar falls off NESO can make use of some of this wind.

The Scots need to up their EV and Heat Pump purchasing!

 

[takno]

The Scots need to up their EV and Heat Pump purchasing!

They were struggling to get the power as far as the central belt. That would require a hell of an uptick in EV and Heat Pump purchases in the north of Scotland.

 

[Richard123]

They were struggling to get the power as far as the central belt. That would require a hell of an uptick in EV and Heat Pump purchases in the north of Scotland.

Where do you see this data on specific interconnectors? I've only found live data at system operator level...

 

[takno]

Where do you see this data on specific interconnectors? I've only found live data at system operator level...

There was a post on Bluesky from an analyst at Octopus IIRC. I don't have access to full data or anything sadly

 

[norbitonflyer]

Declared wind production was nearly 24GW at midday but nearly 3GW has had to be constrained off due to transmission constraints in North Scotland although as solar falls off NESO can make use of some of this wind.

How much of the kinetic energy in the wind can be extracted? (obviously not all of it as that would imply there was no wind downwind of the turbine - the air has to go somewhere. Does the extraction of energy make a significant difference to the strength of the wind downwind?

I do recall that the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the windspeed (as the kinetic energy in a given volume of air is proprtional to the square, and the volume passing through a given swept area in unit time is proportional to the speed)

 

[Richard123]

How much of the kinetic energy in the wind can be extracted? (obviously not all of it as that would imply there was no wind downwind of the turbine - the air has to go somewhere. Does the extraction of energy make a significant difference to the strength of the wind downwind?

I do recall that the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the windspeed (as the kinetic energy in a given volume of air is proprtional to the square, and the volume passing through a given swept area in unit time is proportional to the speed)

The theoretical maximum is 59.3%. And yes, that's why turbines are spaced wide (turbulence as well as wind speed).

Turning alternate turbines in opposite directions gives less turbulence, but no-one's done it yet!

 

[Class 170101]

Turning alternate turbines in opposite directions gives less turbulence, but no-one's done it yet!

Is that because they produce less energy overall. I guess most face the prevailing wind direction anyway.

 

[poffle]

Is that because they produce less energy overall. I guess most face the prevailing wind direction anyway.

The turbines rotate to face into the wind. But the extent to which turbines interfere with each will depend on the wind direction. There will be extensive modelling done before constructing a wind farm to optimise the placement of the turbines. It's likely to be a bit more optimised for wind coming from the prevailing direction.

But it may be more desirable to maximise the output from medium or low windspeeds rather than high windspeeds as they may not be able to export all the theoretical energy at high windspeeds.

 

[furnessvale]

How much of the kinetic energy in the wind can be extracted? (obviously not all of it as that would imply there was no wind downwind of the turbine - the air has to go somewhere. Does the extraction of energy make a significant difference to the strength of the wind downwind?

I do recall that the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the windspeed (as the kinetic energy in a given volume of air is proprtional to the square, and the volume passing through a given swept area in unit time is proportional to the speed)

If the world erects enough wind turbines, will it slow down the rotation of the earth and by how much?

 

[bahnause]

If the world erects enough wind turbines, will it slow down the rotation of the earth and by how much?

The hot air produced by the wind power opponents will more than compensate for this effect.

 

[Tester]

The hot air produced by the wind power opponents will more than compensate for this effect.

Excellent

 

[dangie]

If the world erects enough wind turbines, will it slow down the rotation of the earth and by how much?

Or they could act like turbofan jet engines and push the wind backwards, propelling themselves (and the ground) forwards, thus speeding up the earths rotation. Or of course when the wind is in the opposite direction, spin the earth backwards.

Maybe this should go onto F*acebook, it would give the conspiracy theorists a field day

 

[HSTEd]

If the world erects enough wind turbines, will it slow down the rotation of the earth and by how much?

Wind deployment won't slow down the rotation of the earth, because the wind is more a directly solar powered effect.

Certain tidal schemes, especially ones involving pumping, can cause reductions in the rate of rotation of the earth though!

(And yes, I know it was tongue in cheek!)

 

[Richard123]

The turbines rotate to face into the wind. But the extent to which turbines interfere with each will depend on the wind direction. There will be extensive modelling done before constructing a wind farm to optimise the placement of the turbines. It's likely to be a bit more optimised for wind coming from the prevailing direction.

But it may be more desirable to maximise the output from medium or low windspeeds rather than high windspeeds as they may not be able to export all the theoretical energy at high windspeeds.

Alternating clockwise/anti-clockwise reduces turbulence and so increases power available to the next row of turbines behind.


Interestingly although modern turbines harvest ~50% of available energy in their swept envelope, which is amazing given the gap between blades, the reduction in wind speed is far less, due to the squared relationship of wind power / speed...

 

[Bald Rick]

Interestingly although modern turbines harvest ~50% of available energy in their swept envelope, which is amazing given the gap between blades, the reduction in wind speed is far less, due to the squared relationship of wind power / speed...

I’d love to know how much global winds speeds will reduce if worldwide wind generation capacity was increased (say) 100 fold.

Similarly how much global temperatures would reduce if solar generation capacity increased (say) 100 fold.

Can anyone do the maths? My bet is ‘negligible’.

 

[bahnause]

I’d love to know how much global winds speeds will reduce if worldwide wind generation capacity was increased (say) 100 fold.

Wind is not a finite resource. It is created by differences in air pressure distribution. Air particles move from a high-pressure area, i.e. an area with higher air pressure, into a low-pressure area. They do this until the pressure between the two areas is equalised. Ultimately, the driving force is the sun, which does not heat the earth's surface evenly everywhere and therefore leads to temperature and pressure differences across the globe, which are equalised by the movement of air masses - i.e. wind. The energy behind a wind turbine is compensated for from above and from the sides.

 

[HSTEd]

Can anyone do the maths? My bet is ‘negligible’.

The total wind resource in UK waters/territory is ~4TW or so.

We could concievably exploit a significant portion of it, at which point wind speeds would start to fall measurably.

Not likely to be a major effect but it could have localised impacts that should probably be modelled.

 

[Class 317]

The total wind resource in UK waters/territory is ~4TW or so.

We could concievably exploit a significant portion of it, at which point wind speeds would start to fall measurably.

Not likely to be a major effect but it could have localised impacts that should probably be modelled.

Quite extensive modelling has been undertaken and is now backed up observation in the real world.

Wind speed and rainfall patterns can be marginally altered by larger wind farms but the measured and observed effects are tiny something like about a 1-2% change if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Ediswan]

I’d love to know how much global winds speeds will reduce if worldwide wind generation capacity was increased (say) 100 fold.

Similarly how much global temperatures would reduce if solar generation capacity increased (say) 100 fold.

Can anyone do the maths? My bet is ‘negligible’.

Current wind turbines operate in a very thin layer of the atmosphere. Winds blow at all altitudes. I would agree with 'negligible'.