Windfarms - the end is nigh?
Discussion
Jim the Sunderer said:
wemorgan said:
Enough to get to 1955.
wemorgan said:
My point was a reply to:
"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."
My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.
Simples
I'm no mathematical genius but I'm going to suggest you've only reinforced his statement there. 'Between bugger all and f"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."
My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.
Simples
k all' seems fairly accurate. kiteless said:
I understand that the capital cost for the installation of one large (1 - 2.5MW) turbine is £2.5 million. So assuming that 4,100 turbines UK-wide is correct, that's a cost of over £10 billion to satisfy something like 4% of total electricity demand.
Jesus wept.
Indeed. Energy is expensive stuff.......have you seen the price of fuel lately Jesus wept.
Seriously though, it's not clear in my mind how to accurately asses the total cost of energy.
Nuclear is 'cheap' to generate energy, but you only have to read the news to see how the clean-up costs are not well defined and in some instances there is an open cheque book for decades to clear up some sites. So who can accurately say what is the "best" form of energy generation without knowing the costs.
wemorgan said:
So who can accurately say what is the "best" form of energy generation without knowing the costs.
We can say that gas is currently a quarter the price of windmills, and we have to build gas fired stations anyway for when the wind doesnt blow hard enough (or too hard). And we are sitting on staggering amounts of shale gas. Seems a no-brainer to me. wemorgan said:
Oakey said:
I'm no mathematical genius but I'm going to suggest you've only reinforced his statement there. 'Between bugger all and fk all' seems fairly accurate.
clearly you're not - but thanks for trying to take part in the debate anywayk all' seems fairly accurate. s2art said:
We can say that gas is currently a quarter the price of windmills, and we have to build gas fired stations anyway for when the wind doesnt blow hard enough (or too hard). And we are sitting on staggering amounts of shale gas. Seems a no-brainer to me.
Yes shale looks to be a real winner right now. Though quite a local residents aren't so happy. But local people tend not to be, as they tend to look at their own self interest, rather than the country as a whole. National government rather than local councils need to give clear direction IMHO.wemorgan said:
Oakey said:
I'm no mathematical genius but I'm going to suggest you've only reinforced his statement there. 'Between bugger all and fk all' seems fairly accurate.
clearly you're not - but thanks for trying to take part in the debate anywayk all' seems fairly accurate. wemorgan said:
It was said that wind turbines produced next to no power.
Next to no power. That is the improtant part. He didn't say 'no power', he said 'next to no power.You then said;
wemorgan said:
The actual answer is 1.9GW.
1.9GW. From a demand of about 48Gw.I think most people would agree that is 'next to no power' unless you have some warped view of what 'next to no power' means?
It quite literally was almost no power on Tuesday but you've glossed over that.
vodkalolly said:
Why do the morons think that a fluctuating power supply will be any good? These stupid windmills generate zero electricity sometimes for weeks on end (Dec 2010) Why are the political trash so gullible? Wind would be much better suited to pump store than directly producing electricity. The notion of 100% renewable is just ludicrous until fusion is perfected.
Imposed on us by a corrupt EU. No doubt huge numbers of bulging brown envelopes passed under tables into back pockets.That sets up the scam, then our lot dutifully do what they're told to do by the EU.
Oakey said:
1.9GW. From a demand of about 48Gw.
I think most people would agree that is 'next to no power' unless you have some warped view of what 'next to no power' means?
It quite literally was almost no power on Tuesday but you've glossed over that.
By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.I think most people would agree that is 'next to no power' unless you have some warped view of what 'next to no power' means?
It quite literally was almost no power on Tuesday but you've glossed over that.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.
I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
It will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.
Edited by wemorgan on Sunday 24th February 21:05
wemorgan said:
By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.
I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
I will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.
Yes windmills were a big part of milling grain and powering industry but for some strange reason they fell out of favour !!!I guess you dont need a regular and constant electrical supply and like to pay over the odds for it but strangely this arangement dosent seem to suit most of the poplulation..If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.
I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
I will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.
wemorgan said:
Oakey said:
1.9GW. From a demand of about 48Gw.
I think most people would agree that is 'next to no power' unless you have some warped view of what 'next to no power' means?
It quite literally was almost no power on Tuesday but you've glossed over that.
By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.I think most people would agree that is 'next to no power' unless you have some warped view of what 'next to no power' means?
It quite literally was almost no power on Tuesday but you've glossed over that.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.
I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
I will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.
powerstroke said:
Yes windmills were a big part of milling grain and powering industry but for some strange reason they fell out of favour !!!I guess you dont need a regular and constant electrical supply and like to pay over the odds for it but strangely this arangement dosent seem to suit most of the poplulation..
Are you suggesting that the demand is constant? If you are then you are wrong.Cheap - yes we all like cheap. What is your cheap suggestion?
Most of the population are not willing to take the time to understand the problem. Before you or others nitpick, I'm not saying I fully understand all the issues, but I do try, which seems more than many out there.
s2art said:
We can say that gas is currently a quarter the price of windmills, and we have to build gas fired stations anyway for when the wind doesnt blow hard enough (or too hard). And we are sitting on staggering amounts of shale gas. Seems a no-brainer to me.
Unfortunately those in charge have no brains....fid said:
I recall reading, years ago, that more energy is used in the manufacture of a wind turbine than it will generate in it's lifetime.
I suspect the article you read was about small domestic turbines.In the uk the average large industrial turbine produces 20-25 times the amount of energy it used to construct it.
wemorgan said:
kiteless said:
I understand that the capital cost for the installation of one large (1 - 2.5MW) turbine is £2.5 million. So assuming that 4,100 turbines UK-wide is correct, that's a cost of over £10 billion to satisfy something like 4% of total electricity demand.
Jesus wept.
Indeed. Energy is expensive stuff.......have you seen the price of fuel lately Jesus wept.
Seriously though, it's not clear in my mind how to accurately asses the total cost of energy.
Nuclear is 'cheap' to generate energy, but you only have to read the news to see how the clean-up costs are not well defined and in some instances there is an open cheque book for decades to clear up some sites. So who can accurately say what is the "best" form of energy generation without knowing the costs.
The current decommissioning costs are for:
Fuel cycle facilities run by the generation of British industry which gave us the Austin Allegro or were built by scientists (shudder) when the objective was to build an atom bomb in 3 years. In both cases design for decommissioning, record keeping and maintenance were poor.
Gas reactors (which are much larger and less accessible than the PWRs) which are a factor of ten more difficult to decommission than a PWR. Again these were designed with no regard to decommissioning and are all different.
The NDA is not particularly well regarded as a value for money organisation either.....
It's the fuel cycle facilities that are expensive, the total bill for taking down Dounreay is £2.9 billion, the bill for the PFR reactor is only £350 million. Most of the UK decommissioning bill is for Sellafield, nobody is proposing re-building that.
In a PWR plant decommissioning involves cleaning the active sludge out of the pipework and then disposing of the plant as general waste or low level waste. Only parts of the plant where you have highly concentrated waste (filters, distillates) or which have been bombarded by neutrons (the reactor vessel) need special treatment. The plant for Sizewell B (the UK's only PWR type) is to take it back to a brown field site in 10 years, total cost probably in the region of £500 million at today's prices.
wemorgan said:
powerstroke said:
Yes windmills were a big part of milling grain and powering industry but for some strange reason they fell out of favour !!!I guess you dont need a regular and constant electrical supply and like to pay over the odds for it but strangely this arangement dosent seem to suit most of the poplulation..
Are you suggesting that the demand is constant? If you are then you are wrong.Cheap - yes we all like cheap. What is your cheap suggestion?
Most of the population are not willing to take the time to understand the problem. Before you or others nitpick, I'm not saying I fully understand all the issues, but I do try, which seems more than many out there.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff