A Problem With Wind

[Brocakat]

Agreed, and equally puzzled, thunder. It's not as if there are any nasty / carcinegenic
/ radioactive substances associated with Wind Turbines, are there ?

Thank goodness Nuclear Power Stations have a longer working life than - 20 years ?

[KentYeti]

Wind Power is, IMHO, just part of a learning curve we will, in the wider world, got though en route to getting to a stable and renewable energy supply. Over a very long period of time.

There are other sources of such energy that I feel, (on the basis of a relatively limited reading on the subject), will increasingly be tested and implemented on a wider scale than now. Such as "rock heating" and "geo thermal heating" systems. Plus tidal, hydro and solar.

I think it is near Liverpool that a reasonable sized geo thermal type system is now being drilled to provide heating for a significant new housing/office development. As an instance.

Which of these systems, and others I have missed out that have not evolved yet, do have a long term future obviously depends on a number of factors. Like the cost of existing energy. As that progresssively gets more scarce and more in demand and as it's price follows a generally strong upwards movement some of the systems that may at present seem marginal, (i.e possibly windpower) should become more of a solution. Not on their own and maybe not in their present format. But as they are continually developed to be used in conjuction with other developing renewable systems.

Not to forget the other side of the equation. i.e the manner and extent to which the world needs and uses energy in the future.

But getting back to the topic of windpower. I guess the point I am trying to get to is that I feel that trying to develop windpower is better than not trying. But it may be quite a while before it is developed as an efficient contributor to the world's energy needs.

I've used a few "weasel" words above to qualify my comments. This is a subject I am interest in, but one about which my reading and research is limited by many other things I get up to.

[Dorts]

It's the blatant dishonesty peddled by the wind industry; and many ill-informed politicians which I find so objectionable.
They vastly exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their 'capacity', as if this was what they actually produce, when on average the amount they actually feed into the grid is laughable and little more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

As wind turbines increase in number, with the Government wanting 10,000 built in the next few years at a cost of £100 billion, plus another £40 billion on connecting them all up to the grid, it'll become necessary to build more than a dozen gas-fired power stations which will be running all the time simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops.

But of course this will not happen. Steve Holliday, National Grid’s chief executive says that the consequences of the UK ‘going green’ will meen British families must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods. Six of our large coal-fired stations will soon have to close due to EU anti-pollution regulations, and all but two of our older nuclear power stations are nearing the end of their useful life.

In Scotland, the 800 residents of the island of Tiree are desperately trying to resist Alex Salmond's plans to build the largest offshore windfarm in the world, covering 139 square miles off their coast.

But slowly the penny is begining to drop. The Duch Government have already become dissolutioned with the claims made for 'energy from wind', and subsequently have decided that all subsidies for offshore wind farms is to cease and all renewable energy targets are to be abandoned.

Oh for some truth from our Government; trouble is they are now 'in too deep'.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
Leo Tolstoy

Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

I noted an interesting comment, made almost as a throwaway, in a commentary on the implications of the near melt-down of the nuclear plant in Japan. It said that taking all costs into account the only form of power generation more expensive than nuclear fission is . . . wind. Ho, to coin a phrase, hum.

Ric

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

I noted an interesting comment, made almost as a throwaway, in a commentary on the implications of the near melt-down of the nuclear plant in Japan. It said that taking all costs into account the only form of power generation more expensive than nuclear fission is . . . wind. Ho, to coin a phrase, hum.

Ric

Then whoever made that comment does not comprehend the meaning of the word "all".

It is clearly demonstrable that "when all costs", (i.e. full lifecyscle analysis on an ouput for same output basis - which would of course include any carbon capture etc. etc.), are taken into account, most of the presently available forms of commercial electrical generation are more expensive than nuclear fission! - and will be for some time to come.

Regards,
Mike.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Then whoever made that comment does not comprehend the meaning of the word "all".

It is clearly demonstrable that "when all costs", (i.e. full lifecyscle analysis on an ouput for same output basis - which would of course include any carbon capture etc. etc.), are taken into account, most of the presently available forms of commercial electrical generation are more expensive than nuclear fission! - and will be for some time to come.

Regards,
Mike.

The article tried to put a £ tag on long term waste storage and disposal, and security against possible terrorist attack/hijack. It was deliberately making the case against nuclear as strong as possible, and then pointing out for the benefit of the pollyannas that their fave rave wind turblnes were still more expensive.

For the record, as you know Mike I am a strong advocate of nuclear and I remain so now. Building a nuclear power plant smack on top of a major fault line, near the coast, in the most tectonically active area on the planet was never going to be a good move.

Interesting idea about using Thorium.

Ric

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by Dorts

In Scotland, the 800 residents of the island of Tiree are desperately trying to resist Alex Salmond's plans to build the largest offshore windfarm in the world, covering 139 square miles off their coast.
.

Looks like the Tiree site has been approved, whilst 3 other sites refused.

BBC News - Scotland's offshore windfarm plans knocked back