WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[wanlock dod]

Thanks Mike,

The report is no doubt as good an assessment as is currently available, although I note a couple of key points:

Lastly it also excludes any externalities related to the activity (from the plant itself or from the fuel supply chain impacts) except to the extent that these are internalised through the price of carbon.

and with respect to nuclear power

This cost excludes any allowance for back-end storage and disposal.

So it's hard to be use, but I still get the feeling that we are not entirely comparing like with likeas it sounds to me as though any costs associated with dealing with spent nuclear fuel are not counted. It sounds as though it could be like so many comparisons that have gone before which suggest that nuclear power is cost effective (provided you don't count the cost of dealing with the waste).

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what the cost (or best estimate of projected costs over the next 6 centuries) of dealing with the spent fuel might be, but can't help feeling that if it were going to be trivial it would have been included (not just in this report but also in a whole host of others over the years).

One thing that does seem more clear to me having had a brief look at that report is that if the tax payer is going to support any clean energy generating technologies then at the moment wind is the one to go for, becasue it is cost effective when compared with other forms of generation. This can only go on for so long as by the time the current capacity has been increased by about another 25% we will have hit the maximum practical proportion of wind power in the system. I dare say that this assumes that there are no great technological advances that allow this figure to be increased dramatically.

Cheers,

Dod

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

.....I note a couple of key points:

Lastly it also excludes any externalities related to the activity (from the plant itself or from the fuel supply chain impacts) except to the extent that these are internalised through the price of carbon.)....

The externalities referred to are these, (Page 74 last paragraph): -

QUOTE

“Externalities relating to environmental and social impacts of construction, operation and fuel supply chains are excluded, except to the extent that they are internalised through the carbon price”.

UNQUOTE.

I would suggest that there are more such externalities with regards to those technologies which occupy a large land/sea area footprint (for a given amount of generating output), than those which occupy a small overall footprint.

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

.....and with respect to nuclear power
This cost excludes any allowance for back-end storage and disposal.)....

I haven’t found that specific statement within the document, so can’t comment on its specific meaning in context.

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

.....So it's hard to be use, but I still get the feeling that we are not entirely comparing like with likeas it sounds to me as though any costs associated with dealing with spent nuclear fuel are not counted. It sounds as though it could be like so many comparisons that have gone before which suggest that nuclear power is cost effective (provided you don't count the cost of dealing with the waste)....

Disposal is specifically discussed with respect to nuclear, in the final paragraph of section 5.5.3.1, on page 38: -

QUOTE

“Decommissioning costs, including waste disposal are significant but are projected to occur perhaps some 100 years after operations start. In present value terms these costs become comparatively small. Setting aside a provision paid during the operating life of the station is generally considered a prudent approach to covering these back end liabilities"

UNQUOTE

Again, with specific reference to nuclear, the tables in appendix B (page 87) indicate that an amount of £2.10/MWh has actually been included in the levelised costs, under the heading “Decomm & waste fund”.

It is generally accepted that costs for final storage/disposal of nuclear waste amount to roughly 5% of the overall generating cost, and such premiums are certainly included within the cost plans of all currently operating nuclear plant. (I readily accept that the massive disposal costs associated with legacy plant such as Sellafield are yet to be resolved, but they result from an age where technology was in its infancy, and was, in truth, as much to do with potential military use, as civilian power generation).

Information approximately two thirds of the way down this page: -
Radioactive Waste Management | Nuclear Waste Disposal - under the section “Costs of Radio-Active Waste management”, explains further, and is fairly typical.

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

.....One thing that does seem more clear to me having had a brief look at that report is that if the tax payer is going to support any clean energy generating technologies then at the moment wind is the one to go for, becasue it is cost effective when compared with other forms of generation. This can only go on for so long as by the time the current capacity has been increased by about another 25% we will have hit the maximum practical proportion of wind power in the system.....

I agree, and this is what I've been trying to get across for some time. Wind is currently the best option amongst the renewables, but it can only be accommodated to such levels that the system overall can sustain. (At risk of repeating myself yet again, due to such things as daily reserve margin, availability or otherwise, of intermittency generation etc. etc.)
EDIT - However, I temper my agreement by reinforcing the fact that wind is only commercially viable due to the massive subsidies, (Renewables Obligation Certificates etc.), which are in place for the next 20+years.

I remain of the view that we are headed for certain trouble, due to the sheer volume of wind power being proposed, and, (without major implementation of intermittency plant, or a major turnaround in policy with respect to coal/oil/gas fired plant), this will begin to manifest itself within the next 5 - 10 years as the planned decommissioning of aged existing plant takes effect.

Regards,
Mike.

[basquesteve]

A reminder of the damage wind farms cause

YouTube - fatal accident with vulture on a windmill



Steve

[STYRBJORN]

The Times, 02/02/2011

"Britain's leading renewable energy company has deported a 20% fall in the amount of electricity produced by its turbines."
On December 30 Britain's 3000 operational wind turbines produced only 0.04% of the country's power.

Hydroelectric power output declined by 30%.

The wind turbines are supposed to produce 4% of the country's needs. For long periods in the summer, and again in November and December, they produced less than 1%.

Me? I'm saying nowt.

Ric

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

The Times, 02/02/2011

"Britain's leading renewable energy company has deported a 20% fall in the amount of electricity produced by its turbines."
On December 30 Britain's 3000 operational wind turbines produced only 0.04% of the country's power.

Hydroelectric power output declined by 30%.

The wind turbines are supposed to produce 4% of the country's needs. For long periods in the summer, and again in November and December, they produced less than 1%.

Me? I'm saying nowt.

Ric

I find this hard to believe - after all, windfarms are the panacea that will end all ills.
As has already been stated on this thread - just keep throwing money at them and all will be well - since "the wind will always be blowing somwhere"

Seriously though, reports such as this just serve to back up what informed people have been saying for years. - Wind power in large doses simply won't cut it as far as reliable supply provision is concerned.

Another little considered impact which will occur with large numbers of windfarms is the National Grid infrastructure upgrading which will be needed.
eg.: - Offshore Wind Farms Could Mean Countryside Is Covered In Super-Pylons

The windfarms (individually) won't generate anywhere near what a single nuclear station would, so there will inevitably be many more of them, with consequent requirement for much more grid upgrading to distribute the output from each location.

This applies whether they are onshore or offshore, as even the offshore ones will need land based distribution cabling to suitable National Grid connection points.

There is much ongoing concern with regards to the government relaxing of planning permission for pylon routes (currently subject to the Holford Rules http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonl...fordRules4.pdf ) - especially with the proposals for the much larger "super pylons" being proposed for many of these wind farm led grid upgrades - and more so, with the proposed routes, through some of the countries best loved and environmentally sensitive landscapes. With the relaxation of the rules, there will be little incentive for the power companies to take anything more than the least expensive option regards routing.

Should this be of concern to everyone? - well, here's one such example of concern that's been running for more than six years: -
http://www.pylonpressure.com/Userfil...Scot051112.pdf

Did the concerns make any difference? - decide for yourself: -
Scottish Government: Web page currently unavailable.
Much governmental spin, but the bottom line is that the super pylons are going in.

Regards,
Mike.

[Dorts]

Can I thank all for their contributions on this thread. I think we have come to a clear conclusion.
I leave my final remark with this from Craig Brougher, Aug. 2008 The Wind Power Swindle. (a good read)
http://www.musicrolls.com/cb/the_wind_power_hoax_2.pdf

"It’s one thing to be ignorantly enthusiastic about a project that has no hope of succeeding to the degree planned. It’s completely another thing to be deceitful and to opportunistically use one’s political connections to make alternative sources of energy a government mandate, which those persons so allied with can then reap “windfall” profits from."
Dorts.

[wanlock dod]

Hi Dorts,

Thanks for the link, but I for one certainly shan't be printing a copy off even to use for fire lighting purposes. I consider it to be an opinionated load of nonsense, but belwo are a few point sthat the author and I don't seem to see eye to eye on.

I'm not convinced that our (UK) peak power consumption occurs in the summer (although I'm not too sure)
I do think that pumped storage schemes work, and are an effective means of consuming excess power when it is available for supply when demand is higher.
I also think that energy effciiency has a big part to play in the overall equation - the author seems to consider such an idea a bit ridiculous.
I also believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are probably having an unfavourable effect on climate.
Sometimes I think that it really is best to believe the experts.
I consider the long term viability of ecosystems to be far more important than the deaths of a few individuals.
I have never heard of any health problems associated with Scotlands oldest windfarm, although I've spoken to the local GPs.

I can hardly believe that I've actually wasted part of my life reading such utter tosh.

Dod

[Dorts]

Hi Dod, thanks for your view on this. As you will know if you have followed my many posts here on the 'Climate Change Forum' that I am a right old sceptic.

I offered the link because I used the quote, and as I said I found his piece a good read, not that you, I or anyone else must necessarily agree with it. All such pieces are opinionated, just as our small contributions are, but that doesn't me we shouldn't read them otherwise all debate would soon end.

Just to take a couple of your points:
"I do think that pumped storage schemes work".
I totaly agree with you, we have one of the most effective ones just up the road from here, able to produce power from a standstill in a matter of minutes, I believe it is used just after Coronation Street and Eastenders!

"I also believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are probably having an unfavourable effect on climate."

Don't get me started on that old chestnut Dod, in case you have not understood the science (or I should say non-science) involved regarding the impact of human CO2, there is NO MEASURABLE change to our climate from humans. There is still no measurable proof that CO2 is causing, has caused or ever will cause global warming.

We are already starting to see a change of opinion from many world governments and I predict it will not be too long before you see our parliament follow suite.
If you have proof to the opposite please do let me and everyone else into your secret.

"I consider the long term viability of ecosystems to be far more important than the deaths of a few individuals."

The viability of our ecosystems will be tested many, many times from many, many sources before our world finally ends; it has survived catastrophe many times in the past an will in the future, this is evolution.
Dorts.

[wanlock dod]

Hi Dorts,

I take offence at your suggestion that I either don't or can't understand the science.

Dod, in case you have not understood the science (or I should say non-science) involved .....

You are clearly entitled to your own opinion, but just because mine is different doesn't mean that I have any difficulty understanding things. It seesm to me that there are probably subtleties surrounding the issue that have passed you by, like the fact that previous global warming or cooling episodes happened over tens of thousands of years or more, yet the warming that appears to be occuring more recently suggests similar changes over timescales of decades. To my mind it is this massive rate of change that is one of the key arguments behind the suggested anthropogenic effect.

I would suggest that you ask yourself whether you have really considered the issue with a truly open mind (as any scientist worth their salt surely must) before you go accusing others of being incapable of understanding the concepts.

I have no doubt that you will respond with something about how it's all just a load of nonsense and you'll still be entitled to that opinion. By the way, have you read the book "6 Degrees"?

Dod

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

Hi Dorts,

I take offence at your suggestion that I either don't or can't understand the science.

You are clearly entitled to your own opinion, but just because mine is different doesn't mean that I have any difficulty understanding things. It seesm to me that there are probably subtleties surrounding the issue that have passed you by, like the fact that previous global warming or cooling episodes happened over tens of thousands of years or more, yet the warming that appears to be occuring more recently suggests similar changes over timescales of decades. To my mind it is this massive rate of change that is one of the key arguments behind the suggested anthropogenic effect.

I would suggest that you ask yourself whether you have really considered the issue with a truly open mind (as any scientist worth their salt surely must) before you go accusing others of being incapable of understanding the concepts.

I have no doubt that you will respond with something about how it's all just a load of nonsense and you'll still be entitled to that opinion. By the way, have you read the book "6 Degrees"?

Dod

Dod, rather than launch into pages and pages of facts and figures, all of which I have stated many times before, please read some of my previous entry's on this and similar threads, some of which I have started, others of which I have contributed to.

If you take the time to do so you will find I have been looking into this 'broad' subject in some detail since the mid-seventies. I have indeed looked closely at all sides of the argument for and against AGW, over many years.
So yes, I have indeed "asked myself whether I have really considered the issue with a truly open mind."

Having spent a great deal of my time working as a botanical surveyor and producing ecological reports for English Nature, the National Trust, County Authorities and the like, I don't think I would have been commisioned for such work if as you put it; "subtleties surrounding the issue have passed me by". As a botanist, subtleties are often the most important points when coming to a correct conclusion.

As I say, all of you points re' AGW have been looked over many, many times, I have researched this fascinating subject to the enth degree. And now, with the very recent revelations just this week, that data from the 'Team' at NASA, of all people, has been found to have been 'manipulated' re. Antarctic Ground Station Temps, which follows on from many other such shinanigans, the credability of so much, previously believable information is now in serious question.

Yes Dod, I have indeed looked at both sides of the argument, just as some of the leading climate scientists should be doing, (but seem to prefer not to). If and when proof can be shown that the planet is warming up to a level that will be dangerous or has not been seen before, or it can be proven that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature, I will be very willing to change my mind.

When all data has been made freely available for all scientists to check, we may then at last see the truth emerge. I look forward to that day!
Thanks for the debate Dod, which I always enjoy.
Dorts.