Greenies - I mean WTF??
Discussion
Got myself into an arguement with a greenie at the weekend over wind-farms. He thinks they are the way forward because it's "free power". I then mentioned the manufacturing costs & environmental impact this manufacturing process has, along with the infrastructure that has to go in to support these things - control rooms, roadways to otherwise inaccessible places, the oh-so-green concrete bases to bolt them down, the shipping of the turbines to site, maintenance, and then replace/recycle at their end of life - circa 20 years. Not to mention destroying the the views across some of the countryside.
All of that doesn't matter in his eyes as it's still "free power". FFS!
So has anyone know how long these things start to make sense from a green point of view - i.e. total environmental impact to get them to site, run, and decomission, versus the return of so-called "free power"
All of that doesn't matter in his eyes as it's still "free power". FFS!
So has anyone know how long these things start to make sense from a green point of view - i.e. total environmental impact to get them to site, run, and decomission, versus the return of so-called "free power"
There's a massive one in the process of being built on the Gunfleet sands off the Essex coast. Work has ground to a complete halt as one of the contractors has gone bust as a result of excessive costs.
So far it's had tens of millions spent and not yet generated one milliamp of electricity
I can't imagine how any of these offshore wind farms will ever recover the cost of construction in "free" electricity, let alone mitigate all the environmental damage caused in manufacture and shipping.
I sailed out to have a look at it a few weeks ago. It took me 12 hours of just slowly drifting on the tide over the 18 miles or so there and back as there was hardly a breath of wind all day..
So far it's had tens of millions spent and not yet generated one milliamp of electricity
I can't imagine how any of these offshore wind farms will ever recover the cost of construction in "free" electricity, let alone mitigate all the environmental damage caused in manufacture and shipping.
I sailed out to have a look at it a few weeks ago. It took me 12 hours of just slowly drifting on the tide over the 18 miles or so there and back as there was hardly a breath of wind all day..
Not quite the answer you need, but last month the Energy Saving Trust announced the initial results of their regional cost-benefit analysis - actually a very useful piece of work.
Unsurprisingly, "amount of wind" was rather important.
A rural site on the remote Orkney island of North Ronaldsay performed best in the test with a pole-mounted turbine and an average wind speed of 5.75 metres a second producing 22,000kWh a year and paying back the investment in less than ten years.
A building-mounted turbine in Dagenham proved a lot less successful, with an average wind speed of 2.37 meters a second producing no electricity and no prospect of paying back the cost of the installation.
The report estimated there was potential for more than 450,000 micro-turbines to be installed on properties across the UK, producing enough energy to power 870,000 homes. (Memo: there are approximately 20 million homes in the UK).
Unsurprisingly, "amount of wind" was rather important.
A rural site on the remote Orkney island of North Ronaldsay performed best in the test with a pole-mounted turbine and an average wind speed of 5.75 metres a second producing 22,000kWh a year and paying back the investment in less than ten years.
A building-mounted turbine in Dagenham proved a lot less successful, with an average wind speed of 2.37 meters a second producing no electricity and no prospect of paying back the cost of the installation.
The report estimated there was potential for more than 450,000 micro-turbines to be installed on properties across the UK, producing enough energy to power 870,000 homes. (Memo: there are approximately 20 million homes in the UK).
Deva Link said:
Jaguar steve said:
I can't imagine how any of these offshore wind farms will ever recover the cost of construction in "free" electricity,
That rather depends on the price of electricity, which is being manipulated so that "green" generation looks more favourable.I had a game of go fishing with a greenie and its always fun to play.
(The cast)
Get talking about the shoddy state that the power industry is in.
(the nibble)
Greenie agrees and you start talking about alternative supplies of power.
(the nibble)
Start talking about just how clean Nuclear power is and how that could help the sitution.
(the bite)
Get greenie to agree to that last statment.
(haul them in)
Tell them its a shame that deluded greenies back 15 years ago that complained nuclear power wasnt the way to go and that if we had only done that we might not be in the climate change issues that we have now.
(killer blow)
So it is in fact the greenies that may have killed the planet and now they are going back on the word about nuclear because they know better now but apparantly they were niave back then.
morale : greenies... f
k off and do something that you know about rather than follow all the other sheep.
Enjoy fishing.
(The cast)
Get talking about the shoddy state that the power industry is in.
(the nibble)
Greenie agrees and you start talking about alternative supplies of power.
(the nibble)
Start talking about just how clean Nuclear power is and how that could help the sitution.
(the bite)
Get greenie to agree to that last statment.
(haul them in)
Tell them its a shame that deluded greenies back 15 years ago that complained nuclear power wasnt the way to go and that if we had only done that we might not be in the climate change issues that we have now.
(killer blow)
So it is in fact the greenies that may have killed the planet and now they are going back on the word about nuclear because they know better now but apparantly they were niave back then.
morale : greenies... f
k off and do something that you know about rather than follow all the other sheep.Enjoy fishing.
I am not a greenie (and my car's co2 is a testemant to that)
however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
HiRich said:
Not quite the answer you need, but last month the Energy Saving Trust announced the initial results of their regional cost-benefit analysis - actually a very useful piece of work.
Unsurprisingly, "amount of wind" was rather important.
A rural site on the remote Orkney island of North Ronaldsay performed best in the test with a pole-mounted turbine and an average wind speed of 5.75 metres a second producing 22,000kWh a year and paying back the investment in less than ten years.
A building-mounted turbine in Dagenham proved a lot less successful, with an average wind speed of 2.37 meters a second producing no electricity and no prospect of paying back the cost of the installation.
The report estimated there was potential for more than 450,000 micro-turbines to be installed on properties across the UK, producing enough energy to power 870,000 homes. (Memo: there are approximately 20 million homes in the UK).
It's important not to confuse micro-turbines with the big ones. The small ones are a disaster and even most greenies would shy away from promoting them. They simply do not work, and require exceptional conditions (e.g. the Orkneys) to generate any useful power.Unsurprisingly, "amount of wind" was rather important.
A rural site on the remote Orkney island of North Ronaldsay performed best in the test with a pole-mounted turbine and an average wind speed of 5.75 metres a second producing 22,000kWh a year and paying back the investment in less than ten years.
A building-mounted turbine in Dagenham proved a lot less successful, with an average wind speed of 2.37 meters a second producing no electricity and no prospect of paying back the cost of the installation.
The report estimated there was potential for more than 450,000 micro-turbines to be installed on properties across the UK, producing enough energy to power 870,000 homes. (Memo: there are approximately 20 million homes in the UK).
The big ones on the other hand do work (long discussions elsewhere on the site), but have problems with calm periods. Typically the UK will see one or more weeks a year where there is no useable wind across the length of the country for an extended period. Any energy strategy would require back up generation for these periods (we just cannot store that much energy), so you'd still need to build power stations equivalent to the wind power you install. Such stations would also have to be able to power up and down relatively quickly, so that limits your choice of fuel. Wind can be economic in a mixed source environment, but that doesn't suit any of the pressure groups as "a bit of everything please" isn't a very clear message to shout at people.
It has to be said that without context, payback periods are meaningless. How long does it take to pay back the cost of a shiny new nuclear reactor, or a coal based station? Given the time it takes to get one of those through approval, and the ages they take to construct, the UK is going to have some interesting times ahead as the current generation of power stations grow old.
isee said:
I am not a greenie (and my car's co2 is a testemant to that)
however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
And how many windmills do you need to generate the same amount of power that one coal plant can produce and where do you plant these thousand windmills, next door to you?however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
isee said:
I am not a greenie (and my car's co2 is a testemant to that)
however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
Its like the prius (sp) people who dont realise that all the components of their cars come from the 4 corners of the galaxy and are brought together and has the shelf life of 100,000 km if lucky, so for the price of 3 of them you can have a stinky old landrover that will last to the end of the human existance, but because it is a 4x4 its seen as the work of satan himself.however i still think that once the initial financial outlay and cost to nature is done, it gets cheaper to recycle/maintain them and the more the sector takes off the cheaper the initial outlay is too. Still beats coal plants imo, as they are also massive eysores, that need expensive infrastructure. But again I am not a greenie and think the nuclear is the way forward.
Wind power can only ever be a top up, it cannot be relied upon.
Demand for power is high during periods of sustained high temperatures in summer and low temperatures in winter. These stable weather conditions usually mean high pressure and no wind.
They also don't work in high winds
Wind farms aren't cheap to build, however building them is all jobs so I guess that's a good point.
IMHO I think onshore wind farms ruin previously beautiful unspoilt landscapes. No objection to off shore or even better, local power generation in industrial areas, such as the Avonmouth dock project.
My 2p worth!
Demand for power is high during periods of sustained high temperatures in summer and low temperatures in winter. These stable weather conditions usually mean high pressure and no wind.
They also don't work in high winds
Wind farms aren't cheap to build, however building them is all jobs so I guess that's a good point.
IMHO I think onshore wind farms ruin previously beautiful unspoilt landscapes. No objection to off shore or even better, local power generation in industrial areas, such as the Avonmouth dock project.
My 2p worth!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff