Discussion
zac510 said:
What's renewable and better though?
Nothing for the next 5 years probably.
Wind isn't renewable. The wind part is. The components aren't. The remote locations mean transport by large plant for maintenance give off huge emissions. Nothing for the next 5 years probably.
Why not use nuclear? or stick with coal?
You don't see tidal being rolled out everywhere, it is being trialled. Logical way.
Hey I'm not a hippy or anything, I can just see merit in trialling something to test it out in the real world in order to be able to make an objective decision.
The exact same reason why solar farms, solar chimneys, various forms of tidal power, etc are all being tested either now or in the next 5-10 years throughout the world. One of them may replace wind farms the second it becomes economically cheaper to do so.
The exact same reason why solar farms, solar chimneys, various forms of tidal power, etc are all being tested either now or in the next 5-10 years throughout the world. One of them may replace wind farms the second it becomes economically cheaper to do so.
Edited by zac510 on Sunday 9th November 23:06
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
Yes and no. I can see where you are coming from but there are technical dead ends, and from what I can tell wind turbines are one of those dead ends.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
What you see today isn't the result of a few years work, its the result of over 100 years of research and development. The first electricity producing windmill is 1888 in fact. Hardly recent. So we are talking 120 years so far and frankly, its still not very good.
zac510 said:
... I can just see merit in trialling something to test it out in the real world in order to be able to make an objective decision.
I think the Danes have already done that - and the Germans to some extent, though they are only now coming to terms with the reality of their green policies.This is why the Danes persuaded the Germans to be interested - it allowed the Danes to 'sell' the Germans some technology and fund the other types of electricity generation that have returned thenm to some semblance of reliable energy availability. I read that the 'free' wind energy has left the Danes with the highest electricity costs in Europe.
But apart from that - how big a 'trial' do you need? 20% of the expected demand? Seems to be what trhe government wants.
The cost of that would pretty much preclude developing anything else, despite the need for backup capacity for when the wind does not blow much. Fortunately analysis of the subsidy certificates (ROCs) shows that a few installataion, offshore, do manage to generate at about half their rated capacity in some months. Not all of them, but some of them. Other months they struggle to 15%.
Fortunately one of the months they only get to 15% is February and that's only a short month so the impact is less isn't it. And anyway it's not as if it's the middle of winter or anything ...
No doubt after a few years of random power cuts the French government, in the form of EDF, will come to our rescue and build a link for electricity supply acroos the channel while we continue to debate where to install nuclear and allow greenpeace 'activists' to run riot over the legal system.
Meanwhile the rush to build wind diverters will dramatically increase the immediate CO2 output way ahead of any potential savings leading to ever more strident calls for persecution of travellers (unless they are travelling to Climate Change conferences or are associates of St. Algore.)
Even the bankers, who probably saw Carbon Credit trading as the next big money making treat to follow sub-prime lending (as soon as they could extricate themselves from that with as little personal loss as possible, which they now seem to have done), appear to be backing away from the investments.
I deplore the destruction of the lanscape (and even the seascape) to accomodate these white elephants but apprecaite that younger generations may not be so concerned. Partly because they have now experienced the erosion of open spaces in and around towns and cities that has occurred in my lifetime and so have, as yet, no reference point for what expansive wind farms may take away from them.
Give it 15 to 25 years when these things need to be replaced with newer, bigger installations. New concrete bases as the old ones will be useless - so cover them up and dig more holes alongside, lay more roads that have no wider purpose. Who wants moorland anyway?
In the words of Joni Mitchell - "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone'" - the irony being that she was thinking of destruction of the 'good' things by the 'bad', the destruction of 'natural' habitat to create houses and shopping malls. I doubt that, even today, she can make the connection to the destruction of the wider countryside and our enjoyment of it on the sort of scale required to attempt to meet our government's plans for 'renewable' energy production.
Of course it looks like it could be much the same in the USA, though population density if far less so there is more land to play with even though much of it is not suitable. It will be interesting see how things develop over there, given that the windiest places also happen to be prone to tornados.
tinman0 said:
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
Yes and no. I can see where you are coming from but there are technical dead ends, and from what I can tell wind turbines are one of those dead ends.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
What you see today isn't the result of a few years work, its the result of over 100 years of research and development. The first electricity producing windmill is 1888 in fact. Hardly recent. So we are talking 120 years so far and frankly, its still not very good.
at the moment, their efficiency levels are dire but (certainly with pv) we're at the start of the road.
oil gas and coal are finite resources, nuclear is far too dirty and dangerous to be a long term solution....we dont actually have a lot of choice.
if you couple better efficiency levels with reduced energy demands (from more efficient lighting, consumer goods etc) then we may see it become viable.
just not right now.
however its the only road we can travel and be sustainable
Harsh said:
i know what you mean Justin, but i was more focussing on the conversion efficiency and also the storage of produced power....this applies not only to windpower but to photovoltaic cells.
at the moment, their efficiency levels are dire but (certainly with pv) we're at the start of the road.
oil gas and coal are finite resources, nuclear is far too dirty and dangerous to be a long term solution....we dont actually have a lot of choice.
if you couple better efficiency levels with reduced energy demands (from more efficient lighting, consumer goods etc) then we may see it become viable.
just not right now.
however its the only road we can travel and be sustainable
PV cells really are a bad idea for large scale electric generation. Never will be that good as the sun only gives out a small amount of energy per m2.at the moment, their efficiency levels are dire but (certainly with pv) we're at the start of the road.
oil gas and coal are finite resources, nuclear is far too dirty and dangerous to be a long term solution....we dont actually have a lot of choice.
if you couple better efficiency levels with reduced energy demands (from more efficient lighting, consumer goods etc) then we may see it become viable.
just not right now.
however its the only road we can travel and be sustainable
When did nuclear become dangerous? If you are meaning Chernobyl, read what happened. Dirty to a certain extent yes. But benefits outweigh the negatives by a huge scale.
Are you willing to have your electricity bill be increased by at the very least 3 times for wind power. This will be a constant if not greater due to the short shelf lives of a wind turbine.
believe me, i agree that where we are right now, sustainable resource harvesting is simply not advanced enough to get us anywhere near what we need.
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
Harsh said:
believe me, i agree that where we are right now, sustainable resource harvesting is simply not advanced enough to get us anywhere near what we need.
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
Ok so you would rather we build a few hundred thousand wind turbines?
Wacky Racer said:
We have one of the largest ones in England (Scout Moor) nearby....I wasn't keen at first, but you do get used to them, and they are no worse than electricity pylons.....like the atom bomb they are not going to go away.............
Is that likely to be the one I can see from the higher points in Wigan? We previously thought it was one in Yorkshire.elster said:
Harsh said:
believe me, i agree that where we are right now, sustainable resource harvesting is simply not advanced enough to get us anywhere near what we need.
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
we have no choice but to use oil gas coal and nuclear sources for generating power.
BUT, all but the nuclear power sources are finite.
the half life of nuclear waste is scary enough.
Lets just imagine we live in world where every bit of power we need is generated by nuclear energy. how many power stations would we need and more to the point how much waste would that generate and what would we do with it?
if the planet is to continue what choice do we actually have?
P.S. i'm not actually a greenie, just a realist trying to look at the long term big picture
Ok so you would rather we build a few hundred thousand wind turbines?
one question, would you rather live next to a wind farm or a nuclear power station?
as for fission....
if the answer really is there then i totally advocate the ongoing research....i just want to make sure that there is a similar budget for research/development in solar/wind/tidal power
I'm just wondering if windfarms would pay their way if we could alter the climate, like cloud seeding, to ensure that the wind is where the windfarms are?
Windfarms are OK in my book. It's always the people that are the problem, not the machines. It's just as bad to think that windfarms are the ultimate solution as it is to think that energy consumption can simply go up and up.
What we hav to do, is find a way to close the gap between need and supply. But nobody actually wants or has the ability to deal with how that affects them. The greens are just as guilty as everyone else on that point.
Windfarms are OK in my book. It's always the people that are the problem, not the machines. It's just as bad to think that windfarms are the ultimate solution as it is to think that energy consumption can simply go up and up.
What we hav to do, is find a way to close the gap between need and supply. But nobody actually wants or has the ability to deal with how that affects them. The greens are just as guilty as everyone else on that point.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 10th November 02:11
Harsh said:
not at all, but i've no objection to rolling out a few in order to help with future development.
There seem to be quite a few already rolled out around the world ... are you suggesting we are linking our entire future to alpha testing technology?I don't see any qualification in the government's policy document relating 'rolling out a few to to help with development.' More along the lines of 'this is what we are doing so lump it.'
Not that they have much choice Gordon having taken his preferred path and handed responsibility for everything (except for some reason financial systems that he thinks he understands) to others. In this case the EU.
Harsh said:
one question, would you rather live next to a wind farm or a nuclear power station?
Nuclear.On the basis that they can be made quite small these days and are likely much safer than being close to such large rotating blades.
Also because if the choice for the country is one or the other ...
Nuclear offers much better reliable supply potential.
And more output from a smaller footprint. Which means that for wind to offer 20% availability of likely demand the entire country would, to all intents and purposes, need to be one giant wind farm and all of us would be living next to one. There would be no escape. Add in the infrastructure for the many transmission links required to connect all the wind cull centres to the grid and the country would start to resemble those photos one sees of parts of Kalifornia. The difference would be that Kalifornia is bigger than the UK so they can afford to trash some of their scenery. They will have plenty left for people to enjoy when they need to. Well, maybe not if the new regimes get their way.
LongQ said:
Harsh said:
not at all, but i've no objection to rolling out a few in order to help with future development.
There seem to be quite a few already rolled out around the world ... are you suggesting we are linking our entire future to alpha testing technology?I don't see any qualification in the government's policy document relating 'rolling out a few to to help with development.' More along the lines of 'this is what we are doing so lump it.'
Not that they have much choice Gordon having taken his preferred path and handed responsibility for everything (except for some reason financial systems that he thinks he understands) to others. In this case the EU.
Harsh said:
one question, would you rather live next to a wind farm or a nuclear power station?
Nuclear.On the basis that they can be made quite small these days and are likely much safer than being close to such large rotating blades.
Also because if the choice for the country is one or the other ...
Nuclear offers much better reliable supply potential.
And more output from a smaller footprint. Which means that for wind to offer 20% availability of likely demand the entire country would, to all intents and purposes, need to be one giant wind farm and all of us would be living next to one. There would be no escape. Add in the infrastructure for the many transmission links required to connect all the wind cull centres to the grid and the country would start to resemble those photos one sees of parts of Kalifornia. The difference would be that Kalifornia is bigger than the UK so they can afford to trash some of their scenery. They will have plenty left for people to enjoy when they need to. Well, maybe not if the new regimes get their way.
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.
Cutting down on waste is the most important issue relating to energy generation in the near future. Nuclear power will have to be more widely used especially when this idea of plugging everyones car into the mains starts to take off and hopefully the renewable energy sources will develop into something more effective than they are at the current.
I like wind turbines, I find them elegent and impressive. Hate windfarms.
I like wind turbines, I find them elegent and impressive. Hate windfarms.
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?
Apparently the volume of waste is quite small relatively speaking and indeed could likely be made smaller as research into re-use progresses. Now that WOULD be a useful investment. where does that go?
On the fossil fuel front - how long do you expect to live?
Concerned about leaving something for your great-grandchildren? Hmm. The Green 'solution' is often accompanied by thoughs of affirmative action to reduce world population - to about 1/6th of current levels and to do so relatively soon. If that idea takes root it will reduce the likelihood of having anyone to worry about in whatever future is left for you.
Harsh said:
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'
Depends where you live and whether you want to drive. I guess if the the world follows Obama's idea to make the building of coal fuelled energy generation so expensive that few can afford the output this desparate measure will indeed happen. If so probably be best to live somewhere windy, sunny or preferably both. Might be a lot of competition for that though and many such places seem to lack generous supplies of water. Hmm.Harsh said:
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.
I suspect that what you are seeing is the result of tax break funded concepts creating a technology bubble. The bubble will likely burst in the new economic reality although continual tax hikes could keep it wiggling for a while.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.
It would be interesting to see how the demands of high density city living could be satisfied by rooftop devices. I would also expect household insurance to rise in anticipation of damage and injury claims potential from whirling turbine blades struggling to light a couple of nightlights.
Even if your hoped for developments start to look viable I suspect that 'the people' will become very restless well before any mass usage could be rolled out. Things will get ugly.
Bear in mind that by not using the oil and coal and gas those goods become more attractive propositions for any culture that does not have the same concerns about using them. (Indeed what purpose do they serve if they are not to be used?). What resources would you use to prevent others from making a claim to use them?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff