Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    BBC calls it "EU funds" but it is £18 million of tax payer's money - pocket money we gave to the EU bureaucrats to play with. Millions of it will go to now unpopular Wind Farms.

    Enterprise Minister Jim Mather said there was the potential to create more than 60 jobs from the investment.
    60, SIXTY F-KING jobs? (£300,000 per job). Obscene waste of money.

    It's robbery not investment.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-12108095
    Offline

    0
    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. 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.
    After nuclear, according to the graph, which is for some reason excluded from the RO scheme even though the stated aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.

    I agree with you on everything except the intermittency problems, which are, I think, fatal. Almost every 'serious' study simply ignores them by treating only cases of wind penetration that are less than the current baseload excess. But what's the point of that? We will either have to stop carbon neutral generation at about 10%, which is so small as to be irrelevant, or we will have to replace the baseload with something else (probably nuclear) that is carbon neutral - meaning that the wind turbines will provide absolutely no additional benefit.
    • Offline

      2
      I agree that wind farms are awful, from what I know about them. I know less about other sources of renewable energy, but I do know that presently we get 3% of our energy from renewable sources. This requires £1bn a year in subsidies and adds around £80 per year to annual energy bills. We have a target of getting 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020, to do this would make our energy bills hundreds of pounds more expensive. People definitely need to be aware of this if they support renewable energy.

      Personally I'm very worried that we're about to have an energy crisis because the green lobby has stopped us from renewing our nuclear power plants. They take a long time to get running, so we're now going to have to depend on energy from other countries. I know there are bad sides to nuclear power, but I think its the best option for us right now.

      Being an island it seems logical to me that tidal power could be fairly effective, I really don't know much about it. But wind turbines are a complete disaster.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by CandyFlipper)
      I agree that wind farms are awful, from what I know about them. I know less about other sources of renewable energy, but I do know that presently we get 3% of our energy from renewable sources. This requires £1bn a year in subsidies and adds around £80 per year to annual energy bills. We have a target of getting 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020, to do this would make our energy bills hundreds of pounds more expensive. People definitely need to be aware of this if they support renewable energy.
      I've said it several times already, but it keeps getting ignored, so I'll write it again:

      Of course other energy sources are more expensive than coal, oil and gas. Why do you think energy companies choose to use them up first? Because they are the cheapest. Whatever other energy source we move to it will be more expensive than what we currently have - this is expected.

      I'm also not convinced that wind power is any more expensive than nuclear, given the massive costs (not just financial) of decommissioning the things. The cost argument isn't a strong one. The intermittancy argument is, and is a reason why we might not be able to go above 10% with renewables (although things like pumped-store hydro help to get around this)

      (Original post by Hilux)
      I agree with you on everything except the intermittency problems, which are, I think, fatal. Almost every 'serious' study simply ignores them by treating only cases of wind penetration that are less than the current baseload excess. But what's the point of that? We will either have to stop carbon neutral generation at about 10%, which is so small as to be irrelevant, or we will have to replace the baseload with something else (probably nuclear) that is carbon neutral - meaning that the wind turbines will provide absolutely no additional benefit.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway:

      (Original post by M_E_X)
      Of course other energy sources are more expensive than coal, oil and gas. Why do you think energy companies choose to use them up first? Because they are the cheapest. Whatever other energy source we move to it will be more expensive than what we currently have - this is expected.
      But wind power isn't necessarily the cheapest. It's the cheapest renewable that is commonly believed to be scalable (I'm not convinced it actually is), but CCS and nuclear are excluded from the subsidy schemes despite providing just as good CO2 mitigation.

      I'm also not convinced that wind power is any more expensive than nuclear, given the massive costs (not just financial) of decommissioning the things. The cost argument isn't a strong one. The intermittancy argument is, and is a reason why we might not be able to go above 10% with renewables (although things like pumped-store hydro help to get around this)
      Intermittency essentially is a cost issue. That is, you have to add the cost of the pumped storage, electric car batteries, gas-fired reserve power stations (the cheapest and in reality most likely option) to the cost of the wind turbines. And at that point it stops being +10-20% premium on conventional fossil fuels, becoming rather a >100% premium.
      • Offline

        2
        (Original post by twl)
        Does anyone know of a politician who is going to stand up and demand this?
        Roher Helmer MEP is into the issue of climate change and renewable energy from a very sceptical angle. I'm not actually sure about my position on climate change, and I don't know how you feel about it, but maybe you'd like him.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by mathperson)
        I will start worrying about 'global warming' when the government stop trying to push a stanstead expansion, and when UEA professors stop manipulating data.
        thanks to people who +rep this comment, well done, you live in the real world and can use your eyes.

        To the people who -rep it, open your eyes, and stop eating organic cereal, it clearly isn't doing you any good.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        Why can't we store the energy?
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by M_E_X)
        I've said it several times already, but it keeps getting ignored, so I'll write it again:

        Of course other energy sources are more expensive than coal, oil and gas. Why do you think energy companies choose to use them up first? Because they are the cheapest. Whatever other energy source we move to it will be more expensive than what we currently have - this is expected.
        The nuclear power lobby don't want huge public subsidies -_- They just want the right to build power plants... on that basis alone, I would prefer a nuclear power plant.

        There are many decent forms of energy generation but wind power is not one of them. In Britain, solar power isn't particuarly brilliant either...

        We should be looking at introducing waste incineration technology as well as Anaerobic digestion. We should be looking to encourage energy companies to build thorium based nuclear power plants as well. We should also be removing funding from the nonsensical climate change lobby and instead putting that into the research of alternative energies.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by twl)
        My objection is not to the one or two turbines dotted about - stick a rotar on your own house if you want (as long as I don't have to pay for it) - but to the industrial scale electricity bill payer subsidised Wind Farms which go to the grid. As the link showed you Wind Farms are useless. Individual turbines may be suitable for particular circumstances but these do not include mass generation for factories, towns and cities.
        You're wrong. I build wind farms for a living - In fact I'm about to become engaged in managing the construction of a 345MW farm in Washington State. They're not useless at all. Our turbines produce 2.3MW of power each - that's enough to power 800 houses. They are also 97% reliable.

        Wind farms have their limitations. The problem isn't with wind technology or farms. It's with British politicians who plan to build 25,000 of them to completely replace all the defunct coal and nuclear stations that will shortly be closing. Wind isn't a suitable technology to provide all the power the UK needs. But blame your politicians for not having a joined up energy policy.

        You wouldn't say a bicycle is crap because it doesn't do 120mph. It's all about fitness for purpose. Wind and other renewables can supplement and add to a portfolio of energy sources - nobody said it was an answer to Britain's decades-long neglect of its entire energy infrastructure.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Installation)
        Why can't we store the energy?
        Becuase the technology doesn't exist. A wind turbine is either spinning and generating energy or it isn't. There's no bank of batteries storing all the excess energy created on windy days for release on windless days.

        But that's true of every other form of generation - a gas or gas/steam turbine configuration is either producing or it isn't.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        It's true, wind farms a crap. Solar panels are where it's at.

        I heard it from a Civ Eng professor that specialises in wind engineering before you knock me, if you feel you know more than him go ahead and bring up the counter argument.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Howard)
        You're wrong. I build wind farms for a living - In fact I'm about to become engaged in managing the construction of a 345MW farm in Washington State. They're not useless at all. Our turbines produce 2.3MW of power each - that's enough to power 800 houses. They are also 97% reliable.

        Wind farms have their limitations. The problem isn't with wind technology or farms. It's with British politicians who plan to build 25,000 of them to completely replace all the defunct coal and nuclear stations that will shortly be closing. Wind isn't a suitable technology to provide all the power the UK needs. But blame your politicians for not having a joined up energy policy.

        You wouldn't say a bicycle is crap because it doesn't do 120mph. It's all about fitness for purpose. Wind and other renewables can supplement and add to a portfolio of energy sources - nobody said it was an answer to Britain's decades-long neglect of its entire energy infrastructure.
        They produce energy sure, but 2.3 MW isn't really that much for what I presume is a rather large wind turbine.

        Out of curiosity;

        How big is the site your using?
        How close can Wind Turbines be placed before they have a negative impact on each other (turbulence)?
        What is the diameter of the turbine?
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
        They produce energy sure, but 2.3 MW isn't really that much for what I presume is a rather large wind turbine.

        Out of curiosity;

        How big is the site your using?
        How close can Wind Turbines be placed before they have a negative impact on each other (turbulence)?
        What is the diameter of the turbine?
        2.3MW is a fairly large unit for a land based turbine - the larger ones are normally built offshore - and most manufacturers still produce 1MW machines.

        The site I am building on has a footprint of about 14 miles by 7 miles. Not sure about how close they can be bunched together as a result of turbulance tbh.

        Diameter is 101m, height of hub is 80m
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Howard)
        2.3MW is a fairly large unit for a land based turbine - the larger ones are normally built offshore - and most manufacturers still produce 1MW machines.

        The site I am building on has a footprint of about 14 miles by 7 miles. Not sure about how close they can be bunched together as a result of turbulance tbh.

        Diameter is 101m, height of hub is 80m
        (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
        They produce energy sure, but 2.3 MW isn't really that much for what I presume is a rather large wind turbine.

        Out of curiosity;

        How big is the site your using?
        How close can Wind Turbines be placed before they have a negative impact on each other (turbulence)?
        What is the diameter of the turbine?

        From memory, there are 7.5MW turbines off Fife which have 127m blade diameter. That is only from memory so could be way off.

        Obviously power generated goes as r^2, as it is the area swept out by the blades.

        You need to space the turbines at least 5 blade radii apart, if you are putting them in a line across the prevailing wind. If there is no clearly defined prevailing wind direction they need to be further apart.


        The good thing is there is lots of space out at sea where we can put them, they don't have to be land based. This has extra costs, yes, but as mentioned many times (without reply), generating power past coal/oil/gas is going to be expensive. (nuclear is massively expensive, for example).
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by M_E_X)
        From memory, there are 7.5MW turbines off Fife which have 127m blade diameter. That is only from memory so could be way off.

        Obviously power generated goes as r^2, as it is the area swept out by the blades.

        You need to space the turbines at least 5 blade radii apart, if you are putting them in a line across the prevailing wind. If there is no clearly defined prevailing wind direction they need to be further apart.


        The good thing is there is lots of space out at sea where we can put them, they don't have to be land based. This has extra costs, yes, but as mentioned many times (without reply), generating power past coal/oil/gas is going to be expensive. (nuclear is massively expensive, for example).
        7.5MW is enormous! I think they are made by a company called Clipper.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Howard)
        7.5MW is enormous! I think they are made by a company called Clipper.
        A typical capacity factor is 30%, so it's like a 2.3MW power source generating all the time, none stop. It's quite a lot, yeah!
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Howard)
        2.3MW is a fairly large unit for a land based turbine - the larger ones are normally built offshore - and most manufacturers still produce 1MW machines.

        The site I am building on has a footprint of about 14 miles by 7 miles. Not sure about how close they can be bunched together as a result of turbulance tbh.

        Diameter is 101m, height of hub is 80m
        This just seems like a lot of land to me for relatively low power output, a meter cubed solar panel can be expected to produce about 200W, on a sunny day at noon it can be 600W. I do not know the life expectancy of a wind turbine but a solar panel can be expected to last at least 20 years before it drops below 80 efficiency. I also presume to start up cost will be higher with the solar panels but it just seems you can get so much more energy from the panels for a given land area.

        Feel free to poke holes in this as I don't know what the maintenance for either is like and nor do I know many other factors to do with them.

        (Original post by M_E_X)
        From memory, there are 7.5MW turbines off Fife which have 127m blade diameter. That is only from memory so could be way off.

        Obviously power generated goes as r^2, as it is the area swept out by the blades.

        You need to space the turbines at least 5 blade radii apart, if you are putting them in a line across the prevailing wind. If there is no clearly defined prevailing wind direction they need to be further apart.


        The good thing is there is lots of space out at sea where we can put them, they don't have to be land based. This has extra costs, yes, but as mentioned many times (without reply), generating power past coal/oil/gas is going to be expensive. (nuclear is massively expensive, for example).
        From everything I've heard Nuclear isn't that bad, I've spoken to Nick Cooper who is a Technical Director of Atkins on several occasions. He is currently working with Atkins' nuclear department and he says it's like a dream power when used correctly both in terms of efficiency (cost to mine, maintain and dispose of) and in terms of safety. Though that isn't really what we're talking about so it doesn't matter.

        There is a lot of space out at sea and as you said costs have been mentions but to me it seems, from everything I've heard (and yes my professor has had too much influence on my opinions to remain unbiased) that wind power really isn't that great. He says it is a somewhat viable option but in the majority of cases, especially on smaller scales that solar is far more efficient in set up cost and area used.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
        From everything I've heard Nuclear isn't that bad, I've spoken to Nick Cooper who is a Technical Director of Atkins on several occasions. He is currently working with Atkins' nuclear department and he says it's like a dream power when used correctly both in terms of efficiency (cost to mine, maintain and dispose of) and in terms of safety. Though that isn't really what we're talking about so it doesn't matter.

        There is a lot of space out at sea and as you said costs have been mentions but to me it seems, from everything I've heard (and yes my professor has had too much influence on my opinions to remain unbiased) that wind power really isn't that great. He says it is a somewhat viable option but in the majority of cases, especially on smaller scales that solar is far more efficient in set up cost and area used.
        The viability of nuclear power is really relevant to this discussion: the more viable nuclear is, the less wind power becomes worth considering.


        I don't know how you can describe disposing the waste of nuclear power as "a dream"? I don't know much about wind vs solar Both suffer from the same problems though, the intermittancy. As we are, probably the total contribution from wind + solar can't exceed 10% or so of our total needs. So in a way it doesn't really matter which one we choose, it's where we get the other 90% from that's important!
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by M_E_X)
        The viability of nuclear power is really relevant to this discussion: the more viable nuclear is, the less wind power becomes worth considering.


        I don't know how you can describe disposing the waste of nuclear power as "a dream"? I don't know much about wind vs solar Both suffer from the same problems though, the intermittancy. As we are, probably the total contribution from wind + solar can't exceed 10% or so of our total needs. So in a way it doesn't really matter which one we choose, it's where we get the other 90% from that's important!
        Oh it is not a dream but as a package, relative to what we have at the moment he said it was fantastic. To me it seems the disposal is one of the big cons but seems to be out weighed by the pros of nuclear power. I've been told by several people (not Nick Cooper) that disposal can be quite easy and there isn't much wrong with burying it in an environment with minimal earth movement such as granite rich Scotland.
       
       
       
    • 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
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      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.