[Fultonius]

As with so much, this link has handy numbers about the potential for UK onshore windpower https://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml

Bit short on time, so just a couple of quick things. Withouthotair was a great resource in its day but totally outdated by the pace of change.

China has installed the most wind turbines and nuclear power of any country globally.

China’s total electricity generation capacity surged by 13.9% to 2.92 TW. Thermal power grew by 4.1% to 1.39 GW. Wind jumped almost 21%, a record 75.9 GW, to 441.3 GW. BloombergNEF estimated that China accounted for 60% of new wind and 58% of newly installed solar power capacity in the world in 2023

.

Stone - the beauty of tidal is that, at any one time you have a steady output if you have around 6 sites spread around the UK. Yes, neeps/springs, but tidal is so variable (in flow velocity) anyway that a lot of the time you will be running above rated power, so it it does make a lot of difference. Also, just over install...

And this:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-biggest-smelter-to-launch-massive-wind-and-solar-tender-says-nuclear-too-costly/

Agree with Pete on the system being not optimised towards the correct outcome - also see AI paperclip theory.

The problem with humanity, as evidenced by this thread, is our endless ability to discuss the *best* option, while Rome burns waiting for any fucking option to get built...

Just bloody get on with it already!


Wave sounds good in theory. I was quite involved for a while at uni and other things, but it's just incredibly difficult to actually build and run as you basically need to shove equipment in very hostile environments (the best sites are the worst sites for access / install / maintenance) I predict fusion or end of huminty come first.

[Fultonius]

Just noticed a typo I think in my copy paste, surely china thermal is TW, not GW?

[Moo]

You’ve hit the nail on the head there Fultonius. The perfect solution is just to get on with building as many imperfect solutions as we can as quickly as we can.

In the end some will become redundant but as long as they’re moving us away from fossil fuels in the meantime then they’re doing their job.

[stone]

Fultonius, I'm interested that you're a fan of tidal. My understanding was that putting systems around the UK (and mixing tidal flow with barrages etc) dealt with the intra-day variability but did nothing for the spring-neap issue. So basically tidal gave you lots of power every second week. That's a very tough thing to integrate with everything else.

The bits of Withouthotair that I thought most useful were those about geographic potential. Stuff like how much energy is actually in the tidal flow around the UK or in the wind blowing over it etc before we try to invent a technology to extract it. That is timeless isn't it?

I'm totally behind building anything now that displaces fossil fuels though.

Whilst we do that, we also need to be getting on with stuff that actually gets us to zero-C too though.

[Bradders]

You’ve hit the nail on the head there Fultonius. The perfect solution is just to get on with building as many imperfect solutions as we can as quickly as we can.

In the end some will become redundant but as long as they’re moving us away from fossil fuels in the meantime then they’re doing their job.

100% this

It needs both. Ultimately the population is composed only of individuals, the other entities are legal fictions, controlled by individuals. Change must come from them, because it can’t come from anywhere else.

And this.

Been reading the thread with interest. I'm kind of surprised by Pete's position that it's all a bit pointless what we do, as it ignores the potential for compounding. Yes in isolation each little act has no effect, but they build over time and compound into something far greater.

I also have to believe it requires both top down and bottom up action, and those things are not mutually exclusive. As a for instance, my firm is about to move buildings, going from a massive, old, inefficient, sprawling place into a brand new office which is supposedly highly energy efficient. That change could be considered top down (massive corporation consolidating its office presence), or bottom up (employees of massive corporation looking for cost effective sustainable solutions that help us meet net zero). The new building is going to be more difficult for people to drive to (very limited on site parking) which is a top down decision around sustainable travel, but any benefit in people using more sustainable / active commuting options will require bottom up decision making from each individual (i.e. choosing to use the park and ride, train, cycle, etc. instead of belligerently driving to the nearest car park and hoping for the best).

[stone]

One way to look at this is in terms of a global carbon budget. If we burn all the fossil fuels on Earth we could get 8oC warming and v tough consequences. Burn less and it is less tough. Assuming we eventually transition away from fossil fuels (before we have to anyway because they are used up) anything that leaves more fuel in the ground is good. So banning private jets today has big advantages over banning them in ten years time or whatever. Likewise with windturbines.

[Fultonius]

Vaclav Smil is essential reading to understand this issue. ....... 'it's essential that we build onshore windfarms in the UK in the effort halt global warming'

I'm intrigued by this. UK average current (2022 electricity demand is 36GW. The installed capacity of onshore wind as of 2023 was around 12GW.

Now, installed capacity only gives and average of about 30-40% of that, and electricity demand will go up as we heat our homes, fuel our industry and charge our EVs with it, but don't get how that's not a useful contribution?

It's easy just to say "go offshore" but we have a massive ship supply issue ATM, which doesn't so much affect onshore.

Also, for grid stability see California:

https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1769493892955844807   running on 100% renewables for periods up around 4 hours per day and their grid ism essentially (i.e. very minimally, giving very little stability support), not interconnected to other US grids.

@Stone, I'll look a bit more into tidal before replying - bit out of touch these days on that.