The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

"Turbines Kill So Many Birds They're Effectively an Apex Predator"
A typical wind farm can kill thousands of birds every year, including raptors like falcons and eagles.

Headline quote presumably derived from this article. Why do you hardly ever bother with linking the articles you quote Turbobloke? It would make further reading for those interested in the subject so much simpler.

Opening quote from the article "Wind turbines are vital for sustainable power, providing cheap electricity without producing any sort of pollution. But they can be deadly for birds"

Quote from the original work from the article was derived "Wind farms are a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels for mitigating the effects of climate change, but they also have complex ecological consequences."

Is it bad that wind turbines kill birds and bats? Of course it is. Should countermeasures to this problem be studied? Of course they should.
Should we pronouce wind power as the devil's work and forget it exists? Don't be daft.

turbobloke said:

"Bat Killings by Wind Energy Turbines Continue" (Scientific American 2016)
Industry plan to reduce deaths may not enough some scientists say.

PH renewables apologists may get hufty tufty but reality is plain to see. Wind is an abomination regarding bird and bat fatalities.

I've corrected your little mistakes from the original article you can thank me later.

The Good News though is that improvements can be made to wind turbines to reduce bat deaths.

Something we can all about.

[3.1416]

I love bats.

[anonymous-user]

Wayoftheflower said:

I've corrected your little mistakes from the original article you can thank me later.

[3.1416]

Of course, we could have gone nuclear and not have this discussion.

There would be another discussion though.

[Wayoftheflower]

3.1416 said:

Of course, we could have gone nuclear and not have this discussion.

There would be another discussion though.

Hypothetically what would it cost to install 40GW of nuclear? Sorry if it's been answered before.

[3.1416]

Wayoftheflower said:

Hypothetically what would it cost to install 40GW of nuclear? Sorry if it's been answered before.

As much as you are willing to pay.

[Gadgetmac]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

You're so hot on GWPF matters I checked to see if you'd posted it already

I leave the posting of quotes from their works of fiction to you.

I simply Google the quotes you post, find their latest waffle replicated on half a dozen interlinked sites and try to find the detail behind their claims.

Usually shows they're based on reports and studies by equally biased anti-renewable groups.

Always check the sources, there's never been one beyond reproach quoted yet.

[Sn1ckers]

Has this site been posted yet?

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public...

Some interesting stuff on how to make renewables viable.

[GroundEffect]

Wayoftheflower said:

Hypothetically what would it cost to install 40GW of nuclear? Sorry if it's been answered before.

3.6 Roentgen. On a 3.6 Roentgen meter.

[3.1416]

Sn1ckers said:

Has this site been posted yet?

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public...

Some interesting stuff on how to make renewables viable.

Not authorised and not willing to go there.

[hidetheelephants]

3.1416 said:

Wayoftheflower said:

Hypothetically what would it cost to install 40GW of nuclear? Sorry if it's been answered before.

As much as you are willing to pay.

If buying from EdF certainly... off-the-shelf pwrs from the Koreans seem to be coming in at $4/W, so on that basis ~$160bn; ordering 40GW as a manageable programme is likely to involve having 3-4 in build at any one time over a ~20 year timescale, not dissimilar to the build programme in France in the 2 decades following 1974. Some reports say that construction costs in China are lower still but that's not realistically repeatable in the UK. $160bn sounds like a lot but it's approximately what was spent in the UK on wind turbines in the first decade or so of 'big wind', an investment netting ~12GW of installed power or ~4GW of actual power.

[turbobloke]

3.1416 said:

Sn1ckers said:

Has this site been posted yet?

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public...

Some interesting stuff on how to make renewables viable.

Not authorised and not willing to go there.

Greenest of green scientists and engineers at Google Inc spent a lot of time and money on RE<C and with fantasy technology such as self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, renewables still weren't up to the job.

The way to make it work is to enforce energy, transport and lifestyle totalitarianism on the population to secure economic collapse with regression to a localised medieval lifestyle. We're past first steps and wise politicians are urging us on.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Greenest of green scientists and engineers at Google Inc spent a lot of time and money on RE<C and with fantasy technology such as self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, renewables still weren't up to the job.

The way to make it work is to enforce energy, transport and lifestyle totalitarianism on the population to secure economic collapse with regression to a localised medieval lifestyle. We're past first steps and wise politicians are urging us on.

Point 1. Source?

Point 2. Wow....

[cb31]

Wayoftheflower said:

Point 1. Source?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable...

[rscott]

Interesting critique of the Google RE C project here - https://energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-... .
Points out that the paper didn't appear to consider solar+storage solutions and doesn't have much detail in it.

[gazapc]

hidetheelephants said:

If buying from EdF certainly... off-the-shelf pwrs from the Koreans seem to be coming in at $4/W, so on that basis ~$160bn; ordering 40GW as a manageable programme is likely to involve having 3-4 in build at any one time over a ~20 year timescale, not dissimilar to the build programme in France in the 2 decades following 1974. Some reports say that construction costs in China are lower still but that's not realistically repeatable in the UK. $160bn sounds like a lot but it's approximately what was spent in the UK on wind turbines in the first decade or so of 'big wind', an investment netting ~12GW of installed power or ~4GW of actual power.

Source for the $160 billion on wind in one decade? Considering total ROC payments last year were £5.3billion (and that is not just wind, and definitely not 'the first decade'), i'm calling BS.

[Wayoftheflower]

Sn1ckers said:

Has this site been posted yet?

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public...

Some interesting stuff on how to make renewables viable.

Once past the scary "No investment advice is contained within these pages" disclaimer that site is fascinating.

Particularly the link to this power storage experience curves research tracking the cost and capacity over time of storage. Vanadium batteries are tracking to out-compete Li-Ion for bulk energy storage.

The semi-intuitive "negative experience" curve of pumped storage is interesting too, the easiest sites to develope are already used.

[3.1416]

Wayoftheflower said:

Point 1. Source?

Point 2. Wow....

Point 1. It has been posted before - Google is your friend here though.

Point 2. We need to be a little bit careful that we don't end up here by default. There are extremists out there who would prefer a return to an agrarian society and the cull that would be required.

Cambodia would be the extreme example.

Imho.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Greenest of green scientists and engineers at Google Inc spent a lot of time and money on RE<C and with fantasy technology such as self-erecting turbines in robotic windfarms, renewables still weren't up to the job.

That is indeed a very interesting study funded by Google 2007-2011 although many articles date from 2014 when the two authors wrote their famously cited reflection article

The Article said:

"Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known as RE<C - Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades."

"By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal, and Google officially ended the initiative and shut down the related internal R&D projects"

Their conclusion, as trucated in turbobloke's quote was renewables still weren't up to the job, of halting catastrophic climate change alone by mass introduction within the next forty years.

My summary of the whole article is that Ross Koningstein and David Fork were discouraged by the enormity of the task of combating climate change through the sole use of renewables and concluded

The Article said:

"Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive to reverse climate change'

Their current studies are in cold fusion also funded by Google link

The article posted by rscott makes some excellent points to initially rebut the findings of 2011.

But in 2019 I think the most important rebutal is in what the energy industry has done.

The Article said:

"By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal"

however many other energy companies came to a different conclusion to Google and in 2018 did compete directly with coal on price source

Edited by Wayoftheflower on Tuesday 9th July 20:34

[turbobloke]

3.1416 said:

Wayoftheflower said:

Point 1. Source?

Point 2. Wow....

Point 1. It has been posted before - Google is your friend here though.

Point 2. We need to be a little bit careful that we don't end up here by default. There are extremists out there who would prefer a return to an agrarian society and the cull that would be required.
.

Maurice Strong of UN infamy said:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

(May 1990 issue of WEST magazine,Alberta, Canada)

Maurice Stong of UN repeated the above bovine excreta when he said:

Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse

.
(01 September 1997 edition of National Review magazine)