Remember me
▼ Content

My list of recommended renewable energy technologies


My list of recommended renewable energy technologies18-12-2015 16:08
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
The links are to my blog where I have published about the technology item in the list.

Scottish Scientist recommends -

Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate

Land-based wind turbines

Offshore wind turbines

Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sunshine

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
- Comment

Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
- World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro scheme for Scotland?
- Wind turbine & Pumped-storage hydro computer modelling

Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation

Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass

Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels

New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels

Nuclear-powered mega-ships – container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc

Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)

Scottish Scientist does not recommend -

Forget new nuclear plant for the grid. Portable nuclear only.

Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
___________
Who pays?

Pay for this by governments directing their central banks to create new money for such infrastructure investments - there's no need to burden tax-payers, electricity bill-payers, travellers, hauliers, shipping companies etc.

More power?

When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist
Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland
Edited on 18-12-2015 16:58
18-12-2015 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
The links are to my blog where I have published about the technology item in the list.

Scottish Scientist recommends -

Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate

Land-based wind turbines

Offshore wind turbines

Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sunshine

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
- Comment

Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
- World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro scheme for Scotland?
- Wind turbine & Pumped-storage hydro computer modelling

Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation

Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass

Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels

New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels

Nuclear-powered mega-ships – container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc

Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)

Scottish Scientist does not recommend -

Forget new nuclear plant for the grid. Portable nuclear only.

Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
___________
Who pays?

Pay for this by governments directing their central banks to create new money for such infrastructure investments - there's no need to burden tax-payers, electricity bill-payers, travellers, hauliers, shipping companies etc.

More power?

When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist
Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland


There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances. With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-12-2015 23:34
19-12-2015 02:34
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:


There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Scotland isn't in the Euro because the UK isn't in the Euro and we are still in the UK, having voted against Scottish independence in 2014, and therefore Scotland is not doing as well as we could be doing outside the UK, depending on how well we governed Scotland.

But my list was not for Scotland or the UK alone but for all the world to consider.

Printing money is appropriate where there is slack in the economy and there is certainly that in Europe, because the European Central Bank has been timid in the use of money printing or quantitative easing methods of investing.

Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.


The longest power transmission line in the world is the Rio Madeira HVDC system in Brazil.
The length of the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi).

Consider the distances which might be required supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn - Namib Desert, Atacama Desert, Australia to the northern hemisphere.

The distance from the Tropics to the Equator is 2,630 km.
The distance from the Equator to the Poles is 10,000km.

So the worst case would be supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn to the North Pole over 2,630 + 10,000 = 12,630 km, which is a factor of 12,630/2,375 = 5.32 times further than the length of Rio Madeira transmission line.

So to keep the losses the same over that "worst case" distance would require the transmission voltage to be increased by a factor of only (the square root of 5.32) = 2.31.

The voltages used on the Rio Madeira transmission lines are ±600 kV DC.

So designing for transmission voltages of 2.31 x 600 = ±1380 kV DC would be all that is required to supply the North Pole from the Tropic of Capricorn!

Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Well the components for higher voltages are made bigger and with greater radiuses of curvature which reduces the electric field for the same voltage or allows a higher voltage for the same electric field.

Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

There is also the option of damming at the wider but shallower Camarinal Sill

Not that I am in any hurry to design the Gibraltar dam as I have pencilled its construction in for after the world is fossil-fuel free.
19-12-2015 12:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1161)
Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)


Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

Edited on 19-12-2015 12:44
19-12-2015 19:50
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Tim the plumber wrote:
...There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody...Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...


I used to think this. Just looking at a huge magma pool in a volcanic caldera, it would seem that thermal energy could be harnessed to supply vast amounts of power.

However actual calculations show there is less energy available than first appears. A lot of magma is based on basalt.

Specific heat of basalt (approx) = 1 joule / gram / deg. C

Cooling from molten magma releases at least 1000 joules per gram

Basalt = 188 lbs per cu. ft. (3011 kg per cubic meter)

A cubic kilometer contains 1 billion cubic meters

Energy in 1 cubic kilometer of molten basalt =

1000 joules/g * 3011000 g/m^3 * 1,000,000,000 m^3/km^3

= 3.011 E18 joules per cubic km, or 833 TW hr.

Total annual world electrical consumption is 20,000 terawatt hrs per year:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity-domestic-consumption-data-by-region.html

Even if 100% of the energy from a cubic kilometer of molten magma could be extracted at 100% efficiency, that would only provide 4.1% of world electrical needs.

However -- typical geothermal/electric plant efficiency is relatively low, around 7-10%, so this would only supply about 0.41% of world electric needs.

Furthermore there is no known technique for high-temperature energy extraction from molten rock on an industrial scale. Existing geothermal plants work at much lower temperatures:
http://bigthink.com/eruptions/using-magma-as-a-power-source-not-as-simple-as-it-seems

What about countries like Iceland? Don't they get lots of electrical power from geothermal sources? Yes, for the 320,000 inhabitants (about the same as Lexington, KY), Iceland consumed about 17,068 Gwh in 2012:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland

About 70% of this came from hydro and 30% from geothermal sources, IOW annual geothermal electric production in Iceland is about 5,120 Gwh, or about 65% of a single conventional 1 gigawatt powerplant at 90% capacity factor.

By contrast the Puget Sound region of Washington State has about 4.2 million population (roughly same as Ireland) and in 2011 got about 70% of their electricity from hydro, which was about 126,000 Gwh, or 7.5x the total geothermal electric production of Iceland:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powersupply/2010-16/

However this doesn't mean the population of Puget Sound or Iceland are environmental or engineering geniuses -- they took advantage of unique geological characteristics specific to their area. This unfortunately cannot be replicated or scaled upward sufficiently to meet total world energy needs, which
is 558 quadrillion BTUs (EIA, 2014), or 163,000 terawatt hrs per year. World electrical demands alone are 20,000 Twh, or 12% of total energy.

Current world total hydropower nameplate capacity is 936 GW, and at typical average capacity factor of 40% can produce about 3,283 Twh per year or about 16% of world electrical needs: https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/resource/hydropower/

That is pretty good but it is unlikely to increase hugely and in a timeframe meaningful to the problem at hand.
Edited on 19-12-2015 19:51
19-12-2015 19:53
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)


Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

A Scotland - Iceland subsea cable is being considered already.

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.


IMAGE - Iceland to Scotland shortest distance - 820 km - 510 miles

Considering that there is a plan already to build the longest undersea power cable from Norway to the U.K. which will be about 740 kilometers (460 miles) long, then we can confidently say that such a subsea power cable from Iceland to Scotland would be a practical possibility.

I agree that such a cable could provide useful back-up renewable power from Iceland when the UK grid is low on power because of wind calms.
19-12-2015 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:


There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Scotland isn't in the Euro because the UK isn't in the Euro and we are still in the UK, having voted against Scottish independence in 2014, and therefore Scotland is not doing as well as we could be doing outside the UK, depending on how well we governed Scotland.

Ok.
Scottish Scientist wrote:
But my list was not for Scotland or the UK alone but for all the world to consider.

Printing money is appropriate where there is slack in the economy and there is certainly that in Europe, because the European Central Bank has been timid in the use of money printing or quantitative easing methods of investing.

Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.


The longest power transmission line in the world is the Rio Madeira HVDC system in Brazil.
The length of the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi).

Consider the distances which might be required supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn - Namib Desert, Atacama Desert, Australia to the northern hemisphere.

The distance from the Tropics to the Equator is 2,630 km.
The distance from the Equator to the Poles is 10,000km.

So the worst case would be supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn to the North Pole over 2,630 + 10,000 = 12,630 km, which is a factor of 12,630/2,375 = 5.32 times further than the length of Rio Madeira transmission line.

So to keep the losses the same over that "worst case" distance would require the transmission voltage to be increased by a factor of only (the square root of 5.32) = 2.31.

The voltages used on the Rio Madeira transmission lines are ±600 kV DC.

So designing for transmission voltages of 2.31 x 600 = ±1380 kV DC would be all that is required to supply the North Pole from the Tropic of Capricorn!

The trouble is the length. While HVDC lines are great at long distances, there are still losses. It's far more economical to construct shorter lines to available power supplies. Lengths like you are talking about will still lose a lot of power to cumulative losses. I am not saying it's impossible to build such a line, I am saying it's not necessary.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Well the components for higher voltages are made bigger and with greater radiuses of curvature which reduces the electric field for the same voltage or allows a higher voltage for the same electric field.
Straight line losses are still there. Wind is still there. Sag is still there.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

There is also the option of damming at the wider but shallower Camarinal Sill

Not that I am in any hurry to design the Gibraltar dam as I have pencilled its construction in for after the world is fossil-fuel free.

This would create an even longer dam. No matter where you put it in the Straits, this is going to be one hell of a project.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2015 12:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1161)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)


Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

A Scotland - Iceland subsea cable is being considered already.

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.


IMAGE - Iceland to Scotland shortest distance - 820 km - 510 miles

Considering that there is a plan already to build the longest undersea power cable from Norway to the U.K. which will be about 740 kilometers (460 miles) long, then we can confidently say that such a subsea power cable from Iceland to Scotland would be a practical possibility.

I agree that such a cable could provide useful back-up renewable power from Iceland when the UK grid is low on power because of wind calms.


1, Why just when the wind is calm??? If it can supply the power then it can do so all the time and there is no need at all for the silly wind farms.

2, As a boast, I think it was my idea. I first put it on a forum a few years ago and tried to fire it into the right ears. 8 months later there was the beginnings of noise about it. Nice to see that I have had some sort of influence on the world.
20-12-2015 19:26
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Scottish Scientist


No wave energy..?

I think I remember Scotland has bought a huge vanadium battery.
If you know about it you will perhaps say something about how it is going with the project..?

Nuclear power is not renewable energy.




@Tim the plumber

Jep, it is great you have taught the world how to move energy in a cable.






­­
Edited on 20-12-2015 19:30
20-12-2015 21:07
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:


There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Scotland isn't in the Euro because the UK isn't in the Euro and we are still in the UK, having voted against Scottish independence in 2014, and therefore Scotland is not doing as well as we could be doing outside the UK, depending on how well we governed Scotland.

Ok.
Scottish Scientist wrote:
But my list was not for Scotland or the UK alone but for all the world to consider.

Printing money is appropriate where there is slack in the economy and there is certainly that in Europe, because the European Central Bank has been timid in the use of money printing or quantitative easing methods of investing.

Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.


The longest power transmission line in the world is the Rio Madeira HVDC system in Brazil.
The length of the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi).

Consider the distances which might be required supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn - Namib Desert, Atacama Desert, Australia to the northern hemisphere.

The distance from the Tropics to the Equator is 2,630 km.
The distance from the Equator to the Poles is 10,000km.

So the worst case would be supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn to the North Pole over 2,630 + 10,000 = 12,630 km, which is a factor of 12,630/2,375 = 5.32 times further than the length of Rio Madeira transmission line.

So to keep the losses the same over that "worst case" distance would require the transmission voltage to be increased by a factor of only (the square root of 5.32) = 2.31.

The voltages used on the Rio Madeira transmission lines are ±600 kV DC.

So designing for transmission voltages of 2.31 x 600 = ±1380 kV DC would be all that is required to supply the North Pole from the Tropic of Capricorn!

The trouble is the length.

Transmitting power over global distances present an engineering challenge certainly.

Into the Night wrote:
While HVDC lines are great at long distances, there are still losses.

As I have explained, the energy losses over the entire distance of power transmission can be designed to be independent of distance, if the transmission voltage is raised in proportion to the square root of the distance, and new higher voltage components are used.

Into the Night wrote:
It's far more economical to construct shorter lines to available power supplies.

Well of course it is.

Higher voltages mean greater capital expenditure costs for the same length.

Longer lines mean greater capital expenditure costs, in proportion to the length assuming voltage is a constant.

Into the Night wrote:
Lengths like you are talking about will still lose a lot of power to cumulative losses.

Wrong. As I have explained, the power losses can be made independent of the length of the transmission line, if the design voltage is raised in proportion to the square root of the length.

Into the Night wrote:
I am not saying it's impossible to build such a line, I am saying it's not necessary.

Well it is not necessary for Iceland, sure, which has all the renewable energy they need. Scotland may not need to go further than our own land for hydro-electric power and our own waters, to collect all the energy we need from wind and tidal power.

For China and others, however, long distance transmission of solar power - from Tibet and Australia - does appear to me to be necessary or at least advisable if China is going to stop pumping ever increasing quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Well the components for higher voltages are made bigger and with greater radiuses of curvature which reduces the electric field for the same voltage or allows a higher voltage for the same electric field.
Straight line losses are still there. Wind is still there. Sag is still there.

Pardon?

Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

There is also the option of damming at the wider but shallower Camarinal Sill

Not that I am in any hurry to design the Gibraltar dam as I have pencilled its construction in for after the world is fossil-fuel free.

This would create an even longer dam. No matter where you put it in the Straits, this is going to be one hell of a project.

Indeed.
20-12-2015 22:19
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)


Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

A Scotland - Iceland subsea cable is being considered already.

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.


IMAGE - Iceland to Scotland shortest distance - 820 km - 510 miles

Considering that there is a plan already to build the longest undersea power cable from Norway to the U.K. which will be about 740 kilometers (460 miles) long, then we can confidently say that such a subsea power cable from Iceland to Scotland would be a practical possibility.

I agree that such a cable could provide useful back-up renewable power from Iceland when the UK grid is low on power because of wind calms.


1, Why just when the wind is calm??? If it can supply the power then it can do so all the time and there is no need at all for the silly wind farms.

I'll just quote what those proposing the Iceland - Scotland interconnector say about that.


Landsvirkjun - The National Power Company of Iceland - Submarine Cable to Europe

Through bi-directional flows, IceLink could potentially reduce the cost of managing constraints between northern GB and the major consumption centres further south as energy is directed to Iceland at times of excess wind power generation in the north, stored in hydro reservoirs, and returned at times of lower wind output.

By providing flexible energy in near term spot markets and the balancing mechanism, IceLink can lower the cost of balancing, in particular in a system with a high penetration of intermittent generation.

IceLink increases diversity of power supply at both ends and enhances further deployment of renewables through coupling highly flexible hydro generation with that of intermittent wind and solar generation.

IceLink delivers reliable and flexible energy into the GB system at times of thin supply margins.



The UK National Grid - Interconnectors - Iceland - Icelink

The project will make a positive contribution to European energy policy objectives helping Great Britain towards a minimum 10% interconnection target, facilitating renewables integration and resulting in socio-economic welfare benefits – for example consumer electricity prices in Great Britain should be reduced if it has access to increased imports of lower price energy from its neighbours and Iceland should derive greater value from its renewable resources.


Tim the plumber wrote:
2, As a boast, I think it was my idea. I first put it on a forum a few years ago and tried to fire it into the right ears. 8 months later there was the beginnings of noise about it. Nice to see that I have had some sort of influence on the world.


Landsvirkjun - The National Power Company of Iceland - Submarine Cable to Europe
Overview of IceLink

The first proposal to connect Iceland's electricity grid with Scotland's, via a submarine cable was first introduced over 60 years ago. The feasibility of such a project has been regularly assessed over the last 30 years.

Edited on 20-12-2015 22:20
21-12-2015 13:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Not correct. Printing money is always inflationary. You can't just make value out of thin air. The only reason money has value is because of it's relative rarity. Printing wholesale to fund a mega project of any kind is just wallpaper. The costs of the mega project will spiral out of control and the government printing the money can't catch up with it. You can cause a real crisis of faith in the currency that way.

The rest of the economy goes along for the ride to the bottom.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.
Scottish Scientist wrote:
I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge. You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Transmitting power over global distances present an engineering challenge certainly.

Definitely. One that is beyond our current engineering.
Scottish Scientist wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
It's far more economical to construct shorter lines to available power supplies.

Well of course it is.

Then why not do so?
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Higher voltages mean greater capital expenditure costs for the same length.

Longer lines mean greater capital expenditure costs, in proportion to the length assuming voltage is a constant.
I doubt that. All lines have loss. Raising the voltage only works so far.
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lengths like you are talking about will still lose a lot of power to cumulative losses.

Wrong. As I have explained, the power losses can be made independent of the length of the transmission line, if the design voltage is raised in proportion to the square root of the length.

Wrong. Power losses are never independent of the length of the transmission line. You will also have to raise the voltage more than just the square root of the length. You are not taking into account all the factors, only the resistive ones.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am not saying it's impossible to build such a line, I am saying it's not necessary.

Well it is not necessary for Iceland, sure, which has all the renewable energy they need. Scotland may not need to go further than our own land for hydro-electric power and our own waters, to collect all the energy we need from wind and tidal power.

For China and others, however, long distance transmission of solar power - from Tibet and Australia - does appear to me to be necessary or at least advisable if China is going to stop pumping ever increasing quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere.
What is a greenhouse gas? Why is it a greenhouse gas? Why are you worried about them?
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Straight line losses are still there. Wind is still there. Sag is still there.

Pardon?

Losses due to straight line corona, resistive losses, conversion losses, synchronization losses, flashover losses due to winds, flashover losses due to sag, connection losses, upconversion losses, corrosion losses, etc. HVDC lines have a lot of losses. The biggest advantage of them is better control of synchronization losses (though not zero), and the elimination of capacitive and inductive losses.

Your solution by increasing voltage reduces resistive losses, but increases other losses.
A simple relationship of increasing voltage by the square root of the length is not going to work.


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2015 14:09
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Jakob wrote:
­@Scottish Scientist

No wave energy..?

Not yet anyway.

Jakob wrote:
I think I remember Scotland has bought a huge vanadium battery.
If you know about it you will perhaps say something about how it is going with the project..?

I hadn't heard about that until you mentioned it.
http://www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/battery-technology.asp
http://www.redtenergy.com/

Jakob wrote:
Nuclear power is not renewable energy.

21-12-2015 14:54
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Not correct.

It is absolutely correct.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

No it isn't.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't just make value out of thin air.

That's what professional musicians do, by creating valuable sound vibrations in thin air, we call "music".

Into the Night wrote:
The only reason money has value is because of it's relative rarity.

Half a bank-note is just as rare but has no value without the other half.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing wholesale to fund a mega project of any kind is just wallpaper.

No it isn't. People don't work for wallpaper but they will work for banknotes.

Into the Night wrote:
The costs of the mega project will spiral out of control

Costs spiralling out of control are a symptom of a bad project of any size, either badly conceived, badly designed, badly managed or badly worked.

Into the Night wrote:
and the government printing the money can't catch up with it. You can cause a real crisis of faith in the currency that way. The rest of the economy goes along for the ride to the bottom.

Investing in a bad project whose costs spiral out of control will lead to a crisis of faith in the investors yes. That's true for any size of project, however funded.

A crisis of faith in a government which is not investing in any mega-projects at all can lead to a crisis of faith in the currency too.

You are conflating and confusing unrelated factors.

Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge.

It is apparently to me that you are the one here who doesn't know economics.

Into the Night wrote:
You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Printing money for investment has been done successfully many times in history. So you don't know your history either.
Edited on 21-12-2015 15:00
21-12-2015 16:41
Scottish Scientist
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Transmitting power over global distances present an engineering challenge certainly.

Definitely. One that is beyond our current engineering.

These challenges are being overcome with development of higher voltage technology.

In 2012, ABB announced progress with 1,100 kV HVDC technology.

ABB develops world's most powerful high-voltage direct current converter transformer

UHVDC converter transformer can operate at over a million volts and enable efficient and reliable transmission of larger amounts of electricity across longer distances

Zurich, Switzerland, July 3, 2012 – ABB, the leading power and automation technology group has successfully developed and tested an 1,100 kilovolt (kV) ultrahigh-voltage direct current (UHVDC) converter transformer breaking the record for the highest DC voltage levels ever, and facilitating more power to be transmitted efficiently over longer distances.

The Xiangjiaba-Shanghai link, commissioned by ABB was the world`s first commercial 800 kV UHVDC connection. It has a capacity of 6,400 MW and covers a distance of just over 2000 kilometers (km), making it the longest of its kind in operation. The new 1,100 kilovolt (kV) converter transformer technology will make it possible to transmit more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of power across distances as long as 3,000 km.


However I think "3,000 km" is an estimate based on using a unipolar design - using only one 1,100 kV line and the return via ground.

Note however that the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres long using ±600 kV DC, bipolar design, one line at positive +600 kV DC and another line at negative -600 kV DC, which effectively means a transmission voltage difference between the two lines of 1,200 kV DC, using 600 kV DC technology. Smart.

So therefore if design engineers apply ABB's 1,100kV technology but adapt it for a bipolar design using ±1,100 kV, this again would effectively double the transmission voltage.

In which case, my estimate for distances to be expected from using bipolar ±1,100 kV would be more like as long as

(1,100/600)^2 x 2,375 = 7,982 km or 4,960 miles,

A 7,982 km transmission line running south to north can transmit power as far as
(7,982 / 10,000 ) x 90 = 71.8 degrees of latitude.

That puts everywhere in the northern hemisphere within reach of the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 degrees of latitude, which is only 7,389 km from the North Pole.



Although the winter sun in the likes of the Sahara Desert on the Tropic of Cancer will not be as strong as it will be at the same time as the summer sun on the Tropic of Capricorn, nevertheless bipolar ±1,100 kV from the Tropic of Cancer may turn out to be quite a good, workable solution for the north, perhaps even saving costs on transmission lines at the expense of having to invest more in solar power technology.

Though current engineering technology is not quite as capable as I'd like to see for my ideal Tropic of Capricorn -> northern hemisphere proposal, current engineering developments are very promising indeed for long distance solar.
Edited on 21-12-2015 17:03
21-12-2015 18:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

No it isn't.


We have just established that you are not an authority on economics.

Let's review some basics:

example 1. If you just start adding water to a beverage, the beverage will become weaker, i.e. "watered down"

example 2. If you just start cutting a drug with baby powder, the drug itself will become weaker.

example 3. If you just start printing money, the currency will become weaker, i.e. "watered down," "inflation," less purchasing power per unit currency.

It is far less embarrassing to ask for help on a topic BEFORE posting an opinion than it is once you have posted something so utterly bogus.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2015 19:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1161)
Scottish scientists,

I see you seem to know your stuff about power transmission. How much power could the geothermal heat of Iceland reasonably provide?

Then we don't need to use all those solar pannels in deserts where the sun does not shine at night and the locals are in the habit of attacking us.

Other volcanoes are lso availible for other locations; Etna, Yellow stone etc..

Edited on 21-12-2015 19:01
21-12-2015 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Not correct.

It is absolutely correct.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

No it isn't.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't just make value out of thin air.

That's what professional musicians do, by creating valuable sound vibrations in thin air, we call "music".

Into the Night wrote:
The only reason money has value is because of it's relative rarity.

Half a bank-note is just as rare but has no value without the other half.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing wholesale to fund a mega project of any kind is just wallpaper.

No it isn't. People don't work for wallpaper but they will work for banknotes.

Into the Night wrote:
The costs of the mega project will spiral out of control

Costs spiralling out of control are a symptom of a bad project of any size, either badly conceived, badly designed, badly managed or badly worked.

Into the Night wrote:
and the government printing the money can't catch up with it. You can cause a real crisis of faith in the currency that way. The rest of the economy goes along for the ride to the bottom.

Investing in a bad project whose costs spiral out of control will lead to a crisis of faith in the investors yes. That's true for any size of project, however funded.

A crisis of faith in a government which is not investing in any mega-projects at all can lead to a crisis of faith in the currency too.

You are conflating and confusing unrelated factors.

Into the Night wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge.

It is apparently to me that you are the one here who doesn't know economics.

Into the Night wrote:
You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Printing money for investment has been done successfully many times in history. So you don't know your history either.


When? How do you measure that success?


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 22:50
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
///
When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.


Delusional rhetoric.

Where does the steel come from to build this huge dam? Oh that's right. Lots of mirrors reflecting on iron ore. That should do it, right "scientist"?


Then we'll "colonize Mars" with, oh, solar powered spaceships. And everything will be all better.
20-07-2017 12:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Scottish Scientist wrote:
The links are to my blog where I have published about the technology item in the list.

Scottish Scientist recommends -

Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate

Land-based wind turbines

Offshore wind turbines

Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sunshine

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
- Comment

Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
- World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro scheme for Scotland?
- Wind turbine & Pumped-storage hydro computer modelling

Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation

Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass

Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels

New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels

Nuclear-powered mega-ships – container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc

Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)

Scottish Scientist does not recommend -

Forget new nuclear plant for the grid. Portable nuclear only.

Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
___________
Who pays?

Pay for this by governments directing their central banks to create new money for such infrastructure investments - there's no need to burden tax-payers, electricity bill-payers, travellers, hauliers, shipping companies etc.

More power?

When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist
Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland


What is being over looked are the rivers and water falls in the oceans. Massive amounts of untapped power.
05-10-2017 21:58
ChristianC123
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Renewable energy has the potential to reduce pollution, slow global warming, create new industries and jobs, and move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future. But renewable energy is not without its challenges and impacts.
Solar energy—power from the sun—is a vast and inexhaustible resource that can supply a significant portion of our electricity needs. A range of technologies is used to convert the sun's energy into electricity, including solar collectors and photovoltaic panels.

regards,
Christian
05-10-2017 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
StarMan wrote:
Scottish Scientist wrote:
///
When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.


Delusional rhetoric.

Where does the steel come from to build this huge dam? Oh that's right. Lots of mirrors reflecting on iron ore. That should do it, right "scientist"?


Then we'll "colonize Mars" with, oh, solar powered spaceships. And everything will be all better.


Heh. The largest solar collector (used to heat an oil tank which is then used to boil water) is huge. It generates a whopping 750 deg F. Far below the temperature required to melt steel.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2017 22:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
James_ wrote:
What is being over looked are the rivers and water falls in the oceans. Massive amounts of untapped power.


Nice try, but you have to have a practical way to anchor it against the current.

Let's say you want to build a power station from the current of the Gulf Stream. This means constructing a collection system hundreds of miles across, and somehow anchoring it so it doesn't move despite the tremendous pressures put against it.

You could try places like the Straits of Gibraltar, but the current there can be swift, and anchoring it is difficult. Then there's the navigational hazard such a station presents. Then we can talk about storm damage problems.

If you knew anything about strengths of materials, you will see this is not practical.

People have not overlooked them. It's simply not practical to build such a station.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-10-2017 23:00
05-10-2017 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
ChristianC123 wrote:
Renewable energy has the potential to reduce pollution,

The energy we use already DOES come from renewable sources, such as oil and natural gas.
ChristianC123 wrote:
slow global warming,

You don't know the temperature of Earth. You don't know if it's warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
ChristianC123 wrote:
create new industries and jobs,

All energy production creates new industries and jobs.
ChristianC123 wrote:
and move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future.

What is so 'unclean' about oil or natural gas? What is so 'unclean' about nuclear fuel? What is so 'unclean' about hydroelectric power?
ChristianC123 wrote:
But renewable energy is not without its challenges and impacts.

Starting with defining it. You are just making the same old 'good' energy 'bad' energy argument. It is a compositional error (a fallacy). There is no 'good' energy. There is no 'bad' energy. There is only energy.
ChristianC123 wrote:
Solar energy—power from the sun—is a vast and inexhaustible resource that can supply a significant portion of our electricity needs.

Piddle power. It is very expensive to produce the energy it produces.
ChristianC123 wrote:
A range of technologies is used to convert the sun's energy into electricity, including solar collectors and photovoltaic panels.

Again, piddle power.

Here in Washington, for example, combining ALL of the wind farms and ALL of the solar collectors out there (and there are a lot), you will not equal one tenth of the power produced by ONE reactor at our ONE functioning nuclear power plant.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2017 14:23
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluff: .... in Washington...the wind farms....you will not equal one tenth of the power produced.... at our ONE functioning nuclear power plant.

Ah.... the "closed for 2 weeks" power plant because of:
The Tri-City Herald reports (http://bit.ly/2gvMItr ) the plant was shut down Aug. 20 when an air removal valve in the plant's turbine building closed.
/////////
& its so good that the nuclear plant has such a nearby disposal site at Hanford for its nuclear waste..... NOT!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527605496/emergency-declared-at-nuclear-contaminated-site-in-washington-state
/////
Hey, just dump the nuclear waste in the Columbia River. Nature will take care of it.
////////
Meanwhile, wind & solar accomplished 10% of U.S. energy production.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Wind-solar-surpasses-10-percent-of-power-11219008.php#photo-13060194

AGW denier liar whiners & renewable energy poo-pooers used to say renewables would NEVER produce 1% of energy needs.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" continues as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
Edited on 06-10-2017 14:51
06-10-2017 18:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluff: .... in Washington...the wind farms....you will not equal one tenth of the power produced.... at our ONE functioning nuclear power plant.

Ah.... the "closed for 2 weeks" power plant because of:
The Tri-City Herald reports (http://bit.ly/2gvMItr ) the plant was shut down Aug. 20 when an air removal valve in the plant's turbine building closed.
/////////
& its so good that the nuclear plant has such a nearby disposal site at Hanford for its nuclear waste..... NOT!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527605496/emergency-declared-at-nuclear-contaminated-site-in-washington-state
/////
Hey, just dump the nuclear waste in the Columbia River. Nature will take care of it.
////////
Meanwhile, wind & solar accomplished 10% of U.S. energy production.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Wind-solar-surpasses-10-percent-of-power-11219008.php#photo-13060194

AGW denier liar whiners & renewable energy poo-pooers used to say renewables would NEVER produce 1% of energy needs.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" continues as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.


Nobody is dumping nuclear waste in the Columbia River, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2017 21:05
ChristianC123
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Renewable energy has the potential to reduce pollution, slow global warming, create new industries and jobs, and move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future. But renewable energy is not without its challenges and impacts.
Solar energy—power from the sun—is a vast and inexhaustible resource that can supply a significant portion of our electricity needs. A range of technologies is used to convert the sun's energy into electricity, including solar collectors and photovoltaic panels.

regards,
Christian
http://cloudappsportal.com/
Edited on 06-10-2017 21:06
06-10-2017 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5594)
ChristianC123 wrote:
Renewable energy

Most energy sources are renewable including oil and natural gas.
has the potential to reduce pollution,[/quote]
No energy production method is capable of reducing pollution. Dilution reduces pollution.
ChristianC123 wrote:
slow global warming,

You don't know what the temperature of the Earth is, or whether it is warming or cooling.
ChristianC123 wrote:
...deleted remaining Holy Quote and Link...

This stupid quote has appeared before. You idiots just keep cutting and pasting the same thing like it was some holy scripture.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate My list of recommended renewable energy technologies:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 03:19
Ocean is rising, WHY! I need you to add to my list3325-02-2017 21:22
Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources4610-01-2017 03:31
Shale gas alone is not the answer – but neither is renewable energy026-09-2013 04:25
chemtrails or fixing the sky with flawed technologies216-02-2011 08:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact