[clv101]

This document is interesting - seems like there's real potential for the UK here. This project could be good for a significant chunk of the UK electricity supply. Given the problems of natural gas depletion (38% electricity supply) and old nuclear plants (~20% electricity supply) being decommissioned we need all the new electricity capacity we can get!

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings ... agoons.pdf

[Permanently_Baffled]

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/ ... report.pdf

How about a bit of underground coal gasification?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
A preliminary excercise based on conservativeassumptions for powerplant location and coal seam access suggests that large UCG power projects could be located in at least 5 brown fields sites. This could generate an estimtated 20 GWe of electricity over at least 20 years. This is greater than the current generation capacity provided by coal

[Devil]

For some reason, I couldn't download either link, but I'm totally opposed to the Severn barrage. It would be an environmental catastrophe (think of the Wildfowl Trust which would be ruined after Peter Scott spent a lifetime creating it). It would also be catastrophic to shipping. The delays at the locks for ocean-going vessels, creating an increase of costs which would condemn Bristol as a major port.

The same applies to lagoon creation, generally.

OTOH there are tidal designs using pneumatic compression which would be more environmentally acceptable, but are limited to a few MW each. A multiplicity of these would be better than one large installation, as the dead zone with the change of tide could be staggered, whereas with one large system, you would have four periods per day of zero production.

[Permanently_Baffled]

http://www.energybulletin.net/6097.html

What do you make of this article Devil?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Sinden's approach is remarkably effective in reducing the need for standby capacity. If offshore wind power alone were to provide an average 3,500MW of electricity — 10% of electricity demand in England and Wales — it would need to be backed up by an extra standby generating capacity of 3,135MW — 90% of average production. But using Sinden's proposed mix of technologies, only 400MW of new standby capacity would be needed — just 11%

[Devil]

35% from renewables would almost certainly lead to grid instability. In the summer anticyclonic period, wind is almost zero over the whole of W. Europe, it's dark at nights, CHPs would be switched off, as it is warm, waves are minimal, so that leaves essentially conventional power to run the chillers in all the large buildings and the TV sets of the aficianados of Coronation Street and Eastenders.

IMHO, 25% of peak power for variable renewables is about the max that the grid could cope with, with 18-20% max for any one type. If you did have a mix, you would still need at least 95% peak capacity available, from conventionals. You would also need 25% of running renewables capacity on idle, ready to kick in within seconds, and 50% within a few minutes.

It seems there may be a grave misunderstanding that variable renewables can never seriously replace fixed capacity; at the best, it will reduce overall fuel consumption by about 10%.

CHPs are not an answer: they are less efficient than a large power station and they mostly use natural gas.

[Frank]

While centralized solutions are important, we should not forget about decentralized renewable power production i.e. smaller PV-wind/battery systems. Electricity will always be important for factories and future design should aim to get homeowners off the grid as much as possible.