Well, as it happens, I'm about to run/publish my report on last year's GB grid generation intensity, and a change *may* be visible with increasing wind penetration, though I doubt it because the FUELINST numbers are fairly crude (no account of biomass co-firing for example) and penetration fairly small.

Indeed, last year's numbers suggested a slight 'increase' in intensity, but I think that's just noise.

Anyhow, just need to chug though all the grid's figures for last year... Back in a tick...

Rgds

Damon

also, that report is apparently based on the requirements to back up one single 300MW onshore wind farm, which would behave vastly differently to the situation with hundreds of smaller onshore windfarms distributed across the country, or even several larger offshore windfarms.

And IIRC, it assumes 100% fossil fuel spinning reserve, whereas we also have a significant amount of hydro, pump storage etc. that can supply a large proportion of the back up required instead of / in conjunction with fossil fuels, not to mention (hopefully) increasing amounts of demand shedding.

Presuming that this is all based on the same flawed study I think it's based on - not had time to double check this.

Raw analysis hot off the (off-grid solar PV powered) computer:

http://www.earth.org.uk/note-on-UK-grid-CO2-intensity-variations.html#fullyear2011

Rgds

Damon

Can you do the numbers with mode values rather than means? More work I know but gives a clearer picture.

When you say the source code does that mean the data and if it means playing with Linux, I am really struggling
But I can remotely access it, so can play in comfort.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DamonHD</cite>Raw analysis hot off the (off-grid solar PV powered) computer:

<a href="http://www.earth.org.uk/note-on-UK-grid-CO2-intensity-variations.html#fullyear2011" rel="nofollow">http://www.earth.org.uk/note-on-UK-grid-CO2-intensity-variations.html#fullyear2011</a>

Rgds

Damon</blockquote>
interesting, thanks for the link / work.

a few thoughts on likely causes of the higher proportional CO2 levels shown this year vs last.

Basically I'd expect it mostly to be down to more coal being burnt in place of gas due partly to low gas reserves last winter, but also the relative cost of gas to coal going up.

as shown in the bullet points from this guardian article from the summer
Renewables output up 27% year on year, coal up 7%
• Rising price of natural gas sees usage fall by 20%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/30/electricity-companies-switch-to-coal

I'd also think that (as you suggest) the impact of rapidly increasing SSEGs that don't show up on the generation figures, but instead act to reduce the apparent demand level will actually make the grid carbon intensity figures you use worse, and really to be accurate you'd need to be adjusting the figures to incorporate the SSEG generation figures (either figures or estimates). (I'm talking average monthly figures here, or even average annual figures, not day by day / hourly unless you had a lot of time on your hands).

Well, I'm kinda busy until Friday with what passes for a day job: feel free to kick off and I'll join in as I can.

I have no special knowledge: I've just built the sausage machine and turned the handle... B^>

Rgds

Damon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions?fb=native

Gavin, I posted that link because of the opposing views therein and the comments following the main text, many of whom make the same point as you.

(And why have the smileys vanished??)

Posted By: JoinerGavin, I posted that link because of the opposing views therein and the comments following the main text, many of whom make the same point as you.

(And why have the smileys vanished??)

fair enough, just didn't want to repeat my post on here, but wanted to point you / others to it, being as I took the time to research and critique the source material*.



*again, I'm sure I'd already done that once a while ago, and Ruth Lea's using a document that had already been widely debunked and discredited months ago.

And here is a bit more science about particles, or soot as it used to been known as.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120113204935.htm

I like the idea of taking the most polluting vehicles off the road, seems so simple.

With our current road fund license system that groups vehicles by emissions and then charges more for the more pollution vehicles opens up the shortcomings of valuing nature. What I am willing to pay is not the same as what someone else is willing to pay, and we may not have the same ability to pay. Would be interesting to 'create' a plot of land and ask 4 questions.

How much are you willing to pay to keep this land as it is?
How much are you willing to be compensated to loose this land?
How much are you willing to pay change this land?
How much are you willing to be compensated if the land is changed?

Then introduce variations such as wildlife, schools, housing, farming etc and see how the value changes.

Have I get invented and 'eco' economics game?

True, and would need to be anonymous and initially unable to see what others are bidding.

But who would decide what is introduced to the plot, vested interests would make an interesting aspect of it.
That could be decided by people suggesting ideas and see how it changes the value.

May end up with a ghetto though

Never one of the major concerns anyway, Brian.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite>15 years after the MOD first objected to a wind farm on the basis of radar interference they've finally managed to resolve the problem.

Defence procurement at it's finest....

Actually, this could potentially result in a hell of a lot more than 4GW of wind power being approved, as MOD objections on this basis have IIRC been responsible for the majority of all onshore and offshore windfarm planning rejections for most of those 15 years.</blockquote>

The problem was never really technical, it was primarily financial. The radar processing systems needed extensive modification, testing and certification to get rid of blade-induced doppler and get the MTI to resolve low level targets again, and MOD didn't have the funds to do it. An agreement was reached whereby the wind farm companies contributed to the modification cost and the problem was solved.

Seems pretty fair and reasonable to me - why should a government department unconnected with renewable energy have its budget hit because companies want to take advantage of subsidies from a different government department?

The problem was significant and potentially very serious to the defence of our island, because had wind farms been allowed without the radar modifications then our early warning radars would have been effectively blind over a large sector at low level. This doesn't just present a cold-war type risk, it also would have given drug and people smugglers carte blanche to fly in low, secure in the knowledge that they couldn't be tracked.