Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
So when decommissioning time comes for all the recent wind farms i imagine the tax payer will be looked to as no private company could/would have the required funds.
Gandahar said:
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
One aspect of nuclear de-commissioning costs is that the figures quoted are usually estimates (probably of the finger in the air and lets be very generous just in case variety) for 100 year costs. Usually all quoted as a one-off cost up front and most likely intentionally made to look expensive in order to try and kill off the industry.Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
Time will tell if that is a sensible things to do.
A wind installation has a notional predicted life of 25 years. If nothing changes in the technology and the predicted effective lifespan is indeed 25 years the entire equivalent deployment would need to be replaced at least once to compare to the expected working life of a nuclear plant or indeed most of the other types. Assuming that the technology for installations has peaked it may be possible to use the same massive concrete bases and the the same local service infrastructure. But more likely the site will need to be re-developed and concrete bases replaced to new designs , sizes and standards. After 25 years one might assume there will be significant changes so the "safe" forecast would be that the whole installation would need to be replaced. One might also hope that there is some way to re-use existing sites if we have to continue along such a path rather than find new sites, though new sites would probably be preferred being cheaper if rectification of old sites is required before re-use.
I have never read of any arrangement whereby the owners of a wind farm would be tasked with land reclamation at end of life. Therefore I doubt there is any budget set aside and since most of the sites seem to change ownership regularly I can't imagine that anyone except the tax payer would end up paying to bills. My guess is that the concrete bases will simple be grassed over and new ones deployed with the associated cost of materials and CO2 output for the construction. At best we might hope that sites are re-used on the basis that have originally been selected as high wind locations and so logical and effective places at which to try to generate energy. It would therefore make sense to re-use them. Of course one has to believe that to be the case and 25 years one no doubt someone faced with a large bill for re-development may not feel inclined to cover the costs. Unless, of course, there are generous handouts available to undertake the work.
For the off-shore developments I think it is probably save to assume that the bases fixed in the sea bed would be unlikely to be used for a second installation since no-one could predict whether they would last another 25 years with a low risk of failure factor - even assuming the construction would still be appropriate for whatever base would be required by that time. It is probably also safe to assume that there is no way at all that any attempt would be made at restitution of the sea bed. How that would be factored is an a "cost" to be borne somehow in the future (to equate to the nuclear clean up scenario) is entirely unclear. In fact probably not even discussed.
Meanwhile, sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't and the units still have scheduled maintenance requirements and unplanned outages. making them a much worse proposition for energy famine than the technologies we have been used to for the past century or so. To get to this state has been an entirely political process.
Gandahar said:
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
I've just put the grandchildren thought experiment through a lengthy analysis that did not involve a computer model running on a 97 mil computer.Turns out that the climate fairytales will be dead and buried by then so your grandchildren may not be paying through the nose (or through loss of nore freedoms) because of a myth.
That projection needs to be tested against objective evidence / data along the way and modified or rejected if it fails to match reality. Unlike what happens with climate fairytales.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Have you noticed how all the scare stories have now shifted to 'by 2100'? I wonder why!
Not quite yet....According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late. But Gore sees that as a reason for urgency, not despair
Al Gore's film was made in 2005 and released in May 2006, so giving the man the maximum time for his prediction, there's still 18 months left for the planet to burn to death. It could happen
kingofdbrits said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Have you noticed how all the scare stories have now shifted to 'by 2100'? I wonder why!
Not quite yet....According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late. But Gore sees that as a reason for urgency, not despair
Al Gore's film was made in 2005 and released in May 2006, so giving the man the maximum time for his prediction, there's still 18 months left for the planet to burn to death. It could happen
Gandahar said:
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Never mind decommissioning they aren't even commissioned properly yet!! Mate of mine works on offshore disturbines. His company are trying to save nearly 400 from sinking into the ocean due to "scouring" (go google) so far they have spent over a year and have failed to sort out the first one! ....... costs? What are they? dickymint said:
Never mind decommissioning they aren't even commissioned properly yet!! Mate of mine works on offshore disturbines. His company are trying to save nearly 400 from sinking into the ocean due to "scouring" (go google) so far they have spent over a year and have failed to sort out the first one! ....... costs? What are they?
Scouring is something even I have heard of and read about. Years ago .... So is this another of those "by the time we need it we will have a solution ...." dreams that encouraged the construction to go ahead despite the potential problems? Or was it just entirely overlooked?
Any way one reads it it is hardly confidence inspiring (for anything, not just off shore disturbine installations.)
Meanwhile ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-30...
It seems that United Utilities have dug 2 rather large holes under Manchester (why no just pop along to Blackburn and borrow some of theirs?) and are now about to drill a large tunnel to link the two. Something to do with storm drains and the water quality of the Manchester Ship Canal. apparently.
The BBC reports that
"The tunnel-boring machine is being used by to dig a 700m (230ft) tunnel to increase capacity in Victorian sewers."
I assume one of the numbers is a typo. Maybe both?
If not one may have some concerns about the veracity of the new Metric Measurements in the ascendance on new road signs. How low is that bridge we are approaching?
mybrainhurts said:
Interesting, though his comment at the end ..."This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters, will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above..." made my laugh (a bit). Has he not yet realised that Labour's policies have punished their core supporters over and over (over decades) and that it would be tempting to believe that they know full well what they're doing?LongQ said:
dickymint said:
Never mind decommissioning they aren't even commissioned properly yet!! Mate of mine works on offshore disturbines. His company are trying to save nearly 400 from sinking into the ocean due to "scouring" (go google) so far they have spent over a year and have failed to sort out the first one! ....... costs? What are they?
Scouring is something even I have heard of and read about. Years ago .... So is this another of those "by the time we need it we will have a solution ...." dreams that encouraged the construction to go ahead despite the potential problems? Or was it just entirely overlooked?
Any way one reads it it is hardly confidence inspiring (for anything, not just off shore disturbine installations.)
http://www.scourprevention.com/wp-content/uploads/...
There must be an enormous cost just for the bi-annual inspection requirements! ROV's, support boats, divers, delays due to weather etc. Let alone the remedial and maintenance work.
My mate tells me that work on ALL turbines was halted for two months this year due to H and S issues. All staff had to be retrained! He's of the opinion "we're pissing into the wind."
Lightning strikes increase with GW.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/14/climate_me...
Nominally this article might be better linked to the Science thread .... BUT .... given this precis analysis it strikes (pun intended) me that the main purpose of the orginal report probably leans more to political than scientific purpose.
However, if the premise of the original report does indeed suggest a higher risk of storms and strikes .... I'm not sure that solar panels on the roof looks at all attractive as a low risk business proposition.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/14/climate_me...
Nominally this article might be better linked to the Science thread .... BUT .... given this precis analysis it strikes (pun intended) me that the main purpose of the orginal report probably leans more to political than scientific purpose.
However, if the premise of the original report does indeed suggest a higher risk of storms and strikes .... I'm not sure that solar panels on the roof looks at all attractive as a low risk business proposition.
LongQ said:
Lightning strikes increase with GW.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/14/climate_me...
Nominally this article might be better linked to the Science thread .... BUT .... given this precis analysis it strikes (pun intended) me that the main purpose of the orginal report probably leans more to political than scientific purpose.
However, if the premise of the original report does indeed suggest a higher risk of storms and strikes .... I'm not sure that solar panels on the roof looks at all attractive as a low risk business proposition.
yep the BBC was spaffing all over this a few days ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3002...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/14/climate_me...
Nominally this article might be better linked to the Science thread .... BUT .... given this precis analysis it strikes (pun intended) me that the main purpose of the orginal report probably leans more to political than scientific purpose.
However, if the premise of the original report does indeed suggest a higher risk of storms and strikes .... I'm not sure that solar panels on the roof looks at all attractive as a low risk business proposition.
Germany To Abandon 2020 Climate Change Targets
Economics Minister: "Is it clear that the 2020 target is no longer viable."
The German coalition government is planning to withdraw from its 2020 climate change goals. Notwithstanding public protest, Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) has abandoned the requirement of cutting 40 percent of CO2 emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020. “It’s clear that the [2020 CO2] target is no longer viable,” said the vice-chancellor according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, adding: “We cannot exit from coal power overnight.”
Der Spiegel, 16 November 2014
Economics Minister: "Is it clear that the 2020 target is no longer viable."
The German coalition government is planning to withdraw from its 2020 climate change goals. Notwithstanding public protest, Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) has abandoned the requirement of cutting 40 percent of CO2 emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020. “It’s clear that the [2020 CO2] target is no longer viable,” said the vice-chancellor according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, adding: “We cannot exit from coal power overnight.”
Der Spiegel, 16 November 2014
Yep, they're hell bent on closing functional nuclear power stations with years of service life left in them; coal is the only option for keeping the lights on. Germany in illogical political decision shocker? I still can't fathom it, although their 'headless chicken' reaction to the euro crisis is perhaps a product of the same illogic.
LongQ said:
One aspect of nuclear de-commissioning costs is that the figures quoted are usually estimates (probably of the finger in the air and lets be very generous just in case variety) for 100 year costs. Usually all quoted as a one-off cost up front and most likely intentionally made to look expensive in order to try and kill off the industry.
Time will tell if that is a sensible things to do.
A wind installation has a notional predicted life of 25 years. If nothing changes in the technology and the predicted effective lifespan is indeed 25 years the entire equivalent deployment would need to be replaced at least once to compare to the expected working life of a nuclear plant or indeed most of the other types. Assuming that the technology for installations has peaked it may be possible to use the same massive concrete bases and the the same local service infrastructure. But more likely the site will need to be re-developed and concrete bases replaced to new designs , sizes and standards. After 25 years one might assume there will be significant changes so the "safe" forecast would be that the whole installation would need to be replaced. One might also hope that there is some way to re-use existing sites if we have to continue along such a path rather than find new sites, though new sites would probably be preferred being cheaper if rectification of old sites is required before re-use.
I have never read of any arrangement whereby the owners of a wind farm would be tasked with land reclamation at end of life. Therefore I doubt there is any budget set aside and since most of the sites seem to change ownership regularly I can't imagine that anyone except the tax payer would end up paying to bills. My guess is that the concrete bases will simple be grassed over and new ones deployed with the associated cost of materials and CO2 output for the construction. At best we might hope that sites are re-used on the basis that have originally been selected as high wind locations and so logical and effective places at which to try to generate energy. It would therefore make sense to re-use them. Of course one has to believe that to be the case and 25 years one no doubt someone faced with a large bill for re-development may not feel inclined to cover the costs. Unless, of course, there are generous handouts available to undertake the work.
For the off-shore developments I think it is probably save to assume that the bases fixed in the sea bed would be unlikely to be used for a second installation since no-one could predict whether they would last another 25 years with a low risk of failure factor - even assuming the construction would still be appropriate for whatever base would be required by that time. It is probably also safe to assume that there is no way at all that any attempt would be made at restitution of the sea bed. How that would be factored is an a "cost" to be borne somehow in the future (to equate to the nuclear clean up scenario) is entirely unclear. In fact probably not even discussed.
Meanwhile, sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't and the units still have scheduled maintenance requirements and unplanned outages. making them a much worse proposition for energy famine than the technologies we have been used to for the past century or so. To get to this state has been an entirely political process.
Good luck with grassing over this type... Time will tell if that is a sensible things to do.
A wind installation has a notional predicted life of 25 years. If nothing changes in the technology and the predicted effective lifespan is indeed 25 years the entire equivalent deployment would need to be replaced at least once to compare to the expected working life of a nuclear plant or indeed most of the other types. Assuming that the technology for installations has peaked it may be possible to use the same massive concrete bases and the the same local service infrastructure. But more likely the site will need to be re-developed and concrete bases replaced to new designs , sizes and standards. After 25 years one might assume there will be significant changes so the "safe" forecast would be that the whole installation would need to be replaced. One might also hope that there is some way to re-use existing sites if we have to continue along such a path rather than find new sites, though new sites would probably be preferred being cheaper if rectification of old sites is required before re-use.
I have never read of any arrangement whereby the owners of a wind farm would be tasked with land reclamation at end of life. Therefore I doubt there is any budget set aside and since most of the sites seem to change ownership regularly I can't imagine that anyone except the tax payer would end up paying to bills. My guess is that the concrete bases will simple be grassed over and new ones deployed with the associated cost of materials and CO2 output for the construction. At best we might hope that sites are re-used on the basis that have originally been selected as high wind locations and so logical and effective places at which to try to generate energy. It would therefore make sense to re-use them. Of course one has to believe that to be the case and 25 years one no doubt someone faced with a large bill for re-development may not feel inclined to cover the costs. Unless, of course, there are generous handouts available to undertake the work.
For the off-shore developments I think it is probably save to assume that the bases fixed in the sea bed would be unlikely to be used for a second installation since no-one could predict whether they would last another 25 years with a low risk of failure factor - even assuming the construction would still be appropriate for whatever base would be required by that time. It is probably also safe to assume that there is no way at all that any attempt would be made at restitution of the sea bed. How that would be factored is an a "cost" to be borne somehow in the future (to equate to the nuclear clean up scenario) is entirely unclear. In fact probably not even discussed.
Meanwhile, sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't and the units still have scheduled maintenance requirements and unplanned outages. making them a much worse proposition for energy famine than the technologies we have been used to for the past century or so. To get to this state has been an entirely political process.
I think they are more likely to be used as landing pads for personal VTOL craft owned by the farmers after 25 years of ROC payments. ;-) Probably something Telsa are working on
PS I'm almost back online after a week moving house. One things that's been nagging me this week - we often hear how Green polcicies will ruin the economy, I think I probably picked it up on the news this week. But why is that?
Anyone got some nice links that explain why spending money on alternative energy infrastructure is bad for the economy?
In my mind if we spend the money it will create some jobs, and add to the economic growth that capitalism seems to demand. Wehre as spending money on fuel is just a cost. Though is a part of the economy.
Last time I looked into this I found a good paper explaining the driver for economic growth is more closely linked to energy efficiency not just energy use as was previously believed. So replacing human labour with horses was a benefit, then replacing horses with steam engines, then the contstant improvement of generating efficiency. Quite how that stacks up in renewables I'm not sure... I guess if you can do X units of work, without having to pay for fuel that's good... but if the capital costs up front are high... then it's not free.
When talking of energy efficiency - it's not how many kWh of your heat get lost in conversion, but the monetary efficiency.
How much does getting 1 man day of labour equivalent cost you?
From looking on a bike treadmill I think 150Wx8hours = 1.2kWh is about the most effort people could sustain. Ok not all jobs require max effort but that's just a base line figure to show 1 human could do about 20 pence worth of work performed by a machine.
The paper I was referring to pointed out the less energy you need to expend to perform a process means better return on capital.
Anyone got some nice links that explain why spending money on alternative energy infrastructure is bad for the economy?
In my mind if we spend the money it will create some jobs, and add to the economic growth that capitalism seems to demand. Wehre as spending money on fuel is just a cost. Though is a part of the economy.
Last time I looked into this I found a good paper explaining the driver for economic growth is more closely linked to energy efficiency not just energy use as was previously believed. So replacing human labour with horses was a benefit, then replacing horses with steam engines, then the contstant improvement of generating efficiency. Quite how that stacks up in renewables I'm not sure... I guess if you can do X units of work, without having to pay for fuel that's good... but if the capital costs up front are high... then it's not free.
When talking of energy efficiency - it's not how many kWh of your heat get lost in conversion, but the monetary efficiency.
How much does getting 1 man day of labour equivalent cost you?
From looking on a bike treadmill I think 150Wx8hours = 1.2kWh is about the most effort people could sustain. Ok not all jobs require max effort but that's just a base line figure to show 1 human could do about 20 pence worth of work performed by a machine.
The paper I was referring to pointed out the less energy you need to expend to perform a process means better return on capital.
Little of the hardware for wind and solar farms is made in the UK, the only bits I'm aware of is the turbine towers made in Campbeltown at the ex-Vestas factory; the tax revenue from the people installing the equipment is poor compensation for the capital vanishing to wherever the turbines or panels are made.
Not worth the candle so not worth three point seven either (pdf):
http://www.acci.asn.au/Files/Worth-The-Candle---Th...
Or two point three candles (pdf):
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment...
By 2020 UK energy prices will have a higher “green” component than any other major economy if we continue sleepwalking into the nightmare. This was in a gov't BIS report no longer at its previous location.
Subsidies - we've been there before.
http://www.acci.asn.au/Files/Worth-The-Candle---Th...
Or two point three candles (pdf):
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment...
By 2020 UK energy prices will have a higher “green” component than any other major economy if we continue sleepwalking into the nightmare. This was in a gov't BIS report no longer at its previous location.
Subsidies - we've been there before.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff