The Connections Challenge | The Clean Energy Revolution Podcast S3: E5 

جج à😮😮

I was bored after reading your comment, I wasted 10s of my life for no benefit, no information, no insight, just random moaning.

@@tonystanley5337 🤣 classic comment of people that do not understand the complexity of it all

"Real generators"😂

ROFL. We've found the social media expert on the workings of the grid

@@rtfazeberdee3519 do you ever think when you post a remark so inane?

@@iareid8255 ROFL.. that would be your post. The National Grid have real experts who have been trained and educated for the tasks not "experts" who guess. Have a guess who's expertise i'd rely on.

@@rtfazeberdee3519 the National grid makes it's money from grid expansion, so wind is a positive gain finacially. You will find that the national grid employees who understand grid operation (not all do understand even when employed by the NG) do not agree with the expansion of renewables because it simply goes against good engineering practice. When the grid fails it will not be their responsibility. It may surprise you to know that no body is in overall charge of our electrical system as it used to be in the old CEGB times. You may say the government is in overall charge and responsible but when have government ever accepted the consequences of their actions. Whether you trust them or not is irrelevant to me, I know what I know, which is more than you.

It seems you are confused by the terms, which is understandable if you are not an Engineer. The UK grid is one of the best in the world, adapting for climate change is challenging, especially when the Electrical Grid is the main solution, but they are rising to the challenge and sorting out the issues, improving the process. 5x over capacity is not 5x oversupply. This is simply taking capacity factor into account and future demand. For example off-shore wind has 50% capacity factor, meaning you need 2x the capacity to supply the same level demand. Ideally these are in different locations so that if the wind is not in one area it is in the other. You also heard that demand is expected to triple with the movement to electrify everything. This means there isn't the full amount expected in the pipe line yet, but there is time. Fundamentally we need as much capacity as we can muster as we are having to replace the existing grid and support more wide area generation, which the original grid wasn't designed for.

Tony, sorry but that is nonsense. wind is a dreadfull way to generate power and you are mistaken if you think that wind strength is so local, it is far more widespread and often covers continents not just small areas of a country. Electrifying everything, as you put it, is not a solution at all, not that there is any need for a solution as the problem does not exist. You insinuate that you are an engineer, surely not one that is familiar with power generation and distribution?

@@iareid8255 I have a University certificate that says otherwise, I am very familiar with power generation and distribution. The UK and Ireland is often generating more that 50% of its electricity from wind, and is building alot more as are most other European countries, in fact nearly all countries are building more wind generation. It is a gov't and grid strategy. It seems you are not familiar with power generation and distribution. To rely entirely on wind would not be the cheapest solution, this is why we also use Nuclear, Hydro and currently gas to make up the difference between supply and demand. The future includes tidal and Geothermal as well as more transmission and interconnects to other countries to make all this possible. A single type of generation has never been feasible, bar perhaps Natural Gas, but that has its own disadvantages. I was being imprecise talking about electrifying "everything", we are electrifying most things because its inherently more efficient, but geothermal heating (not necessarily heat pump) does contradict that and I think it could well be a good solution for high density population areas like cities. There are some possibilities to use synthetic chemical fuels, but that is yet to be seen, its is grossly inefficient and will be very expensive so will be a very niche use. It does not respond to scaling price reduction because of the energy it requires. There are better chemical processes like oxidation fuel cells based on pure metals, sometime caused Metal-Air batteries, but again they have their own disadvantages. If you think there isn't a problem that needs fixing, then its seems you are a climate change denier, you are in a minority today, this is a non-truth position, all climate denial is provable as simply a wrong interpretation, usually deliberate. Potholer54 on RU-vid is great debunker of most things you are likely to bring up, if you ever have doubts about your position he will confirm them, but I would expect you would not want to listen to such a thing.

@@iareid8255 Yes I have an Electrical Eng degree and 35 years in the manufacturing industry. Using wind as the only source would not be the cheapest option (but the same can be said for nearly all types), but wind is a good source, it currently provides over 50% of generation in Ireland, with an easy 80% to be had with the existing grid. As always the big issues have been peak demand, but that can be solved with storage. Worst case we need about 5% gas to cover for dunkenflout, but to say wind in large continents like Europe or the US isn't blowing somewhere totally fails to understand physics. There are also other more consistent and expensive renewables like geothermal, tidal and hydro, and we can even use Nuclear in some countries or benefit from other countries overcapacity in Nuclear. There are many option and wind can provide the bulk cheaply, you just need a change in mindset to get away from centralised production using fossil or Nuclear. Its like you are saying the "only" way we can have reliable power is to use fossil or Nuclear, but steam plant is now considered the least useful type of generation. It has its place but mainly under baseload which is a reducing demand aspect.

@@tonystanley5337 I don’t think you quite understood my point, either that or you haven’t actually watched the video. In the video the point is made that an additional 75GW is required but the pipeline plans total 400GW. This ~5x excess figure is linked to the so called zombie projects that have over time been allowed into the project pipeline but have a very low chance of progressing.