The agenda is the same, Carbon Tax!

andykn

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.

Its a distributed network. Even if they could get at the right bit to knock out a whole windfarm it's only a small proportion of the total capacity, has no contamination danger and would be quick and easy to fix. Knocking out any grid substation would have the same effect.

leveller2911

andykn wrote: »

Its a distributed network. Even if they could get at the right bit to knock out a whole windfarm it's only a small proportion of the total capacity, has no contamination danger and would be quick and easy to fix. Knocking out any grid substation would have the same effect.

Sorry but I don't agree, wind turbines are not mass produced they take time to build,deliver and erect its a lot easier to replauce pylons....Your missing my point as long as there is real security to nuclear power stations then there is not a problem.

How many Nuclear power stations around the world?

How many accidents?

There are thousands of missiles and rockets gone missing from the old Soviet union but how many attacks on Nuclear reactors have there been?

With proper security there is little danger from terrorists IMO ,but lots of scaremongering from Greenies..

leveller2911

andykn wrote: »

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

But Ive not said we should rely on fossil fuels, never have and never would.....I said IMO Nuclear power is still the better option over fossil fuels and re-newables ,certainly until the technology is there, which it isn't yet....

andykn

leveller2911 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't agree, wind turbines are not mass produced they take time to build,deliver and erect its a lot easier to replauce pylons....Your missing my point as long as there is real security to nuclear power stations then there is not a problem.

How many Nuclear power stations around the world?

How many accidents?

There are thousands of missiles and rockets gone missing from the old Soviet union but how many attacks on Nuclear reactors have there been?

With proper security there is little danger from terrorists IMO ,but lots of scaremongering from Greenies..

But if terrorists knocked out just one turbine no-one would notice at all. If it were me I'd go for the collection/distribution point to have any effect.

JWF

If any of you feel interested enough, or strongly enough, about the energy market, you should take a look at this consultation on the move from todays set up to a low carbon future. This is a comprehensive review of the energy supply in the UK and the changes which occur as a result over the next 20 odd years will probably be as big as the switch from coal to gas which occurred once North Sea Gas was opened up.

You'll notice that a diverse mix is proposed, rather than a concentration in one particular technology.

Go on, make a response to the consultation, you know you want to!

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/emr/emr.aspx

Enjoy

magyar

leveller2911 wrote: »

I can see Little Cheyne windfarm on Romney Marsh from my workshop and from what I see daily the turbines are either not working due to high winds, not working due to lack of winds, not working due to bearings being changed and also some of them have problems with subsidence. Value for money?

Wind farms receive 'subsidies' only when they generate, so if as you claim the Little Cheyne Court wind farm isn't generating anything then its owners aren't earning anything. There are no 'grants' or anything paid to an owner of a wind farm at the point of construction.

magyar

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you have any figures for the energy produced by the windfarms over that last few weeks of freezing cold but fairly windless ?

I love the way that this has been trotted out by the media (in particular the very anti-wind Mail and the Telegraph) as though they had come up with some deviously clever statement.

During the winter it's relatively common to get periods of high pressure sat over the country and you get extreme cold, clear skies and very low winds. Demand for electricity will be high but wind farms will not generate. This is not some great revelation.

If any fool had suggested getting 100% (or even more than say 30%) of our energy from wind farms then they'd have looked, well, foolish.

But no-one has. The idea is - and has always been - to have mix of energy generation. Coal, gas, nuclear, renewables. All have a valuable part to play. Let's say you have 30% wind (probably above the likely outcome) - in the middle of winter the 70% of 'controllable' capacity will still easily be enough to meet demand.

But it means that when it's windy, we might be able to turn off the coal and gas stations and then end up with much fewer carbon emissions.

magyar

Hereward wrote: »

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

Actually wind farms always generate if it's windy and they're available.

In theory the very large ones could be 'constrained' at the request of the grid operator (and it would be 'turning them down' rather than 'turning them off') but in practice I've never heard of it happening.