Another Red Diesel Threat

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

So nothing for us to worry about... a problem for the manufacturers, and not us mere mortals.....

 

 

Yup that's why we are seeing all these hybrids coming onto the market along with more electric cars as they reduce the fine the car makers face. 

[Flyboy]

32 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Well its only 7 years old

I think you will find that the wind is not much different in 2020 to as it was in 2013.  Where I live I can look out of my kitchen window and see 6 wind turbines, on some windless day they don't rotate. I am at 550ft amsl.  On some very strong wind days with winds at 20 gusting to 30 mph they are also not rotating. They have been feathered and turned out of wind. I have been told by a Western Power engineer that they have to do this because there is a risk of damage due to possible overspeed. Make what you like out of that.

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, Flyboy said:

I think you will find that the wind is not much different in 2020 to as it was in 2013.  Where I live I can look out of my kitchen window and see 6 wind turbines, on some windless day they don't rotate. I am at 550ft amsl.  On some very strong wind days with winds at 20 gusting to 30 mph they are also not rotating. They have been feathered and turned out of wind. I have been told by a Western Power engineer that they have to do this because there is a risk of damage due to possible overspeed. Make what you like out of that.

My mate has 6 on his land often some are stopped because it easily done, unlike power stations that take hours or even days to close down,  they are paid to turn off which is why hydrogen production from them is a good thing rather than paying to turn them off

[The Gravy Boater]

Sheesh... long thread.  I'm assuming no one is going to be taking our diesel away any time soon... last orders at the bar, gentlemen.  Hope not, as I'm buying a boat with a diesel stove in addition to the engine.  Let them do their worst... if I have to burn old tyres on my well deck to keep warm... it can be arranged.

 

[Machpoint005]

On 28/02/2020 at 21:05, Flyboy said:

I think you will find that the wind is not much different in 2020 to as it was in 2013.  Where I live I can look out of my kitchen window and see 6 wind turbines, on some windless day they don't rotate. I am at 550ft amsl.  On some very strong wind days with winds at 20 gusting to 30 mph they are also not rotating. They have been feathered and turned out of wind. I have been told by a Western Power engineer that they have to do this because there is a risk of damage due to possible overspeed. Make what you like out of that.

 

On 28/02/2020 at 21:10, peterboat said:

My mate has 6 on his land often some are stopped because it easily done, unlike power stations that take hours or even days to close down,  they are paid to turn off which is why hydrogen production from them is a good thing rather than paying to turn them off

 

Most large turbines feather at hub height wind speeds above 25 m/s. Don't ask me to convert that to mph at whatever height Flyboy's measurements are made, because it depends on wind shear. 

 

The proportion of the time for which the wind reaches such speeds is very low. There are also relatively few days/night of flat calm. People tend to forget that the wind can blow 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

 

[Flyboy]

8 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

Most large turbines feather at hub height wind speeds above 25 m/s. Don't ask me to convert that to mph at whatever height Flyboy's measurements are made, because it depends on wind shear. 

 

The proportion of the time for which the wind reaches such speeds is very low. There are also relatively few days/night of flat calm. People tend to forget that the wind can blow 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

 

25m/s  = 56 mph.     The bottom line is that in no wind and very high wind conditions they don't produce any electricity.

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

25m/s  = 56 mph.     The bottom line is that in no wind and very high wind conditions they don't produce any electricity.

You can look on line and see how many days wind turbines haven't produced electricity hunt they have produced every day for the last year up to 37% of electricity used

[Graham Davis]

14 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

25m/s  = 56 mph.     The bottom line is that in no wind and very high wind conditions they don't produce any electricity.

And those days are incredibly rare.

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, Flyboy said:

25m/s  = 56 mph.     The bottom line is that in no wind and very high wind conditions they don't produce any electricity.

 

I am well aware of the arithmetical conversion factor, but in this case it depends where you measure the wind speeds (ie at what height, in both cases). As I said in my previous post, wind shear.

 

The bottom line is that those conditions don't occur very often in the UK, which has the best wind resource anywhere in western Europe, and such eventualities are built into the finance model for a wind farm anyway.  Nobody is pretending that they even get anywhere near 100% of their theoretical capacity. It certainly isn't news to Vestas, Siemens, Nordex etc.  

 

 

 

Renewables are supplying 61% of the UK total demand at the moment.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Machpoint005

[peterboat]

10 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

I am well aware of the arithmetical conversion factor, but in this case it depends where you measure the wind speeds (ie at what height, in both cases). As I said in my previous post, wind shear.

 

The bottom line is that those conditions don't occur very often in the UK, which has the best wind resource anywhere in western Europe, and such eventualities are built into the finance model for a wind farm anyway.  Nobody is pretending that they even get anywhere near 100% of their theoretical capacity. It certainly isn't news to Vestas, Siemens, Nordex etc.  

 

 

 

Renewables are supplying 61% of the UK total demand at the moment.

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to put down what is a very successful energy source? 

[ditchcrawler]

57 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to put down what is a very successful energy source? 

Because people want to keep dirty coal delivered by steam trains pumping out crap

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Because people want to keep dirty coal delivered by steam trains pumping out crap

Only if the coal has been shipped halfway round the planet first!

 

I understand we have been buying coal from Chile and Australia recently.

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Only if the coal has been shipped halfway round the planet first!

 

I understand we have been buying coal from Chile and Australia recently.

I think the "Green" bio fuel had quite a few miles under its belt as well

[Ray T]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-50274212

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-51489204

Edited March 1, 2020 by Ray T

[Momac]

 

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Renewables are supplying 61% of the UK total demand at the moment.

Which is remarkably good. .........although some of the renewables are convenient rather than sustainable. eg wood pellets from North America .

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to put down what is a very successful energy source? 

Energy from wind  does  appear to be a success and the UK seems to be blessed with the big shallow puddle off the East coast in which to place a lot of the turbines .

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

12 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think the "Green" bio fuel had quite a few miles under its belt as well

Looks as if its Canada and the USA

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

 

Which is remarkably good. .........although some of the renewables are convenient rather than sustainable. eg wood pellets from North America .

Energy from wind  does  appear to be a success and the UK seems to be blessed with the big shallow puddle off the East coast in which to place a lot of the turbines .

 

 

 

These are not included in the 61% renewables figure: wood pellets come under the "biomass" category.

 

There is also a big shallow puddle off NW England/N Wales.

[WotEver]

15 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

There is also a big shallow puddle off NW England/N Wales.

That’s not a very nice thing to say about the Isle of Man...

[Momac]

4 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

These are not included in the 61% renewables figure: wood pellets come under the "biomass" category.

 

Noted.

I made the mistake of thinking biomass to be renewable.

[MtB]

4 hours ago, MartynG said:

Noted.

I made the mistake of thinking biomass to be renewable.

 

Biomass is a masterpiece of misleading obfuscation, if you look into what it actually is and why it is 'classed' as 'green'. Even the term "renewable" is a masterclass in weasel wording. 

[tree monkey]

8 hours ago, MartynG said:

Noted.

I made the mistake of thinking biomass to be renewable.

Biomass is or can be renewable, it's just the scale of Drax that's not.

Local small scale biomass using locally grown and managed waste feedstock

[Jess--]

20 hours ago, MartynG said:

 

Which is remarkably good. .........although some of the renewables are convenient rather than sustainable. eg wood pellets from North America .

Energy from wind  does  appear to be a success and the UK seems to be blessed with the big shallow puddle off the East coast in which to place a lot of the turbines .

 

 

It's just a shame that most of the turbines in the shallow puddle (assuming you mean the turbines off the coast of skegness) aren't connected to the grid yet, the cable to connect them is being laid a couple of miles down the road from me.

[Flyboy]

11 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Biomass is a masterpiece of misleading obfuscation, if you look into what it actually is and why it is 'classed' as 'green'. Even the term "renewable" is a masterclass in weasel wording. 

Biomass produces the same amount of CO2 as any other fossil fuel.  So can't be classed as green surely.  It is said to be carbon neutral but can't be because of the processess to make & transport it.

[tree monkey]

23 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

Biomass produces the same amount of CO2 as any other fossil fuel.  So can't be classed as green surely.  It is said to be carbon neutral but can't be because of the processess to make & transport it.

You are right about production costs but this applies to everything we do, but a short term coppice feeding a small scale biomass boiler is about as good as it gets.

Similarly biodigester using genuine waste to produce methane burned in a local  CHP.

It's the insanity of places like drax that import feedstock from hundreds of miles away, the problem is this is where the big money is plus the opportunities for greenwash 

[Rambling Boater]

As all energy comes from our sun it's really just a case of how 'earth friendly' our processes are to extract that energy and burn it.

 

I'm sure putting red dye in diesel is less earth friendly.