WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[STYRBJORN]

Dod - I'll grant your point about 600 years being too long, which I take as your comment about 24 generations. But! there's always a but. A coal powered station of any given output emits as much radioactivity in one year as a nuclear power of the same output emits in 20 years. Coal contains a lot of radioactive material. It all goes up the chimney.

I keep on saying this. (Loud cries of why don't you shut the ***k up then.) It ain't as simple as simple minded people would like it to be.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

....A coal powered station of any given output emits as much radioactivity in one year as a nuclear power of the same output emits in 20 years. Coal contains a lot of radioactive material. It all goes up the chimney....

Very True.

Some authorities would have it that “fly ash” emitted from a typical coal fired power station, can be anything up to 100 times more radioactive than the emissions from a nuclear power station producing the same power output.

But even if fly ash routinely did contain such a one hundred fold amount of radiation, it would still be much less than everyone on the planet receives year in year from a combination of such things as: - radon emitted from rocks, cosmic radiation, medical radiation (x-rays etc.), and even radiation from our everyday food, fellow human beings, and animals!

In fact, a week’s holiday in Cornwall is likely to provide you with a similar amount of radiation, (from the radon emitted by granite), to that which you might expect to receive from world-wide nuclear power industry in a whole year!

Regards,
Mike.

[shenk1]

I used to work darnt pit..........thats why I glow in the dark

[John D]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Very True.


In fact, a week’s holiday in Cornwall is likely to provide you with a similar amount of radiation, (from the radon emitted by granite), to that which you might expect to receive from world-wide nuclear power industry in a whole year!

Regards,
Mike.

The same would relate to Aberdeen where a large percentage of buildings are built with granite which was excavated from nearby quarries.

John D

[willbick]

.We are heading for an energy crisis in the next two or three years. ( Peak Oil)....

I doubt whether oil will be a real factor, in terms of either availability or increased cost, in that sort of time scale.

where have you been the last 3 years??! oil up to $148/barrel in 2008 and now charging back up to $100. you dont think thats an increased cost??!

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Currently, the installed capacity of UK windfarms equates to approximately 8% of Peak Daily Demand (Which Stands at around 60Gw). However, the actual output of said windfarms is always much lower than installed capacity, and for much of the time is quite risible.
Real time (half hourly) actual output details of all of the UK's electrical power generation can be found here: -
n e t a | Electricity Summary Page Look for "Generation by Fuel Type (table)".

It is rare for completely still days, but it is far from exceptional to have extended periods of very low winds around the UK.


You obviously haven't read any of the many excellent windpower threads on WAB which include comprehensive details of these wind power subsidies.
May I suggest this post as a good starter: - Very interesting facts

The last part of your above comment being very typical!
Why shoud it be acceptable for every electrical consumer in Great Britain, to be forced to subsidise inferior electrical power generating systems to the tune of more than four times the cost at which that same power can be purchased in the open market?

These Feed In Tariff schemes are nothing more than a cynical ploy by the government to massage the overall UK "Green Energy" figures. They are a costly white elephant which adds cost to the electricity bills of every consumer in Britain, with benefit to no-one other than those who have installed them. Those who have, will be laughing all the way to the bank.

The vast amounts of taxpayer money being spent on these FIT subsidies (as well as the ROC subsidies for the windpower generation entrepreneurs), could be far better spent on building large, efficient, and equally "green" generating stations.

I fully accept that wind, solar, and other forms of green power have a valid and ever more essential part to play in the future of our overall energy plan. But, as I have said so many times before, they must be implemented in ways which will be of benefit, and not detriment to the efficiency and economics of the sytem as a whole.

Wind, for example, is presently being installed around the UK under plans which intend that by 2020 will see it forming almost 25% of our total electrical generating capacity. When the implementation is complete, and if the wind fails to blow on any given day, (as it surely will), then the system will fail, as there will be a significant shortfall in reserve generating capacity.
See these posts for details of why this will happen: - A Problem With Wind

Regards,
Mike.

No I haven't, I try to stay away from wind turbine threads because they make me quite angry.

I really don't mind how much money the government throws at renewables nor which direction they choose to spend it, they should have been doing this for decades as far as I am concerned. Sustainable energy/ fuel resources are more important than almost anything else because food, jobs, roads, health, education all ultimately depend on us having adequate and affordable energy/ fuel.

I also hate 'the wind won't always blow' arguements it will always be blowing somewhere and they are siting the turbines in the places with most wind not just plonking them anywhere (and finding those places costs money).

Sure the wind turbine system may not be perfect (no energy production system is) but its all we have at this point that is suitable for such widescale implementation now, we can only work with what we've got and we have to try it out now not hope something better will work later. Oil is not suddenly going to get more plentiful. If something better come up in the next 20 years then that's fine because that's the lifespan of the turbines, they can come down then can't they.

[bigdave60dog]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

No I haven't, I try to stay away from wind turbine threads because they make me quite angry.

I really don't mind how much money the government throws at renewables nor which direction they choose to spend it, they should have been doing this for decades as far as I am concerned. Sustainable energy/ fuel resources are more important than almost anything else because food, jobs, roads, health, education all ultimately depend on us having adequate and affordable energy/ fuel.

I also hate 'the wind won't always blow' arguements it will always be blowing somewhere and they are siting the turbines in the places with most wind not just plonking them anywhere (and finding those places costs money).

Sure the wind turbine system may not be perfect (no energy production system is) but its all we have at this point that is suitable for such widescale implementation now, we can only work with what we've got and we have to try it out now not hope something better will work later. Oil is not suddenly going to get more plentiful. If something better come up in the next 20 years then that's fine because that's the lifespan of the turbines, they can come down then can't they.

To add to that When planning to put in Wind turbine lenders request that your business plan is for twenty year period with the cost of decommissioning and restoring the site to it`s original condition at the end of the period included.
Dave

[wanlock dod]

Mike,

Thanks for pointing out all of those sources of pollution (nothing I wasn't already aware of). As far as I am aware none of them were caused by an expansion of wind power. The point I wished to make is that (in my opinion) there are probably fewer unseen costs associated with wind power than many other forms of energy generation, and unless all of these hidden costs are included cost comparisons can be extremely difficult. My concern isn't that people are dying, it is that it is a gross over simplification to suggest that building costs for power stations offer a fair comparison between the costs of energy generation. If an comprehensive costing were possible I suspect that wind power would fare more favourably.

Perhaps somebody could explain why the Spanish seem to be able to manage with a relativley large proportion of wind power, but so many people say that it is just not practical in the UK. Is it that the Spaniards lead us into thinking that their wind resources are working better for them than they are, or is theer something fundamentally different about Spain which means that it works there but not here. Presumably they suffer from the same basic problems as we do?

Cheers,

Dod

[STYRBJORN]

It's a well known class of a historical fact that the Spaniards are windy . . . . .

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

....it is a gross over simplification to suggest that building costs for power stations offer a fair comparison between the costs of energy generation. If an comprehensive costing were possible I suspect that wind power would fare more favourably....

As you rightly say, taken in isolation, the capital cost of building a power plant means nothing when making comparisons between the main technologies. What needs to be taken into account is the full cost during the whole lifetime of the plant. (Known as life-cycle analysis or levelised costing).

I did provide a link to this document: -
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/s...ts-update-.pdf
in post 17 of the thread.

Within that document, can be found a great deal of data, amongst which can be found levelised cost comparison for the various methods of electrical energy generation. (Whether you choose to believe the data is your prerogative!).
For example, look at the graphical representations beginning with fig.7.1 on page 67. You will see that the full spectrum of costs, (represented in £/MWh), are taken into account.
I.e. – Capital Costs, Fixed Operating Costs, Variable Operating Costs, Fuel Costs, Carbon Costs, Decommissioning & Waste Fund Costs, and (where applicable) Carbon Dioxide Transportation & Storage Costs.

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine is marginally the least expensive at the moment, but Nuclear, and (as I have previously stated) onshore wind, quickly become the lowest cost technologies overall.

Note that you would probably need to read further into the document to obtain a fuller appreciation of the data, and meanings of some of the acronyms used. (e.g. FOAK = First of a kind. NOAK = Nth. of a kind). – There is a complete index of acronyms on pages 99/100.

I would suggest that these comparisons & projections are probably as accurate a representation of the various technology costs as can reasonably be achieved.

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

....Perhaps somebody could explain why the Spanish seem to be able to manage with a relativley large proportion of wind power....

Spain currently has approximately 20GW of installed windpower, in comparison with Britain's 5GW, but this has to be considered with respect to their total generating capacity, their daily reserve margin, their agreed amount of interconnector capacity (provision of supply from other countries), etc. etc.

Wind only amounts to approximately 10% of their overall generating capacity. (Coal/Oil/Gas roughly 60%, Nuclear roughly 20%, and Hydro making up the final 10%).
(Note that Britain's 5GW amounts to 8% of our total generating capacity!).

Information available on the net suggests that Spain is currently at/almost at that level of installed wind capacity, where much more would begin to tip the balance of sustainability of their system overall. - A situation similar to that which I believe will happen in the UK if, (without suitable alternative/intermittency provision), our wind reliance exceeds ~10GW.

Regards,
Mike.