Renewable Energy - The Saltire Prize Flop

[greenheatman]

The quality of electricity generated from renewable energy sources should be classified as follows:

 

Class A

 

Class A electricity is high quality synchronous electricity that is available 24 hours an day, seven days a week. This type of electricity is known as base load. Class A electricity must also be capable of following the peaks and troughs of demand and deliver electricity during very high demand over short periods. These types of generation are called ‘load following’ and ‘peak shaving’ respectively. Class A from renewables requires no ‘backup’ from fossil or nuclear power stations at any time. This type of electricity is sometimes referred to as ‘firm power’ and will, over time, reduce CO2 emissions from thermal power stations to zero.

 

 

Class B

 

Class B electricity is delivered, from a storage medium, to meet peak demands only. This type of electricity has peak shaving capabilities. Hydroelectric schemes in Scotland supply this type of electricity for about 20% of the year because they rely solely on precipitation for their supply of water storage – behind a dam. Countries like Norway and New Zealand can supply base load electricity as well because precipitation is supplemented by glacier ice – melt during the summer months.

 

 

 

Class C

 

Class C electricity is electricity generated dynamically or in ‘real time’ from renewable energy sources subject to the vagaries of the weather and tides. There can be no generation when the prime mover such as tidal stream is at slack water or when the waves are not energetic enough. This type of electricity when uploaded to the National Grid is lost forever if it is not consumed in the nanosecond of generation. Currently, all the electricity generated from marine and land based renewables deliver third or Class C electricity, randomly.

 

On the Saltire Prize Background home page the following claims are made

“The Saltire Prize will:

§ Be designed to advance marine renewable technology

§ Lead to leap-frog technology for Scottish, European and world benefit

§ Be open to applications from teams across the world, encouraging European and global collaboration

§ Be demonstrated in Scottish watersâ€

 

 

§ It is difficult to see how any advance will be made in marine renewable energy if the prize simple goes to the team that can generate the most Class C electricity using today’s existing technology. The prize will reward the richest company that has no incentive to innovate and upgrade the class of electricity generated.

 

§ There will be no leap – frog technology for anyone’s benefit – for the reasons above.

 

§ Teams across the world will simply dust off their old hat inventions and put them in the water and try to get to the finishing line first by generating 100GWh of third rate electricity.

 

§ The demonstration in Scottish waters is the only bullet point that is achievable!

 

 

The Saltire Prize as proposed is designed to exclude ‘little guy’ innovation not encourage it. What small innovative company can afford to keep machinery in the water for over two years, maintain and repair it? It would be easier just to send the £10 million cheque to the richest marine energy company that is prejudged to be credible and/or rich enough, because the prize has been rigged to suit that type of company and exclude other more innovative ideas.

 

The prize should be based on the quality of the electricity generated not the quantity of Class C electricity generated within two years

 

1. The prize should go immediately to the first company that generates Class A electricity with peak shaving capabilities at any capacity above 100kW continuously for a whole lunar month. By continuously, I mean 24 hours a day for 29.53 days (709 hours) without any breaks.

 

2. Failing that, the prize should go immediately to the first company that generates Class B base load electricity without peak shaving capabilities at full rating for 709 hours without any diminution of supply.

 

Failing that, the period of two years should be reset until either 1 or 2 is realised.

 

The Saltire Prize is a good idea but its laudable goals have been watered down to meet the needs of present day not-fit-for-purpose wave and tidal stream devices that require fossil or nuclear power backup for times that the waves are not energetic enough or when tidal streams are slack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 1; To what extent will the ambitions of the Saltire Prize contribute to Scotland meeting its target of 50% of electricity generated through renewable sources in 2020?

 

It will never contribute to meeting any targets until secure base load electricity is generated from marine renewables without relying on fossil fuels to provide backup.

 

Question 2; The timeline of the Saltire Prize has been set to ensure the acceleration of developments in the marine renewable sector and to ensure that activities stimulated by the Prize directly contributes to our 2020 renewables target. Is this a reasonable, yet challenging, timescale? If not, why not?

 

The timeline should be set to 20 years at least until;

 

Class A electricity with peak shaving capabilities at any capacity above 100kW is generated continuously for a whole lunar month. By continuously, I mean 24 hours a day for 29.53 days (709 hours) without any breaks.

OR

 

Class B base load electricity is generated without peak shaving capabilities at full rating for a full lunar month 709 hours without any diminution of supply.

 

Question 3; Do consultees have any comments on the structure of the Competition from this consultation through to the Grand Challenge period?

 

Yes, the whole idea to encourage innovation has been skewed to favour the richest companies that may not have the best ideas.

 

Question 4; Bearing in mind the need for the Saltire Prize to have a simple and transparent judging process. Have the key judging criteria been identified? If not, what judging criteria should be applied?

 

Using wall-to-wall academics as judges without lay people making up the majority is a bit like letting a fox review the security measures of a chicken coup. Academics have pretty closed minds to truly innovative ideas and all have secret axes to grind. Their advice on how the prize should be paid out to the company using existing technology that can generate 100GWh of Class C intermittently over a two-year period clearly demonstrated their collective lack of understanding. We need secure base load from renewables – nothing short of this will do.

 

Question 5; Has a transparent and robust application process been designed to ensure credible projects are taken forward? If not, why not?

 

The idea of the Prize is to find innovative ideas. Yet, as usual, the accent is on only allowing the richest companies to proceed with their tired old technologies – why not have an open a level playing field for all and restrict the capacity of all devices to 500kW? The only ‘credible projects’ that will be allowed to proceed are those that can only produce intermittent Class C electricity thus defeating the main aim of the competition. Waiving expensive Environmental Impact Studies for the duration of the timeline will allow more and poorer participants to compete and would be just as likely to win the prize. The biggest and best waves are to be found outside the 12 mile limit in the North Sea or North Atlantic – there is no provision for this – why not? Again you cannot help yourselves from prejudging credible and incredible projects without giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Perhaps if all the ‘credible applications’ were to be put into a hat and the winner drawn from it would save quite a bit of time and money as there will be no technological advancement in any case without a radical rethink about how to proceed.

 

 

 

 

Question 6; What other elements, if any, would consultees expect to be included in the application pack?

 

The pack is too restrictive and has been designed to exclude true innovative ideas It needs to be simplified to about one sentence

 

The winner of the Salter Prize will go the first company that generates Class A or Class B electricity at rating of 500kW for any whole lunar month (709 hours).

 

 

Question 7; What issues would consultees wish to see in a Competitor Agreement?

 

See Preamble above

 

 

Question 8; Have all of the key qualification requirements been identified for deploying wave and tidal devices?

 

It should be a free for all and there should be no “qualification requirements†at all to encourage full participation. This is just another way of excluding all but the richest of the big players. It is likely that a truly innovative idea will not get past this ‘prejudging’ stage because the applicant’s pockets are not deep (credible) enough!

 

Question 9; Do consultees have any views on actions that can be taken to help facilitate the qualification process?

 

What is the point of prejudging applications and applicants? Surely the first to produce secure base load electricity, with or without, peak shaving capabilities will be judged the winner!

 

 

Question 10; What opportunities/benefits would consultees expect to flow from being designated an “Official Saltire Prize Competitor�

 

None whatsoever, other than the must have deep pockets to be deemed ‘credible’ regardless of the shortcomings of their devices.

 

No, this was a good idea at its inception but it has been hijacked by vested interests. It has become another top heavy nightmare with few willing to jump through the necessary and expensive ‘qualification’ hoops – those few that do, need only put several of their simplistic energy converters in the water and wait until 100GWh of unusable electricity has been generated using 2009 technology in 2012. There will be no incentive to generate base load because one of the few will win by generating enough Class C electricity over time.

 

This an opportunity to find truly innovative ideas mired down with red tape!

[Skunnered]

It is not strictly correct to put tidal power into Class C along with wind and wave power. Wind and waves are unpredictable, but tidal currents are guaranteed and predictable every single day to the very minute. And there is always tidal current running at some point around the country (indeed even around Shetland). This is not the case with either wind or waves.

 

It is true that each individual tidal generator would be subject to a "slack" period each day, but by strategically placing several generators (say in excess of 10) around the coast, a constant level of power would be guaranteed from the "set". Therefore tidal power should more accurately be classified under "B" rather than "C".

[JimIvens]

It is not strictly correct to put tidal power into Class C along with wind and wave power. Wind and waves are unpredictable, but tidal currents are guaranteed and predictable every single day to the very minute. And there is always tidal current running at some point around the country (indeed even around Shetland). This is not the case with either wind or waves.

 

It is true that each individual tidal generator would be subject to a "slack" period each day, but by strategically placing several generators (say in excess of 10) around the coast, a constant level of power would be guaranteed from the "set". Therefore tidal power should more accurately be classified under "B" rather than "C".

I fully agree. There are lots of places around Shetland where tidal power would score highly. Strom voe for example, has thousands of cubic meters of water flowing through a very small entrance. A generator there would have minimal visual impact and be very productive. The seatrout migration through the gap could be accomodated by opening gates (automaticaly even) at the slack of the tide.

[greenheatman]

I agree that tide is predictible - I can predict that Neap tides always follow Spring tides. I can also confidently predict that the power available during the nadir Neap tide will be 1/8 of the power available during the zenith Spring tide. (half the velocity cubed ie 1/2 x1/2 x1/2 = 1/8) Every tide in between these two extremes are different so it is difficult to see how a constant level of power can be achieved across a lunar month - unless you build another seven devices at each location to fill in the 'hole' created at Neaps.

 

So tidal must fall into Class C too, possibly "C-"

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ And with the above post, you have proved that you know nothing about tides.

 

The various high and low and slack tides happen at different times in different locations. Therefore, the tide is always running somewhere, even just around a small place like Shetland.

 

(It's an easy mistake to make, I made it myself earlier on in the windfarm thread somewhere [the difference being, I'm not the one pushing a wind/wave generator system. How's that going, by the way?])

 

[greenheatman]

Dearie me - you are not getting my point at all. At the new and full moon the WHOLE planet is subject to Spring tides albeit at different times.

 

Similarly during the 1st and 3rd Quarters the WHOLE planet, including Shetland, is subject to Neap tides so you will need an extra seven tidal stream devices to maintain 'constant output' across the lunar month which contains two Spring tides and two Neap tides.

 

Only when the Sun and Moon line up does the gravitational pull increases the lump of water to give Sping tides. The moon has started to wane to around 92% at the time of writing so we have just missed the zenith Spring tide. Take a look at the tides in a week's time and see the difference.

 

Therefore no matter where you go on planet Earth you will always get about 1/8 of the power during Neaps.

[JimIvens]

Therefore no matter where you go on planet Earth you will always get about 1/8 of the power during Neaps.

 

And thats the crux of it. There is no 'one' solution. Wind, Tide and Wave have their place among Solar, Geothermal, Hydro and any other method you can think of. Spare energy could be stored as pump storage or hydrogen. The problem is that the whole thing costs MONEY. The reason we still have coal fired power stations is that it is cheaper that way. All the time that the bean counters are in controll of the world, we will not see sensible solutions to the energy problem. Its cheaper to build Nuclear power stations and let future generations pick up the tab.

[TeeAyBee]

Dearie me - you are not getting my point at all. At the new and full moon the WHOLE planet is subject to Spring tides albeit at different times.

 

Here we go again. Are we going to be subjected to yet more diatribes about how wonderful the venturii system is and how crap everything else is? If so can we just provide links back to previous postings to save time.

[Baron Farkoff]

Sorry to barge into your thread, fellow Shetlinkers, but would humbly like to ask your opinions on some thing that has been bugging me for ages, and as you seem to be the right kind of people to ask, here goes;

It occurred to me one day whilst in Leeds that there is a lot of unused space in many inner city houses: the chimney. What if this space could be transformed into some kind of battery store, and be fed by some kind of windmill, possibly the type used on boats. This would sit atop the chimney.

Do any of you see the possibility for a commercial venture here which could help save a few quid and some polar bears?

[TeeAyBee]

^^^ Sounds interesting however there are some issues:

 

(1) - NIMBYs up there don't want satellite dishes that are small and don't move attached to buildings let alone a small windmills and the local preservation and planning rules will block it.

 

(2) - Cost of implementation will have to include the power inversion technology to mesh with the building and storage. Right now it might be too expensive for households already creaking at the seams. Now that doesn't take away from the importance and relevance of the green issues, it is just a statement of economic fact.

 

(3) - Is small domestic windmills truly the best way forward in a city? Is there any margin in looking at community or street level systems? Might be easier to get past planning and some of the more insular NIMBYs.

 

You're right about wasted roof space though and it could be prime solar collector turf too. A combined system might be useful, wind and solar connecting to the same inverter and battery storage. I think you can buy these components commercially already. Sadly no opportunity in the cities to use hydro or tidal, but I suppose there is always the unpopular idea of dropping a system into the main sewerage piping and getting some throughput there. I don't know about the 'solids' issue though - perhaps someone has studied it? I know that some waterboards in conjunction with ISPs have looked at using the sewers for cabling networks, so maybe the ideas have been looked at?

 

I like the sound of your approach and like a previous poster I'm an advocate of green technology and not married to one solution as no one solution is the answer beyond clean cold fusion of course .

[Baron Farkoff]

Thanks! I had visions of the endless rows of terraced houses which fill much of the estates of England covered in things about as big as satellite dishes, sticking out of the chimneys like teletubby flowers as a statement that they are "green", if you will, a eco status symbol. I can't see people in really nice houses wanting them until they're chic and of the same quality as a Bugatti Veyron... but a lot quieter.

I want there to be an industry where two/four guys come round in two/four vans and convert the chimney space ,make the rooms and roof safe, install your system of choice and then leave.Bit like having double glazing. The process should take one weekend. This would eventually lead to you being able to buy starter packs from shops with add on batteries and better windmills. This could be the best thing since cars and rocket packs and mods to be messing about with in a shed, I reckon. Apart from train sets, but I digress...

It must be cheap. About the same as a flatscreen and speaker system. With upgrades.This could be the aspirational approach.

There could be the more portuguese style where you get some sort of cash help to get started and end up earning by contributing to the national grid. Better a grant from the Government which could earn you a certificate of "green-ness" which could trnslate into higher house prices.

As long as it was quiet, I think it would be great for a city, with many households monitoring their own use from their own supply.

People are already getting used to it with the new meters, and I got addicted to it when house-sitting in Spain over the winter, constantly checking to see how much the solar panels were doing.

The way we look at this needs to be changed in the way that J. Oliver has changed cooking: this isn't hippies and impossible technology, this only needs the same amount of brainpower used in developing a new x box or i pod, and we could be all at it.

I completely agree that mixing it up with all the other elements is great, and then you end up with places like the eco building in manchester which is totally self sufficient, but it seems like the whole concept is still in the realms of architechts who want to make grand statements with it. I want everyone to be able to get their hands on something so we can get on with it while our leaders quibble about whether they can get away with another nuclear station,or throw a lean bone to the real agents of change.

I only wish I knew more about the engineering side of it to make it happen. Phew!

[Carlos]

Field testing some small to medium wind turbines in Holland

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com.....sults.html

For some ideas on the numbers and costs of going with a load of smaller turbines.

 

To generalise a lot, the smaller the wind turbine the harder it is to get it to pay for itself.

The energy produced depends on the square of the blade length, and the cube of the wind speed:

 

Make it 1/2 the size, and you get 1/4 the power.

Put it somewhere with 1/2 the wind speed, you get 1/8 the power.

Make it 1/2 the size, AND put it somewhere with 1/2 the wind speed, you get 1/16 the power.

[greenheatman]

I'll get the hang of this 'quote' thing one day

[greenheatman]

greenheatman wrote:

Dearie me - you are not getting my point at all. At the new and full moon the WHOLE planet is subject to Spring tides albeit at different times.

 

 

 

Here we go again. Are we going to be subjected to yet more diatribes about how wonderful the venturii system is and how crap everything else is? If so can we just provide links back to previous postings to save time.

_________________

 

So I can assume that this rant is to hide the fact that "At the new and full moon the WHOLE planet is subject to Spring tides albeit at different times."

is correct and those that suggested otherwise are wrong!

 

My venturi system has now been supeseded by Gentec WaTS which could supply all of Shetland's electricity from deep sea waves well outside the reach of subsea electric cables. Just think no more Class C electricity from puny wind a wave devices - Just Class A with peak shaving capabilities for ever more........

 

We do NOT need a "energy mix" any more.

[Trow87]

would a horizontal windmill (something like those used to measure wind speed) be more effective in the cities?

 

they'd take up less space, and be quieter. perhaps they wouldn't be so effective at producing energy though.

 

anyone have any ideas? would they work?