Consumers beware the costly spin of wind turbines [Archive]

Green_not_greed

29-Mar-09, 21:08

Rheghead

29-Mar-09, 22:12

Total non-story in my opinion, it has all been reported before and I've never heard of a business venture that wasn't in it for the money.:lol:

I read last week in another news article that wind farms cost £2 billion per gigawatt but nuclear costs £3 billion per gigawatt with even greater subsidies than the RO. So that puts things into perspective.

Mind you, that Jonathan Leake has done some really wacky news stories over the years so I suppose he can be excused because of his usual reporting style and genre.

ywindythesecond

29-Mar-09, 22:32

[quote=Rheghead;525760]Total non-story in my opinion, it has all been reported before and I've never heard of a business venture that wasn't in it for the money.:lol:

I read last week in another news article that wind farms cost £2 billion per gigawatt but nuclear costs £3 billion per gigawatt with even greater subsidies than the RO. So that puts things into perspective.

Mind you, that Jonathan Leake has done some really wacky news stories over the years so I suppose he can be excused because of his usual reporting style and genre.[/quote

Can you give us link to the quote about nuclear costing £3 Billion per GW please, and tell us where the Nuclear subsidies come from.

Rheghead

30-Mar-09, 02:00

Can you give us link to the quote about nuclear costing £3 Billion per GW please, and tell us where the Nuclear subsidies come from.

I read a lot of news stories and I rarely save them into favorites without a good reason to do so. But just a casual google search can reap a website such as

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/11/How-Much-Will-New-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Cost/

A good start for your research would be to find out the cost of the new reactor type that has been earmarked for the next generation etc and then working out a cost per GW. I think I posted a comprehensive post about the costs of nuclear energy last year which didn't get much of a response.

Regarding nuclear subsidies, the Government has stipulated a cap on what the nuclear industry will be responsible for its own nuclear waste. This amounts to a subsidy to the nuclear industry. Public expenditure on just the current nuclear waste is expected to be in excess of £70 billion. The cost to dispose of the next round of nuclear waste will be similiar at tomorrow's prices if not more as options to deal with it are dwindling rapidly. Nuclear waste disposal is the major cost of the nuclear energy industry, that is why it isn't being tackled head-on.

Green_not_greed

30-Mar-09, 08:21

Total non-story in my opinion, it has all been reported before and I've never heard of a business venture that wasn't in it for the money.:lol:.

So you agree that wind farms are all about money - that's good.

This has nothing to do with nuclear - that is a separate debate.

Stefan

30-Mar-09, 10:00

Of course wind farms are all about money. Which company can afford to put up 50 wind turbines to make a loss ????

Bobinovich

30-Mar-09, 10:33

Rheghead

30-Mar-09, 13:31

Of course wind farms are all about money. Which company can afford to put up 50 wind turbines to make a loss ????

Which company can afford to put up 12 nuclear power plants and make a loss??????:confused

The bottom line is that all energy is going to be more expensive and it will be the consumers that eventually pay except in the case of nuclear when taxpayers will pay.

Rheghead

30-Mar-09, 13:34

But from what I can see, based on that article, the developers would still make money on their original investment simply from the electricity returns. However the Roc system appears to be the golden carrot being dangled and simply adds a sweetener to entice them - in otherwords it's just pure greed...

I would agree with you if the developers put in place the RO system but it wasn't, it was an elected government (which was only electable because of Scottish voters btw) that put forward the RO. Developers aren't greedy, they are just simply not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

oldmarine

30-Mar-09, 21:07

Excellent article in todays Sunday Times. At long last it is admitted that developers are solely in it for the money - and no consideration of "saving the planet". Also given Ed Millibands purile comments, the Government are pushing to meet their targets without considering anything else. Especially people.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5992864.ece?Submitted=true

Too many appear to have put their careers on the line to be deterred by the real facts behind wind power. Its about time that the planet was put before monetary returns.

There are many windfarms in California, USA. There are some here in Arizona who want to do the same thing here. I must admit that when I drive in California the windfarms don't help the view. Can't speak for the people who benefit from the electricity generated by teh windfarms.

percy toboggan

30-Mar-09, 22:34

Interesting: yesterday I drove to Cumbria for a look see at some villages and town I did not know. With a view, perhaps to one day settling their for my dotage.
Leaving MAryport and driving towards Workington there was a plethora of these wind turbines. In fairly close proximity to factories and houses. They looked terribly incongruous. Offshore a further huge bank of the things were just visible - acceptable I suppose but the ones by the roadside were an affront. Some were spinning, some not. When you get a few together at different stages of a rotation I find the effect disconcerting. They also throw shadows across road.

The village of Flimby is totally dominated by these things and I consider them a blight, In the right setting they ar eokay, and they can play a small part in supplying our energy needs however they have no place near homes and roads in my most humble of opinions.

Metalattakk

31-Mar-09, 02:52

it was an elected government (which was only electable because of Scottish voters btw)

Yeah, that's right. No one in England voted Labour, eh? You simply can't try to lay the blame at the door of the Scottish voters, however insidiously you lay your trap.

Green_not_greed

31-Mar-09, 08:21

In the right setting they ar eokay, and they can play a small part in supplying our energy needs however they have no place near homes and roads in my most humble of opinions.

I completely agree.

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 08:58

In the right setting they ar eokay, and they can play a small part in supplying our energy needs however they have no place near homes and roads in my most humble of opinions.

Don't agree with that. I think they are ok but should be built next to other eyesores or motorways. They can play a large part in our energy supply and hopefully one day in the future solar and wind will be the only energy supply we have. However, there should be a strict limit on how many can be built in any Parish and the small ones that are put up should be banned.
Most certainly most or all commercial wind turbines should be off shore where much bigger ones could be built and they wouldn't annoy people as much.

Green_not_greed

31-Mar-09, 11:29

.....hopefully one day in the future solar and wind will be the only energy supply we have.

So what would happen on a dull, windless day?????

.....However, there should be a strict limit on how many can be built in any Parish.......... Most certainly most or all commercial wind turbines should be off shore where much bigger ones could be built and they wouldn't annoy people as much.

Agreed!

bekisman

31-Mar-09, 11:36

Want to know more?: http://www.countryguardian.net/ (http://www.countryguardian.net/) gives good information. (my own view is not to sit at that picnic table before Bettyhill on the A836 and see an industrial site smack bang full in my face) We need to go Nuclear. (Feb 6 2009): "Sweden to swop green plan for nuclear plants - Nuclear reactors are to be built in Sweden for the first time in nearly 30 years after the Government decided to abandon a decades-old commitment to phase out the power source. Sweden joins a list of EU countries that have chosen nuclear energy under pressure to diversify from fossil fuels and meet tough climate-change targets for cutting CO2 emissions." France has ordered its 61st nuclear generator and Finland is building the largest reactor in the world, which is expected to open in 2011 (Wonder where the Uranium is coming from some may ask - I think 'Real scientists' know the answer) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5671753.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5671753.ece)

All nice an green? yeah right, in my own opinion they are an eyesore, especially in such beautiful areas as the Highlands, some people just do not have an aesthetic outlook on life, going hell for leather for these industrial sites dotted in beautiful unspoilt places. Existing sites for nuclear power stations aint' in these locations. Last week came back up from England and many times the eye is caught by the flickering annoyance of turbine blades catching the sun; usually in scenic spots, one right next the M6 in Cumbria especially. But then no matter, it's pouring 'our' money into the Developers and land owners pockets..

Stick 'em in the sea if we have to have 'em.

MadPict

31-Mar-09, 11:42

...it was an elected government (which was only electable because of Scottish voters btw) that put forward the RO.

I won't be at all surprised if some prominent Labour MPs get jobs in the wind energy business as "advisers" or some other title. I wonder how many will be retiring from politics to a grandiose 'little' place in the country which will have a chuffing great wind farm on the doorstep?

But not before they have lined their pockets through their snouts-in-the-trough attitude towards their allowances....

The John Lewis list - never knowingly underclaimed....

percy toboggan

31-Mar-09, 13:41

Don't agree with that. I think they are ok but should be built next to other eyesores or motorways. They can play a large part in our energy supply and hopefully one day in the future solar and wind will be the only energy supply we have. However, there should be a strict limit on how many can be built in any Parish and the small ones that are put up should be banned.
Most certainly most or all commercial wind turbines should be off shore where much bigger ones could be built and they wouldn't annoy people as much.

these things tend to catch the eye Stefan. They have a semi-hypnotic effect and can be distracting, especially when turning in an unsynchronised manner, and they can cast long shadows. They have no place near motorways in my opinion. They would provide an unecessary distraction for the easily affected - ie: yer below average amateur drivers, who are legion in number.

MadPict

31-Mar-09, 13:52

That's the "flicker" effect for you Percy - imagine living with that 24/7/365 with no option other than perhaps moving home and losing money in having to sell a blighted property.....

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 13:55

these things tend to catch the eye Stefan. They have a semi-hypnotic effect and can be distracting, especially when turning in an unsynchronised manner, and they can cast long shadows. They have no place near motorways in my opinion. They would provide an unecessary distraction for the easily affected - ie: yer below average amateur drivers, who are legion in number.

There are several next to the motorway in either France or Belgium (not sure, haven't driven past in a while) but they were not distracting whatsoever. They are that high and turn that slow that all I notice is the green bottom part in the field. Hardly though....

So what would happen on a dull, windless day?????

I usually store mine in batteries....

MadPict

31-Mar-09, 14:01

I usually store mine in batteries....

Hmmm, and producing batteries is such a green and carbon neutral industry...

All that lead and acid.......

percy toboggan

31-Mar-09, 14:04

[quote=Stefan;526362]There are several next to the motorway in either France or Belgium (not sure, haven't driven past in a while) but they were not distracting whatsoever. They are that high and turn that slow that all I notice is the green bottom part in the field. Hardly though....

quote]

You are probably a good driver then. Yet still you gazed upward to ascertain height, and then glanced at green bottoms.

Rheghead

31-Mar-09, 14:14

(Wonder where the Uranium is coming from some may ask - I think 'Real scientists' know the answer)

Do you want to have a stab at a realistic answer?:confused

Conventional reserves are forcasted to last just 50 years at present consumption rates, if you double nuclear energy production then you surely must halve the forcast of conventional reserves.

OK, OK, fast breeding!! I hear everyone say. That is true but if you want to go down that route then it brings a whole load of its own problems re waste, reprocessing. The cost of energy via fast breeding will make the cost of renewables look very cheap indeed.

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 14:45

You are probably a good driver then. Yet still you gazed upward to ascertain height, and then glanced at green bottoms.

If we go down that route then houses shouldn't be next to roads, or factories, or any tall building and what about animals and people ?
I mean, is it safe to have young women walking next to roads on the pavement?
What about nice scenery? Planes?
Anything really that me or any other driver could glance at...:roll:

http://stefanpagel.com/pictures/turbinebottom.jpg

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 14:47

Hmmm, and producing batteries is such a green and carbon neutral industry...

All that lead and acid.......

I suppose you prefer uranium, do you ? :eek:

Green_not_greed

31-Mar-09, 15:51

I usually store mine in batteries....

OK for most small current needs but a bit demanding for higher power appliances. Until climate change turns Caithness into something like the south of France, we'll all still need something to run heating systems in the winter. And of course e' kettle.

Green_not_greed

31-Mar-09, 15:57

Do you want to have a stab at a realistic answer?:confused

Conventional reserves are forcasted to last just 50 years at present consumption rates, if you double nuclear energy production then you surely must halve the forcast of conventional reserves.

OK, OK, fast breeding!! I hear everyone say. That is true but if you want to go down that route then it brings a whole load of its own problems re waste, reprocessing. The cost of energy via fast breeding will make the cost of renewables look very cheap indeed.

Well here they are saying 85 years uranium supply and if thorium can be further developed as a co-fuel then "many centuries" of energy without CO2 production.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

Surely that's not to be ignored?

ranny_20

31-Mar-09, 16:08

wind turbines all the way.........they dont affect any of you lives so why not.........

ranny_20

31-Mar-09, 16:20

nothin wrong wi turbines. end of! creates job creates,sum power, doesnt look any worse than electric poles, u dont complain about them now do you?

wake up and smell the wind!!!!!

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 16:50

OK for most small current needs but a bit demanding for higher power appliances. Until climate change turns Caithness into something like the south of France, we'll all still need something to run heating systems in the winter. And of course e' kettle.

You can heat with wood.
What? Electric kettle? Haven't used one of those in years. Makes no sense at all if you can heat the water on the wood stove virtually for free.

bekisman

31-Mar-09, 18:29

Now that's an interesting idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7972865.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7972865.stm) (31st March) "The US National Ignition Facility is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion, a process that could offer abundant clean energy. "

Each

31-Mar-09, 18:39

I was doing research on solar panels the other day and one article noted that enough solar energy falls on the sahara in one day to supply hte entire worlds energy for a whole year.

Now, if we could only work out how to overcome the transmission losses....

Unfortunatley most the green energy generated in Caithness is just heating up the transmission lines on their way to london. More global warming - help.

If your going for green - youve got to generate close to the demand.

Stefan

31-Mar-09, 19:36

If your going for green - youve got to generate close to the demand.

Absolutely. That's why I'm going off grid...
Caithness is not actually that bad for solar power, but I don't think it would work commercially here.

Green_not_greed

31-Mar-09, 20:56

You can heat with wood.
What? Electric kettle? Haven't used one of those in years. Makes no sense at all if you can heat the water on the wood stove virtually for free.

I agree and an Aga would seem ideal. But are you suggesting everyone should use wood for heating? Wouldn't that mean a stove in every room - that's a kind of old fashioned approach! Gravity feed systems to circulate water from back boilers are not efficient - pumps are needed (especially for larger houses) and they need electricity!

And what is the effect if everyone used wood as their fuel? Its only sustainable up to a point. And it emits CO2!

All great theory stuff and perhaps feasible for several people/properties, but certainly not feasible for everyone.

Good luck with going off grid, by the way. I'd love to know how you get on.

Rheghead

31-Mar-09, 21:40

Well here they are saying 85 years uranium supply and if thorium can be further developed as a co-fuel then "many centuries" of energy without CO2 production.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

Surely that's not to be ignored?

50, 85 years? Who cares? It just demonstrates the finality in uranium resources. 50 or 85 years, so then what? Shouldn't we use the uranium wisely instead of bulk electricity generation? What will our grandchildren going to say if we used up all the easy to use uranium just to buy ourselves a smidgen of time in terms of climate change-friendly energy?

The many centuries of thorium is due to fast breeding. Like I said, you need the whole economics of energy to go through the roof to even justify the cost of fast breeding for commercial use. It would probably become justifiable in terms of cost if the anti-renewable lobby had their way. Thorium is OK for India which has the lion's share of the world's thorium reserves.

Rheghead

31-Mar-09, 21:46

TBH

31-Mar-09, 22:00

Excellent article in todays Sunday Times. At long last it is admitted that developers are solely in it for the money - and no consideration of "saving the planet".Did you believe otherwise?[lol][lol][lol]

Green_not_greed

01-Apr-09, 09:22

Shouldn't we use the uranium wisely instead of bulk electricity generation? What will our grandchildren going to say if we used up all the easy to use uranium just to buy ourselves a smidgen of time in terms of climate change-friendly energy?

For what? Nuclear weapons? Shielding? Bullet and shell tips? Vehicle armour? Can't think of many other current uses for it. Previously it was used for yellow colouring but that stopped after radioactivity was discovered.

To truly use uranium wisely would use it to produce CO2-free electricity. Standard thermal reactors only use a few percent of uranium fuel before refuelling, with the unused irradiated fuel going for long-term storage and eventual disposal. So surely the best use would be to maximise use of existing uranium? And that would mean either (1) increasing burn-up of existing fuels, (2) reprocessing the spent thermal reactor fuel to recover and reuse the uranium, (3) developing more efficient fuels (eg the uranium/thorium fuel mentioned earlier), or (4) using the uranium in more efficient, higher burn-up reactors, for example breeder reactors.

Stefan

01-Apr-09, 09:45

I agree and an Aga would seem ideal. But are you suggesting everyone should use wood for heating? Wouldn't that mean a stove in every room - that's a kind of old fashioned approach!

No, it would mean people would have to insulate their house properly. There is hardly a house in this country that has decent insulation levels.
Heating in bedrooms is not needed if the insulation and air tightness is right.

Gravity feed systems to circulate water from back boilers are not efficient - pumps are needed (especially for larger houses) and they need electricity!

There are systems about that don't use much energy. And the pump isn't on for long. Boiling a kettle sure uses much more energy than filling it.

And what is the effect if everyone used wood as their fuel? Its only sustainable up to a point. And it emits CO2!

As CO2 is absorbed as the wood grows it's classed as carbon neutral. In Caithness there is enough space to grow wood for everyone. Many people could grow their own and for friends and family.

All great theory stuff and perhaps feasible for several people/properties, but certainly not feasible for everyone.

Nothing is ever feasible for everyone.

Good luck with going off grid, by the way. I'd love to know how you get on.

Thanks. We go off grid every time we go on holiday and it works fine, but a 5 bed bungalow is a different level...

Rheghead

01-Apr-09, 16:57

For what?

For load-following, dispatchable low-carbon electricity generation, that way we can use uranium to balance the grid in tandem with a whole host of renewable energy generation and lengthen conventional reserves.

crayola

01-Apr-09, 18:19

For load-following, dispatchable low-carbon electricity generation, that way we can use uranium to balance the grid in tandem with a whole host of renewable energy generation and lengthen conventional reserves.Rheg, I know what all those words mean but I'm at a bit of a loss when you put them all together.

Could you explain what 'load-following dispatchable electricity low-carbon generation' means? I get the 'low-carbon' bit but I have to guess what 'load-following' means and I have no clue what 'dispatchable' electricity is. :confused

ywindythesecond

01-Apr-09, 18:34

Rheg, I know what all those words mean but I'm at a bit of a loss when you put them all together.

Could you explain what 'load-following dispatchable electricity low-carbon generation' means? I get the 'low-carbon' bit but I have to guess what 'load-following' means and I have no clue what 'dispatchable' electricity is. :confused

I can help with this (Sorry Crayola not GnG) Dispatchable just means you can provide it when it is needed. "Load-following" not so sure but presumably the electricity is dispatched when it is required to meet demand. I
It might be "low-carbon" to use nuclear to balance non-dispatchable wind but does it make any more sense to waste a nuclear resource to shore up windpower than it does to waste a fossil fuel one to shore up windpower?

crayola

01-Apr-09, 18:40

Are you sure that's what 'dispatchable' means in this context? I thought a relative disadvantage of nuclear was that its output couldn't be varied quickly in the same way the output of a gas or coal fired station can.

Your explanation sounds more like 'load-following' to me although I admit you never can tell with jargon in an unfamiliar environment. :confused

Rheghead

01-Apr-09, 18:55

Load-following means that a power plant can vary its output according to what us the consumers are demanding from the Grid upto its safe working output. Iow, when millions of football fans put the kettle on at half-time then load-following power plants can respond to that change in demand in seconds or minutes.

Dispatchable means that energy can be turned off/on when required.

Wind turbines are neither load-following or dispatchable because the wind doesn't blow all the time, the Grid has to take their output when they are producing.

If A = the amount of energy required to balance the Grid by load following dispatchable generators. eg. Gas, Diesel, Hydro (some hydro has limited dispatchability),

B = Non-load-following and non-dispatchable generation, eg large coal, most nuclear.

C = Variable, Non-load-following and non-dispatchable generation, eg wind, solar tidal, wave, etc (wind has semi-dispatchability in that they can be turned off)

D = Demand by consumers

E= Non-dispatchable but load-following generation, eg some nuclear, small or medium coal.

Then

A+E= D-B-C

There are grey areas between the different technologies and types of power plants.

Rheghead

01-Apr-09, 19:19

It might be "low-carbon" to use nuclear to balance non-dispatchable wind but does it make any more sense to waste a nuclear resource to shore up windpower than it does to waste a fossil fuel one to shore up windpower?

I'm curious as to why you use the term waste?:confused

I wouldn't use the term waste unless the energy is actually being wasted by consumers or the plants are somehow more inefficient than they should be.

And I don't think they are shoring up wind, they are shoring up the demand from consumers.

ywindythesecond

02-Apr-09, 01:39

I'm curious as to why you use the term waste?:confused

I wouldn't use the term waste unless the energy is actually being wasted by consumers or the plants are somehow more inefficient than they should be.

And I don't think they are shoring up wind, they are shoring up the demand from consumers.

The waste arises when there is plenty of wind to satisfy demand but the nuclear or fossil fuel plant is put on standby, not providing electricity, but still using fuel. Nuclear and fossil fuels are finite resources and to not use every bit of energy they are capable of producing is waste.

Rheghead

02-Apr-09, 17:31

The waste arises when there is plenty of wind to satisfy demand but the nuclear or fossil fuel plant is put on standby, not providing electricity, but still using fuel.

There is only a legal obligation to keep a limited amount of capacity (approx 2GW) on warm standby to cover for a complete nuke outage, so this is not a feature of an energy mix with a lot of wind penetration but one that exists now for existing conditions. As it takes very little time to cold-start a gas-fired plant and there is only a small probablistic chance that wind energy output changes significantly within 2 hours from any point in time then the Grid will require very little further warm-standby capacity, if any. Anyway, to keep a fossil fuel plant on standby requires very little energy compared to its full electricity-producing output, approximately a 1000th of the electrical energy is being 'wasted', eventually, much of it being provided by wind energy.

While this is happening, windturbines are fully replacing the output capacity of the fossil fuel generators saving millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and other GHGs being emitted into the atmosphere.

Green_not_greed

02-Apr-09, 19:45

There is only a legal obligation to keep a limited amount of capacity (approx 2GW) on warm standby to cover for a complete nuke outage, so this is not a feature of an energy mix with a lot of wind penetration but one that exists now for existing conditions. As it takes very little time to cold-start a gas-fired plant and there is only a small probablistic chance that wind energy output changes significantly within 2 hours from any point in time then the Grid will require very little further warm-standby capacity, if any. Anyway, to keep a fossil fuel plant on standby requires very little energy compared to its full electricity-producing output, approximately a 1000th of the electrical energy is being 'wasted', eventually, much of it being provided by wind energy.

Just wondering what's your source of this information?

Rheghead

02-Apr-09, 20:06

Just wondering what's your source of this information?

Course notes in a renewable energy course that I'm doing.

Green_not_greed

02-Apr-09, 22:09

Course notes in a renewable energy course that I'm doing.

Can't you back up any of that from any proper source?

Rheghead

02-Apr-09, 22:14

Can't you back up any of that from any proper source?

Like from an anti-windfarm site instead of an educational source, you mean?:confused

Anyway, this is from wikipedia

The cost of fuel or tonne of CO2 emitted by keeping such plant warm is tiny in comparison with the amount of fuel used to generate power, maybe equivalent to the fuel used to produce a quarter of a MW compared to a full load fuel demand for a large set of 1,800 MW. Often quoted talk about the high costs of standby spinning reserve are misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_the_National_Grid_(UK)

If you disagree with that then in the true spirit of the Wiki please feel free to change it with proper sources for changing it.

Green_not_greed

02-Apr-09, 22:53

Like from an anti-windfarm site instead of an educational source, you mean?:confused

Anyway, this is from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_the_National_Grid_(UK)

No. I said a proper source. That's one with data you can justify. Anyone can write on wikipedia. Or write lecture notes.

Rheghead

02-Apr-09, 22:57

No. I said a proper source. That's one with data you can justify. Anyone can write on wikipedia. Or write lecture notes.

Change it then if you strongly disagree with it. That is what a wiki is for, you'll be doing us a great service by changing it to something that you can justify your antiwind farm position if it is correct. I suspect not by the way...

There is no amount of proper info out there enough that could possibly convert you to approving of wind power no matter how kosher the source so I would be completely wasting my time if I really tried.:lol:

Green_not_greed

03-Apr-09, 08:34

Change it then if you strongly disagree with it. That is what a wiki is for, you'll be doing us a great service by changing it to something that you can justify your antiwind farm position if it is correct. I suspect not by the way...

There is no amount of proper info out there enough that could possibly convert you to approving of wind power no matter how kosher the source so I would be completely wasting my time if I really tried.:lol:

Oh dear!

Every time someone challenges you on what you've posted your paranoia appears to kick in and you attribute it to being something to do with wind energy.

Let me assure you that I posed a simple question and that was solely aimed at what you posted. The phrase was

"There is only a legal obligation to keep a limited amount of capacity (approx 2GW) on warm standby to cover for a complete nuke outage, so this is not a feature of an energy mix with a lot of wind penetration but one that exists now for existing conditions. As it takes very little time to cold-start a gas-fired plant and there is only a small probablistic chance that wind energy output changes significantly within 2 hours from any point in time then the Grid will require very little further warm-standby capacity, if any. Anyway, to keep a fossil fuel plant on standby requires very little energy compared to its full electricity-producing output, approximately a 1000th of the electrical energy is being 'wasted', eventually, much of it being provided by wind energy."

There are a few "facts" in there that I am interested in and simply want to know what your source information is. e.g. "A legal obligation to keep 2GW on standby to cover for a "nuke" outage." If these are not facts and are simply opinion then you should present it as such.

So, nothing to do with wind farms. Is this information based on published facts or is it simply opinion? If the former, is there a reference I can read?

BTW you are wrong on my opinion of wind energy. My main concern is them being built too close to where people live. And the knock-on health and safety effects to those living nearby. There are schemes in Caithness and Sutherland which I think are in suitable locations, far from homes, some of which are benefitting the crofting community.

Rheghead

03-Apr-09, 10:24

......If these are not facts and are simply opinion then you should present it as such......And the knock-on health and safety effects to those living nearby.

Oh dear!

I remember you saying to a Government official in the course of his duties that BWEA have a list of windfarm-related accidents and that the CWIF-collated list only represent the 'tip of the iceberg' yet you couldn't prove one iota if it is true or not.

Regarding my post, which part do you not understand? It was pretty simple and I gave a wikipedia source. If you don't like it, change it!! It only takes ~250kw to keep a 1.8GW power plant on hot standby, less than a 1000th of its output. It probably is just a 250kW Aggrekko generator or something electrically hardwired to a heating coil. Just look up generators for putting powerstations on standby.The amount of power is so irrelevent to the windfarm debate that it isn't widely advertised on the web. My cousin designs power stations so I could ask him, he should know. And if it was really significant then I think someone would have piped up by now and said something to prove so. Yeah I suppose I was wrong, it is 8.5 GW on warm standby but I was right that the Grid is obligated to cover outages for conventional plants already there needs to be 1.5GW of spare reserve. Since windpower is more reliable then I'd expect that 8.5GW figure to fall as wind gets further penetration into the energy mix. It is just commonsense for goodness sake.

I'm not trawling through everything I read just for your sake but here is a book (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q3IAkdbntiwC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=national+grid+spinning+reserve&source=bl&ots=f7acId3gsH&sig=GbkBZOLyv1qh5MGoaqtTnhbitjI&hl=en&ei=NtvVSf3mF5eqjAeQzcnuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA144,M1) you may want to read, especially p144-145, I know you will just dismiss it as opinion or speculation. Look it up yourself, get the book on it, do your own googling instead of reading windaction rubbish. I guess your not really interested in it at all tbh.