Discussion
I remember proposals for a tidal dam to be built across Morecambe Bay. Was a large expense, but the regular predictable output from the project was massive.
Alas the greenies got their way, but eventually someone will have to bite the bullet when the lights start going out. More than likely buy all our electric in from developing countries that solves our emissions problem
Alas the greenies got their way, but eventually someone will have to bite the bullet when the lights start going out. More than likely buy all our electric in from developing countries that solves our emissions problem
BoRED S2upid said:
... why they don't use wave power I don't know, far more garanteed energy.
Given that people have been trying to develop systems to capture wave power for a few centuries it seems fair to assume it isn't easy.Indeed fro what I have read the problems seem very similar to wind - no great surprise in that since waves are wind generated.
This article sheds some light.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...
So, a harsh environment, high maintenance and no good if the waves are too small, too big or not arriving at the correct 'frequency'. Plus, currently, very very expensive, though of course 'things will get cheaper' and/or 'the price of electricity will rise to make wave power viable'. This latter observation is not really a good thing in my view but then it would mkae nuclear seem rather inexpensive. I suspect that, should that happen, we will see nuclear being loaded with ever more onerous long term 'cleanup costs' projected over centuries but interpreted as being instant, current costs when applied to pricing.
Tidal generation systems may be a different matter in so far as they don't rely on the size and frequency of waves - but then they are likely to mess with local environments in ways that are a bit more significant than the loss of a few good surfing locations.
Whichever way you cut it to have to rely on the 'Wind and waves are free' position to provide any justification for long temr cost estimates while glossing over the recurring maintenance costs - especially for equipment at sea - has to be, shall we say, misleading.
But apart from that ...
If windfarms are considered the correct path politically, then sobeit. We can't do much about that.
My biggest gripe is that the windfarm lobotomists parp on about them being clean/green friendly machines.
They are not!. It takes vast amounts of energy to make them. This is not an exclusive list but the process includes....
1. Mining ores to construct them. Copper, aluminium, iron (and some nasties),
2. Smelting the ores (requires coal etc, - more mining),
3. Huge concrete bases require aggregates and cement (cement requires a huge amount of energy to produce).
All (well most) of the energy to produce these items comes from fossil fuels!!!!
There is no environmental benefit to wind farms!
My biggest gripe is that the windfarm lobotomists parp on about them being clean/green friendly machines.
They are not!. It takes vast amounts of energy to make them. This is not an exclusive list but the process includes....
1. Mining ores to construct them. Copper, aluminium, iron (and some nasties),
2. Smelting the ores (requires coal etc, - more mining),
3. Huge concrete bases require aggregates and cement (cement requires a huge amount of energy to produce).
All (well most) of the energy to produce these items comes from fossil fuels!!!!
There is no environmental benefit to wind farms!
Edited by ratbane on Monday 10th November 10:28
ratbane said:
If windfarms are considered the correct path politically, then sobeit. We can't do much about that.
It is sad when we are reduced to admitting that our heritage of hard won democracy is dead. However that does seem to be the case in the UK these days and, despite what has been seen in the recent US election, is under threat pretty much everywhere that democracy exists.Strange that people should be so disinclined to have an influence over their lives and futures.
I suppose all social systems have developed and collapsed along similar lines over the centuries and millenia during which ever larger groups of people have developed into socialised units.
Whether it is indeed correct to say we CAN'T do much about it I doubt. But the momentum to try to do anything seems lacking. Will anything wake us from our resigned torpor?
LongQ said:
ratbane said:
If windfarms are considered the correct path politically, then sobeit. We can't do much about that.
It is sad when we are reduced to admitting that our heritage of hard won democracy is dead. However that does seem to be the case in the UK these days and, despite what has been seen in the recent US election, is under threat pretty much everywhere that democracy exists.Strange that people should be so disinclined to have an influence over their lives and futures.
I suppose all social systems have developed and collapsed along similar lines over the centuries and millenia during which ever larger groups of people have developed into socialised units.
Whether it is indeed correct to say we CAN'T do much about it I doubt. But the momentum to try to do anything seems lacking. Will anything wake us from our resigned torpor?
The next big problem is, who do you replace them with? Old labour/new tory/middle liberal. They all blow with the wind (no pun intended).
Have you noticed how difficult it is to influence the public when you have no forum to do so. Just look at the plight of David Bellamy. He may as well have leprosy.
The garbage that is the wind farm lobby, is tied up in the Carbon is bad movement. It is a way (or ways) of making lots of money in tax, construction, and consultancy.
You can't honestly think that the American masses voted for anything apart from Obamas image? I'm not sure the average American knows the difference between BO and JMcC apart from age and colour (color).
In the same way, the mass of UK voters will still vote for who their parents voted for.
Edited by ratbane on Monday 10th November 11:22
Harsh said:
what about the waste from the number of nuclear power stations required to generate all the power we'll need when the fossil fuels run out?
where does that go?
also my expectation is that we're more likely to see 'home' windfarms in the future....not the B&Q rubbish but in 10 years time the proliferation of small roof mounted turbines coupled with solar energy (PV and water heating) will dramatically cut the amount of power taken from the 'grid'
look at the amount of renewable energy systems at the major property/building shows now as compared to just 12 months ago and we can see where the future lies.
Solar PV
solar water heating
wind power
ground source heat pumps
maybe thats an idealistic projection but it's where my thoughts are going right now.
You mean all the so called "green" energies are politically correct so you can get grants to pay for them.where does that go?
also my expectation is that we're more likely to see 'home' windfarms in the future....not the B&Q rubbish but in 10 years time the proliferation of small roof mounted turbines coupled with solar energy (PV and water heating) will dramatically cut the amount of power taken from the 'grid'
look at the amount of renewable energy systems at the major property/building shows now as compared to just 12 months ago and we can see where the future lies.
Solar PV
solar water heating
wind power
ground source heat pumps
maybe thats an idealistic projection but it's where my thoughts are going right now.
Also you can up the price per unit by 300% as people will pay whatever for a "green" energy. SO lots of readies to be made.
fluffnik said:
ratbane said:
If windfarms are considered the correct path politically, then sobeit. We can't do much about that.
Yes we can.We can point out their flaws at every opportunity and do whatever we can to destroy the political credibility of their supporters.
The reality is that no-one is prepared to suffer for it. That's something that you can admire the greens for, however deluded they may be.
Ug_lee said:
I remember proposals for a tidal dam to be built across Morecambe Bay. Was a large expense, but the regular predictable output from the project was massive.
Doing that could solve two huge problems by becoming a bridge offering much faster travelling time to Barrow, too.Sadly the lentallists are too short sighted to work out what will actually benefit people.
Racingdude009 said:
They are pretty useful in helping to generate electricity in a sustainable manner much nicer to have windturbine next door than a Nuclear Power Station.
Though of course you would only need a few Nuclear power stations to produce the same electricity as having a windturbine next door to practically everyone in the country and those few Nuclear power stations won't be nextdoor to more than a few....Harsh said:
I believe some of the comments above are slightly short sighted.
i tend to agree that current technology means they dont make a huge amount of sense in todays world.
however, looking at things long term......
improvements in technology will mean that power is generated more efficiently
and
higher unit power costs will mean the payback time for the units will fall considerably.
renewable energy is the future, how quickly it becomes the norm will depend on how quickly the development happens.
just my 2p
However cheap and efficient they become. You cannot change the variability of the wind, so they will always be unsuitable for mass power generation. i tend to agree that current technology means they dont make a huge amount of sense in todays world.
however, looking at things long term......
improvements in technology will mean that power is generated more efficiently
and
higher unit power costs will mean the payback time for the units will fall considerably.
renewable energy is the future, how quickly it becomes the norm will depend on how quickly the development happens.
just my 2p
JagLover said:
Racingdude009 said:
They are pretty useful in helping to generate electricity in a sustainable manner much nicer to have windturbine next door than a Nuclear Power Station.
Though of course you would only need a few Nuclear power stations to produce the same electricity as having a windturbine next door to practically everyone in the country and those few Nuclear power stations won't be nextdoor to more than a few....Nicely accessible for ships carrying nastiness, no protesting residents to irradiate, everyone is happy. Other than a few puffins no doubt.
speedy_thrills said:
Jasandjules said:
They don't actually produce that much leccie as I understand it. So large concrete monstrosities which actually have little benefit in the cost/benefit ratio IMHO. They kill loads of wildlife, which IMHO isn't all that helpful when one is supposed to be "saving the planet".
Well most are 2MW, the UK needs an average of 45,000MW so that's 22,500 turbines operating at peak performance.I'd say you'd probably be looking at 10% of the land area being covered to output that sort of power. Which is fine as long as it's Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland IMO
.OJ said:
JagLover said:
Racingdude009 said:
They are pretty useful in helping to generate electricity in a sustainable manner much nicer to have windturbine next door than a Nuclear Power Station.
Though of course you would only need a few Nuclear power stations to produce the same electricity as having a windturbine next door to practically everyone in the country and those few Nuclear power stations won't be nextdoor to more than a few....Nicely accessible for ships carrying nastiness, no protesting residents to irradiate, everyone is happy. Other than a few puffins no doubt.
I don't know why people have such a hard time seeing that wind power is not going to solve the problem.
I mean, I know that nature has massive power, and if we could harness it, it would solve the whole deal. The thing is that there are three key issues;
1) That massive energy is spread out over the whole globe. At any particular point, it's all a bit feeble. (More on this later).
2) If it wasn't spread out, we'd not be able to live here. That's life. When the a big chunk of the total force of nature is focused in a small area, you can't put something there which will withstand it, let alone find somewhere to put all that energy.
3) IF we could extract all that natural energy, then nature it's self wouldn't be able to carry on. In other words, it'd be a man made environmental disaster.
The solution to all of that;
1) What we need is a scheme where we can manufacture colossal amounts of energy.
2) We need to focus that energy into the smallest amount of space, for thermal efficiency. Since we're going to the effort of manufacturing all this energy, we don't want to waste it.
3) To achieve that energy density, we have to be able to control the energy production rate within very tight limits, such that it almost destroys the equipment used to generate it, but never actually does.
I give you the traditional power station! It matters not if it's coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.
I mean, I know that nature has massive power, and if we could harness it, it would solve the whole deal. The thing is that there are three key issues;
1) That massive energy is spread out over the whole globe. At any particular point, it's all a bit feeble. (More on this later).
2) If it wasn't spread out, we'd not be able to live here. That's life. When the a big chunk of the total force of nature is focused in a small area, you can't put something there which will withstand it, let alone find somewhere to put all that energy.
3) IF we could extract all that natural energy, then nature it's self wouldn't be able to carry on. In other words, it'd be a man made environmental disaster.
The solution to all of that;
1) What we need is a scheme where we can manufacture colossal amounts of energy.
2) We need to focus that energy into the smallest amount of space, for thermal efficiency. Since we're going to the effort of manufacturing all this energy, we don't want to waste it.
3) To achieve that energy density, we have to be able to control the energy production rate within very tight limits, such that it almost destroys the equipment used to generate it, but never actually does.
I give you the traditional power station! It matters not if it's coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 10th November 11:57
ratbane said:
LongQ said:
ratbane said:
If windfarms are considered the correct path politically, then sobeit. We can't do much about that.
It is sad when we are reduced to admitting that our heritage of hard won democracy is dead. However that does seem to be the case in the UK these days and, despite what has been seen in the recent US election, is under threat pretty much everywhere that democracy exists.Strange that people should be so disinclined to have an influence over their lives and futures.
I suppose all social systems have developed and collapsed along similar lines over the centuries and millenia during which ever larger groups of people have developed into socialised units.
Whether it is indeed correct to say we CAN'T do much about it I doubt. But the momentum to try to do anything seems lacking. Will anything wake us from our resigned torpor?
The next big problem is, who do you replace them with? Old labour/new tory/middle liberal. They all blow with the wind (no pun intended).
Have you noticed how difficult it is to influence the public when you have no forum to do so. Just look at the plight of David Bellamy. He may as well have leprosy.
The garbage that is the wind farm lobby, is tied up in the Carbon is bad movement. It is a way (or ways) of making lots of money in tax, construction, and consultancy.
You can't honestly think that the American masses voted for anything apart from Obamas image? I'm not sure the average American knows the difference between BO and JMcC apart from age and colour (color).
In the same way, the mass of UK voters will still vote for who their parents voted for.
The problem with UK politics is that there isn't much of it happening. Brown recognises that to be a one eyed king the population must be kept blinded and somehow seems to be acheiving that. I have yet to figure out why the other parties seem unable to make anything out of opposition. Perhaps, like overtaking when driving, it's a lost art.
That people like David Bellamy don't have a platform surely says something aboyut society as a whole. If they cared they would DEMAND he be given a platform. Maybe we could get Bellamy to replace Peston? Clearly is is possible to get tax money to support your own ego if you are persistent enough.
The reason so many people in the so called upper echelons of our society like Carbon Trading is that it is clearly the perfect scam for personal wealth creation in a way that sub-prime mortgages could never be in the long term.
The US, for once, followed the UK and has a Blair moment as far as I can see. It will be interesting to see where they go from here. However, whatever the motivation in the process, at least there was some animation throughout the process. Presumably that is why the BBC sent so many people to the US to cover the event - it gave them something to do given the lack of activity here.
Where I disagree is your 'people will vote as their parents did' observation. I really doubt that is true, especially these days other than in the politically aligned intelligensia and landowning groups, though I would still see continuity based loosely on 'class perception' for the foundation votes. That said the net result of the shifts give more oar less the same numbers of pre-selected votes. However, the outcome of an election is usually most influenced by the numbers who turn out to vote and the so called 'floating voter'. Make these people disinterested enough to stay at home in large numbers and the small rump of them, and probably them alone, will determine who gets control. So as a political leader you don't have to fool all of the people all of the time, just a small number of them who can be readily motivated to your support.
But then as people in politics have been reduced to admitting recently, there isn't a lot for our local politicians to do when most decisions are made for them elsewhere.
I a m still convionced that a 'None of the Above' party could do extremely well in an election.
OJ said:
I always wonder this. Seeing as we get a load of energy bought in from France, ...
The infrastructure costs of cabling and distribution in general are likely to be greater than the cost of the generation units. Rarely discussed.Unless thing have changed a lot recently we don't get a lot of power from France. AFAIK there is only one relatively low capacity link and it's not reliable. That is why we have a potential problem with large production from windfarms. The rest of Europe, notably the Danes, have alternatives they can at least potentially call on to share excess output or power shortfall. The Danes, for example, can connect to German, Sweden or Norway and buy top up electricity if required or pay to have their own excess output taken away to avoid trashing their grid and wind generators. We don't have that ability at the moment as far as I am aware.
However it would be true to say that France owns a large part of our electricity generating and distribution capacity. As does Germany.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff