WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[Lancashire Lad]

Melanie,

On re-reading my post above, I can see that it might perhaps come across as a personal attack on yourself.

That certainly was not my intention, and I apologise in case you feel that to be the case.

Regards,
Mike.

[stevecurtis]

I cannot understand how anyone can find it exeptible to have our country side covered in these horrific huge windmills Pauls right their just a way of saying look how green we are, I would much prefer a nuclear power station near me that is serving the purpose it is built for than have my valley covered in these unpredictable waste of money, it’s all about the government not being able to say we are wrong.

All the best Steve

[smeesue]

Having taken a look at the means of producing the permenant magnets used in windturbines, I'm not only at a loss to understand how they can ever, honestly, be labelled 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' but don't understand how they can 'work off' the level of environmental destruction caused during manufacture.

From everything that I understand about power generaton of all kind, as far as I can see the best way forward is local generation from a variety of sources - wind, wave, solar - using what's most appropriate for the location. And not the big turbines; they take more windspeed to get going and have to be switched off sooner as well. Better to go for the 9m ones, which take less wind to start and can keep going a while after the larger ones are shut down due to wind speed.

Of course, as long as power companies are in charge of this, with bottom lines and shareholders, don't expect to see any common sense or encouragement for people to generate their own power. Especially not if there's subsidies involved for them!

[bigdave60dog]

How do you suppose that they make the magnets that are in the generators driven by steam that is derived from nuclear or fossil fuel energy?
I am not seeing that word renewable or sustainable in these threads too much at present. Are we losing the point?
I live in an area where we get an average wind speed of 34mph surrounded by the most energetic water in Europe.It is not surprising that I cannot understand this talk about windless periods. (we are in the middle of a 90-100mph gale as I write)
The only difficulty that we have is the exorbitant energy transmission charges that are encouraged by the UK Government to keep sustainable power sources near to developed areas but away from the most productive areas.
The Earth will probably never run out of fossil fuels. We are very quickly approaching the time when we cannot get oil out of the ground at fast enough rate to supply the demand.-Some say that were we not in period of recession that would be the case now. As Brazil, India, China and Africa become developed which is rapidly happening the demand will grow enormously. That could be in 5 or 6 years time and not the 50 years that someone on this thread suggested.
You need to pray that we get enough renewables in place before that happens to any extent.
Dave

[Manders]

Originally Posted by bigdave60dog

The Earth will probably never run out of fossil fuels. We are very quickly approaching the time when we cannot get oil out of the ground at fast enough rate to supply the demand.-Some say that were we not in period of recession that would be the case now. As Brazil, India, China and Africa become developed which is rapidly happening the demand will grow enormously. That could be in 5 or 6 years time and not the 50 years that someone on this thread suggested.
You need to pray that we get enough renewables in place before that happens to any extent.
Dave

We will run out of fossil fuels sooner or later, that is a fact.

Apart from that there are some aspects of what you say that i agree with and some that i dont. We probably are close to peak oil and oil prices are only likely to rise as a result. On the other hand there are currently unused resources that could be used, tarsands and shale oil for one, frakked gas for another and coal.

But lets be clear about one thing, renewables can not replace current fossil fuel useage, the numbers simply dont add up and fuel demand is likely to increase by a factor of ten in the next fifty years. Even at present rates of energy consumption, a world powered entirely or largely by renewables simply will never happen, do the math, I have.

Thats not to say renewables cant make some kind of contribution and they should. However, if we get into an either/or situation with renewables vs. nuclear, that for me would be a fatal mistake, we need both and we need nuclear in a big way.

[bigdave60dog]

"But lets be clear about one thing, renewables can not replace current fossil fuel useage, the numbers simply dont add up and fuel demand is likely to increase by a factor of ten in the next fifty years. Even at present rates of energy consumption, a world powered entirely or largely by renewables simply will never happen, do the math, I have."
I am not saying that it will. I am arguing that renewables do have a very significant role to play in future energy supplies.
The Earth will never run out of fossil fuels because these will get so expensive that it is uneconomical to harvest them. The other sources of fossil fuel that you mentioned are are currently being exploited to their maximum as it is.
There are environmental and ethical considerations that many of us believe override the purely economical arguments.
The thread is about wind power. I am arguing that there will shortly be a big gap between energy supply and demand and that wind power is ideally placed to fill that gap. The current crop of turbines only have 20 year lifespan. That should be long enough for more efficient means of acceptable energy production to come on line.
There is no argument that energy production should come before the wellbeing of our life support system.
Dave

[smokeyjofencing]

Originally Posted by stevecurtis

I cannot understand how anyone can find it exeptible to have our country side covered in these horrific huge windmills Pauls right their just a way of saying look how green we are, I would much prefer a nuclear power station near me that is serving the purpose it is built for than have my valley covered in these unpredictable waste of money, it’s all about the government not being able to say we are wrong.

All the best Steve

Steve I hope they build one near you then.
We have one near us and have been told that countlesd toxic and radioactive items have been leeching into the ground around it for the last 15 years.

Japan's nuclear power stations were built to last and look at them.

I would rather look at a turbine than a great big concrete monstosity.

I have shares in a two turbine farm and DO get a regular return. where do you think that comes from if they don't work?

[rossy]

Originally Posted by smokeyjofencing

Steve I hope they build one near you then.
We have one near us and have been told that countlesd toxic and radioactive items have been leeching into the ground around it for the last 15 years.

Japan's nuclear power stations were built to last and look at them.

I would rather look at a turbine than a great big concrete monstosity.

I have shares in a two turbine farm and DO get a regular return. where do you think that comes from if they don't work?

let me get this right, you can honestly hand on heart, say you would rather look at a wind turbine, than a building, i have to say you must be one sad person. think you are talking through your pocket ,seen as you get dividends, which to me if you are a nature lover, your helping destroy habitat, for thousands of birds, animals and, reptiles, so when they visit our shores no more , id like you to tell the future generation, how you helped . where i live its already happend, and the morons are planning to put more up, but only for their financial gains, which they have openly admitted. and its going to cost us consumers dearly in the long run as bills will continue to rise, and will you give your money from the dividends to the poor people, who cant afford to have their heating on ! i doubt it. and tell the familys who have lost loved ones, due to excessive fuel bills, which is already happening, 25% of the nation is in fuel poverty. what a country we live in , think in your case its im alright jack. rossy.

[bigdave60dog]

OOH! we are getting upset are we not. Poor old Steve never said anything personal about you did he.
If you can supply the evidence in facts, figures and references to support you rambling I may even read the whole of your post.
Where I come from we are putting in Community Turbines. The income from one big turbine pays for a lot of insulation that will get people out of fuel poverty.
And community transport to save fuel.
It is a shame that the Government is diverting Lottery Money away from our disadvantaged Communities to pay for The London Olympics.
This sort of thing as well as the high energy transmission and connection charges make us feel that the decks a being stacked against is as it is without armchair whingers going on about stuff that they have only read about.
Dave

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by bigdave60dog

....If you can supply the evidence in facts, figures and references....

Here are some facts and figures:-


Above data extracted and tabulated from National Grid “Winter Outlook Report 2011-12
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonl...ort_201112.pdf

From the above, the National Grid’s current assessment of maximum available generating capacity is 68.4GW (Gigawatts)

From National Grid database, peak UK electrical demand during 2010 occurred on 7th December, at 60GW.
(NB: 2010 is being used here as 2011 dataset is not yet fully available).

Therefore if that same demand occurred again, and with the above assessment, there would be spare generating capacity of 8.4GW.

The Association of Electricity Producers advise that by 2025, 20.7GW of existing generating capacity is expected to close due to reaching the end of its operational life. Details here:-
http://www.aepuk.com/uploads/downloa...res%202025.pdf

Assuming no other change, and taking the above as baseline figures, available capacity would become (68.4 - 20.7) = 47.7GW

And, assuming no increase in demand, then peak demand would still be 60GW

It can be seen that with the loss of that existing plant there would be a shortfall of 12.3GW below actual demand, without allowing for any reserve capacity whatsoever.

If the same reserve generating capacity of 8.4GW was to be maintained, the shortfall obviously becomes 20.7GW. ( i.e. the lost generating capacity of the decommissioned plant).

The facts and figures are obtained directly from the National Grid, and from The Association of Electricity Producers documentation.
Both bodies work with and represent the whole of electrical generation industry within the UK.
I trust you would agree that they cannot readily be accused of being biased towards or against any particular form of electrical generation.

You say that there will shortly be a big gap between energy supply and demand. – I think that (without new build) the above would clearly support your statement.

The National Grid themselves are assessing likelihood of 92% loss of available generating capacity for wind at certain times during the winter period, as shown on the above graphic and within the linked Winter Outlook document. - (Obviously based on the fact that low wind events over the entirety of the UK are already on record and fully documented).

Let me put that in simple terms:- They assess that at times, generated output from wind will be only 8% of total installed wind generation capacity.

Of course, I and several others maintain that new nuclear and gas fuelled back-up generation capacity will be required to cover the vagueries of wind output, but since you do not, I’d be very interested to see your facts and figures to prove, (obviously without the building of any new fossil fuelled or nuclear generating capacity, as those generating methods contradict your above stated environmental and ethical stance), that the provision of more wind generation is, as you state “ideally placed” to reliably fill that minimum 12.3GW generating capacity shortfall.

Regards,
Mike.