View Full Version : Optimism for a windy day
I'm a pessimist so this clouds my opinions but I'm striving to understand the the thinking behind this policy.
Our "NetZero" target assumes that we are going to get more windy days.
https://us.yahoo.com/news/net-zero-target-relies-rise-145609131.html
I think wind turbines are a step in the right direction (although not the total solution) but I also think that assuming the weather is going to cooperate with Conservative party policy is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
My ex-wife is an optimist (I loved that) and she would say why worry about something that hasn't happened yet? This worked (sort of) in managing our affairs although my stress level was elevated at times but it's not a satisfactory method for planning a country's energy policy. (imho).
Of course wind will work with the Conservative policy. It's why they're also not affected by Covid, because Covid knows they know each other and it can't infect them - mainly because they're not Human . . . .
Craig380
24-10-21, 09:21 AM
Of course, we should all have these by now: an old beer can and a banana peel and boom, 1.21GW of electricity ...
https://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/back-to-future-ii-mr-fusion-home-energy-reactor-replica-2.jpg
I feel there are two issues at work here. The request for the CCC info was from "Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), a climate sceptic think tank", so there was obviously an agenda to that. However the questioning of the assumptions is very valid. It sounds like the CCC report was based on a previous study by Imperial College, and it really depends on what part of that study was adopted and what the purpose of the original study was, e.g. was it an examination of various scenarios, and not intended to be a proposal for strategy? This what tends to happen, several possibles are considered by the academics and the politicians grab the one they like the look of. Don't necessarily blame the academics.
It sounds to me like they modelled what would happen if the tails of the wind spectrum varied, the actual harvesting would depend on the bulk availability of usable wind, the big bit in the middle of the spectrum. Too gentle wind, no good, too strong and also no good. The tails are probably not all that significant, +/-10% isn't usually a deal breaker in such things, the need for a reliable back-up source is critical though.
However in a wider sense, the current government seem to understand the word "plan" to mean making some extravagant target a law, or come up with a way to raise a set amount of money. Neither of these constitute a "plan".
A plan is what you intend to do to get to a certain outcome, not just a finger in the air wish or raising some cash to pay for something (health/welfare). Laws only apply to law abiding people, and if they worked there wouldn't be any crime by now.
why aren't https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/kb-solar-glass-photovoltaic-windows products standard on industrial and domestic new builds. same goes for the roof tile type instead of slate.
maybe the gov should take the tax raised by fuel and invest it into new builds with the above tech. if every house in the UK was a "solar panel" pumping to storage farms then there would be loads of power.
Chris_SVS
24-10-21, 01:03 PM
But not too windy as they can't run then
keith_d
27-10-21, 10:25 AM
why aren't https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/kb-solar-glass-photovoltaic-windows products standard on industrial and domestic new builds. same goes for the roof tile type instead of slate.
From the spirit energy web page, "Transparency varies from 0% (fully opaque) to 50%". So that's dark grey to black. Not much use for letting light into your home.
Solar panels instead of roofing tiles is much more reasonable, though substantially more expensive than clay tiles. But around here (south east) almost all the new builds are apartment blocks with much less roof area per household than a conventional house.
The main issue with solar power in the UK is that we need energy mostly in the winter when the days are short, cloudy, and the sun is low in the sky.
i'm pretty sure that there is a clear 90% light transmission solar glass in the market and i was using the above as an example.
every bit counts to a total. solar, hydro, wind and if they ever get their arzz into gear tidal power. as a cumulative it would see the end of fossil fuel for domestic power.. well that is until we are all driving stupid electric carzzz.
the big problem we have is greed which was spurred by privatisation. domestic utilities should never be put in the hands of the private sector. but the greedy british public rushed out to buy shares in something they already owned thinking they could make a quick £.. in the private sector there has to be a profit made, would that profit not be better in the public purse or am i missing something.
storing the energy made from renewables is the challenge to overcome.
...utilities should never be put in the hands of the private sector. .............. in the private sector there has to be a profit made, would that profit not be better in the public purse or am i missing something.
I tend to look at it the other way round. There's no incentive for a publicly owned/nationalised industry to be profitable nor efficient. That's reflected in the costs of the NHS, MOD etc, the management there don't need to "earn" the money for the business, they are given it.
I can't really think of a super successful efficient cost effective value for money example of a nationalised industry, I'm open to suggestions. Politicians are probably the worst possible bunch to actually run anything, they are mainly interested in changing stuff which is always an illusion of progress, much of the time you need to leave things alone and just run the business properly.
Harnessing tidal power is the way forward... perpetual motion is where we need to invest!
in which case we need a MGU-BS (BS for Bull****) installed in Parliament. Then we can generate enough electricity to power all of the UK & Europe. And probably Russia too.
There's no incentive for a publicly owned/nationalised industry to be profitable nor efficient. That's reflected in the costs of the NHS, MOD etc, the management there don't need to "earn" the money for the business, they are given it.
I don't think infrastructure should be judged on a profit/loss basis. I had a discussion in ER with a doctor in the US (not the best time when I needed his help) telling him the biggest drain on healthcare profits is sick people.
Equally transport - some areas will be profitable and they will have to subsidise those that are not - if no areas are profitable, we'd need to decide whether the taxpayer should fund the service.
As for private industry - the test and trace was run by Serco (despite it saying NHS). It was supposed to be a world beater but it was a disaster, £37 billion and it never worked properly. The railways under the franchise scheme - no competition ever showed up to make fares cheaper and the East Coast mainline has been taken back into government control 3 times. Serco again were running immigration centres which have been described as unsanitary and mismanaged.
I challenged my MP to show me a success story of a nationalised industry that has gone private (cue sound of crickets).
A current topical issue is the water companies paying £57 billion in dividends (since 1991) whilst pumping sewage into the sea and rivers and saying fixing the problem would be expensive (for the consumer).
When profit is involved corners are cut.
________________
Harnessing tidal power is the way forward..
I agree but it's hard. They tried it on the Humber which has a 7-9kt tide but the turbidity destroyed the turbines in short order.
I don't think infrastructure should be judged on a profit/loss basis. I had a discussion in ER with a doctor in the US (not the best time when I needed his help) telling him the biggest drain on healthcare profits is sick people.
Equally transport - some areas will be profitable and they will have to subsidise those that are not - if no areas are profitable, we'd need to decide whether the taxpayer should fund the service.
I agree with this. Setting the scope well for service provision and performance measurement is crucial. Easier said than done
I challenged my MP to show me a success story of a nationalised industry that has gone private.
I have experience from a number of utility sectors and suggest that electricity supply is one where it has worked pretty well tbh (though I accept it's far from perfect and seems to be getting worse - see below)
When profit is involved corners are cut.
IMHO, it's not profit per-se that leads to the problem of corner cutting. The more relevant problem is the expectation that prices can be continually reduced, almost ad infinitum. Harsh though it sounds, sometimes the bills have to go up - surely it's economic nonsense to suggest otherwise?
No amount of 'efficiency' can compensate for underfunding. Also relevant is the effect of long-term vs short term perspectives. The argument is always about the 'expect to pay' figure and often the bottom-up analysis just doesn't fit against the top-down aspiration. Balancing the books is prioritised over absolute service provision, and this afflicts public sector just as much as private. Ultimately the immediate challenge is solved by finding a way to push the troublesome issue into the future (akin to "papering over the cracks"). In the private sector you can go bust and leave the problem behind which is why short-termism wins, yet national infrastructure is a long term matter.
There's a big difference between private companies operating independently in business fields and private companies being awarded huge contracts by a profligate inept government with little or no performance related terms included. Here's £37Bn, off you go, see how you get on.
Where essential businesses are operating effectively as monopolies in a specific regional arrangement (I can't choose which water company I get my service from) then pretty strict regulatory oversight is required, but preferably not by the government directly, it should be independent and with teeth. A laissez faire approach to regulation is not a recipe for success, nor is an incompetent legislature.
There's a big difference between private companies operating independently in business fields and private companies being awarded huge contracts by a profligate inept government with little or no performance related terms included. Here's £37Bn, off you go, see how you get on.
Where essential businesses are operating effectively as monopolies in a specific regional arrangement (I can't choose which water company I get my service from) then pretty strict regulatory oversight is required, but preferably not by the government directly, it should be independent and with teeth. A laissez faire approach to regulation is not a recipe for success, nor is an incompetent legislature.
Yes, I agree. Pseudo-competition is a weird philosophy, but I'm not sure it's always necessary when using private enterprise.
Regulation is an intriguing area too. I've seen it operate in a few sectors and I'm not convinced it's as useful as it sounds. My experience is that the deliverers are pretty competent and genuinely committed to good outcomes but the system mashes their dedication because they're not well directed. A real problem for the regulated sectors is that the licences are too vaguely set so it's hard (for Government, Regulators or customers) to rigorously hold the companies properly to account for their performance. It just becomes a game of smoke and mirrors, arguing about future projections, risks and trade-offs.
The challenge remains in policy setting, specifying service requirements and appropriate budget setting.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.