In my area when we have our frequent wind storms it is not rare to have a commercial vesel of large size lose power and be driven onto our beaches. In one case the bow of an ocean liner came across the sand and was resting in the swimming pool of a condominium. Fixing that sort of thing is very expensive. Now, can these windmills take a hit from a large ship? How well do these turbines do when we have 180 mph. winds that gust even higher? How often would an event be expected based on local historic events and what cost would be involved to repair or replace the turbine?
There's a lot of coastline, not so much wind turbine, so the chances of a ship hitting a turbine is very small. They feather the props in high winds. There would be an issue if the feathering broke, but then the blades are varied to make the best of the wind anyway, so a misbehaving turbine would be spotted quickly and preemptively feathered. If the ability to point into the wind also went, that might be an issue, but they are pretty tough.
working backwards, the average UK electricty bill is about £600, and it;s about £0.12/kWh, so that's 600/0.12 = 5000kWh. 5000/(365*24) is 0.6kW average. Given that people tend to not use that much when asleep, apart from the fridge and freezer, and not that much when at work, then yes 1.1kW is about right on average. Peak is another matter, but not everyone runs the kettle for tea at the same time, and less so given people don't tend to watch TV in the same way and so don't all rush to run the kettle in the ad break of Coronation Street.
Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.
which is something slightly different.
The abstract is:
The capacity factor of wind farms in different regions of the United States has been calculated from hourly wind data and the power curves of the wind turbines. In places with constant high winds like the Texas panhandle, capacity factors of 40% are possible. However the capacity factors in less favorable locations in Illinois or New York are below 20%. Reliable capacity factor estimates are important since displacing efficient combined cycle gas turbines from baseload generation by intermittent wind power could lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Before a site is considered capacity factors should be calculated from the power curve of the proposed wind turbine and measured wind data throughout the year, preferably at hub height.
So, noting that it mentions low capacity factor wind, the paper is presumably suggesting ones that are sited such they have a capacity factor of 20% are not very economically viable, but in the case of the TFA, we are talking 45% capacity, so the above criticism linked from the blog may not be relevant.
The UK is doing away with subsidies. I didn't think new (not already planned) ones were going to be subsidised from this point onwards. I might be wrong.
Now consider the 45% capacity factor for the wind.
At any given time the wind turbines might deliver 0% or 100%, ditto the gas turbines, although it that tends to be demand-led unless broken. The latter is why most plants have three or more gas turbines as the grid hookup won't generate revenue if you are waiting for a part for your single gas turbine, but wind farm failure is only typically a small fraction of the total. However, gas turbine capacity, if all power is demanded, is around 90% of nameplate. It's a limitation of the use of nameplate. If you simply multiplied the nameplate by the capacity factor and quoted things as 'typical' and 'up to' for the current nameplate, it might make comparison easier. But the peak here is still greater than any gas turbine, and even the 'typical' value greater than most.
What you really need to look at is a combination of cost per MWh, and whether it is either dispatchable, or its availability matches demand, not purely nameplate MW, and then also the emission profile. It's not simple, as it depends on your overall mix of energy resources, potentially covering intermittency issues. You could argue, that to cover this, then you might look at the overall cost of wind turbine plus gas turbine pairings (or other systems), but that's not really the way a large grid with multiple resources will operate.
From 2016 in the Telegraph (not really a supporter of this sort of thing):
"The cost of building offshore wind farms has fallen to a new low, with Sweden's Vattenfall winning contracts to build two projects in Danish waters for just over €60 (£51) per megawatt-hour (MWh)."
The total of environmental and social obligation costs is 8%. The average UK electricity bill is about £600, so the total obligation is thus £48, plus VAT (5%) or £50.
The elements going into the social and environmental obligation payment are numerous, and outlined on the page. It's nowhere near £200, though.
That is a very cynical view, and I don't believe it is true.
People don't always engage with politics, and this is partly because they don't feel that they have any real influence, and if that is what it feels like, then being informed isn't a high priority. To give him his due, Trump at the very least has made people believe that they can have an influence on the politics that affect their lives, and that it is worth engaging.
If you look at the sweep of American (and Western) history over the last 100 years, politics has effected great changes, and that has come about through a combination of direct political action and awareness raising that has widened the right and ability to vote, and the influence ordinary people have, and it has been a very positive development.
Really things should get renormalised when there is enough data, but you have to make assumptions about what the distribution would be if everyone was objective. But do you know if it should be gaussian around some value of 5.5, or more skewed? If the product is expected to be truly excellent you might expect all 10s, but I never give a 10. If I was buying a text editor, then to get a 10 I'd expect it to write everything for me and wash the dishes and take out the trash.
If the score of 5 is rounded up such that 4.5000001 is a 5, then it at least means then if you get a 5, a 5 and a 4 you are still allowed to ride. However, get a 5 and a 4, and you can never ride again, so can never improve your score. So assuming you are started at a rating of 5 initially (how could you not be?) it's on strike and you are out. It seems like a way for Uber to shoot itself very firmly in the foot in Australia, if not the head.
Restaurants aren't generally subject to regulatory checks by customers, so it's not comparable. Unless you are suggesting we do away with public health and outsource it to patrons:).
You need to be at least to manage partial concentration on something for periods of time, else the fish gets away. You don't want to concentrate so much the bear which also wants fish eats you instead. But then that's why you have fishing buddies - one to look out for the bears. Or that is what you tell your wife when loading the beer into the fishing tackle bag along with the rod and bait.
A Tesla is about 75kwH or thereabouts, so Audi's batteries (assuming the same approximate capacity) add an additional $1000 to costs. So assuming $50k retail, it's maybe $30,000 to build (retail being 30k, plus manufacturer's profit, transport cost, dealer's profit), so $1000 is 3%. It's within my really handwavy estimate:). 3% isn't a huge margin for Tesla to have over Audi.
Well-to-wheel versus mine-to-wheel, given various losses, it's about comparable efficiency, so that's not bad for something that effectively decouples transport from the mode of creation of energy. With renewables of nuclear, the footprint is better than ICE. When these hit the used market for a reasonable price, and assuming there is a battery uprade program like with Renault, I will be very tempted, partly because Mercedes has impressed me with the car I have currently sufficiently for me to want to go with another if the economics are there.
Slashdot Mirror
In my area when we have our frequent wind storms it is not rare to have a commercial vesel of large size lose power and be driven onto our beaches. In one case the bow of an ocean liner came across the sand and was resting in the swimming pool of a condominium. Fixing that sort of thing is very expensive. Now, can these windmills take a hit from a large ship? How well do these turbines do when we have 180 mph. winds that gust even higher? How often would an event be expected based on local historic events and what cost would be involved to repair or replace the turbine?
There's a lot of coastline, not so much wind turbine, so the chances of a ship hitting a turbine is very small. They feather the props in high winds. There would be an issue if the feathering broke, but then the blades are varied to make the best of the wind anyway, so a misbehaving turbine would be spotted quickly and preemptively feathered. If the ability to point into the wind also went, that might be an issue, but they are pretty tough.
working backwards, the average UK electricty bill is about £600, and it;s about £0.12/kWh, so that's 600/0.12 = 5000kWh. 5000/(365*24) is 0.6kW average. Given that people tend to not use that much when asleep, apart from the fridge and freezer, and not that much when at work, then yes 1.1kW is about right on average. Peak is another matter, but not everyone runs the kettle for tea at the same time, and less so given people don't tend to watch TV in the same way and so don't all rush to run the kettle in the ad break of Coronation Street.
The concept that the wind is always blowing somewhere is not true for a place as small as the U.K.
It always blows when I am cycling, and always against me. It's made doubly hard as my commute to and from work is uphill both ways.
Oh, it's worse than that. It's quite possible that this wind farm will end up producing as much CO2 as if they just burned natural gas in a combined cycle plant.
Your link actually says:
Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.
which is something slightly different.
The abstract is:
The capacity factor of wind farms in different regions of the United States has been calculated from hourly wind data and the power curves of the wind turbines. In places with constant high winds like the Texas panhandle, capacity factors of 40% are possible. However the capacity factors in less favorable locations in Illinois or New York are below 20%. Reliable capacity factor estimates are important since displacing efficient combined cycle gas turbines from baseload generation by intermittent wind power could lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Before a site is considered capacity factors should be calculated from the power curve of the proposed wind turbine and measured wind data throughout the year, preferably at hub height.
So, noting that it mentions low capacity factor wind, the paper is presumably suggesting ones that are sited such they have a capacity factor of 20% are not very economically viable, but in the case of the TFA, we are talking 45% capacity, so the above criticism linked from the blog may not be relevant.
Ferrybridge has been converting to gas for a while, unit by unit.
The UK is doing away with subsidies. I didn't think new (not already planned) ones were going to be subsidised from this point onwards. I might be wrong.
Now consider the 45% capacity factor for the wind.
At any given time the wind turbines might deliver 0% or 100%, ditto the gas turbines, although it that tends to be demand-led unless broken. The latter is why most plants have three or more gas turbines as the grid hookup won't generate revenue if you are waiting for a part for your single gas turbine, but wind farm failure is only typically a small fraction of the total. However, gas turbine capacity, if all power is demanded, is around 90% of nameplate. It's a limitation of the use of nameplate. If you simply multiplied the nameplate by the capacity factor and quoted things as 'typical' and 'up to' for the current nameplate, it might make comparison easier. But the peak here is still greater than any gas turbine, and even the 'typical' value greater than most.
What you really need to look at is a combination of cost per MWh, and whether it is either dispatchable, or its availability matches demand, not purely nameplate MW, and then also the emission profile. It's not simple, as it depends on your overall mix of energy resources, potentially covering intermittency issues. You could argue, that to cover this, then you might look at the overall cost of wind turbine plus gas turbine pairings (or other systems), but that's not really the way a large grid with multiple resources will operate.
And before anyone mentions capacity factors that is MWh, not MW. MW does not include capacity factor, cost per MWh does.
From 2016 in the Telegraph (not really a supporter of this sort of thing):
"The cost of building offshore wind farms has fallen to a new low, with Sweden's Vattenfall winning contracts to build two projects in Danish waters for just over €60 (£51) per megawatt-hour (MWh)."
https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/customers/about-your-energy-bill/the-breakdown-of-an-energy-bill.html
The total of environmental and social obligation costs is 8%. The average UK electricity bill is about £600, so the total obligation is thus £48, plus VAT (5%) or £50.
The elements going into the social and environmental obligation payment are numerous, and outlined on the page. It's nowhere near £200, though.
You could do CO2->Sugar->Beer and collect $1.001 billion.
I thought Kurzweil was working on importing him into the digital sphere when he got old. Systems running on BSD, of course.
You think that Vancouver would be warmer?
Yes.
The forests near it are quite beautiful in October, and aren't teeming with midges. It's not that cold in October these days.
That is a very cynical view, and I don't believe it is true.
People don't always engage with politics, and this is partly because they don't feel that they have any real influence, and if that is what it feels like, then being informed isn't a high priority. To give him his due, Trump at the very least has made people believe that they can have an influence on the politics that affect their lives, and that it is worth engaging.
If you look at the sweep of American (and Western) history over the last 100 years, politics has effected great changes, and that has come about through a combination of direct political action and awareness raising that has widened the right and ability to vote, and the influence ordinary people have, and it has been a very positive development.
Really things should get renormalised when there is enough data, but you have to make assumptions about what the distribution would be if everyone was objective. But do you know if it should be gaussian around some value of 5.5, or more skewed? If the product is expected to be truly excellent you might expect all 10s, but I never give a 10. If I was buying a text editor, then to get a 10 I'd expect it to write everything for me and wash the dishes and take out the trash.
If the score of 5 is rounded up such that 4.5000001 is a 5, then it at least means then if you get a 5, a 5 and a 4 you are still allowed to ride. However, get a 5 and a 4, and you can never ride again, so can never improve your score. So assuming you are started at a rating of 5 initially (how could you not be?) it's on strike and you are out. It seems like a way for Uber to shoot itself very firmly in the foot in Australia, if not the head.
Restaurants aren't generally subject to regulatory checks by customers, so it's not comparable. Unless you are suggesting we do away with public health and outsource it to patrons :).
Drum machines make you a slave to the rhythm.
You need to be at least to manage partial concentration on something for periods of time, else the fish gets away. You don't want to concentrate so much the bear which also wants fish eats you instead. But then that's why you have fishing buddies - one to look out for the bears. Or that is what you tell your wife when loading the beer into the fishing tackle bag along with the rod and bait.
Damn, you beat me to it. It's all I came here to do - post that. So I am off now to look at a shiny thing.
A Tesla is about 75kwH or thereabouts, so Audi's batteries (assuming the same approximate capacity) add an additional $1000 to costs. So assuming $50k retail, it's maybe $30,000 to build (retail being 30k, plus manufacturer's profit, transport cost, dealer's profit), so $1000 is 3%. It's within my really handwavy estimate :). 3% isn't a huge margin for Tesla to have over Audi.
Well-to-wheel versus mine-to-wheel, given various losses, it's about comparable efficiency, so that's not bad for something that effectively decouples transport from the mode of creation of energy. With renewables of nuclear, the footprint is better than ICE. When these hit the used market for a reasonable price, and assuming there is a battery uprade program like with Renault, I will be very tempted, partly because Mercedes has impressed me with the car I have currently sufficiently for me to want to go with another if the economics are there.
I would imagine that a European car likely to be mostly sold in Europe will use the existing significant European charging network.
If the price is decent, the range seems reasonable in comparison to the Teslas.