Wind turbines

Mankysteve

zeupater wrote: »

V
Let's now look at the cost ..... Dinorwig would likely cost £1.2bn at todays costs, so a potential £2.4tn for the storage & generating capacity, that's before you even start to consider how to pump the water back up hill to replenish the reserves ........

Dinorwig was built where it is because of the natural geography. I wonder how long it took to find a suitable site, or was the solution site specific ? .... Whichever, I'd guess that it would be extremely unlikely to find 2000 more .......

HTH
Z

Dinorwig paid itself back much quicker than expected it makes a profit buys cheap night eleci and sell expensive peak time.

Dinorwig was built not because of the natural environment but because that part of Liberians valley natural habit had all but been largely destroyed.

There Scottish hydro electric schemes that use a serious of locks. You could use the wind to pump water to the top retro fitting them to pumped storage.

As someone else mentioned there hydrogen production, there refrigerated gasses, compressed air. There lots of solutions just certain people choose to ignore them.

I think Nuclear is big part of the solution tbh. But a diverse energy sources are needed coupled with a smarter grid.

With new smart meter individual will be able to pull power for certain appliances when the demand is lowest and shut themselves down when at there highest.

zeupater

Mankysteve wrote: »

Dinorwig paid itself back much quicker than expected it makes a profit buys cheap night eleci and sell expensive peak time.

Dinorwig was built not because of the natural environment but because that part of Liberians valley natural habit had all but been largely destroyed.

There Scottish hydro electric schemes that use a serious of locks. You could use the wind to pump water to the top retro fitting them to pumped storage.

As someone else mentioned there hydrogen production, there refrigerated gasses, compressed air. There lots of solutions just certain people choose to ignore them.

I think Nuclear is big part of the solution tbh. But a diverse energy sources are needed coupled with a smarter grid.

With new smart meter individual will be able to pull power for certain appliances when the demand is lowest and shut themselves down when at there highest.

Hi

I realise that Dinorwig paid for itself quickly, but the reason for this is that it is a standby facility, being paid for producing absolutely nothing for the majority of the time and then charging an inflated rate for generation when it's required, a recipe for success which cannot be repeated many times across the network.

Regarding the muted solution of a pumped Scottish lochs scheme similar to Dinorwig ... what needs to be considered is that the energy storage in such a scheme is dependant on the elevation differential between the storage containment and the dump facility, the energy produced is as a result of the acceleration of the waterflow under gravity. Reduce the differential and you would need to seriously increase the flow rate and storage capacities to achieve the same outcome ... half the height differential and you need four times the storage/flow, half again (quarter) 16 times the flow & storage capacity ......

Regarding Hydrogen systems, what needs to be remembered is that the process to create hydrogen from water is not energy efficient when compared to other solutions, if it were, you would be able to buy Hydrogen (&Oxygen) cheaply because it's so abundant .... check the prices ....

I agree, diverse solutions is the answer to a more sustainable energy future and that's exactly the issue. The anti-nuclear brigade are still anti-nuclear, coal is a dirty word, tidal schemes are still being played with or cancelled, leaving wind, which is protested against by NIMBYs if it's on-shore, and by the bird-watchers, fishermen & seaside tourism boards if it's off-shore ....... pumped hydro is fine, it will smooth the supply & demand issue, but there needs to be generating capacity to replenish the system .... where is it ?, what will it be ? ........ the solution at the moment is to kick the answer into the long grass and just build windmills, more windmills and even more windmills .... then pay the generating companies to not produce because the total infrastructure hasn't been considered .....

I know the government's solution, let's have another inquiry ..... :rotfl:

Z

celerity

Rodders57 wrote: »

Original post

Oh dear its gone a bit off topic here.

It's a good debate though, with a wealth of information - I've certainly learned a fair bit from both the people who support my views and those who oppose them.

Also, the OP's question has been answered in detail, and the discussion is still highly relevant to the subject heading.

/\dam

celerity

Thanks zeupater for taking the time to give an overview of your own views.

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

If it was in my power I would certainly have a full review of the windfarm strategy and costs.....

OK, that's a fair position but also something of a cop-out if you'll forgive me . A review could take years and I have to assume a lot of the legwork for such a review has already been done.

What I've tried to show on this thread is that wind farms do work (we've been citing Germany as an example on this thread), infrastructure can be adapted and the long term costs come down to the extent that they will be cheaper than fossil fuels well within our lifetime.

I would really consider technologies such as large scale tidal power over windpower in the first place due to the predictability as 'legacy' generation can be almost seamlessly meshed with this renewable.

[I'm retracting what I said here as I was getting confused between tidal and wave power - apologies ]
[STRIKE]I've been following tidal energy developments as a "keen amateur" for years now, and the problem always seems to be high costs, both for installation and maintenance. Given I've made it clear on here that I support the costs of wind farms, that gives you some idea of how much more tidal would seem to cost .
Wikipedia has a convenient summary of the UK's estimated costs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#UK_2010_estimates - note the low estimate is still higher than onshore and offshore wind, and the high estimate is over double the cost.

So, the problem I have with your position is that you would seem to be wary of proven wind technology (proven in the sense that we have already put forwards a good case in this thread that the German model is a success, and indeed Germany is continuing with all speed to expand their wind plans), but you are advocating sinking resources into a more expensive renewable.

Like I say, I like the idea of tidal energy too, especially for the UK, but it seems to me that based on cost the logical position is to invest in wind and wait for costs of tidal to come down (pretty much the reverse of your position )[/STRIKE]

Within 20 years of the first passenger railway journey over 2500miles of UK network had been planned and built, mainly by hand, carrying over 30million passengers annually. This would now be considered the timescale for the planning & enquiry stage for a 50 mile line and someone would finally gum up the works and press the 'reset' button by finding a pair of greater crested newts in a puddle somewhere along the route .....

Isn't this an argument against review after incessant review though?!

My very real worry is that if we adopt a policy of procrastination, nothing practical to stop the haemorrhaging of fossil fuels will happen in my lifetime.

In the mean-time, if anyone wants to do anything to help the environment, do so ..... insulate, insulate, insulate .... then insulate some more, it'll be of far more immediate use to both your own pocket and the climate than any windfarm project on the drawing board for the next 25 years ..

Can't we do both? I don't see any evidence that our governments have been playing down the importance of insulation in recent years. My own house has been insulated with government subsidies in fact, so I don't think this point is relevant to the UK's energy strategy.

Or, if it is, it only serves to highlight the difference between Energy Efficiency and Energy Paradigm Change. Insulation assists the former, but just means our fossil fuel reserves last a bit longer before we are all screwed. Investing in renewables now means we are moving towards a world where we don't need fossil fuels. That is idealistic, and it won't happen in our lifetime, but in my opinion it is still the direction humanity should be headed.

/\dam

celerity

zeupater wrote: »

I agree, diverse solutions is the answer to a more sustainable energy future and that's exactly the issue. The anti-nuclear brigade are still anti-nuclear, coal is a dirty word, tidal schemes are still being played with or cancelled, leaving wind [...] the solution at the moment is to kick the answer into the long grass and just build windmills, more windmills and even more windmills .... then pay the generating companies to not produce because the total infrastructure hasn't been considered .....

Just a point, we are investing in tidal as well, for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12767211

It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that infrastructure for wind farms isn't being considered. The National Grid are well aware of what is needed, as evidenced by this uptotheminute news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13380536

I like this quote from the article, which I fully admit is cherry-picked

"The money from the Community Fund from the wind farms helps local children buy books when they go to university and supports other local organisations. Personally I love walking my dog up among the turbines - you couldn't walk up there before they put the access roads in, it was too boggy. Now I love to be up there. I think this fuss may all die over."

/\dam

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

The report, understandably, steers clear of the cost implications of providing that renewable energy and indeed makes this statement:

In this scenario, we assume that the correct economic incentives are in place to make this world a reality.

Now why would the ‘usual suspects’ challenge such a report; especially as in the quote above it alludes to the main reservation about renewable energy – namely the cost of generation.

That's a fair point, but you have to admit it's an interesting and detailed report.

I note you haven't responded to my questions here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43570982&postcount=57

It would be appreciated if you would. It's very easy to be negative in a debate, but much more helpful if you can offer constructive alternatives. It's also good to know what your personal position is so that we don't have to make (possibly unfair) assumptions.

/\dam

zeupater

Hi celerity

If you think i'm anti-renewables you're completely wrong .... I am anti-misinformation and anti-inefficiency though.

Looking at reviews, my background is senior management in a fast-moving manufacturing environment ..... in my experience major review does not need to be a long winded process, so why any government review should take more than three months (start to completed report) is well beyond me, the system obviously needs a shake-up and the people a little firm guidance .....

Looking at windpower in particular, there is absolutely no sense in the fact that as we build more manufacturing capacity, therefore building more units, the unit price increases .... someone somewhere is pulling the wool over someone else's eyes ....... mind you, if I could get a 50% capital grant for building wind turbines I would also look at setting up a supply chain and charging double for the units ....... no wonder the prices are soaring ....

I appreciate that you have been following developments for a while, and I did look at the referenced wiki article, however the article does not exactly compare what you claim. The cost comparison is not between wind & tidal, it's wind v wave ... both of which are unpredictable resources, whereas tidal power is totally predictable and therefore strategically useful.

Regarding there being a difference between wind being a proven technology, and tidal barrage not being proven .... this is something which is completely wrong. A tidal barrage is simply a hydro scheme, effectively a two-way dam, therefore well proven technology. Tidal schemes have been successfully operating for many years as proof of concept .....

Regarding the comment on procrastination, I agree. However, you must agree, the greatest source & causal of procrastination are the disparate groups of self-interest which continually infight and that's exacly the reason why I've mentioned "the poor birdies" and "greater crested newts" .... If serious climate change is a reality then unless projects which these groups oppose become reality the habitats for wading birds, newts etc will be destroyed completely anyway ....... sometimes people just become too involved with a particular issue to see the big picture, and that's the real cause of procrastination ......

Regarding insulation and can't we do both, no I personally can't do both ..... I can insulate, I can reduce energy consumption and I can provide my own generating capacity, all of which I have done whilst many/most others procrastinate and wait on others to do things for them. What I cannot do as an individual is have an impact on policies to create an efficient national energy production and distribution solution.

Efficient use of energy is a far more immediate solution than re-creating the generation infrastructure & strategy, however, from an economic viewpoint it doesn't generate long-term jobs or wealth. It also refines & defines future energy capacity requirements ..... I wonder whether it would be a cheaper one off exercise for the public purse to pay to swap all cathode ray, Plasma & LCD TVs with equivalent LED units than to subsidise the equivilant generating capacity in wind turbines? .... result, immediate energy efficiency gains with absolutely no effect on the RAF, fishermen, newts or "the poor little birdies"

Regarding the infrastructure, I disagree, it's not really disingenuous. There are recent high profile examples of wind generation capacity being subsidised to lay dormant because integration into the overall generation infrastructure capacity hasn't been fully considered .... certainly helps with the payback on the windfarm, so it must be efficient ....

Z

Cardew

celerity wrote: »

That's a fair point, but you have to admit it's an interesting and detailed report.

I note you haven't responded to my questions here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43570982&postcount=57

It would be appreciated if you would. It's very easy to be negative in a debate, but much more helpful if you can offer constructive alternatives. It's also good to know what your personal position is so that we don't have to make (possibly unfair) assumptions.

/\dam

The report was interesting from a technical point of view. My comments were about it being misunderstood(as usual) and misrepresented as the National Grid championing Wind Power. Thus for the 'usual suspects' to disagree with his misinterpretation would be heresy;)

I love the romantic notion of Britain completely powered by the Sun, Wind, Hydro and Tide. However as the cost is unaffordable, and as none of those sources can be guaranteed to be available when needed, other options will have to be considered.

Nuclear, Coal, Gas from new fields/shale etc are all possibilities and there are valid reasons why some people will object to each and every one of those proposed solutions.

My anti-renewable stance(as it has been termed above) is directed at those who view everything through green coloured spectacles. ‘Solar PV is great’ – ‘wind power is wonderful’ etc. – and not considering the practicalities.

Let us take solar PV as a classic example.

It is of course a nonsense to generate electricity using solar at our latitudes. However it is decreed by our political masters that solar must be part of the ‘mix’.

Now given that directive to use solar, the obvious way to generate as cheaply as possible is to install huge solar farms on factory roofs, ‘Brownfield’ sites etc in South West UK; or even in Spain.

Instead the Government has set up a system where we have a few panels on thousands of roofs throughout UK . It is difficult to envisage a more inefficient use of resources – labour, scaffolding equipment, accounting etc.

To add insult to injury we pay householders massive subsidies approaching 10 times the cost of producing electricity by conventional means. Even worse we allow venture capitalists to set up ‘rent a roof’ companies and cream off the subsidies.

Those subsidies are paid for by a levy on all electricity users. So the poorest in our society are paying for those owning a house and the ability to spend £10,000+ on a solar array, and of course the venture capitalists.

Note: That isn’t any form of criticism of those who have taken advantage of these subsidies.

We could return to the original question posed by the OP and comment on the stupidity of encouraging Joe Public to buy wind turbines for use in urban environments – all under the ‘Green’ banner – saving the world from [STRIKE]global warming [/STRIKE]climate change.

P.S.
No I don't have solar panels. I live in a conservation area and although my house cannot be viewed from the road I doubt I would get permission. In any case I don't like their appearance and I don't think it an attractive proposition to wait 10 -12 years before an 'investment' starts to make a profit.

PeterZ_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi celerity

Regarding the comment on procrastination, I agree. However, you must agree, the greatest source & causal of procrastination are the disparate groups of self-interest which continually infight and that's exacly the reason why I've mentioned "the poor birdies" and "greater crested newts" .... If serious climate change is a reality then unless projects which these groups oppose become reality the habitats for wading birds, newts etc will be destroyed completely anyway ....... sometimes people just become too involved with a particular issue to see the big picture, and that's the real cause of procrastination ......


Z

This is the big problem with the UK and is why we will struggle to ever compete with the likes of China who will let nothing (including the environment and human rights) get in the way of progress.

I'm not saying we should take the same approach as China, but we really need a strong government to 'bang some heads' and allow some progress to be made.

This applies to all sorts of development in the UK, we are so tied up with red tape and policies that everything from starting a business to building a wind farm has become a nightmare.

I'll bet that those who protest about the newts and lessor spotted warbling tree huggers will not be so keen when their electric gets cut off because we couldn't build any new wind turbines, coal power stations, nuclear etc.

celerity

zeupater wrote: »

Hi celerity

If you think i'm anti-renewables you're completely wrong

Not at all, you've made your position pretty clear, thank you.

The cost comparison is not between wind & tidal, it's wind v wave ... both of which are unpredictable resources, whereas tidal power is totally predictable and therefore strategically useful.

I apologise, I've been reading "wave" when you said "tidal" - sorry . I know relatively little about tidal energy, other than having an assumption that suitable sites would probably be quite limited? Or is that not the case?
I have looked into river energy, but that didn't look especially exciting at the generation figures I saw for a given (long) stretch of river.

[...] habitats for wading birds, newts etc will be destroyed completely anyway ....... sometimes people just become too involved with a particular issue to see the big picture, and that's the real cause of procrastination ......

Although this does bring us full circle as the environmental impact of wind farms is quite low.

What I cannot do as an individual is have an impact on policies to create an efficient national energy production and distribution solution.

Well idealistic as I am, I share your cynicism in this respect .

Efficient use of energy is a far more immediate solution than re-creating the generation infrastructure & strategy, however, from an economic viewpoint it doesn't generate long-term jobs or wealth. It also refines & defines future energy capacity requirements ..... I wonder whether it would be a cheaper one off exercise for the public purse to pay to swap all cathode ray, Plasma & LCD TVs with equivalent LED units than to subsidise the equivilant generating capacity in wind turbines? .... result, immediate energy efficiency gains with absolutely no effect on the RAF, fishermen, newts or "the poor little birdies"

The National Grid report I linked to specifically deals with future energy efficiencies of applicances and "smart" meters etc helping to counteract increasing demand. To the extent that their estimated peak capacity for 2020 wasn't much different to today if I recall correctly.

Regarding the infrastructure, I disagree, it's not really disingenuous. There are recent high profile examples of wind generation capacity being subsidised to lay dormant because intergration into the overall generation infrastructure capacity hasn't been fully considered

What would be interesting would be to see if these cases reduce over the next decade. That would be my hope, but if you are right then it could all be a bit of a disaster, I agree.

I think where we disagree the most is that I see long-term benefits and cost efficiencies to investing in renewables such as wind farms and associated infrastructure (and workforce jobs and skills) now, whereas you find that questionable. Is that a fair appraisal?

To me it seems obvious that even if we are effectively getting ripped off today to install wind turbines, they will pay for themselves eventually, and help pave the way for cheaper, more efficient installations. This is already evidenced by older turbines being upgraded.

/\dam