Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Give up on Wind Farms they are useless Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Just to clarify, do you think wind turbines generate more power in summer than in winter? Can you explain why? I think they produce more in winter, and wind and solar panels are often referred to as 'complementary power sources', as solar peaks in summer and wind in winter.,
    I haven't said anything about winter or summer. What I say applies both to summer and to winter, obviously.

    This winter there has been no wind at all. That is the variability. When the winter is negative NAO you don't get wind for your Wind Farms, which are useless, gigantic totems of big banking, industrial stupidity.

    You keep referring to your physics course but if you've not learned a thing about meteorology and atmospheric physics you haven't the knowledge to adequately discuss this subject.

    There are plenty of forums that discuss and learn about the weather. Join one.

    As I said you can get winters when the wind around the British Isles is very light. This is one. Problem is these winters are cold winters when electricity is needed most. So when electricity is needed most in cold winters with light winds Wind Farms are not producing electricity and in fact are sucking electricity from the grid to de-ice themselves. Wind Farms are useless.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    I haven't said anything about winter or summer. What I say applies both to summer and to winter, obviously.

    This winter there has been no wind at all. That is the variability. When the winter is negative NAO you don't get wind for your Wind Farms, which are useless, gigantic totems of big banking, industrial stupidity.

    You keep referring to your physics course but if you've not learned a thing about meteorology and atmospheric physics you haven't the knowledge to adequately discuss this subject.

    There are plenty of forums that discuss and learn about the weather. Join one.

    As I said you can get winters when the wind around the British Isles is very light. This is one. Problem is these winters are cold winters when electricity is needed most. So when electricity is needed most in cold winters with light winds Wind Farms are not producing electricity and in fact are sucking electricity from the grid to de-ice themselves. Wind Farms are useless.

    Average wind speeds in winter are higher than in summer. Wind farms can not be our only power supplier because of intermittancy problems, but they can provide a substantial of renewable energy for the grid. Just because this winter has not been windy, that doesn't mean wind farms are useless: when the wind is higher, as it normally is in winter, they will be producing power.

    You keep stating that they "suck energy from the grid to de-ice themselves" (I read this in the Daily Mail article as well, not a reliable source!), have you got any statistics about that? I bet it is only a negligible amount.


    As for your statement about "Wind Farms are useless", again, please back it up.
    You are not answering any of my questions, but instead just insulting me and using hyperbole ("Wind Farms, which are useless, gigantic totems of big banking, industrial stupidity.").

    Why are wind farms useless? Do you not think they provide any power at all, or even a negative amount of energy?

    I will ask again, once the fossil fuels run out (this is basically an accepted fact, I have never met anybody before you who seems to think they won't run out...you should accept that they will) what should we do? Again you haven't answered this.


    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The reason why people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the wind farms produce less is that they cannot operate when the wind speeds are too high coupled with a belief that in winter those wind speeds tend to be too high too often.
    In very high wind speeds (storm scale) then yes they cannot operate. But wind turbines now have something called a 'yaw' which means they can change the angle of their 'face' with respect to the wind, to make sure just the right amount of wind goes through the blades. Eg if it is not very windy they put their face right in to the wind to get maximum wind, if it is really windy they have it at an angle so only a small amount of wind goes through, whilst still turning the blades.
    The yaw + gears inside the wind turbines mean they can operate in high wind speeds, but not storm-like conditions. These very high wind speed conditions are quite a rare occurrence. (I don't have any stats on this, though). Something to bear in mind is the capacity factor, which means what fraction of rated power will a power source achieve. Eg if we have a 3MW power source, what average power can we expect to get out? For wind power the capacity factor is typically 30%, meaning for a 3MW wind turbine we would expect to get about 1MW out on average. This already takes in to account it not working when it is too windy, working sub-optimally with low wind, etc etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Average wind speeds in winter are higher than in summer. Wind farms can not be our only power supplier because of intermittancy problems, but they can provide a substantial of renewable energy for the grid. Just because this winter has not been windy, that doesn't mean wind farms are useless: when the wind is higher, as it normally is in winter, they will be producing power.
    The point is 2/3 of revenue from Wind Farms is subsidy. This subsidy goes into the already fat pockets of large land owners like the Crown Estate and big industrialists, the steel makers.

    Wind Farms may produce some electricity but at what price? At the price of killing pensioners and impoverishing students who cannot afford rents and fuel bills.

    Corruption is everywhere. Here and here.

    You cannot get more anti-progressive than a Wind Farm. They are useless.

    You keep stating that they "suck energy from the grid to de-ice themselves" (I read this in the Daily Mail article as well, not a reliable source!), have you got any statistics about that? I bet it is only a negligible amount.
    Google it! Do I have to do everything for you? Seriously, you've done a physics course, you are smart so you can manage a Google search.


    In very high wind speeds (storm scale) then yes they cannot operate.
    This is what I said.

    But wind turbines now have something called a 'yaw' which means they can change the angle of their 'face' with respect to the wind, to make sure just the right amount of wind goes through the blades. Eg if it is not very windy they put their face right in to the wind to get maximum wind, if it is really windy they have it at an angle so only a small amount of wind goes through, whilst still turning the blades.
    This is a gimmick that is not intended to keep them on in high winds. It's intended to maximise its performance during Goldilocks Weather, when the wind is just right.

    Wind swirls, gusts come from all angles and the mean direction can change in 15 minutes so this gimmick is not going to keep them on in high winds.

    Additional moving parts; more things that can break. Gimmick.


    The yaw + gears inside the wind turbines mean they can operate in high wind speeds, but not storm-like conditions. These very high wind speed conditions are quite a rare occurrence. (I don't have any stats on this, though).
    Out in the sea, where they want to stick them, damaging high gusts are not rare when it is actually windy, because there is vast open space with little wind resistance.

    Something to bear in mind is the capacity factor, which means what fraction of rated power will a power source achieve. Eg if we have a 3MW power source, what average power can we expect to get out? For wind power the capacity factor is typically 30%, meaning for a 3MW wind turbine we would expect to get about 1MW out on average. This already takes in to account it not working when it is too windy, working sub-optimally with low wind, etc etc.
    30% is high for Wind Farms - typically around 25%. Which is worse than useless when you consider they are profitable only because of huge subsidies to rich people at the cost of making the poor shiver in unheated homes because they can't afford electricity prices inflated by subsidies to pointless - other than for corrupt purposes - Wind Farms.

    Don't know why you are going to so much effort to defend the indefensible. If you like renewable power, there are other sources. If you like wind power you can design turbines individual use. One to stick on a roof perhaps, or maybe on top of a hat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    .
    Stop moaning about wind power being expensive. As I have explained, coal oil and gas are the very cheapest forms of power, that is the reason we have used them so much. They are now running out and we will have to move to more expensive forms of energy, this is accepted.

    I -1'd your post because of all the ridiculous hyperbole you use, and because you keep personally insulting me.

    I don't want to discuss this further because you have answered hardly a single question I have asked you. Both of your 'sources' about corruption are also from the Daily Mail, which as I have said several times, is not a reputable source.


    My main point is that as coal, oil and gas start to run out we will have to move to more expensive forms of energy production, wind potentially being one of them. The capacity factor of a power source doesn't really matter (calling a turbine 1MW and operating at 100% capacity factor is the same as calling it 3MW and it operating at 30% - it is the exact same turbine, just named differently). Turbines to not produce 'negative power' or anything ridiculous like that, due to 'heating themselves up' - I challenged you on this before, and asked you to provide sources, you refused.

    As we move to more expensive options of creating power, the choice is which ones to use? I have also asked you several times which ones you suggest: again you have not given me a response. I propose that wind power has a good future and will be a part of our energy solution - you disagree, let's wait and see what happens
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Problem: Current technology proves inefficient.
    Solution: Abandon concept entirely.
    Result: Success for human race.

    Sounds good to me.

    **** wind.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Lad)
    Don't feed the troll.

    Littlejohn is an ignorant ****. If you actually believe a word he ****ing says, you are a moron. End of.
    He might be a troll but he has a point. Once you get beyond 5% contribution wind farms become very problematic.

    There's a case for having some, but in cases where you expand the network too far (take denmark) their failure to increase base load becomes apparent leading to expensive, imported electricity.

    Simple answer is that there is no simple answer. The European nation with the cheapest electricity and lowest carbon footprint is irrefutably France, but the NIMBY patrol make using nuclear power to supply >80% of our energy unrealistic.

    We need affordable, reliable electricity that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels without pissing off the marginals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Stop moaning about wind power being expensive. As I have explained, coal oil and gas are the very cheapest forms of power, that is the reason we have used them so much. They are now running out and we will have to move to more expensive forms of energy, this is accepted.
    Not by everyone. We're not running out of coal or gas and nuclear has plenty of scope for expansion.

    I -1'd your post because of all the ridiculous hyperbole you use, and because you keep personally insulting me.
    Innocent abused? I've said you are smart - you call that an insult? I've not started yet. Don't push me, either.

    I don't want to discuss this further because you have answered hardly a single question I have asked you. Both of your 'sources' about corruption are also from the Daily Mail, which as I have said several times, is not a reputable source.
    Daily Mail isn't my progressive newspaper of choice but I've read similar things in the Guardian and you can research it all online - Google is your friend.

    The Daily Mail sensationalises it in a way that is easy for someone new to the subject to understand, which is why I choose Daily Mail to open the thread.

    My main point is that as coal, oil and gas start to run out we will have to move to more expensive forms of energy production, wind potentially being one of them. The capacity factor of a power source doesn't really matter (calling a turbine 1MW and operating at 100% capacity factor is the same as calling it 3MW and it operating at 30% - it is the exact same turbine, just named differently).
    The old, cheap sources of energy are not running out, and we can't afford Wind Farms. The electricity is too expensive and leads to the impoverishment of students and pensioners. People are dying because of subsidies paid to bankers, big landowners and industrialists for Wind Farms.

    As I said... wind energy, I'm a fan - if you excuse the pun. Individual turbines might have a future in specific cases for specific uses, but for mass generation of electricity for towns, cities and factories Wind Farms are useless, just a means of transferring wealth from poor to rich.

    Wind Farms increase social inequality.


    Turbines to not produce 'negative power' or anything ridiculous like that, due to 'heating themselves up' - I challenged you on this before, and asked you to provide sources, you refused.
    I ignored you because I didn't think anyone would ask a question that doesn't even make sense. You must think I'm really stupid to ask that, so I'm going to continue to ignore it.


    As we move to more expensive options of creating power, the choice is which ones to use? I have also asked you several times which ones you suggest: again you have not given me a response. I propose that wind power has a good future and will be a part of our energy solution - you disagree, let's wait and see what happens
    There are cheaper sources of power. Coal, gas, nuclear.

    You appear unapologetic that Wind Farms are unaffordable and enrich bankers, land owners and industrialists at the expense of the poor.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This

    http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#SummaryPage
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    Not by everyone. We're not running out of coal or gas and nuclear has plenty of scope for expansion.



    Innocent abused? I've said you are smart - you call that an insult? I've not started yet. Don't push me, either.



    Daily Mail isn't my progressive newspaper of choice but I've read similar things in the Guardian and you can research it all online - Google is your friend.

    The Daily Mail sensationalises it in a way that is easy for someone new to the subject to understand, which is why I choose Daily Mail to open the thread.



    The old, cheap sources of energy are not running out, and we can't afford Wind Farms. The electricity is too expensive and leads to the impoverishment of students and pensioners. People are dying because of subsidies paid to bankers, big landowners and industrialists for Wind Farms.

    As I said... wind energy, I'm a fan - if you excuse the pun. Individual turbines might have a future in specific cases for specific uses, but for mass generation of electricity for towns, cities and factories Wind Farms are useless, just a means of transferring wealth from poor to rich.

    Wind Farms increase social inequality.




    I ignored you because I didn't think anyone would ask a question that doesn't even make sense. You must think I'm really stupid to ask that, so I'm going to continue to ignore it.




    There are cheaper sources of power. Coal, gas, nuclear.

    You appear unapologetic that Wind Farms are unaffordable and enrich bankers, land owners and industrialists at the expense of the poor.

    You do know that renewables are only expensive because fossils are currently cheaper? It isnt in the interest of big energy providers, until now, to provide them. Now that renewables are being developed-something i hope to work in- the electricity prices will decrease.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I am in favour of any sort of alternative energy source. Personally, I think the best way forward for our planet is to move on from our current system onto something that is more practical. We will quite obviously run out of resources like coal or gas eventually, and we need to plan ahead.

    Even if there turns out to be no such thing as global warming, I still think it will be more beneficial for the planet and its inhabitants to stop the release of harmful chemicals into the ground and atmosphere and to come up with a way of harnessing energy from a renewable source.

    I think one of the most useful sources would be Earth's large expanse of ocean (tidal/wave energy), but this would possibly cause problems for the sea's wildlife. Wind farms & geothermal plants seem like the most sensible alternative for now. (Until we master nuclear fusion...)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    You do know that renewables are only expensive because fossils are currently cheaper?
    All energy has a price - you don't get it for free. This discussion is specifically all about how useless Wind Farms are, not other forms of renewable energy. Wind Farms are expensive, that is because they don't work, can never work due to the variable nature of the wind. They are a money-spinner for large landowners like the Crown Estate and other billionaires and large industrialists. Students, ordinary families, old people, nobody else gains.

    It isnt in the interest of big energy providers, until now, to provide them
    Why should they when old ladies and students can only afford to buy traditional sources of energy?


    Now that renewables are being developed-something i hope to work in- the electricity prices will decrease.
    You intend to work in "renewables" - therefore, isn't it a legitimate question to ask whether your views on this subject are financially compromised? You're surely going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Wind Farms because you want to make money out of the status quo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    I am in favour of any sort of alternative energy source. Personally, I think the best way forward for our planet is to move on from our current system onto something that is more practical.
    Coal, nuclear and gas is practical. Wind Farms are not. They are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, don't provide any electricity. They wouldn't exist without a taxpayer funded 2/3s revenue subsidy. You could not design a more impractical form of electricity generation.

    We will quite obviously run out of resources like coal or gas eventually, and we need to plan ahead.
    We don't need to plan ahead for hundreds of years. We need to plan ahead for the next 10 years. If we don't, we won't have any electricity.


    Even if there turns out to be no such thing as global warming, I still think it will be more beneficial for the planet and its inhabitants to stop the release of harmful chemicals into the ground and atmosphere and to come up with a way of harnessing energy from a renewable source.
    This discussion is not about renewables. It is about Wind Farms being useless. If you want to promote another renewable source of energy that actually works - I'll join you. Wind Farms don't work, they are a scam to enrich industrialists, bankers and large land owners. That's all. Renewables = good. Wind Farms = useless.

    I think one of the most useful sources would be Earth's large expanse of ocean (tidal/wave energy), but this would possibly cause problems for the sea's wildlife. Wind farms & geothermal plants seem like the most sensible alternative for now. (Until we master nuclear fusion...)
    Let's discuss Wind Farms specifically. They are useless. I am in favour of renewable energy but Wind Farms are an obvious exception to the rule because they don't work, can never work due to the nature of the wind (it doesn't always blow, you know). The Wind Farm idea is a scam that enriches the rich.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    All energy has a price - you don't get it for free. This discussion is specifically all about how useless Wind Farms are, not other forms of renewable energy. Wind Farms are expensive, that is because they don't work, can never work due to the variable nature of the wind. They are a money-spinner for large landowners like the Crown Estate and other billionaires and large industrialists. Students, ordinary families, old people, nobody else gains.

    Your concern about rich folk is fair enough depending on your views i suppose, but it is only with large investment that renewables are going to work. Wind farms and solar panels may seem variable, but new technologies, such as steam circuits and compressed air tanks are making this less of a problem. You can also use the energy to pump water upwards in a HEP system. The trick is to link up multiple sources to iron out the variations.


    Why should they when old ladies and students can only afford to buy traditional sources of energy?

    Because those energies are cheaper due to economies of scale; they are the easiest to produce, so for now they are the most exploited. In time, as renewable use is scaled up, energy will get cheaper, until a point whereby the only cost will be mark-up and maintenance etc. Renewables will enable oil production to be diverted to other uses and reduced use, and will make energy supplies more constant, and will eventually have a positive effect on reduction of inflation, good for "old ladies and students".




    You intend to work in "renewables" - therefore, isn't it a legitimate question to ask whether your views on this subject are financially compromised? You're surely going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Wind Farms because you want to make money out of the status quo.

    Im not going to lie, it is an enticing field for me. The money is good, but it is more about the excitement of knowing a lot about it and its potential benefits- i have found myself shouting at the tv whenever politicians spew their ill-informed "opinions" on energy! :cool:
    See Above.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They wouldn't exist without a taxpayer funded 2/3s revenue subsidy.
    The main subsidy (The RO) is not taxpayer or government funded. It does not specific wind turbines as the source it merely states that a certain percentage of GB's electricity comes from renewable sources. The RO is flawed in several ways but that is another discussion (for which I could forward my essay on it if you so wish).



    We don't need to plan ahead for hundreds of years. We need to plan ahead for the next 10 years. If we don't, we won't have any electricity.
    10 years is an extremely short time period for building and replacing infrastructure we should really be looking at time scales of 30 years +. But I absolutely agree with you in the sense that the lights may go out if we cannot secure imports in the next 10 years.

    And I mean it's not as if much has happened in the last 10 years, nothing like UK oil production dropping by 1/2 ...




    or that gas production has done exactly the same thing



    so that we went from being at least self sufficient to a massive importer of energy



    or that Chinese coal consumption has over doubled in the same 10 years making up near enough 50% of the worlds coal consumption..




    And as I mentioned earlier about cost, one of the primary aims of the subsidy is to drive down the price of the energy produced as the technology is developed, this has worked and will continue to work in the same way mp3 player or dvds or LCD tvs started of extremely expensive but continue to drop in price. 'Big Oil' (not quite as big as people think) were and still are notorious for receiving tax breaks or incentives to develop and operate facilities, why not allow a competitor technology to receive this same 'subsidy'. As I mentioned earlier the subsidy can also be to incorporate externalities such as pollution which are not included in the price of oil, gas or coal.

    And if the UK was more forward in promoting community owned co-operative wind farms (like are present in great number on the continent) then many more local (rural) people could benefit financially from having a wind farm near them and investing relatively small (£1000+) amounts of money in them.





    Richiboi, are you studying/planning on Renewables? (Current 3rd year UG) here)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by initiation)
    Richiboi, are you studying/planning on Renewables? (Current 3rd year UG) here)

    Hi

    Im currently doing a Civil Engineering degree, but i certainly hope to study modules on renewable/nuclear energy next year. Are you studying it? I would certainly benefit from advice on how to get into it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by initiation)
    The main subsidy (The RO) is not taxpayer or government funded. It does not specific wind turbines as the source it merely states that a certain percentage of GB's electricity comes from renewable sources. The RO is flawed in several ways but that is another discussion (for which I could forward my essay on it if you so wish).
    It's not another discussion. It's this discussion. Wind Farms are useless. They should not get a subsidy amounting to £1 billion every year.

    And as I mentioned earlier about cost, one of the primary aims of the subsidy is to drive down the price of the energy produced as the technology is developed, this has worked and will continue to work in the same way mp3 player or dvds or LCD tvs started of extremely expensive but continue to drop in price.
    No technology will enable Wind Farms to become profitable. It's a scam from the beginning, it just doesn't work, will never work, and is not intended to work. It's a scam. It's like perpetual energy machine... it can't work, will never work, stop promoting a stupid con that is killing people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    It's not another discussion. It's this discussion. Wind Farms are useless. They should not get a subsidy amounting to £1 billion every year.



    No technology will enable Wind Farms to become profitable. It's a scam from the beginning, it just doesn't work, will never work, and is not intended to work. It's a scam. It's like perpetual energy machine... it can't work, will never work, stop promoting a stupid con that is killing people.
    They will work. I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but there are facts you are neglecting. If such sources are connected to a national grid, the variations can be ironed out. They can be used to pump water up hills to be used in hydro-power, can be used at night. You're right that they arent a complete solution, but they can form part of an energy network.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    They will work.
    Care to explain how they will work when the wind doesn't blow? I'm interested. This is going to be good.


    I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but there are facts you are neglecting. If such sources are connected to a national grid, the variations can be ironed out.
    Not using Wind Farms they can't - they are useless. Might as well put the money into a product that can produce affordable electricity for the mass market without any subsidy.

    They can be used to pump water up hills to be used in hydro-power, can be used at night. You're right that they arent a complete solution, but they can form part of an energy network.
    Wind Farms aren't used to pump water up hills. Nobody could object to the odd one or two wind turbines strategically placed... but, equally, nobody who isn't milking the system would suggest that Wind Farms are anything but expensive waste of money which don't produce any electricity at all when its cold, and then blow up when the wind blows too hard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's not another discussion. It's this discussion. Wind Farms are useless.
    Not that I am trying to dodge the issue but it is, where in the original discussion did you wish to discuss the limitations of the existing Renewables Obligation Scheme? All I saw was a post containing information regarding how you thought wind power is a poor generator of electricity. The Renewables Obligation Scheme is not designed specifically for promoting wind farms, but it does favour at present wind farms because of market forces meaning wind farms are one of the cheapest sources. And before you refute this with 'oh no they are not' can I point you towards this report (well extract of) by Parsons Brinckerhoff - hardly an irrelevant independent engineering company - showing how onshore wind is the second cheapest source of electricity per kWh in their report after CCGT.

    They should not get a subsidy amounting to £1 billion every year.
    Oh stop sensationalising, read the article and £1 billion a year is the total amount to all Renewables under the RO, are you saying that you would not support the RO for hydroelectric, landfill gas or infact any other renewable project?

    Care to explain how they will work when the wind doesn't blow? I'm interested. This is going to be good.
    Electricity storage, interconnections with other European (or possibly further abroad) nations, demand side management, a wide scope of renewable generation technologies and in my opinion a solid nuclear base load to name the predominant solutions.

    Not using Wind Farms they can't - they are useless.
    Can't? The grid is resilient as as I quoted earlier the National Grid has done serious studies into the effect of wind power on the grid and found it to be perfectly feasible to absorb massive amounts of generation.

    If you wish to refute these findings you may wish to contact the National Grid directly and present to them evidence as to why you think it can not be accomplished.


    Wind Farms aren't used to pump water up hills.
    Again as I said earlier, they are and will continue to be used as long as pump storage plants are in operation. Once in the grid there is no difference between coal derived electricity or wind derived.

    Nobody could object to the odd one or two wind turbines strategically placed...
    So at massive cost (economies of scale not in your favour) you intend to build a few odd turbines.

    and then blow up when the wind blows too hard.
    I presume you are referring to this famous incident, of course there have been not even 1/2 a dozen recorded incidents like this world wide. Out of 160,000 MW installed capacity I wouldn't call that a regular characteristic.

    No technology will enable Wind Farms to become profitable. It's a scam from the beginning, it just doesn't work, will never work, and is not intended to work. It's a scam. It's like perpetual energy machine... it can't work, will never work,
    You seem very certain that wind farms will fail no matter what happens also, comparing wind turbines to a physical impossibility is not reflecting well on you and your argument.


    stop promoting a stupid con that is killing people.
    Ahh an argumentum ad hominem.

    Have a good day.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by initiation)
    Not that I am trying to dodge the issue but it is, where in the original discussion did you wish to discuss the limitations of the existing Renewables Obligation Scheme? All I saw was a post containing information regarding how you thought wind power is a poor generator of electricity. The Renewables Obligation Scheme is not designed specifically for promoting wind farms, but it does favour at present wind farms because of market forces meaning wind farms are one of the cheapest sources.
    Wind Farms are useless. The concept fails. End support for Wind Farms.

    And before you refute this with 'oh no they are not' can I point you towards this report (well extract of) by Parsons Brinckerhoff - hardly an irrelevant independent engineering company - showing how onshore wind is the second cheapest source of electricity per kWh in their report after CCGT.
    And when the wind doesn't blow, you don't have any electricity whatsoever. Wind Farms fail.

    Also, I can make pissing into a can* the cheapest source of energy generation per kWh (if the can is attached to a water wheel dynamo). That doesn't make it cheap, or practical, on a large scale, does it? You'd need a larger wheel and lots more people to piss onto it to generate the cheap electricity. Setting all that up is impractical and expensive.

    Likewise, the infrastructure for Wind Farms is hugely expensive to build and then maintain. All turbines aren't even expected to pay for themselves in the subsidised electricity they produce over their expected lifespans. Off shore you have the additional problem of salt and access.

    *That's what's happening to the public's money when it goes into Wind Farm.


    Oh stop sensationalising, read the article and £1 billion a year is the total amount to all Renewables under the RO, are you saying that you would not support the RO for hydroelectric, landfill gas or infact any other renewable project?
    No money should be going to Wind Farms at all. They are useless.

    Electricity storage, interconnections with other European (or possibly further abroad) nations, demand side management, a wide scope of renewable generation technologies and in my opinion a solid nuclear base load to name the predominant solutions.
    Wind Farms aren't needed.

    Can't? The grid is resilient as as I quoted earlier the National Grid has done serious studies into the effect of wind power on the grid and found it to be perfectly feasible to absorb massive amounts of generation.

    If you wish to refute these findings you may wish to contact the National Grid directly and present to them evidence as to why you think it can not be accomplished.
    Define "massive amounts of generation". What we know from Denmark is there are huge, insurmountable problems once you get too many Wind Farms hooked up to the grid, which limits their use.

    Wind Farms are a white elephant technology that are expensive to build, maintain and dismantle and only produce their government subsidised electricity in Goldilocks Weather when it doesn't blow too hard or too softly.


    Again as I said earlier, they are and will continue to be used as long as pump storage plants are in operation. Once in the grid there is no difference between coal derived electricity or wind derived.


    So at massive cost (economies of scale not in your favour) you intend to build a few odd turbines.
    Yes there is. Wind derived electricity varies with the wind, the amount of it is unpredictable. Wind Farms mean power cuts.

    I presume you are referring to this famous incident, of course there have been not even 1/2 a dozen recorded incidents like this world wide. Out of 160,000 MW installed capacity I wouldn't call that a regular characteristic.

    You seem very certain that wind farms will fail no matter what happens also, comparing wind turbines to a physical impossibility is not reflecting well on you and your argument.
    If you are so confident, give us back our subsidy and refuse all public monies invested in Wind Farm development.

    There wouldn't be any Wind Farms without the tax payer and government because they are useless. We all know this. You have other ideas.


    Ahh an argumentum ad hominem.

    Have a good day.
    Pushing up the cost of electricity is killing old people.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.