The impact of green energy.

Casdon

That’s not the case David49. The main barrier to the development of the barrage was economic. However, it’s still under consideration, and an Independent Commission reported on the scheme in March of this year.
www.severncommission.co.uk/

Interesting that the are promoting a pilot project

Comparing the 7% of UK power which happens to coincide with the output of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station the Environmental report for that runs to over 31000 pages, the complex scheme proposed for tidal barrages and lagoons looks a lot more demanding.

We will see what happens when.

It’s not a one solution issue though David49, we’re going to see multiple solutions. There’s another project I’m aware of in South Wales which coukd well be another piece f the jigsaw.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/plans-small-nuclear-power-plant-32156366

There was an SMR pilot at Trawsfynnyd planned that’s now scrapped in favour of a larger site in South Wales, using former power station sites is a big cost saver you already have the grid connections and they will be close to a cooling water source. The Rolls Royce boss was promoting SMRs today on the news.

Although the nuclear reactor is quite small it needs steam turbines a cooling system and transmission infrastructure so ends up somewhat larger.

When wind turbines are turned off because there is enough power in the system the energy company receives compensation and can then sell the nonexistent electricity on.

How can non existent electricity be 'sold on', Avalon?

I read this on another 'forum' recently, though no evidence was given for the statement

Apparently Scottish renewables are producing big electricity surpluses; and the suppliers are being paid not to produce the surplus. This amounts to no less than 37% of Scottish renewable output is effectively going to waste (providers being paid to switch off supply), for three apparent reasons:
1. A network grid that cannot transfer the surplus.
2. Technical storage problems.
3. A seriously defective energy strategy.

This poster did point out that over the UK while some renewables producers were being paid to stop producing (mainly because of 1) & 2) above) in other places 'conventional' producers were being paid to produce more.

Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded – one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.
At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.
Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland’s largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy

These extracts came from comments on this blog post:
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/08/13/its-gers-day-in-scotland/

I read a year or two ago in the FT about the problems new renewable suppliers have in being connected to the National Grid, with very long waiting times. Whether this has improved since I don't know. But it appears to me that failures in infrastructure are not helping in improving distribution of what is available.

In the near future any surplus Electricity will be used to produce green hydrogen, so the case of wasting wind energy should not occur. So don’t bet on offpeak power being available for ever, as cheap electricity becomes more available, ways to use it will be found. Overloading infrastructure is a problem with solar farms that is the prime reason to have batteries, store it overnight use it next morning when solar is low.

The Hydrogen revolution cannot start until we have enough power to produce hydrogen economically, currently the vast majority is produced from natural gas.

We have had the hydrogen technology for many years but not the fuel, there is no point having hydrogen vehicles when the fuel is produced from natural gas

I wish we could wake up to the fact that much 'green energy' is not 'green' at all. Acres upon acres of arable land disappearing under solar farms, massive wind turbines needing huge concrete supports that will ruin landscapes, the amount of vested interests pursuing the 'green' agenda - there is nothing fresh or young about it. It's the age-old saying 'follow the money'. I wish we could unpack the 'science' behind this a bit more. Many scientists do not support the carbon panic, but they lose their jobs and are treated as heretics, their views and their data suppressed. But I recall from pre-O level geography that the world used to be hotter, the air more full of carbon dioxide - and therefore the earth greener, because vegetation needs carbon dioxide and without it we die. On this platform I see that your brother in law's legitimate views are dismissed as 'dinosaur' - thus we label and dismiss inconvenient truths. I applaud people, young and old, that are concerned about the environment (because Goddess knows we should be, although not about carbon) but just because they are young and enthusiastic does not mean they are right. And just because Trump says something it does not mean it is wrong. My overall point is question, question, question, because not all of what you hear on the BBC and read in 'respectable' publications is true.

Many scientists do not support the carbon panic, but they lose their jobs and are treated as heretics, their views and their data suppressed.

You are correct, those that raise their head above the parapet against climate change are suppressed, nobody is going to get a grant to research anti climate change. Most are much more pragmatic and join the rush to reduce CO2 and keep their jobs.

However when it comes to economics if it is cheaper to produce electricity from wind or nuclear we should do that. If environmental protection is a cost the taxpayers want they have to pay for it.

MaizieD it was in an article I read in the DM (I know, I know) on 28th July “The truth about British Taxpayer cash soaked wind farm industry.” In the article it claimed there is a loophole in the subsidy system via which farms receiving constraint payments are provided with credited energy they can sell on the open market.

The governments signed the best deal available at the time, or so they thought.
This is going to get worse as renewable increases the gas and other fossil has been turned off you have to cut renewable in low demand periods. Until we get alternative loads or storage that can be switched on payments will continue.

I did think that originally the blades are made to last about the same time as the critical components but don't know if that's still true.

My friend's son is a turbine design engineer and says lots can last 30 years but there is "fatigue" of the blade materials especially at the leading edge.

I can't remember if he said you move blades from windy areas to less windy areas as they get older - or that you could move them to less stressful situations.

Well done to your nephew. I hope he's truly happy in his new job.

The life of offshore turbines is shorter than those onshore, DH who still does occasional work for an offshore installer says that the weather, corrosive nature of the salt filled air and stresses caused by water on the foundations means that offshore turbines have a much shorter life than onshore turbines and are much more expensive to keep operational because they break down more frequently and require more and bigger teams of staff to keep them operational, plus the cost of running supply and service boats.

I have just checked the GridWatch figures. Currently while solar power is providing nearly a quarter of our energy at the moment, wind turbines are only contributing 8% of our energy because generally, the weather round the Uk - and at sea - is non-existent or too light to generate any significant quantity of electricity. We are , as ever dependent on gas fired powerstations for our power supply.

AS the day progresses and the sun goes down, gas will take up the slack from declining waether dependent power sources.

You didn’t mention the individual home’s solar battery storage systems, or that the national grid stores power generated through solar and wind energy, and forgot to mention nuclear power M0nica which is 15%, and hydro, which is currently 2%, both provided 24/7. The picture is not as black as you paint it now, and it is improving.

I am not paintingthe situation as black, but we need much more nuclear and tidal power. Biomass is as polluting as any other combustable fuel, whether coal, gas or oil.

It is just everyone has got obsessed with wind and solar energy despite the fact that it is uncontrollable and is often east available whenit is most needed.

I would like to see far more campaigning and talking about , for examples the string of tidaal lagoons proposed for the south welsh coast that could make an immense contribution to our national energy supplies. I would like to see a move away from the hugee white elephants like Sizewell B and replacing it by more smaller systems like those being developed by Rolls Royce and essentially based on the engines used to power nuclear submarines.

Domestic batteries are all very well, but they cannot hold a week or more of electricity and not all dwellings are suitable for solar panels. The EPCs of so many houses say they can install solar panels when it is clear they cannot.

There are a large number of options, many of which have been discussed on the thread. I’m not sure who is hung up on solar and wind power as the only solutions to be honest, it’s a patchwork approach, that is the only way forward.

Casdon

There are a large number of options, many of which have been discussed on the thread. I’m not sure who is hung up on solar and wind power as the only solutions to be honest, it’s a patchwork approach, that is the only way forward.

For the home owner solar panels do save you a lot on your energy bills, some systems allow you to sell energy back to the grid but they are not cheap to install.

But

Don’t forget depreciation it’s going to be scrap after 20yrs and you might have to replace components before that. So if you spend £10k that’s £500 + a year saving to break even.

Because we now have high standing charges on electricity connections it’s harder to save money on solar, my standing charge is higher than grid electricity used.

counterpoint

The big wind turbine makers are already committed to recycling blades. And getting into action orsted.co.uk/insights/from-the-front-line-of-climate-action/meeting-the-global-challenge-of-blade-recycling-with-a-scalable-solution

@Babylon Natural CO2 emissions are roughly in balance. It’s fossil fuel burning that is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. You’re just spouting standard anti-climate change misinformation.

I could add that you are 'spouting' typical rhetoric used when anyone asks difficult questions or challenges authority. This is typically accompanied by ignoring other points that I mentioned regarding geo-engineering. What is THAT doing to our weather system?

This seems hopeful.

orsted.co.uk/insights/from-the-front-line-of-climate-action/meeting-the-global-challenge-of-blade-recycling-with-a-scalable-solution