"Toy" Wind Turbines

[biffvernon]

Wobs' post deserves a more considered response than simple dismissal as nonsense but the standard of debate here seems to quickly descend to condescension or abuse.

Maybe, but this is the Period Property Forum not the Future Energy Forum, so I prefer to debate such issues in detail elsewhere. However.

>There aren't alternatives that actually work to the standard that the population require.

True, if what 'the population' requires is cheap energy. We've had that. Game over.

>Wind energy can only nibble at the edges of our energy demand

Britain is one of the windier parts of the world and there is no doubt that wind could contribute a substantial part of our electricity supply, perhaps the largest single source.

>the limit that the grid can cope with
Grids can be built as large as you like

>given the rate at which they are being built
Investment in power supply has been and currently is too slow. It is likely that the light will go out.

>E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur.
A largely non-wind power company cites a discredited report. So?

>As an island, we have less options than Denmark
We have more wind than Denmark and, as an island, we also have more wave, tidal and marine current potential.

> have to be far more careful in how we install wind energy on a large scale, as is proposed
In what way are we not being careful?

 

[Penners]

To a complete layman like me, one the most surprising issues in all of this is our apparent foot-dragging on tidal and wave energy.

We see wind turbines appearing here and there, we hear of plans for huge wind-farms, but as regards wave and tidal, all I've ever seen is newspaper articles (with artists' impressions) saying, "Here's how wave/tidal energy could be generated".

Wind is highly variable. I should have thought that wave energy would be much more reliable. How often does the sea stop bobbing up and down? And tides are ever with us - totally reliable and predictable.

So why aren't we pouring money into the sea (so to speak)?

Or have I been reading the wrong newspapers?

 

[middi]

From another layman at the bottom of Penners classroom, it also appears obvious to me that we should concentrate in using our rawmaterials to gradually construct and maintain the infrastructures to harness and distribute the free permanent energy which is available to us. Namely, wind, water,sun and whatever else which does not involve digging holes all over the planet.

Surely it must be better to have wave machines, wind turbines or desert solar panels spread all over the planet than acid rain.

Do I detect a case of initial economics stambleblock here which would be deterimental in preserving the status quo of the shortsighted populus and their governements.

 

[Penners]

I think that's a very good point, Middi. At present, decisions on the construction of renewable energy plant seem to be governed very much by economic viability - based on today's economics.

I can't help wondering whether we're ultimately going to have to accept that we have to think the other way around. Create the energy plant and then pay whatever it costs.

That, or sit in the dark.

 

[biffvernon]

Dead right, Penners and Middi. Our government and the powers that be that support it are mesmerized by their attraction for the techno-fix of nuclear. This pushes out the development of renewables as there is only so much human resources and capital that is available. Sometimes it seems as though politicians can only hold one thought in their heads at a time. If that's nuclear then the seem unable to think about tidal/wave/solarpv/solarthermal/oceancurrent/geothermal/hydro/etc..

The Danes went for wind and now have a thriving turbine export industry, the Germans went for solar pv and have a rapidly expanding silicon and thin film manufacturing industry, the Japanese have just announced a plan to put solar pv on 30% of all buildings, the French are building a large scale hot deep rock geothermal experiment and the British, with the Severn Estuary that could produce 10% of our electricity, just about the strongest tidal stream in the world between Scotland and the Orkneys, and more waves and wind than we could ever know what to do with? We're about to chuck our efforts at a 20th century technology, tried tested and failed over half a century, based on a finite and very toxic resource.

We're crazy.

 

[middi]

What we need is a human strain of mixomatosis and just leave the rabbits to save the planet.

 

[Penners]

I fear they would overpopulate the planet even faster than we have.

 

[wobs]

We're about to chuck our efforts at a 20th century technology, tried tested and failed over half a century, based on a finite and very toxic resource.

Its curious how the anti-nuclear or anti-coal camp try to put the age of a technology as being a negative when its considered old. Biff calls nuclear "20th century technology" as if thats a bad thing. Greenpeace recently described coal as dinosaur technology. And yet wind turbine supporters wax lyrical how wind energy has been used for 500 years, as that is also a good thing.

Should we decide how we power our civilisation on how old a technology is? Why not assess it on more practical factors?

If nuclear has failed, how come France are doing rather nicely out of it? We have the means to aquire uranium from a stable country, and dispose of it in the UK safely. The new reactors that are to be built will be a private sector issue far more than before, which is a major difference. When you run them as a Government project with nuclear weapons at the back of your mind (which on the whole is what has happned here), you can't expect them to run as well as they could.

How come Denmark, with all their wind turbines import energy, and in 2005, its thought that 3 TWh used is nuclear, about 9% of total. When they import from other countries (as they must), they use a mixture of hydro and nuclear from Norway/Sweden, and nuclear and coal from Germany.
(see here: http://www.uic.com.au/nip99.htm)

 

[middi]

I don't think anybody here doubts that nuclear reactors , gas , oil, coal or whatever don't do a good job at producing energy, it is the bloody mess they leave behind which is deterimental long term. Apart from putting up with radioactive disposal problems on nuclear plants, the present other power producing candidates will run out rather sooner than later anyway.

Instead of scare mongering why don't the powers that be take a reassurance stance as to how to harness less toxic producing energy. IT COSTS TOO MUCH AT PRESENT. A LOT OF OIL,GAS,COAL RELATED INDUSTRIES WOULD SUFFER HARDSHIP HENCE A SPEEDED UP GLOBAL RECESSION THEREFORE COLLAPSE OF GOVERNMENTS. that is why.

 

[middi]

It is pointless to act when it is too late, offer lots of exellent information, statistically, and a totally useless course of action to cure the problem.

 

[MdB]

middi ..... I suggest ....

Thank you.

 

[middi]

OOoops !!!!.....( offensive post ?????)

( happy now ?)

 

[Nemesis]

Edit and delete button

 

[biffvernon]

Its curious how the anti-nuclear or anti-coal camp try to put the age of a technology as being a negative when its considered old. Biff calls nuclear "20th century technology" as if thats a bad thing.

No, no, Wobs, quite the wrong interpretation of what I wrote. I should have made it clearer. I was pointing out that we have a lot of experience in running nuclear power stations so we have a very good idea about how much they cost to build, to run and to fuel. We know that they are bad value for money, which is why none have been built for a great many years in countries with fairly free market economies.

Here's a letter I've just received from my mate Dale:

Dear Ecotricity Customer

You’ve probably seen or heard some of the recent press reports concerning the predicted rise in retail electricity prices.

There are two factors behind this as far as we can see. The first is the continuing soaring global energy demand coupled with insecurity in the places where most of the world’s energy comes from. Oil is now at record levels and this always impacts on the price of gas which in turn impacts the price of electricity.

The second factor is perhaps not all bad news, new EU regulations on Carbon emissions are beginning to bite, this is pushing up the price of electricity generation significantly now. The upside of this is that renewable forms of energy and energy efficiency measures are both better enabled in such conditions. Of course the downside is dearer energy. In effect it’s a carbon tax sending signals to the market, not unlike the duty on petrol – it will result in more efficient and cleaner technology, as we have seen with cars.

Npower announced price rises two weeks ago followed by EDF this week, the rest of the Big Six will follow suit shortly.

You may recall, we pledge to match exactly the price of each regional supplier in the UK so that our customers never pay a penny more for our green electricity than they would if they were to buy conventional power from the regional supplier. This is not just a matter of policy (though that is important to us – we call it offering green for the price of brown), but it is necessary as price rises for conventional electricity always affect the price of green electricity in the marketplace. And we do not generate all of our own electricity yet – though we are making significant progress towards that as you will see from our latest annual report which we are about to send out.

To be able to continue to do the work we do, the building of new sources of clean energy, we need to match the market price for conventional energy. We hope you understand that.

This simple price matching enables us to spend more per customer each year on new renewable energy than any other electricity supplier in the UK. We’ve just published the figures for 2007 and they show that we spent £450 last year per customer building new sources of green electricity, whereas Npower spent a mere £10 per customer. In fact we again spent more per customer than all of the UK’s electricity suppliers put together.

Wind energy has much to offer this country. It offers us the opportunity to be energy independent again, if we utilise it to the full – the UK actually has enough wind to power the whole country several times over. It could be our new North Sea oil.

To realise this goal and to effectively combat climate Change we need to be building new sources of green energy to replace the conventional ones. This is what we do at Ecotricity, we take your electricity bill and we create new green energy sources with it.

We’ve set out details of the new prices below. Just to be absolutely clear our new prices are exactly the same as Npower’s and so being with Ecotricity won’t cost you any more than if you had conventional electricity from the regional supplier.

Should you have any questions or want to discuss anything with us please contact us on 08000 326 100 or send an email to info@ecotricity.co.uk

Best Regards

Dale Vince OBE
Managing Director

The references to NPower are because they are my Regional Supplier.

 

[wobs]

True, if what 'the population' requires is cheap energy. We've had that. Game over.

If nuclear power is included in the mix, we can provide affordable electricity. When you reprocess the fuel, you have the edge that makes it economic.

Britain is one of the windier parts of the world and there is no doubt that wind could contribute a substantial part of our electricity supply, perhaps the largest single source.

And lo, we find a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

If you want to find out how variable wind actually can be, look at the variations on how much Denmark exports and imports its energy, how much wind energy output varies when you most need it.

Electricity is not practical to store on a large economic scale, and wind energy cannot provide the uk with the majority of its electricity. Even though the UK has more wind resource than other EU countries, we still need the back up.

If we installed enough to power the majority of the UK at low wind conditions, aside from the impact environmentally and visually, we would need somewhere to send the huge excess when we didn't need the energy at windier moments (usually when demand is low). Please remember that we're an island.

Grids can be built as large as you like

And your point is?
The fact is that demand will grow, and we need the most appropriate energy source given the need for constant supply, and low carbon emissions.

>E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur.
A largely non-wind power company cites a discredited report. So?

And you'd trust the wind energy organistions to provide equivilant information?

>As an island, we have less options than Denmark
We have more wind than Denmark and, as an island, we also have more wave, tidal and marine current potential.

See my earlier comment on wind resource.
Yes we have wave and tidal, etc. Wave energy has its best resources off Cornwall and West Scotland. Like wind. And like wind has the same issue of when the wind drops.

Tidal is even more limited.
However, the Seven Barrage proposal is intersting, although I've yet to find out how they'll overcome the issue of silting up. Not to mention the environmental impact.

Underwater turbines in the tidal stream seem a useful technology in the right places.

> have to be far more careful in how we install wind energy on a large scale, as is proposed
In what way are we not being careful?

Note the variations in Load Factor over the UK.
Note the lack of acknowledgement from many corners about the instability that large scale wind turbines systems course.

We always hear that there are many other renewable sources other than nuclear, but none can provide the baseload supply in sufficient quantity. Wave, tidal, geothermal, etc all play their part, but all have limitations, largely on the issues of scale. Geothermal has been looked at, but has rarely been a success in the UK. The best resources being in the SW.

Even in combination, they don't have the practical potential on the scale required

Why do we need an affordable supply? Well to keep companies here, and thereby keep the economy going.

The vulnerable won't thank us for making their electricity intermittent and expensive (and a fall in economic growth to maintain the support of them), and we need a low carbon solution.

Nuclear can do that far more safely than any anti-nuke will admit.

 

[wobs]

No, no, Wobs, quite the wrong interpretation of what I wrote. I should have made it clearer. I was pointing out that we have a lot of experience in running nuclear power stations so we have a very good idea about how much they cost to build, to run and to fuel. We know that they are bad value for money, which is why none have been built for a great many years in countries with fairly free market economies.

Fair enough, but I just thought it an interesting point, when you hear different views on this subject and the way they justify them.

I think I mentioned earlier that the UKs experience with nuclear thus far has been largely been one of Government run, with a largely military slant to it. This brings about inefficiencies.

The new generation of plants are simpler, more efficient, and are planned more in line with energy demands and market forces.

We know from experience that that is a more efficient and economic way of running them, and reprocessing makes nuclear an economically viable option.

It is also why the UK has set up a knowledge sharing scheme with France on nuclear energy (although one suspects that could be a bit one way LOL).

Its a bit like being opposed to incineration based on the muck that plants chucked out years ago. It just isn't comparable, given the improvements in legislation, management practises, technology, and our knowledge base. And the situation we're in.

I must repeat though, that I'm in favour of more wind turbines, just up to a point (grid stability being one main issue). That I'm interested in looking at all energy sources where appropriate. So like most people that is in favour of nuclear, I'm not that unusual.

 

[Penners]

If we installed enough to power the majority of the UK at low wind conditions, aside from the impact environmentally and visually, we would need somewhere to send the huge excess when we didn't need the energy at windier moments (usually when demand is low).

Hey - I've just had a great idea.

You know these pumped storage schemes (like Dinorwic in Wales)? At times of peak electricity demand, water flows from a high lake through hydroelectric turbines, down to a lower lake. Then at times of low demand, surplus power is used to pump the water back up to the top lake again.

Well... (and here's the clever bit)...at times of low demand, why don't we reverse the wind turbines and blow the wind back into the atmosphere again? Then it'll be ready and waiting for the next peak demand period.

Please send all royalty cheques to Penners, c/o Block D, Broadmoor....

 

[biffvernon]

Yes but you have to be careful, Penners. If the wind changes direction suddenly the turbines might turn backwards and suck the electrickery out of your sockets. Make sure you keep the plugs in.

Meanwhile, here's this week's New Scientist editorial:

NUCLEAR power has lots of drawbacks. There is no effective way of dealing with waste. There are huge uncertainties over its true cost. It has an unpleasant past in weapons proliferation, and there is always the risk of another Chernobyl. Yet, faced with the threat of global warming posed by fossil fuels, can we afford to do without it?

Yes, the nuclear debate is back. Last week the UK government invited energy companies to put forward proposals to build new nuclear power plants, and the European Commission's plan to overhaul its carbon trading scheme will make nuclear a cheaper option (see "Carbon-trading plans will boost nuclear power"). Indeed renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power has been building for a while, perhaps inevitably: for all the panoply of renewable energy options, the world is still short of affordable technologies that can deliver large amounts of clean power.

The response of environmentalists to the UK's announcement has been depressingly weak. "It won't solve all our energy problems." No one is saying it will. "It won't solve any problems before 2020." That's no reason to discount it - the problems of global warming will not cease in 2020. "It will be expensive." So, for the moment, are solar and wave power. It is unfortunate that the history of nuclear power makes it difficult to hold a balanced discussion about its future. For more than half a century, the industry has sucked up far more than its fair share of money and brainpower. More worryingly, the civil nuclear industry has often been a crude cover for the military.

Despite this chequered past, it would be perverse to throw aside all the accumulated expertise in nuclear energy if it could be useful in the battle against global warming. But know this: nuclear energy is unlikely ever to be a substantial part of the solution to our climate and energy problems. Worldwide supplies of cheap uranium will last no more than a few decades. Anyway the days of giant, centralised power stations of any kind are probably on the wane; most likely, we can look forward to a more distributed, diverse and certainly more efficient system of generation, based on renewables.

Given this, the UK government's decision not to subsidise the construction of new nuclear plants nor underwrite waste disposal, except in extremis, seems sensible. What it must do is invest in helping to bring the planet-saving renewable technologies of the future to the market. The bottom line is clear: nuclear power can help us tackle global warming, so we should use it, but don't let's delude ourselves that it still has a major long-term role to play.

 

[worms]

Wobs tells us:

Tidal is even more limited.

Have you not heard of the Pentland Firth...?!

http://www.orkneytoday.co.uk/news_item.asp?newsItem=1991

 

[Penners]

Tidal is even more limited.

I too find that a strange assertion.

For renewable sources of energy, surely what you need above all are predictability and reliability. Tides give you both. Yes, there are variations in the available energy between neap and spring tides, but that is completely predictable and so can be planned for and designed into the system.

Wind and waves are variable and unpredictable. Come what may, tides are going happen so long as we've got a moon.