The agenda is the same, Carbon Tax!

leveller2911

Hereward wrote: »

You forget that they may not be "working" as there is no demand for the energy the produce at that exact moment.

Fair comment but thats the whole problem with windpower and re-newables in general, you can't rely on the wind or sun being there when you need it.Pound for pound are they value for money?.

Hereward

CLAPTON wrote: »

given the relatively small (as a percentage) that windfarms make to the total demand, why would they ever be a situation where their contribution wouldn't be desireable? surely even a modest contibution would reduce the need for carbon fuels?

In response to your questions: if the demand is in northern Scotland, there's little point in turning on a wind farm in Kent to try and balance the demand as the energy isn't being produced where it's needed. It would be far easier to generate the required energy closer to the point of demand.

leveller2911

There is also a security issue with windfarms.At least we have some security with our Nuclear sites we have none at the windfarms so its a piece of cake for terrorists to knock out the infra-structure.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Here's a report which talks about the weather and windfarms, it mentions the periods where there are cold snaps and low wind and the need for fuels from elsewhere.

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/oswald-energy-policy-2008.pdf

thanks very much; a really worthwhile read

Hereward

leveller2911 wrote: »

There is also a security issue with windfarms.At least we have some security with our Nuclear sites we have none at the windfarms so its a piece of cake for terrorists to knock out the infra-structure.

It's a piece of cake to knock out a nuclear fission reactor as well. You hit the substations and pylons surrounding it...

CLAPTON

Hereward wrote: »

In response to your questions: if the demand is in northern Scotland, there's little point in turning on a wind farm in Kent to try and balance the demand as the energy isn't being produced where it's needed. It would be far easier to generate the required energy closer to the point of demand.

no you have misssed my point

there is ALWAYS a LOCAL demand for electicity
obviously is varies day/night, summer/winter, day of week etc etc
as the amount of windpower we have is fairly low it is most unlikely that the local power consumption would currently ever be less than the wind power available

and in any event, as the national grid spans the country the electicity can be moved around in seconds

Hereward

CLAPTON wrote: »

no you have misssed my point

there is ALWAYS a LOCAL demand for electicity
obviously is varies day/night, summer/winter, day of week etc etc
as the amount of windpower we have is fairly low it is most unlikely that the local power consumption would currently ever be less than the wind power available

and in any event, as the national grid spans the country the electicity can be moved around in seconds

Where I live, the wind farms can generate more energy than we need, so we end up exporting any excess energy to other parts of the country.

As I said before, it doesn't make sense to generate energy in Kent if the demand is in Northern Scotland, as the losses in transmitting that energy will be quite large. It makes more sense to generate it closer to the point of need, especially if there is already energy being generated in the local area.

CLAPTON

Hereward wrote: »

Where I live, the wind farms can generate more energy than we need, so we end up exporting any excess energy to other parts of the country.

As I said before, it doesn't make sense to generate energy in Kent if the demand is in Northern Scotland, as the losses in transmitting that energy will be quite large. It makes more sense to generate it closer to the point of need, especially if there is already energy being generated in the local area.

the marginal cost of the wind energy is very low or even zero so why does it matter if there is a loss in the transmission system?

also I would suspect that if the wind farm is in Kent then there is some demand for electrivity nearer than northern scotland (e.g London comes to mind)

andykn

leveller2911 wrote: »

IMO nuclear is the way to go and money should be spend on trying to find a solution to disposing (properly) of the waste..There will also be the issue of security, am I right in thinking the French have anti-aircraft missile batteries around their nuclear power stations?.

The trouble with Nuclear is that, like fossil fuels, there isn't enough Uranium to go round if we all start big nuclear programs.

andykn

leveller2911 wrote: »

Fair comment but thats the whole problem with windpower and re-newables in general, you can't rely on the wind or sun being there when you need it.Pound for pound are they value for money?.

Today, no. But in future we can't rely on the oil or gas being there when we need it.