B&Q Wind Turbines (Merged Thread)

moonrakerz

colinS wrote: »

I think a mention of DC and AC and Nicola Tessla is in order.

Don't forget lots of cooling water too !

magyar

colinS wrote: »

What about this too: http://www.yes2wind.com/news2007/20_06_07_news_story.html

I am running out of time on this public library computer and have alread lost one post on this thread today, so I will let you pick out the, quite frankly, lies in this article. One is that the Victorians sited their power stations in town because they were more efficient there and only moved them because they were dirty. I think a mention of DC and AC and Nicola Tessla is in order.

Transmission losses in the UK are about 8%, so it's not miniscule, although I think 'fantastic' is a little unrealistic. The important point is that if you rely on smaller, local generation then you'll be connecting at a lower voltage so the losses will probably be quite similar.

I get frustrated when a site like Yes2wind which does a lot to support large-scale wind, and debunk the many lies which are told about wind turbines, should support such idiotic-looking schemes such as this.

Out of interest, can I solicit everyone's views on large-scale wind schemes? I'm interested to know whether people are anti-wind in general or whether they're specifically (and rightly in my opinion) against the unrealistic assumptions made of small-scale wind.

gromituk

I'm very pro-wind power in general. I think wind farms are beautiful objects, not eyesores, and seeing them reminds us of the preciousness of the energy we squander daily. I have very little truck with those who moan that the odd eagle might be killed by one - by not harnessing the wind we will be killing far more eagles with our carbon emissions.

Cardew

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as gromituk, I certainly don't find wind farms an eyesore; and compared with a conventional power station(using any fuel) they are beautiful!

I have not seen any reliable statistics on costs of generation - wind v oil/gas/coal/nuclear.

magyar

Cardew wrote: »

I have not seen any reliable statistics on costs of generation - wind v oil/gas/coal/nuclear.

It depends what you mean by 'cost of generation' because it's very much dependent on the cost of the fuel (which is bought on world markets) and the load profile of the plant.

A better way of looking at it is probably on a project appraisal basis; i.e. what is the rate of return, payback time etc.

For a wind farm this is anything from 5-10 years depending on the site, windspeeds etc., and returns can be up to 30%*. If you compare this to a nuclear plant, then this would be 15-30 years with returns as low as 6%, but of course the lifespan of a nuclear plant is 50+ years compared with 20-25 years for a wind farm.

* Assuming subsidies

gromituk

Hmmm - I'm sure you're not taking into account the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant!

magyar

gromituk wrote: »

Hmmm - I'm sure you're not taking into account the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant!

Yes I am, I'm just not including that in the operating life (obviously, because it's not operating).

magyar

Just to be clear how it works, the government make you provide a decommissioning bond, so effectively the cost of decommissioning is paid for at the outset.

Cardew

magyar wrote: »

It depends what you mean by 'cost of generation' because it's very much dependent on the cost of the fuel (which is bought on world markets) and the load profile of the plant.

A better way of looking at it is probably on a project appraisal basis; i.e. what is the rate of return, payback time etc.

For a wind farm this is anything from 5-10 years depending on the site, windspeeds etc., and returns can be up to 30%*. If you compare this to a nuclear plant, then this would be 15-30 years with returns as low as 6%, but of course the lifespan of a nuclear plant is 50+ years compared with 20-25 years for a wind farm.

* Assuming subsidies

In the context of my post 'Cost of generation' meant overall life cycle costs.(construction, running costs, fuel, decommisioning etc) in order to calculate the overall cost of a unit of electricity.

The cost of 'fuel' is zero for hydro/wind and tiny for nuclear, so in that sense it is not a factor in costs; but it still may not?? prevent Wind being the most expensive way to produce electricity.


With respect, there is little point in including a current subsidy for wind generation when carrying out an appraisal of costs. The Government could give a massive subsidy to, say, coal(and make Arthur Scargill happy) but it would only serve to skew figures.

Obviously I would be in favour of some subsidies for wind/hydro/tide but how much???

moonrakerz

magyar wrote: »

Out of interest, can I solicit everyone's views on large-scale wind schemes? I'm interested to know whether people are anti-wind in general or whether they're specifically (and rightly in my opinion) against the unrealistic assumptions made of small-scale wind.

I am all in favour of "renewable" energy - who wouldn't be ?

As an engineer I think (large) wind turbines are quite elegant - BUT - not in large numbers spread all over the best looking parts of the UK countryside. The number required to produce just a small percentage of the UK's needs is quite staggering.
I am not convinced they are the way to go, I used to travel to Germany a lot, which is well provided with these things, and even the Germans are now having second thoughts about their usefulness because of their overall very low efficiency.
You still need to have something to back them up for when there is no wind. Conventional power stations cannot be turned on and off at will, the only thing that can do this is a pumped storage plant, such as Dinorwig, but these plants can only run for a few hours. Another problem with this type of plant is that they consume 20% more electricity than they make !
(Dinorwig can go from zero output to 1800Mw output in 16 seconds)

I think we should look more intensively at tidal power (how long have they been talking about the Severn Barrage ???) and conventional hydro electric power. Conventional hydro power has another benefit of storing water - which at the moment, (unfortunately) we don't seem to be short of !

Finally, I dare say I am going to upset a few people here ! The "cleanest" power available is nuclear and (upset again) it is safe !
It is certainly expensive, but price is a good regulator of consumption.