The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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)
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!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 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)
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.
At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
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.
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
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%)At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
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%)At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.
Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16
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%)At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.
Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16
Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.
Source
…and people really believe wind is the future?
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%)At the moment wind is producing 0.5 GW out of a possible 10GW , coal is keeping the lights on.
Edit to add hydrocarbons keeping the lights on.
Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 15th November 09:16
Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.
Source
…and people really believe wind is the future?
Amazing, isn't it.
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?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?
There is a point being made here, but hard to find.Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff