Please do read the "without the hot air" link i posted previously, especially the bit that works out how many turbines will be required to meet the UK's energy requirement if we were to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
When you work out the £/Wh and the m2/Wh, wind is simply not viable as a bulk contributor. So we have broadly four options if we want to remove our reliance on fossil fuels:
1) Cut our energy consumption by a significant margin or face energy rationing
2) Face a huge increase in energy costs (estimates seem to vary from a 400% to 2000% increase in current costs) and cover our island from top to tail with all forms of renewables (unfortunately, even with the most optomistic plans for how long it would take to install these schemes, this cannot be done fast enough)
3) Invest in solar energy production in places like the sahara, and a massive distribution network to get the power to the UK (poliical nightmare on all fronts, with energy security not garenteed and the UK liable to being "cut off" and held hostage etc)
4) Invest in conventional Nuclear plants. (Plans show that even just adding more plants at exisiting sites would add significant generation capability without to much nimby-ism.) We have now had three "worst case" nuclear accidents and none yet have led to significant deaths. (compare the death toll at Chernobyl, with that in the Ukraine over the same period for smoking related deaths........)
Now i would love to say "NO" to nuclear, but there are simply no other options that will provide us with the energy we need in the next 50 years.
so we have to make a choice:
1) face an uncertain energy future (wars, blackouts, high costs, limited supply etc)
2) invest now in Nuclear plants that will "tide" us through the next 50 to 100 years until we can perfect nuclear fusion (such as the ITER project in France http://www.iter.org/ )
3) Do nothing and hope that global climate change is not as bad as it might be.
the choice is ours to make...................
Maxtorque - those 4 points are nothing new and the answer is it will be a little of all 4 probably. 1. It's called demand side management or DSR and it's happening now. 2. No one who knows the industry thinks prices are going anywhere but upwards. 3. Foreign solar is being talked about seriously and has a lot of the same problems as oil dependence. 4. There will be some nuclear in the mix - but not much new nuclear for a good long time due to the length of time planning consent, design and construction take (probably in the order of 10-20 years, which makes tiding us through for the next 50 a little tricky).
And remember that other sources will come into the mix - biomass is moving into the several hundred MW range at the moment, though hundreds of small community set ups might be anothe way forwards; tidal should not be ignored, it's probably where wind was 20 years ago.
Finally beware the without hot air - not the least biased opinion around - possibly not the most biased either of course in my opinion of course.
I like them, but hope they won't encroach on every single wild area.
Energy planning.
1. Reduce consumption.
- enforce strict limits on energy consumed by devices on standby
- energy efficient bulbs
- Insulate houses!!!
- charge users small cost per kwh for base load but increasse it exponentially for above that
- charge different rates for time of day
- install smart meters so people understand their Usage
2. Ensure that the true cost of energy is paid for
- cost of co2 pollution factored into coal/gas/oil prices
- cost of disposal factored into nuclear prices
Best done gradually to ensure smooth transition
3. Research
- more renewables
- Thorium reactors that consume nuclear waste have been developed. No idea where they are with them now
Basically bring the true cost of energy to the people. Job done!
Reduce energy consumption in one fell swoop:
Heavy users to pay higher tariff,
Light users to pay lower tariff.
A bit like taxes...
That will make it super cheap to use less.
Of course won't happen as it's back to front on a business sense.
EDIT - Just like you said above W
And sod humans, the potential damage to every other species on this planet from nuclear power rules it out for me. What a selfish technology it is. I always ask advocates "what do you need to power so desperately that justifies your share of nuclear waste & risk."
I take it you've never heard of a species (or tens of thousands of species) being threatened by climate change? 🙄
A mixture of wind, tidal, wave and nuclear is what's needed, with excesses being turned into hydrogen for use a peak time or for transport. That and using a lot less, but the latter is hardly likely to happen any time soon.
If you want to go on a crusade about how dangerous various forms of energy are, I really think you should start with coal. After that, anything else pails into insignificance.
And for those getting pissy and conflating civilian and military nuclear industries, go and have a look over how many wars there have been over oil. Then stop driving your car.
the problem is profit.Reduce energy consumption in one fell swoop:Heavy users to pay higher tariff,
Light users to pay lower tariff.A bit like taxes...
That will make it super cheap to use less.
Of course won't happen as it's back to front on a business sense.
if we had to make our own energy at home, say with a bicycle on a generator, we'ed soon realise the cost of production, especially with profit in the equation. we use far too much energy, and its not cheap to produce. have a look around you, how many lights are on? in the broad daylight?
do i sound like a crackpot?
That's a very good point actually!
Very very few people realise what a kW.hr is, and how big it is, and how cheapily in fact they can buy one.
Averagely fit cyclists can probably knock out about 150w continuously, so it would take you 6.6hrs to output a kW.hr. A kW.hr costs about 20p at the most expensive rate in the UK.
So, if i said, i'll pay you 20p to pedal your bike whilst i watch telly for the next 7 hrs you'd say "F off"!!!! 😉
BTW, i'm not saying the "without hot air" report is unbiased, because that is actually impossible, but it is one of the least biased reports, and even if you don't agree with the conculusions, the science and figures used to get their are a sensible enough place to start.
Seems as if quite a few of us want lower consumption, and no nuclear power, and wind turbines are ok.
Now all we have to do is persuade centrasl governmnet and the big buissnes that are going to build and pay for nuclear power, when we have no idea how to make the old ones safe, and actually work all the time.
Seems as if quite a few of us want lower consumption, and no nuclear power, and wind turbines are ok.Now all we have to do is persuade centrasl governmnet and the big buissnes that are going to build and pay for nuclear power, when we have no idea how to make the old ones safe, and actually work all the time.
I'd like to know what you're proposing to replace coal and gas (both more damaging than nuclear) with before you go about suggesting that we can replace nuclear with wind. Start with the bigger problem first.
it makes far more sense to address individual / community usage imho.
a combination of solar/small wind/biomass & AD when deployed sensibly and sensitively is the best solution. Renewables work, the problem is that the incentives tend to attract investors and the budgets get sucked away from the original intended recipients.
The distributed power model makes far more sense, its more resilient and communities/individuals can (better) look after themselves.
I'd like to know what you're proposing to replace coal and gas (both more damaging than nuclear) with before you go about suggesting that we can replace nuclear with wind. Start with the bigger problem first.
I'm not sure what the UK's plan is but I've just read that Germany has recently opened a brand new 2200MW coal fired power station, and the green light has been given to build a further 23 as they plan to go nuclear free and also reduce their expenditure on wind and solar power, which according to their energy & environment department, has proved to be too eratic at supplying power, and too expensive to keep subsidising.
You forgot to mention they are also importing nuclear-derived energy in greater quantities.
Pathetic greenwashing of the highest order saying they're going green by getting rid of nuclear, then importing it from elsewhere, and building coal-fired stations to fill the gaps.
The expert from Gardiner and Theobold who spoke at a Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) seminar I went to recently stated with confidence that wind turbines in the UK don't even return the energy which was used to manufacture them.
Energy planning.
1. Reduce consumption.
- enforce strict limits on energy consumed by devices on standby
- energy efficient bulbs
- Insulate houses!!!
- charge users small cost per kwh for base load but increasse it exponentially for above that
- charge different rates for time of day
- install smart meters so people understand their Usage
Okay, but all of that will be more than nullified by the arrival of affordable electric cars. Battery & charging tech is improving rapidly, it's only a matter of time.
wrecker - Member
The expert from Gardiner and Theobold who spoke at a Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) seminar I went to recently stated with confidence that wind turbines in the UK don't even return the energy which was used to manufacture them.
Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people. 🙄
PV [s]definely not cost effective this far north. Subsidy farming at its best[/s]increase in efficiency as the temperature drops
Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people.
Can you really not see that this is lacking in relevance?
Did I pass remark about money? Energy and money are different things you know.
It isn't that hard. They are investing because the government is subsidising it. It's not an investment without the subsidy.
Oh and this still ignores the embedded energy (which is just someone elses operational energy).
Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people.
As wrecker says they do it because of the subsidies, impossible to make a financial case without them.
I love them - I'm a windsurfer so wherever I go it's a good indication of reliable wind.
But I have two major concerns: Do they slow down or speed up the rotation of the planet, and how much electricity does it take to keep those massive fans running all the time?
As wrecker says they do it because of the subsidies, impossible to make a financial case without them.
It would also be impossible to make a case for Nuclear, Coal, Gas and oil if the costs of their impact was included in their price. These are all subsidised - unfortunately by future generations.
We need to find some way of including these costs in the present (carbon trading is a good example - where done correctly).
