The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

Author
Discussion

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Are you using your own personal experience as conclusive evidence that cars don't kill birds?

Have you ever personally seen a bird killed by a wind turbine?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
That image and many more like it bring disgrace on wind energy.

PHer Tafia posted a similar image several years ago in response to a similar question.

Killing protected birds of prey and protected bats is hardly in the same league as taking out a pheasant, not least as many are bred to be shot.

The threadbare defences of birdmincers and batlungexploders are...threadbare. It's not as if we need pointless and costly turbines.

HairyPoppins

702 posts

81 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
That image and many more like it bring disgrace on wind energy.
No doubt but then Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island do likewise to the Nuclear industry.

I won't even start to list the Coal Industry disasters as there have been so many with victims young and old.

Piper Alpha and Deepwater Horizon for the Oil and Gas Industry. How much human and (in the case of Deepwater Horizon) sea life died in those? I'll quote a report, "100's of thousands of birds".

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/seabird-los...

Add Dolphins, Fish, Sea Turtles and other mammals to that list along with the human costs in both.

So far I've yet to see a similar large scale disaster attributed to a few wind turbines.

Just an observation.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
jacobingonzo said:
"Using wind energy is a … reliable technology…". No, it is not a reliable technology. There is no means of controlling its output because wind turbines solely dependant upon the prevailing weather at a particular time which is impossible to predict with any accuracy"

sorry but I beg to differ- ITM Power currently offer a power to gas system whereby they use renewable energy that isn't required for the grid. They use green electricity to convert water to hydrogen gas and store it to be burnt in a fuel cell to produce electricity when required -totally green no pollution generated.
You may want to consider the wider economics of this process.

If it is entirely self contained - i.e. no grid connection - then the entire installation (I assume there is something running at commercially viable scale?) should be measurable fiscally - total costs compared to income.

Is that the case?

silentbrown

8,793 posts

115 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
It's not as if we need pointless and costly turbines.
Of course not. The same way we don't *really* need cars, buildings, aeroplanes, communication towers or cats.



https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/p...

Actually, there's little point in trying to correct you as I'm sure you just view these figures as a massive conspiracy. Something to think about after you've convinced yourself the world is flat and that 9/11 was a hoax.


Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
silentbrown said:
Something to think about after you've convinced yourself the world is flat and that 9/11 was a hoax.
I suspect that this sounded clever in your own mind prior to posting!

On a more serious note, hopefully offshore wind will provide 24/7 constant delivery of power, and camel-worrying territories will thereby be rendered less influencial with excessive financial Western cash not forthcoming..

There are still problems, however, since variability and intermittency have still not been addressed and building ever more and placing even more dependency upon wind turbines may appear somewhat similar to ostrich antics (or politics)

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
Ali G said:
silentbrown said:
Something to think about after you've convinced yourself the world is flat and that 9/11 was a hoax.
I suspect that this sounded clever in your own mind prior to posting!
Suspicion is being kind, but then why not hehe

Ali G said:
On a more serious note, hopefully offshore wind will provide 24/7 constant delivery of power, and camel-worrying territories will thereby be rendered less influencial with excessive financial Western cash not forthcoming.

There are still problems, however, since variability and intermittency have still not been addressed and building ever more and placing even more dependency upon wind turbines may appear somewhat similar to ostrich antics (or politics)
Ostrich Politics it is then smile

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
There are various pics of windymills with blades missing and gearboxes on fire but this subspecies of Norwegian Blue (off-perch, reclining) is eye-catching.


Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Tuesday 14th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Ostrich Politics it is then smile
Combined with bonobo - allegedly

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.

HairyPoppins

702 posts

81 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
There are various pics of windymills with blades missing and gearboxes on fire but this subspecies of Norwegian Blue (off-perch, reclining) is eye-catching.

laugh

But I'm afraid the lesser spotted Norwegian Blue is nowhere near as impressive as the Common Mexican Red in resplendent in full breeding plumage



2fast748

1,091 posts

194 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Looks to me like gas that is keeping the lights on (57.66%)

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
2fast748 said:
PRTVR said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Looks to me like gas that is keeping the lights on (57.66%)
Well it certainly isn't wind now down to 0.3 GW

Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
2fast748 said:
PRTVR said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Looks to me like gas that is keeping the lights on (57.66%)
Well it certainly isn't wind now down to 0.3 GW

Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16
Here you can see with your own eyes what is and is not keeping the lights on. Certainly not wind.

Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.

Source

…and people really believe wind is the future?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
rolando said:
PRTVR said:
2fast748 said:
PRTVR said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Looks to me like gas that is keeping the lights on (57.66%)
Well it certainly isn't wind now down to 0.3 GW

Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16
Here you can see with your own eyes what is and is not keeping the lights on. Certainly not wind.

Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.

Source

…and people really believe wind is the future?
Some do yes

Amazing, isn't it.

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Wednesday 15th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Some do yes

Amazing, isn't it.
Beyond comprehension. nuts

HairyPoppins

702 posts

81 months

Thursday 16th November 2017
quotequote all
rolando said:
Damn. Does that mean the centre of Brussels will be radioactive for 28,000 years like Chernobyl? What about the sheep and cows in nearby countries that'll die from the toxic fumes?

frown

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Thursday 16th November 2017
quotequote all
HairyPoppins said:
Damn. Does that mean the centre of Brussels will be radioactive for 28,000 years like Chernobyl? What about the sheep and cows in nearby countries that'll die from the toxic fumes?

frown
There is a point being made here, but hard to find.

HairyPoppins

702 posts

81 months

Thursday 16th November 2017
quotequote all
Ali G said:
HairyPoppins said:
Damn. Does that mean the centre of Brussels will be radioactive for 28,000 years like Chernobyl? What about the sheep and cows in nearby countries that'll die from the toxic fumes?

frown
There is a point being made here, but hard to find.
The point I'm making is that all forms of energy extraction or creation and storage are inherently dangerous - some much-much more so than others.

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.