Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Power

Renewable Energy Breaks UK Record In First Quarter of 2020 (theguardian.com) 87

Posted by BeauHD from the record-breaking dept.
Renewable energy made up almost half of Britain's electricity generation in the first three months of the year, with a surge in wind power helping to set a new record for clean energy. The Guardian reports: The government's official data has revealed that renewable energy made up 47% of the UK's electricity generation in the first three months of the year, smashing the previous quarterly record of 39% set last year. The government's renewable energy data includes electricity from the UK's windfarms, solar panels and hydro power plants as well as bioenergy generated by burning wood chips instead of coal. The "substantial increase" in the UK's total renewable energy output was chiefly driven by a growth in electricity generated by solar panels and windfarms which climbed by more than a third over the last year, according to the government's energy analysts.

The report added that the start up of new windfarms combined with the UK's unusually wet and windy weather at the start of the year -- particularly storms Ciara, Dennis and Jorge -- helped to generate record wind power generation. Offshore windfarms powered the largest increase in renewable energy in the first quarter of the year, climbing by 53% compared with the previous year, while onshore wind generation grew by a fifth. In total, wind power generated 30% of the UK's electricity in the first quarter, beating the previous record of 22.3% set in the final months of 2019.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Renewable Energy Breaks UK Record In First Quarter of 2020 More

Renewable Energy Breaks UK Record In First Quarter of 2020

Comments Filter:
  • Why are we headed towards wrecking the planet for something that is actually fixable?

    • Because it is not wrecking the planet, and the thing that is not wrecking the planet is not that readily fixable as the article headline suggests, and if this wind power thing is as cost effective as it is touted, we won't be doing this thing that is not wrecking the planet..

      • Your edgy analysis omits the fact that there is a lot of power and money at stake in maintaining the status quot; you can't control and monopolize renewable energy, so you can't use it to leverage nations and make yourself stupidly wealthy with it.

        THAT is why we continue to do the thing that wrecks the planet...
        =Smidge=

        • so you can't use it to leverage nations and make yourself stupidly wealthy with it.

          Yes, I am sure that Nigeria or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia can as easily build high-efficiency photovoltaic cells and wind turbines as they pump up petroleum. /s

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Why are we headed towards wrecking the planet for something that is actually fixable?

      The first 47% is the easiest.

      Also, counting the wood chips is bogus because they aren't that clean. They are grown in America, consuming fossil fuels in the process, then pressed into pellets (consuming more fossil fuel), shipped across the Atlantic on fossil fuel power freighters, transported to the power plants in fossil fuel powered trucks, and then burned with ~30% thermodynamic efficiency.

      Even if burning wood chips made sense, it would be way more cost-effective to burn them in America (which shares a

      • The money going into wood chips would be far better spent on more wind or solar.

        It would be. But the companies burning wood chips would be stuck with a woodchip burning generator not making any money.

      • Yes, somehow wood chips got included in EU plans as a renewable but there are people taking them to court to get it removed from the mix as its not green. While governments see this in the "renewable" plan, they'll use it as its an easy option. Hopefully this year, it'll be removed.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They said we would never get above 15% renewables or it would destabilize the grid and the lights would go off. They were wrong.

        As renewables keep growing there will be more and more money to be made from interconnection and storage. The problem resolves itself through economics, driven by policy.

        • In Ireland around 65 to 70% can be renewable currently, there are also interconnectors between countries which help theres a 1000MW between 2 interconnectors between the Ireland of Ireland and mainland UK Theres around 3000MW between the English South Coast and Mainland Europe. Current system demand in Ireland is 3763 MW and 2784MW of that is being generated with Wind the interconnectors are exporting 487MW.

          There is also demand side generation and response, and battery systems which can provide fast freq

      • The biomass money would be better spent on grid electricity storage technologies and domestic electricity storage systems (micro grids).

        The humble domestic gas boiler is going extinct this decade for new buildings in the UK. Electric domestic heating needs to get ready to fill in the gap. Cheap off-peak electricity can be stored at home in a big lithium-ion battery (14kWh and higher) during the night or when there is too much renewables. This battery can then power the electric domestic heating during the d

    • A few reasons (Score:3, Informative)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 )

      There are a few reasons this wasn't mostly solved 40 years ago. It could have been. A few things got in the way. Mostly it's all about the mix. Providing the world's energy needs, in a way that actually works to provide you power, and without costing $80,000/year per household, requires a flexible mix of different sources and strategies. Being a fan of one thing is basically a vote to stick with coal, because whatever your "one thing" is, it won't work by itself.

      In particular, the solar-electric industr

      • Ps the eye is logarithmic (Score:4, Informative)

        by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @11:25PM (#60233234) Journal

        Maybe I should have mentioned, your eye perceives brightness in log scale. That's so you can see both outdoors at noon and by candlelight.

        When I mentioned a 1,000 mile system of making the whole country cloudy, you might think "the sun is only half as bright when it's cloudy - the sun is still there". You might say the same about evening time, or morning. What your eye perceives as "half as bright" is more like 90% less light because your eye perceives brightness logarithmically.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Way, Way Smarter! ( 6878018 )

        The power in wind is proportional to the CUBE of wind speed. Within each cyclone itself there were wind speeds well over 100 MPH, but across the UK it was 50 MPH or whatever. Because the power is the CUBE of speed, a 50 MPH wind has sixteen times as much power as 20 MPH wind. That's a lot of power.

        You may be correct about the power of the wind vs. speed, but your calculations regarding the amunt of power extracted by turbines are off. This is because turbines have a maximum power output and they feather th

        • >> Within each cyclone itself there were wind speeds well over 100 MPH, but across the UK it was 50 MPH or whatever.
          > > Because the power is the CUBE of speed, a 50 MPH wind has sixteen times as much power as 20 MPH wind. That's a lot of power.

          > your calculations regarding the amunt of power extracted by turbines are off. This is because turbines have a maximum power output and they feather the blades to stop the generation

          Yep, and guess what the max speed is for most turbines, tje speed at w

          • Yep, and guess what the max speed is for most turbines, tje speed at which they go into self-preservation mode?

            "Rated speed" for most turbines is 25-35mph. I don't know where you get the number 59.23, except for the record speed (in knots) that a sailboat reached (note: it was probably travelling faster than the wind).

            So the calculations in your rant about power that wind turbines extract are wrong, because you put the wrong numbers into it.

            • You are trying to change the subject. We aren't talking about the speed at which it achieves nameplate power rating.

              We're talking about the wind speed at which "they feather the blades to stop the generation". That speed is, most commonly, 26.5 m/s. Aka 59 MPH. Siemens puts out some good information about their turbines if you'd like to look at more details.

              • We're talking about the wind speed at which "they feather the blades to stop the generation".

                We started by talking about how your calculations are wrong. You are now diverting from that.

                • Dude, it's okay to learn something new, really.
                  When someone tells you something, like the speed setting, "oh, interesting" is a perfectly good reply.

                  By trying to pretend you already knew everything, here's what we ended up:

                  Me: Wind speed was 50 MPH over a large area. 50 MPH wind has 16x the power as 20 MPH wind

                  You: You're wrong! Turbines shut down in high winds

                  Me: What speed do you think they shut down at? (Hint 59)

                  You: 25-35mph

                  By fighting SO hard against learning anything because you wanr to act like you'v

                  • Ps I think our thread about the Korean war is a good example of a useful and enjoyable conversation. Would you agree?

                  • This thread started because you misrepresented what I wrote.

                    What I wrote:
                    "This is because turbines have a maximum power output and they feather the blades to stop the generation exceeding this. "

                    How you quoted this and then misrepresented it:

                    > your calculations regarding the amunt of power extracted by turbines are off. This is because turbines have a maximum power output and they feather the blades to stop the generation

                    Yep, and guess what the max speed is for most turbines, tje speed at which they go i

                    • Let's start over, because maybe you're trying to something different than what I think you're trying to say.

                      I said they make a lot more power at 50 MPH than they do at 20 MPH.
                      You replied "your calculations regarding the amunt of power extracted by turbines are off. This is because turbines have a maximum power output and they feather the blades to stop the generation exceeding this."

                      You then started talking about nameplate power at 23-35MPH.

                      Are you under the impression that the maximum power they can genera

                    • Are you under the impression that the maximum power they can generate is at 25-35MPH, that nameplate is max power?

                      Are you under the impression that that power output of wind turbines increases with wind speed until the turbines shut down at their max wind speed? If so, please review the graphs below and tell me at what wind speed the max power output is reached.

                      Hint: it is a lot lower than 50mph.

                      https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
                      https://electricalacademia.com... [electricalacademia.com]
                      https://www.windpowerengineeri... [windpowerengineering.com]
                      https://i.ytim [ytimg.com]

                    • Thanks for that info. Much appreciated.

                      Now I'm kinda wondering what's going on. I'm pretty sure the sample data I looked at from Siemens had the curve going up much further to the right. Which makes sense, because the available power isn't just a little more, it's a LOT more. I'm wondering if what I looked at is just outdated or if it was an unusual design or what. My best, most likely guess is I was looking at a design that was new at the time and not actually produced in quite that way.

                      I wonder what eng

                    • I wonder what engineering trade-offs led to the design decision you linked to. A little stronger wind has a lot more power, so they are giving up a lot of potential.

                      I assume that the cost of the generator is very closely related to the power output. Thus, planning for high winds adds a lot to the cost, but most of the time (when the winds are normal) this extra capacity isn't used.

                    • I imagine that it's economics. To build out all the devices in the power chain to be productive and reliable above 24kmph, with adequate longevity, might be cost-prohibitive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tg123 ( 1409503 )

        ....One last thing. It's very easy to confuse energy and electricity. You hear that the UK (a cold country) got a significant percentage of its ELECTRICITY from whatever I a given month and sometimes you are encouraged to forget that's a tiny fraction of the ENERGY. They heat their houses, their hot water, etc by burning oil and gas (over 80% of UK homes) and some wood. Just home heating is 11% of UK CO2 and that energy isn't considered when you see a reference to "percent of their electricity".

        UK (a mild country) could very easy do away with the need to burn oil by doing what other European country's are doing with better insulation and Geothermal heating.

        https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/g... [greenmatch.co.uk]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tg123 ( 1409503 )
          *the need to burn oil and gas (whoops typo)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          The lack of effort on insulation is baffling. Yes, most lofts are insulated, but there is a lot of housing stock in the UK that has relatively poor insulation credentials and it could be improved. It all costs money, of course, and the issue for homeowners is the frontloading of this and if you have something with a pay back period of 15 years and you move house after 8 and can't bargain the price up to include the residual cost of the work done you stand to lose it. It's a risk many don't want to or are no

      • Re:A few reasons (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @04:53AM (#60233762) Homepage Journal

        When I first switched to 100% renewable energy it cost about 10% more than fossil. Now it's considerably cheaper, in fact sometimes the electricity prices go negative and I'm paid to consume it.

        Every year as people compare energy suppliers to reduce their bills more and more are switching to renewable only because it's cheaper.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          I use a 100% renewable supplier but have never been paid to consume it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Check out Octopus and their Agile tariff.

          • Depends where you are and if your utilities are greedy bastards and if renewables are generating too much power at the time

          • It doesn't even make sense - even if there is "too much" energy, you should be charged something for the depreciation of the lines to get it to you and the infrastructure in general.

            In any case, too much energy should always just bottom at "free" - and then excess profits in a publicly owned utility should go back to ALL subscribers - instead paying you for no reason to burn energy for no reason.

            Also, if renewables were really always cheaper as Ami thinks, no one would be having this conversation. I'm on t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              If depreciation is mostly based on time, then I could see the logic of having a standing charge to account for that element. And could see the logic of negative pricing with things like smart devices that only operate when prices are low (or negative) as you are sending a price signal to get people to move consumption to specific periods when generation is high and demand is low (e.g. my washing doesn't really care, assuming I've loaded the machine) whether it runs at 6pm or 1am. But I doubt this is the cas

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                In that sense it wouldn't be being paid to consume power so much as being paid not to consume power at a peak time via pricing signals.

  • That wind power achieved a record contribution to electric demand over a 3-month period is the problem with it.

    It has a seasonal variation that is very hard to counteract with battery or even pumped storage.

  • It is that latter that counts.

    The difference is nuclear, of which the UK has quite a bit.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      47% renewable and another 15% nuclear on top. And the vast majority of the rest was gas. Coal was under 4%. It was right there at the top of the article for you to read

  • ... you're burning dead trees. When you're burning coal, you're also burning dead trees. The same amount of CO2 is released. Why one is environmentally "better" than the other escapes me.

    • Re: When you're burning wood chips... (Score:4, Informative)

      by tttonyyy ( 726776 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @05:01AM (#60233780) Homepage Journal

      The tree grow/burn cycle is short and shouldn't (averaged over the course of a few decades) contribute to the amount of atmospheric CO2. But the tree/coal lifecycle is long - releasing CO2 that can't immediately be returned to coal. Unless averaged over thousands of years - which is bit of a problem given our more immediate climate concerns.

    • yes, the fools thought that because you can grow more trees, its a viable renewable resource, they totally ignored the pollution from burning.

    • That is actually simple to explain.
      Dead trees regrow.
      Dead coal does not.

      I guess you grasped that car analogy.

  • When the wind dies down again, you can go back to baking artisanal bread for the village in your solar ovens.

  • Wow, excellent: good thing that global warming is increasing the winds for wind power. Long live global warming! The source of clean power!

  • Thanks Scotland! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Righ ( 677125 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @10:05AM (#60234458)

    Scotland, with 8% of the UK population creates more than 25% of the UK's renewable energy, exporting around 28% of its generation. Renewable energy now makes up over 90% of annual Scottish generation with a target to reach 100% by the end of this year. Wales is pulling its weight, with around 50% of consumption coming from renewable energy. Northern Ireland gets 45% of its consumption from renewable energy. The remaining country in the union only publishes UK figures. ;-)

    • I worked on quite a few Scottish wind farms. Its windy and there is lots of land! Most of the labour was from the Midlands and Northern England however as there isn't that many Scottish Engineers these days... Its a shame as they blazed the way during the enlightenment! I think you will find it's the same with the capital and debt that finances these projects too which was something the Scottish pioneered! :)

  • Nuclear power is the only practical way forward. It is safe, reliable, and inexpensive. Low-cost electricity is essential to human health and development. Existing nuclear power plants should continue to be operated. Recently closed, but not yet dismantled plants, should be retrofitted with newer technology and brought back online. Breeder reactors should be built, in order to turn nuclear waste into fuel. SMR (Small Modular Reactors) should be embraced by markets and governments and brought towards regulat

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      You must be stuck in the fifties, Nuclear is not cheap. AFAIK "turn nuclear waste into fuel" is horrendously expensive. Fusion is probably 60 years away and the complexity involved means it'll likely never be a cheap form of power, complexity is expensive.

      Wind power is sticking a motor on a stick attached to a turbine, you can't beat that for simplicity. Solar is even more simple, a slab off material that converts sunlight into electricity, you can't beat that for simplicity either.

      Solar and wind can provid

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close