View Full Version : Offshore Wind Technology
Just seen this on BBC news and wonder what the overall reaction of people on this board is to wind-technology out at sea instead of land.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8243095.stm
redeyedtreefrog
08-Sep-09, 18:47
I'd rather huge farms out at sea, but they should dot little ones around the place on land, they look pretty.
northener
08-Sep-09, 19:48
Ingenious idea, a good use of offshore oil techniques.
Without getting into the 'is windpower viable' debate, if we are going to have windpower, then offshore makes sense to me....no doubt someone will be along in a minute to shoot my theory down in flames....:Razz
Tugmistress
08-Sep-09, 19:51
so are the two out at beatrice field just for decoration?
redeyedtreefrog
08-Sep-09, 19:56
so are the two out at beatrice field just for decoration?
Well they're clearly generating electricity, but the modernise the countryside slightly. I like it.
Offshore wind energy is a lot dearer to produce than onshore wind.
northener
08-Sep-09, 22:22
so are the two out at beatrice field just for decoration?
I believe the two out at Beatrice are fixed - as in to the seabed- as opposed to anchored, which is what the 'new technology' on the clip is about.
tomacomen
08-Sep-09, 22:24
.....................................
northener
08-Sep-09, 22:26
Nuclear does it for me, until we get the renewable technology properly sorted.
tomacomen
08-Sep-09, 22:29
in all honesty, nuclear is by far the most realistic option. Especially when we're trying to reduce carbon emmissions and now that storage and processing of waste has advanced.
Tubthumper
08-Sep-09, 23:36
The vast majority of windfarms store the electricy in banks located near to them...
Eh? Electricity in banks - Has Sir Fred Goodwin got his claws into the renewables market?
And as for the frequency issue - You're havin a laff! Don't tell me you work in the nuclear industry, please!
renewables is most definately the future, however wind technology should only be considered as back up power for the national grid at peak times.
Wind turbines only work around 3-5 days a month as the wind conditions need to be super specific (its down to the frequency of the lecky generated) so even when there pure dead spinnin like mad, it doesnt mean that they're generating power.
The vast majority of windfarms store the electricy in banks located near to them, this reduces the losses due to resistance when moving electricity over large distances. This brings me to my point about offshore windfarms.
I agree and support wind energy, however I do not support the covering of the whole country or large areas of sea in wind turbines. Due to the points stated above, the problem which needs to be addressed is the storage/transportation of energy. Unfortunately there is little we can do about the generating frequency or the weather.
I say scrap the windfarms out at sea and replace them with Tidal Turbines, 24hr power generation (theoretically), reliable and predictable fluid velocities and if you werent informed you wouldnt know they were there! however, these also suffer from storage/transportation problems.......
it, lets just go nuclear!
I don't normally join the windfarm threads, and by the way, I'm for nuclear, but I have never this post is ridiculous, uneducated nonsense.
Energy banks ?????
Frequency ?????
The vast majority of windfarms store the electricy in banks located near to them, this reduces the losses due to resistance when moving electricity over large distances. This brings me to my point about offshore windfarms.
You're are forgetting about the submarine electricity banks which were specially designed for offshore wind turbines.;)
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 07:57
Of course, the Submarine Banks!! How could I forget! Cheers Rheg
I do smell something, lar biy, its a hellish smell of guff comin fae Tomacomen's direction!! lol! (Paparphrased from Toc's 'argument' with rfr10 in the thread on speeding moron drivers)
tomacomen
09-Sep-09, 08:59
..............................
tonkatojo
09-Sep-09, 09:27
hi again guys,
firstly, I dont mean to cause a rift here but is there really any need for the sarcasm and ripping? it isnt really constructive to the thread nor the topic.
I am a mechanical engineer so forgive me if my electrical knowledge isnt up to scratch! When i refer to the on site storage as "banks" what im meaning is batteries. Since windturbines cannot produce electricity constantly and most are not connected to the grid full time, the owners store the electricity in batteries. I hope this helps with the understanding a bit, i know i can sometimes be confusing but its a hard topic to explain.
with regards to the frequency, in the UK it is 50Hz. Therefore before the electricity is useable it needs to be at 50hz. Different rotational speeds of the turbine shaft and gearbox produce different frequencys, or so i am lead to believe by an engineer with one of the larger wind turbine manufacturers in the UK.
When saying that tidal turbines theoretically work 24hrs a day, i am telling porkies a bit. However, they do produce power more often than wind turbines. This is due to tides being pretty constant therefore allowing for the turbine to be set up correctly for the area its deployed in.
If you wish to continue taking the piss, at least bring a valid point to the table and not act like a pair of divs. I will accept im wrong (although i know im right) if you have proof to back up your jokes.
cheers bff's
As a mere motor mechanic even I know the difference between battery banks and grid tied systems as most if not all off shore will be grid tied it doesn't come into the equation. Also do the battery bank systems not have some form of regulator to regulate the ac current ?, or the banks would boil dry.
tomacomen
09-Sep-09, 09:37
...................
tonkatojo
09-Sep-09, 09:51
i honestly dont know, as ive said im just mechanical purely. All im really interested in is the power i can get out due to blade size / shape and rotational speed.
im probably wrong with the offshore being connected to the grid, however i do know for a fact that most of the wee windfarms you see are just storing energy to sell.
If im sounding like a here its not on purpose, im currently designing a tidal turbine and im trying to apply hydroturbine and wind turbine technology to the design so im really just regurgitating my findings so far.
You cannot store enough electricity in batteries to sell, think how many batteries it would take.
Also I would take a refresher course on ac/dc regulators this might help in your designs.
[QUOTE=tomacomen;592019]
im probably wrong with the offshore being connected to the grid, however i do know for a fact that most of the wee windfarms you see are just storing energy to sell.
QUOTE]
This is not a fact.
WickWitch
09-Sep-09, 11:05
We need to invest in more alternative technologies but we also need to ensure that we reduce consumption too.
We need to invest in more alternative technologies but we also need to ensure that we reduce consumption too.
Reducing consumption is the key.
A big problem is that people simply wouldn't accept a doubling of electricity prices, something that would probably be the case using current renewable technologies.
tonkatojo
09-Sep-09, 12:26
Reducing consumption is the key.
A big problem is that people simply wouldn't accept a doubling of electricity prices, something that would probably be the case using current renewable technologies.
The bigger problem is we the people won't have a ruddy choice, it's either pay up or get cut off, no accepting about it.
Green_not_greed
09-Sep-09, 13:13
I completely agree that the most cost effective way to cut back on CO2 emissions from coal and gas power stations is to reduce consumption.
And with others on this thread agree that nuclear (and I'd also suggest hydro) offer the best solution for reliable, CO2-free power sources. Though most of the hyrdo resources have already been developed.
As for off-shore wind, turbines can be built which are far bigger and hence more cost-efficient than those on land. The off-shore wind resource is also better, and there are far fewer objectors likely to drive developments to public inquiry. So I certainly favour off-shore compared to any wind turbines on-shore.
If I remember correctly, the Beatrice turbines are 5WM each and under test. If things go well, there are plans to have 100 of those turbines at Beatrice, which would provide 500MW to the grid. That's 10 Causeymire-sized windfarms.
However, I do wonder if its all worth it, unless Scotland (or the UK) gets a glass bubble around it. Only last week, it was announced that India is likely to treble its CO2 emissions within 20 years (http://masterresource.org/?p=4483), meaning that they will be producing up to 7 billion tonnes of CO2, compared to 1.2 billion today.
I've been unable to find any up to date comparative figures for the UK. The best I could do was find UK figures for 2007 - 560 million tonnes and thats from power stations, motor vehicles and homes only - i.e. no aircraft etc. So I can't compare the figures directly. However, given that the UK's likely reductions will pale into insignificance compared to what India alone is likely to emit, I do wonder why we bother.
tonkatojo
09-Sep-09, 13:24
I completely agree that the most cost effective way to cut back on CO2 emissions from coal and gas power stations is to reduce consumption.
And with others on this thread agree that nuclear (and I'd also suggest hydro) offer the best solution for reliable, CO2-free power sources. Though most of the hyrdo resources have already been developed.
As for off-shore wind, turbines can be built which are far bigger and hence more cost-efficient than those on land. The off-shore wind resource is also better, and there are far fewer objectors likely to drive developments to public inquiry. So I certainly favour off-shore compared to any wind turbines on-shore.
If I remember correctly, the Beatrice turbines are 5WM each and under test. If things go well, there are plans to have 100 of those turbines at Beatrice, which would provide 500MW to the grid. That's 10 Causeymire-sized windfarms.
However, I do wonder if its all worth it, unless Scotland (or the UK) gets a glass bubble around it. Only last week, it was announced that India is likely to treble its CO2 emissions within 20 years (http://masterresource.org/?p=4483), meaning that they will be producing up to 7 billion tonnes of CO2, compared to 1.2 billion today.
I've been unable to find any up to date comparative figures for the UK. The best I could do was find UK figures for 2007 - 560 million tonnes and thats from power stations, motor vehicles and homes only - i.e. no aircraft etc. So I can't compare the figures directly. However, given that the UK's likely reductions will pale into insignificance compared to what India alone is likely to emit, I do wonder why we bother.
How right you are regarding India, you can add China into that as well along with others.
The saviour salmond won't have nuclear, so that's that ed. and when there is slack tides and no wind blowing I don't think our hydro dams would cope. I think we are stuffed. :(
WickWitch
09-Sep-09, 14:30
http://www.flickr.com/photos/southwestengland/3721950306/in/set-72157621495775356/
http://www.southwestrda.org.uk/news/release.asp?ReleaseID=3055
This looks promising at the moment.
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 16:57
hi again guys,
firstly, I dont mean to cause a rift here but is there really any need for the sarcasm and ripping? it isnt really constructive to the thread nor the topic.
I am a mechanical engineer so forgive me if my electrical knowledge isnt up to scratch! When i refer to the on site storage as "banks" what im meaning is batteries. Since windturbines cannot produce electricity constantly and most are not connected to the grid full time, the owners store the electricity in batteries. I hope this helps with the understanding a bit, i know i can sometimes be confusing but its a hard topic to explain.
with regards to the frequency, in the UK it is 50Hz. Therefore before the electricity is useable it needs to be at 50hz. Different rotational speeds of the turbine shaft and gearbox produce different frequencys, or so i am lead to believe by an engineer with one of the larger wind turbine manufacturers in the UK.
When saying that tidal turbines theoretically work 24hrs a day, i am telling porkies a bit. However, they do produce power more often than wind turbines. This is due to tides being pretty constant therefore allowing for the turbine to be set up correctly for the area its deployed in.
If you wish to continue taking the piss, at least bring a valid point to the table and not act like a pair of divs. I will accept im wrong (although i know im right) if you have proof to back up your jokes.
cheers bff's
My friend, apologies for sarcasm and ripping but while trying to establish if you were real I came across a previous thread in which you were quite sarcy and rippy, so I thought you wouldn't mind.
I would have thought a mechanical engineer would have a modicum of knowledge about the wider world of engineering, so can I ask, and not in a spirit of snobbery, are you a mechanical engineer in the sense of being trained and/or educated in the field?
As far as taking the whatever is concerned, here's my valid point: Read a bit about electricity, wind and tidal generation and you'll find that large-scale wind power installations do not store electricity in batteries or anywere else. Wind turbines are not generation-limited by the 50Hz frequency and as far as tidal power is concerned, I'd like to know where the tidal installations you're mentioning actually are.
Please don't post a load of technically-incorrect gibberish on here and expect people to appreciate it.
I'm trying to be nice
If you wish to continue taking the piss, at least bring a valid point to the table and not act like a pair of divs. I will accept im wrong (although i know im right) if you have proof to back up your jokes.
cheers bff's
I think the technology that you refer to is vanadium flow batteries. Currently there is no need to use them until the variable baseload generation (renewables) become a significant proportion of generation portfolio. Even then, there is no real reason why the batteries should be 'on site', they can easily be situated, grid-connected on remote locations.
Vanadium is a prohibitive cost as well as space, they are surprisingly large industrial plants.
The last time I looked at this technology, they were experimental small scale and only one had been built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_batteries#Applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery#Applications
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 17:42
I'll bow to your superior knowledge Rheghead.
I completely agree that the most cost effective way to cut back on CO2 emissions from coal and gas power stations is to reduce consumption.......
That is a very hard energy policy to sell to the populace given that they've had a taste of the good-life.
However, given that the UK's likely reductions will pale into insignificance compared to what India alone is likely to emit, I do wonder why we bother.
I think the answer to that is not so much an environmental issue(even though it is true) but a sustainable energy issue. The UK will be facing serious and ever escalating competition for energy in the future from growing eastern economies. Nuke and fossil fuels are finite and with western lifestyles requiring lots of energy and India and China aspiring for the same then keeping a light on will be very difficult if we don't make energy from renewable sources.
If we can create an energy policy that is fully sustainable forever then we will crack climate change.
If I remember correctly, the Beatrice turbines are 5WM each and under test. If things go well, there are plans to have 100 of those turbines at Beatrice, which would provide 500MW to the grid. That's 10 Causeymire-sized windfarms.
Actually 200 turbines GnG - going to look quite crowded out there.
Oh and btw, offshore windfarms do need the right weather, they're delicate flowers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8244083.stm
but of course that applies to onshore as well - not too much, not too little, has to be just right. Like Goldilocks' porridge.
redeyedtreefrog
09-Sep-09, 20:34
If we cant get nuclear, we should pump lost of cash into solar, National Geographic did an amazing bit about it recently. Just fund some research to get better panels, then plaster the roofs of buildings with them.
If we cant get nuclear, we should pump lost of cash into solar, National Geographic did an amazing bit about it recently. Just fund some research to get better panels, then plaster the roofs of buildings with them.
What size of land area of panels would be needed to supply say, 25% of UK energy needs?:confused
Green_not_greed
09-Sep-09, 21:01
If we cant get nuclear, we should pump lost of cash into solar, National Geographic did an amazing bit about it recently. Just fund some research to get better panels, then plaster the roofs of buildings with them.
And what are we supposed to drive heating pumps with etc in the short Caithness winter days? Or were you suggesting we cover the Gobi desert in them? Oh, that'll be the Arab energy barons again.....
redeyedtreefrog
09-Sep-09, 21:52
What size of land area of panels would be needed to supply say, 25% of UK energy needs?:confused
I'm not sure, but that's why I'm suggesting putting them on roofs.
And what are we supposed to drive heating pumps with etc in the short Caithness winter days? Or were you suggesting we cover the Gobi desert in them? Oh, that'll be the Arab energy barons again.....
I did say "plaster roofs with them"
renewables is most definately the future, however wind technology should only be considered as back up power for the national grid at peak times.
Wind turbines only work around 3-5 days a month as the wind conditions need to be super specific (its down to the frequency of the lecky generated) so even when there pure dead spinnin like mad, it doesnt mean that they're generating power.
The vast majority of windfarms store the electricy in banks located near to them, this reduces the losses due to resistance when moving electricity over large distances. This brings me to my point about offshore windfarms.
I agree and support wind energy, however I do not support the covering of the whole country or large areas of sea in wind turbines. Due to the points stated above, the problem which needs to be addressed is the storage/transportation of energy. Unfortunately there is little we can do about the generating frequency or the weather.
I say scrap the windfarms out at sea and replace them with Tidal Turbines, 24hr power generation (theoretically), reliable and predictable fluid velocities and if you werent informed you wouldnt know they were there! however, these also suffer from storage/transportation problems.......
it, lets just go nuclear!
I've always felt that everyone should be able to bring something to a technical discussion...............
Until now.............. :roll:
I'm not sure, but that's why I'm suggesting putting them on roofs.
OK, so let me put it another way, if say every household were to put a solar panel that will heat approximately 80% of their domestic water on to their roof, how much contribution would that serve towards a sustainable energy policy?:confused
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 23:28
I've always felt that everyone should be able to bring something to a technical discussion...............
Until now.............. :roll:
Yeah that bit was pants. Hey-ho, must remember - be positive, no more sarcastic pomes...
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 23:40
My mate is doing a PhD thesis based on renewable energy and its potential uses in Caithness & North Sutherland. Anyone got any bright ideas about what energy-intensive activities (industrial, IT, food production, scientific, recycling) could be attracted to the area to make use of vast quantities of locally-generated power virtually free. Daft, random, wild-assed or otherwise pm me and I'll pass them on. Also, feel free to stick 'em on here and we can have a mass debate over them.
I'd imagine the only limitation would be that such cheap power would be irregular, despite Mr Tomacomen's magic storage banks and endless tides.
And I'm serious about this one.
tomacomen
09-Sep-09, 23:51
................
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 23:56
Whatever. I've been wondering about the potential for large-scale ground source heat pumps. Anyone heard anything about that?
I believe the two out at Beatrice are fixed - as in to the seabed- as opposed to anchored, which is what the 'new technology' on the clip is about.
Exactly the point. Nice technology, I thought.
Whatever. I've been wondering about the potential for large-scale ground source heat pumps. Anyone heard anything about that?
What about air-to-air heat source pumps? Heard of them? No collatoral prep to speak of.
Tubthumper
10-Sep-09, 07:25
Air to air? Caithness should be well placed to capitalise, with no significant high ground about. The sky just goes from side to side.
My mate is doing a PhD thesis based on renewable energy and its potential uses in Caithness & North Sutherland. Anyone got any bright ideas about what energy-intensive activities (industrial, IT, food production, scientific, recycling) could be attracted to the area to make use of vast quantities of locally-generated power virtually free. Daft, random, wild-assed or otherwise pm me and I'll pass them on. Also, feel free to stick 'em on here and we can have a mass debate over them.
I'd imagine the only limitation would be that such cheap power would be irregular, despite Mr Tomacomen's magic storage banks and endless tides.
And I'm serious about this one.
Heard a while ago that Google were interested in energy from the Pentland Firth and having a base here. Very energy intensive they are. Just found link http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1222160/?UserKey=
Green_not_greed
10-Sep-09, 11:02
I have a peice of paper from one of the top unis in scotland saying BEng(hons). Where did everyone else get theres?
i said my points,ive reasearched through peer reviewed studies and been in contact with senior engineers in the industry. When wikipedia becomes a peer reviewed site,or when any of your google results become that, and when you have the knowledge to actually calculate theoretical data for turbines ill start listening.
in the mean time, flame me as its What ive come to expect from a narrow minded mouthbreathing forum like this!!!
Well its pretty obvious that your degree isn't in English!
Green_not_greed
10-Sep-09, 11:05
What about air-to-air heat source pumps? Heard of them? No collatoral prep to speak of.
Much easier and cheaper to install than ground source heat pumps (no drilling or trenching required!). However I believe that their systems are very energy intensive for what you get out of it.
northener
10-Sep-09, 11:35
I have a peice of paper from one of the top unis in scotland saying BEng(hons). Where did everyone else get theres?
I too, have a piece of paper, mines from BA and it says 'Pilot'...and a jolly nice brochure it is too....:Razz
Heard a while ago that Google were interested in energy from the Pentland Firth and having a base here. Very energy intensive they are. Just found link http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1222160/?UserKey=
Aye, it's gone a bit quiet on that. I wonder if the recession is making tham rethink, or whether they are still beavering away at it?
I had to laugh at this bit of the article:
"The internet giant is interested in tidal energy powering data processing centres mounted on a flotilla of boats moored three to seven miles offshore"
Data processing centres on boats in the Pentland Firth?:eek:
Welcome aboard the SS Googlegeek?
Arrr, the decks be awash with nerds and puke.....
I have a peice of paper from one of the top unis in scotland saying BEng(hons). Where did everyone else get theres?
i said my points,ive reasearched through peer reviewed studies and been in contact with senior engineers in the industry. When wikipedia becomes a peer reviewed site,or when any of your google results become that, and when you have the knowledge to actually calculate theoretical data for turbines ill start listening.
in the mean time, flame me as its What ive come to expect from a narrow minded mouthbreathing forum like this!!!
The dummy has been spat.
The reason your post has been ripped to shreads is that it is nonsense. Plain and simple. Don't take it personally. It's not an attack on your person, just your ignorance.
You said that most windfarms store energy. That is 100% wrong. Plain and simple.
You can quote qualifications to your hearts content, but if you are going to write stuff that simply is not true you will be ridiculed.
I invite you to post information of the peer reviewed studies or name the senior engineers in this industry who have told you these lies. I think there would be a genuine case to report them to the engineering council to have their charterships reviewed.
However I would suggest that it is your research that is flawed and nothing else.
And by the way, my 'highest' piece of paper is a POSTgraduate qualification was from Surrey University.
But being qualified, and being knowledgeable are two very different things.
Tubthumper
10-Sep-09, 17:27
Each turbine in the country has
A great big battery
To store the special leccy from the wind
The volts get bigger and the amps
Flow swiftly to a point
No use if over-fast or slow it’s spinned
The thing about these breezy volts
That makes them less than grand
The reason why they’re non-economy
Is all to do with regulate
They don't fit on the wires
It's such an awful dodgy frequency
Or so Professor Taco says
And who are we to doubt
He’s researched this wind generation caper
“It’s peer reviewed and thus you must
Take note of what I say.
It says so on this lovely piece of paper!”
Or rather what he really said
“I got a birra paper
im clever more than u the uni said.
So u can all get lost because
You all breave thru the mouf
I am a brainy chap inside my head!”
Mechanical research has happened
Taco's done the sums
The problem and solution is quite clear
No wikipedia for him
Just reputable source
A Spanish bloke called Senor Engineer
We think there's been a funny turn
Or maybe bump on head
That makes poor Taco think he has a clue
It's common in the world these days
When piece of paper says
A silly sod's worth more than me and you
The moral of the story is
When wishing to be took
As engineering expert on the net
You maybe have a BEng (Hons)
But talk a load of tripe
Then ripped to shreds is what you’re going to get!
Much easier and cheaper to install than ground source heat pumps (no drilling or trenching required!). However I believe that their systems are very energy intensive for what you get out of it.
I would rather have put it in a much fairer way.:)
Yes, they don't perform as good as ground source. Their performance is described via their coefficient of performance which is the ratio of energy out to energy put in. Ground source are typically ~5 and air to air ~3.5 to 5 depending on model etc.
But the good news on air to air is that a unit can cost you about £1000 where as ground source costs ten times that (so I have been told, I want to be told differently btw).
Unfortunately I have nowhere to put one.:~(
Tubthumper
10-Sep-09, 17:46
Is there any potential for large-scale development, and what would be the impact?
I only ask as I've not heard of this technology
Green_not_greed
10-Sep-09, 20:21
I would rather have put it in a much fairer way.:)
Yes, they don't perform as good as ground source. Their performance is described via their coefficient of performance which is the ratio of energy out to energy put in. Ground source are typically ~5 and air to air ~3.5 to 5 depending on model etc.
But the good news on air to air is that a unit can cost you about £1000 where as ground source costs ten times that (so I have been told, I want to be told differently btw).
Unfortunately I have nowhere to put one.:~(
Agreed - I think we've both looked into it separately at some point :)
Air source pumps are far cheaper to install that ground source pumps, so the capital cost is far less. Much of it is connected with installation costs for the below-ground pipe runs or boreholes. So big excavation costs are part of the capital outlay.
BUT the point I was trying to make was that running costs of air source pumps are far more than their ground-source counterparts. So overall I'm not convinced that air source are cheaper overall. I sourced one unit to replace my boiler and it had a startup/kick-in current requirement (at 240v) higher than my entire house supply!
Tubthumper
10-Sep-09, 21:19
Whoops! Posts disappearing like snow off a dyke. Looks like someone's going into denial!
ywindythesecond
10-Sep-09, 23:17
My mate is doing a PhD thesis based on renewable energy and its potential uses in Caithness & North Sutherland. Anyone got any bright ideas about what energy-intensive activities (industrial, IT, food production, scientific, recycling) could be attracted to the area to make use of vast quantities of locally-generated power virtually free. Daft, random, wild-assed or otherwise pm me and I'll pass them on. Also, feel free to stick 'em on here and we can have a mass debate over them.
I'd imagine the only limitation would be that such cheap power would be irregular, despite Mr Tomacomen's magic storage banks and endless tides.
And I'm serious about this one.
Tubthumper, have you not heard about the Renewables Obligation? The wind is free but the electricity from it is not. The electricity has its own market value, but it also has its subsidy through Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCS) which we the consumer pay for through our electricity bills.
We also have to pay for the stood-down-but-ready-to-switch-on conventional power stations that have to be kept in a state of readiness for when the wind drops, which cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of confidence.
An average 2.5MW wind turbine will earn about £300,000 a year in ROCs and manufacture about half that value in electricity. We pay for all of it.
"Virtually free", and "cheap power" are phrases which don't belong in a discussion about wind energy.
Tubthumper
11-Sep-09, 00:01
Tubthumper, have you not heard about the Renewables Obligation? The wind is free but the electricity from it is not. The electricity has its own market value, but it also has its subsidy through Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCS) which we the consumer pay for through our electricity bills.
We also have to pay for the stood-down-but-ready-to-switch-on conventional power stations that have to be kept in a state of readiness for when the wind drops, which cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of confidence.
An average 2.5MW wind turbine will earn about £300,000 a year in ROCs and manufacture about half that value in electricity. We pay for all of it.
"Virtually free", and "cheap power" are phrases which don't belong in a discussion about wind energy.
Indeed Windy, I have heard of it. And I understand your point. But what about electricity which cometh not from the national grid?? Not necessarily regular, but very cheap and arriving by the bucketful... And who mentioned wind power?
Think outside the box? Not me, by the way, I'm just an idiot.
"Virtually free", and "cheap power" are phrases which don't belong in a discussion about wind energy.
Have you thought about the subsidies to nuclear power of some £2 billion a year (much more than the cost of incentives to the wind industry) and what's more, that is a real subsidy which comes out of the British taxpayer's coffers. Nothing is cheap these days.
We also have to pay for the stood-down-but-ready-to-switch-on conventional power stations that have to be kept in a state of readiness for when the wind drops, which cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of confidence.
from bwea site.
The report quantified the total costs of variability to the electricity consumer at just £2 per MWh or 2% on electricity bills at penetration levels of 20%, with cost at £5 to £7 per MWh at deployment levels of 40%.
Pitch that against the likely rising costs of importing coal and gas from potentially hostile countries then wind really is the cheap option.
ywindythesecond
11-Sep-09, 22:15
Indeed Windy, I have heard of it. And I understand your point. But what about electricity which cometh not from the national grid?? Not necessarily regular, but very cheap and arriving by the bucketful... And who mentioned wind power?
Think outside the box? Not me, by the way, I'm just an idiot.
Hi Tubthumper,
Maybe I picked you up wrong when you wrote
"Anyone got any bright ideas about what energy-intensive activities (industrial, IT, food production, scientific, recycling) could be attracted to the area to make use of vast quantities of locally-generated power virtually free."
Confused
ywy2
ywindythesecond
11-Sep-09, 22:24
[quote=Rheghead;593012]Have you thought about the subsidies to nuclear power of some £2 billion a year (much more than the cost of incentives to the wind industry) and what's more, that is a real subsidy which comes out of the British taxpayer's coffers. Nothing is cheap these days.
Hi Reggy
As far as I am aware, the nuclear industry subsidy you refer to is for decommissioning and clean-up of historic plants, and yes we pay for that.
As far as new nuclear generation is concerned, I am not aware of any subsidy or incentive being offered for the construction and operation of the new nuclear plants proposed in England. And there is a lot of commercial interest in them.
Nothing is cheap and we need to get best value, ecologically and monetary, and wind energy fails on both counts.
Hi Reggy
As far as I am aware, the nuclear industry subsidy you refer to is for decommissioning and clean-up of historic plants, and yes we pay for that.
As far as new nuclear generation is concerned, I am not aware of any subsidy or incentive being offered for the construction and operation of the new nuclear plants proposed in England. And there is a lot of commercial interest in them.
Nothing is cheap and we need to get best value, ecologically and monetary, and wind energy fails on both counts.
I agree that there is no subsidy available to the nuclear industry for construction and operation of its nuclear plants but eventually someone needs to pay for the industry's clean-up. At the moment it looks like EDF, France's primary nuclear generator, are able to build the next generation of nuke, run it at their profit for 30 years then walk away leaving nuclear waste here in Britain and leaving the cost to us, not France.
As for your second point, as I said or implied before, wind wins on both points.
ywindythesecond
11-Sep-09, 23:39
I agree that there is no subsidy available to the nuclear industry for construction and operation of its nuclear plants but eventually someone needs to pay for the industry's clean-up. At the moment it looks like EDF, France's primary nuclear generator, are able to build the next generation of nuke, run it at their profit for 30 years then walk away leaving nuclear waste here in Britain and leaving the cost to us, not France.
As for your second point, as I said or implied before, wind wins on both points.
Do you really believe that in this day and age that it would not be made irrevocably conditional upon permission for a nuclear power plant to not only agree to funding its decommissioning and waste management, but also to put in place the secured financial package to amass funds to actually do the work? No Government or Local Authority would allow nuclear generation development without such rock solid financial assurances.
Do you really believe that in this day and age that it would not be made irrevocably conditional upon permission for a nuclear power plant to not only agree to funding its decommissioning and waste management, but also to put in place the secured financial package to amass funds to actually do the work? No Government or Local Authority would allow nuclear generation development without such rock solid financial assurances.
Whether the money comes from end consumer of electricity or taxation, the cost still has to be met, again, wind still wins.
Green_not_greed
12-Sep-09, 10:34
Not another "wind vs nuclear" - we need both!
Nuclear to provide a reliable source of CO2-free electricity, and wind for when its windy when the more reliable sources can be put on standby.
The whole country could be run on nuclear, but certainly not on wind.
However, we need a balance of technologies to provide a reliable mix which can't be hijacked by those in control of oil, gas or the nuclear fuel cycle.
Of course, the Arabs, Russians and French (who control those technologies) may all decide to hold us to ransom at the same time!
Thats when we are all doomed - ar perhaps, have to rely on the UK's coal stocks though clean coal technology, which Babcock has had for over 10 years.
Tubthumper
15-Sep-09, 22:26
Hi Tubthumper,
Maybe I picked you up wrong when you wrote
"Anyone got any bright ideas about what energy-intensive activities (industrial, IT, food production, scientific, recycling) could be attracted to the area to make use of vast quantities of locally-generated power virtually free."
Confused
ywy2
Sorry I failed to notice this thread had continued. I ask, because I don't know the answer:
Let's say there was an industry which could make use of lots of tidal power when it was available and was not concerned about when it's not. Investment is required for the source devices and local infrastructure, but no connection to the national Grid is required.
What would the cost of the generated power be to the user?
Sorry I failed to notice this thread had continued. I ask, because I don't know the answer:
Let's say there was an industry which could make use of lots of tidal power when it was available and was not concerned about when it's not. Investment is required for the source devices and local infrastructure, but no connection to the national Grid is required.
What would the cost of the generated power be to the user?
If we are going to get off fossil fuels then we need to think about transport more closely. The only synergy available that negates the effects of mass variability with mass wind power and at the same time making transport clean is to make electric cars. The batteries would act as a mass energy storage system, taking excess energy when it is windy thus regulating the national Grid. This is in effect what Germany plans to do by 2020 by putting 2 million electric cars on its roads.
Oh I can't help it, I'm gonna step into a subject I know little about and start spouting the odds. Here goes:
OK, First up, it has to be a holistic approach. No single resource has the answer with the exception that fossil fuels deffo don't have the answer.
1. reduction - Simples, we have to reduce our consumption and not only does this help the planet it helps our pocket. And I'm talking really basic stuff like switching the tellybox of at the wall when you go night night.
We have a few of these standby switches, a little remote control switches on/off a selection of plug feeds so when were out or in bed with a press of a couple of switches we knock off about 20 devices that would normally be on standby.
Effecienty and use of vehicles and transport.
Transport is the biggy in my eyes, now here's one of my hair brained schemes (your gonna luv it) get all the trucks off the road and bingo what a saving in CO2.
Oh, now your gonna want to know how we move stuff? OK, this is longterm. Invest in a major expansion of an electrified rail network, there will be a jobshift so I'm not saying all the HGV drivers will be laid off so don't panic there.
But with the correct logistics freight can arrive at say Tilbury, off the big boat and onto a train and then wind it's way up to Georgemas Junction where it then can be moved locally by road.
That is over simplified but that is the basis of my plans (I can expand).
This also applies to passenger transport, more leccy trains, better conditions and more routes that are quicker. I don't buy the current media and gov't attack on aviation however I don't think the likes of ryanair and easyjet expanding are the best way forward either.
2. local offsets - Change the building regs (and subsidise funding) to force/promote (where suitable) ground source heat and roof mounted solar panels for heating/pre heating etc.
More (realistic) subsidies for households to change to renewables.
Maybe smaller localised wind turbines can be used in certain circumstances but I'm not convinced.
3. nuclear - It's part of the future in my eyes. It has to be done properly and realistically but to reduce CO2 this is the only reliable way forward. Close the coal/oil/fossil fuelled relics and create a network of Nuclear power in the UK (that is another issue, we need to be self sufficient).
And this has to worldwide, the more advanced nations with nuclear should assist the likes of India & China in promoting nuclear instead of another round of coal fired plants.
4. windpower - I'm not convinced at all in the longterm, cost effective production of onshore wind farms and there own impact on the environment. When I am dictator these things will be torn down, sorry that's my view.
Offshore maybe but again not wholly convinced.
5. hydro - this is a bit more predictable and can be tied into other civil engineering plans so I beleive this has it's place.
6. corporate responsibility - I'm over generalising with this sector but I'm including councils, NHS everything really.
Stop wasting energy on lighting up things that don't need lighting up!
I know we all want to work in a nice environment but some of it goes too far and it's expensive fittings with high energy lighting, we don't need it.
Stop lighting up buildings from the outside! Go to any big town or city and there are hundreds, if not thousands of lamps pointing at the outside of buildings. Pretty and nice yeah yeah yaeh but what's the point if your grandkids are going to be living(?) in a desert in a few decades.
This is just scraping the the top of the efficienty drives that need to be implemented and speeded up.
Teleworking, I'm sure this could be expanded for a huge number of outfits, ok it's not always gong to be suitable but this can reduce travel related CO2 and reduce office related CO2. I undertsand that it shifts a certain amount the energy but I am sat at home and the only extra energy that is being used is to power the computer and a router (router will probably be on anyway in most homes). However if I was in an office there would be lighting, heating and air handling all being used among other things.
7. retail - Now here's a biggy and I don't know the full answer. Shopping centres, retail parks, huge supermarkets that we all drive to. Thousands of kilowatts of power to heat,light and power these complexes. There has to be another way.
24 hour or longer opening hours, more time spent using up energy - do we really need that conveinience? Just because a store is open longer it doesn't mean it makes more money.
The packaging that is used and then discarded to the bin, all the plastic film that is used to wrap goods, oil based and how is it produced - do we really need it?
OK I'll stop rambling now. And I know it's bit of a thread drift but offshore wind technology might have it's place, but in my view not on land.
wait, hang on, got it.....
we all have leccy cars with a turbine on top, the faster you drive the more power you produce the faster you can go!
Bingo, perpetual motion and no CO2.
....goes to patents office
Oh I can't help it, I'm gonna step into a subject I know little about and start spouting the odds. Here goes:
etc. ....
....goes to patents office
Hooray - somebody talking sense. Unless you accept the theory that we're all doomed whatever we do because it's too late, I haven't heard such sound sense in a long time. The wastage of energy with no real effort to stop it is quite shocking, talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Please can I join your party and get you made PM next time round :)
1. reduction - Simples, we have to reduce our consumption and not only does this help the planet it helps our pocket. And I'm talking really basic stuff like switching the tellybox of at the wall when you go night night.
We have a few of these standby switches, a little remote control switches on/off a selection of plug feeds so when were out or in bed with a press of a couple of switches we knock off about 20 devices that would normally be on standby.
TBH, all the talk about standby and its wastage really is a load of hot air. We may as well not bother unless you want to save £20 at the end of the year by going around like an eco-manic preacher.
Yes manufacturers can do more to reduce the standby drainage on your electricity, they can reduce standby on TVs from 10W to 0.01W if they would be prepared to put in the technology. I've heard a lot of things like "if all we switch off our tellies at the wall each night we can close a coal-fired power station." What a load of rubbish!! Firstly, we are human and likely to forget to do such stuff never how much you think you like to be green. Secondly, those phrases are meant to make doing a little can sound like achieving a lot. In fact, if we all did a little then a little will be achieved.
Tubthumper
16-Sep-09, 12:19
If we are going to get off fossil fuels then we need to think about transport more closely. The only synergy available that negates the effects of mass variability with mass wind power and at the same time making transport clean is to make electric cars. The batteries would act as a mass energy storage system, taking excess energy when it is windy thus regulating the national Grid. This is in effect what Germany plans to do by 2020 by putting 2 million electric cars on its roads.
A fair idea, storage being the key (other than reducing consumption). But what about using generated power of 'poor quality' to create heat? That being used locally to either reduce dependence on grid power or for purposes such as agriculture.
It sounds simple to me but is it possible or economically worthwhile?
But what about using generated power of 'poor quality' to create heat? That being used locally to either reduce dependence on grid power or for purposes such as agriculture.
It sounds simple to me but is it possible or economically worthwhile?
Anything is better than heating a home by grid supplied electricity. Ground/air source heating is best, wood, peat from sustainable sources also good.
3. nuclear - It's part of the future in my eyes. It has to be done properly and realistically but to reduce CO2 this is the only reliable way forward. Close the coal/oil/fossil fuelled relics and create a network of Nuclear power in the UK (that is another issue, we need to be self sufficient).
And this has to worldwide, the more advanced nations with nuclear should assist the likes of India & China in promoting nuclear instead of another round of coal fired plants.
A few points to ask here.
How sustainable is nuke power?
How self-sufficient is the UK wrt uranium supplies?
How long will global uranium supplies last if we(as in global We) go all nuclear to provide a 25-fold increase in power generation to provide all our transport, space heating and electrical needs?
What would be the amount of land space taken up by nuke-powered power stations by a 25-fold increase in area? What would a 25 fold increase have on the implications to pollution, national security?:confused :confused
BTW, I'm not against nuke power, I'm all for it, but I think we need to put a realistic approach to its limitations.
As for fast breeding or nuclear fusion explanations, frankly they are a pie-in-the-sky non-starters for the moment, reasons being part economic, political and practical.
Hooray - somebody talking sense. Unless you accept the theory that we're all doomed whatever we do because it's too late, I haven't heard such sound sense in a long time. The wastage of energy with no real effort to stop it is quite shocking, talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Please can I join your party and get you made PM next time round :)
An energy plan for the future must be
a) Sustainable
b) Achievable
c) Affordable
I fail to see how not using the wind power that satisfies all 3 criteria should not be part of the future.
Tubthumper
16-Sep-09, 14:32
Let's leave this subject for a whiley, eh?
Margaret M.
16-Sep-09, 20:14
TBH, all the talk about standby and its wastage really is a load of hot air. We may as well not bother unless you want to save £20 at the end of the year by going around like an eco-manic preacher
Agreed and not even a £20 savings unless all your appliances are as old as the hills. They tested an average home and the savings was a couple of pounds per year which equates to very little energy. Most appliances, TV's, etc., when turned off but still plugged in, do not draw enough energy to register on the meter. Making sure our houses are well insulated can save a meaningful amount of energy.
Why not utilise solar energy its free and abundant and absolutely co2 emission free?.
Produce you're own from panels on your roof and get the electricity company to pay you for supplying them ,this i saw on a Grand Designs show some months ago, and it seemed to prove after an initial outlay (some % paid back to the householder by the gov)and connection by a professional ,that within 3 years the householder was being paid some £££ back instead of owing the elec co a bill!!!
Not just solar panels but photo voltaic cells that just produce electricity and feed firstly to the house for basic domestic use and the over-collected amount being sent back through the grid to them..sounds good...or too good???
TBH, all the talk about standby and its wastage really is a load of hot air. We may as well not bother unless you want to save £20 at the end of the year by going around like an eco-manic preacher.
Yes manufacturers can do more to reduce the standby drainage on your electricity, they can reduce standby on TVs from 10W to 0.01W if they would be prepared to put in the technology. I've heard a lot of things like "if all we switch off our tellies at the wall each night we can close a coal-fired power station." What a load of rubbish!! Firstly, we are human and likely to forget to do such stuff never how much you think you like to be green. Secondly, those phrases are meant to make doing a little can sound like achieving a lot. In fact, if we all did a little then a little will be achieved.
Yes, It is hot air the hot CO2 belching out of the chimbly stacks!!
And yes the manufacturers should be taking the lead.
However this "little" will quickly add up to a lot, add that to a few more littles and you've got a lot more.
Lets round the figures up to make it easy for me.
10w at standby for, lets say 10 hours per day gives a mere 100w per household (assuming 1 tv) 26 million households so that gives 2600Mw wasted, hang on.....that's more than 2 Causeymire windfarms taken off the map!! Bliss
We knocked £15 a month of our leccy bill with these devices, and it's one button on a remote control so your not wandering around reaching to find all the switches on the plug sockets.
But this is just one example. At several large developments I replaced certain types of light fittings, these worked out cost neutral within 9 months and saved several thousand kilowatt hours of power per year.
That was across 7 buildings, extrapolate that across the globe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no tree hugging hippy living off bugs n' berries, we can still do lot more in our household but this is just a tiny part of what needs to be done.
Agreed and not even a £20 savings unless all your appliances are as old as the hills. They tested an average home and the savings was a couple of pounds per year which equates to very little energy. Most appliances, TV's, etc., when turned off but still plugged in, do not draw enough energy to register on the meter. Making sure our houses are well insulated can save a meaningful amount of energy.
Hmmm, I beg to differ. We got these devices after (sorry, I digress) I was talked out of dual wiring the house. Anyhow we got the power saver or whatever they're called and an energy meter, and then we had a beano metering everything.
This woke us up to what and how we were using the leccy and overall we've taken our monthly bill from £80 to £40.
It will differ from house to house, but this is just a tiny part of the jigsaw.
Don't take this the wrong way but this is part of the problem at all levels, from householders to major corporations and governments.
"We're / I'm only going to save a couple of quid so why bother"
Lets not take our eye off the ball, things are going to take an impact sooner or later, we can all start to act now to make changes or we can wait a few years when governments can use it as a money making opportunity under the "Green" banner and all of a sudden we're getting Tax,VAT & duty on grid power at a similar ratio to road fuel.
I'm not scaremongering but look at the pattern:
Smoking is bad, tax it.
Drinking is bad, tax it.
Road fuel is bad, tax it.
Driving is bad, tax it.
Using electricity is bad sooooooo..........??
A few points to ask here.
How sustainable is nuke power?
How self-sufficient is the UK wrt uranium supplies?
How long will global uranium supplies last if we(as in global We) go all nuclear to provide a 25-fold increase in power generation to provide all our transport, space heating and electrical needs?
What would be the amount of land space taken up by nuke-powered power stations by a 25-fold increase in area? What would a 25 fold increase have on the implications to pollution, national security?:confused :confused
BTW, I'm not against nuke power, I'm all for it, but I think we need to put a realistic approach to its limitations.
As for fast breeding or nuclear fusion explanations, frankly they are a pie-in-the-sky non-starters for the moment, reasons being part economic, political and practical.
A lot of dunno's there! Ha ha
Sustainability? Not sure but I'd imagine better and more predictable than fossil fuels.
The self sufficiency of the UK was more in a general energy reference than nuclear in particular. i.e. when the former Eastern block start playing funny s in the winter.
How long will global fossil fuel supplies last? No one can really give a definitive answer, but where should we invest in research? Burning fossil fuels that emit CO2 which appears to be having a more direct and significant global environmental impact, or, looking into nuclear which if dealt with properly could be far, far, far lower impacting on the environment.
National security, do you want me to give people nightmares? Let's not go there on a public forum.
Re your questions from another post: Sustainability and Affordability is going to change significantly in the next couple of decades and I can't predict how definitively, but it will.
What may be affordable now will change in the future.
:eek:
Lets round the figures up to make it easy for me.
10w at standby for, lets say 10 hours per day gives a mere 100w per household (assuming 1 tv) 26 million households so that gives 2600Mw wasted, hang on.....that's more than 2 Causeymire windfarms taken off the map!! Bliss
OK, 10w for 10 hours per house hold every day for a year comes to 9.49x10^11Wh, which is the energy saved from unplugging a tv each night.
Even just taking electrical energy into account, UK domestic electricity consumption is ~130TWh.
Which if you do the sums right comes to about 0.73% cut on electricity generation.
Doesn't sound a lot to me, I thought you meant it was to be significant and our savior?.:confused
I think you've confused your units somewhere.
Doesn't sound a lot to me, I thought you meant it was to be significant and our savior?
That's the whole point. It isn't a lot on it's on it's own.
And it is just one tiny part of the bigger problem, no one thing on it's own is the answer, but not doing anything because it only makes a fraction of a
difference isn't the answer either.
The point I'm trying to make is ONE of the solutions is to look at our* use and consumption of electrical power which is directly, or indirectly, linked to CO2 emissions which we're trying to reduce.
*Our, refers to everyone and business' in general.
Here's another example: a one company (like many hundreds of others) had in the region of 500 PC's left switched on over night, not in standby or sleep but switched on.
And another: Empty office spaces heated throughout the winter, sometimes by Gas & Oil boilers. OK not electric but an example of wasted energy.
I know there are many other tiny, insignificant changes that aren't worth bothering with but if 10 were bothered with then there would be 7.3% cut?
How much CO2 is there emitted for 7.3% of 130TWh
The cumulative effect of everyone saving would make a difference. Central heating thermostats almost everywhere could be turned down if people wore winter clothes in winter. Why are shop doors left wide open with heat pouring out?
Houses could be kept much warmer and many be energy self-sufficient if, instead of wasting money on unnecessary things, the Govt. had a programme of insulating all buildings and providing solar panels or whatever (ground source uses a lot of electricity btw). This would have the added bonus of creating massive employment so providing income tax back to the government instead of paying out benefits.
Lighting - don't even get me started [disgust] . Who wants light pollution anyway?
What we do in the UK might be a drop in the ocean in global terms but it's a start and who knows, others might follow our example if they saw it worked.
tonkatojo
17-Sep-09, 11:45
The cumulative effect of everyone saving would make a difference. Central heating thermostats almost everywhere could be turned down if people wore winter clothes in winter. Why are shop doors left wide open with heat pouring out?
Houses could be kept much warmer and many be energy self-sufficient if, instead of wasting money on unnecessary things, the Govt. had a programme of insulating all buildings and providing solar panels or whatever (ground source uses a lot of electricity btw). This would have the added bonus of creating massive employment so providing income tax back to the government instead of paying out benefits.
Lighting - don't even get me started [disgust] . Who wants light pollution anyway?
What we do in the UK might be a drop in the ocean in global terms but it's a start and who knows, others might follow our example if they saw it worked.
China one of the biggest users doesn't want to know, so our small country's effort is wasted.
China one of the biggest users doesn't want to know, so our small country's effort is wasted.
And on what do you base that upon?:confused
China one of the biggest users doesn't want to know, so our small country's effort is wasted.
Almost every mass movement, good or bad, starts off with one or a few people making a difference and being passionate about their cause. No small effort is ever wasted. Great oaks from little acorns etc.
Great oaks from little acorns etc.
How can big reductions in carbon dioxide levels come from small steps on an individual basis? To make a real difference we need to make radical changes to our lives, and frankly we aren't gonna do that by our own choice, someone or something needs to do that for us.
It's all a load of crock about doing a little will make a huge difference, doing a little will only do a little.
I know there are many other tiny, insignificant changes that aren't worth bothering with but if 10 were bothered with then there would be 7.3% cut?
How much CO2 is there emitted for 7.3% of 130TWh
You have just multiplied my 0.73% by 10 for no logical reason.
I'm just totaly confused now by your logic.
tonkatojo
18-Sep-09, 10:01
And on what do you base that upon?:confused
The news report that China will not meet its obligation to reduce emissions.
How can big reductions in carbon dioxide levels come from small steps on an individual basis? To make a real difference we need to make radical changes to our lives, and frankly we aren't gonna do that by our own choice, someone or something needs to do that for us.
It's all a load of crock about doing a little will make a huge difference, doing a little will only do a little.
If you read my post again, Rheggy, you will see that I was suggesting what the Govt. could do as well as individuals (and we can all do our bit although I agree more compulsion would help). Why are you doing that sponsored cycle ride - it's a drop in the ocean of what is required. According to your philosophy, your effort won't make any difference so why bother?
I also said that others might follow our example. Obviously if they don't it won't work but sitting around saying we won't do anything because no-one else does will get us nowhere except to doomsday. We may as well give up on all the "green" stuff the Govt. is doing, however inadequate, and carry on as before.
tonkatojo
18-Sep-09, 10:53
If you read my post again, Rheggy, you will see that I was suggesting what the Govt. could do as well as individuals (and we can all do our bit although I agree more compulsion would help). Why are you doing that sponsored cycle ride - it's a drop in the ocean of what is required. According to your philosophy, your effort won't make any difference so why bother?
I also said that others might follow our example. Obviously if they don't it won't work but sitting around saying we won't do anything because no-one else does will get us nowhere except to doomsday. We may as well give up on all the "green" stuff the Govt. is doing, however inadequate, and carry on as before.
I am not as enthusiastic as you, mainly because all scientists do not agree with this greenhouse theory.
How much of the green house effect is caused by natural disaster, such as the wild fires in Greece, California, Australia, these are the ones widely reported, how many are not. then there is volcanoes still spewing gasses into the atmosphere.
I may be a sceptic but are we not fighting the forces of nature to no avail.
You have just multiplied my 0.73% by 10 for no logical reason.
I'm just totaly confused now by your logic.
The logic is really very simple. We take take your figure of 0.73% for the saving just switching the tellybox off.
1 small tiny insignificant change.
Then we assume that 9 other tiny insignificant changes are implemented.
That's the "if 10 were bothered with" bit.
1 + 9 = 10
OK, with me so far?
Then assume that the 10 tiny insignificant changes each save 0.73%.
Take the 10 from the top and multiply this by 0.73.
(I've tried this couple of different ways and I get the same result)
7.3
Ok 7.3% is not huge, but its bigger than 0.73% (I'm prepared to get shot down in flames on that).
Lets look at tiny changes another way. If someone wants to do their bit for a good cause, like Charity Mate, and they want to raise some cash they kind of ask people to help.
Each person giving a little, following me?
They could come up with a crazy idea like cycling from one end of a country to another and get people to sponsor them.
Lots of tiny insignificant amounts.
After a few kind folk give their tiny insignificant amounts you end up with say .. (hmmm lets pick a "random" number here) £245
So these tiny insignificant amounts put together add up to a not so tiny insignificant amount.
But if......
It's all a load of crock about doing a little will make a huge difference .......then I'll have my tenner back!
The logic is really very simple. We take take your figure of 0.73% for the saving just switching the tellybox off.
1 small tiny insignificant change.
Then we assume that 9 other tiny insignificant changes are implemented.
That's the "if 10 were bothered with" bit.
1 + 9 = 10
OK, with me so far?
Then assume that the 10 tiny insignificant changes each save 0.73%.
Take the 10 from the top and multiply this by 0.73.
(I've tried this couple of different ways and I get the same result)
7.3
Ok 7.3% is not huge, but its bigger than 0.73% (I'm prepared to get shot down in flames on that).
Lets look at tiny changes another way. If someone wants to do their bit for a good cause, like Charity Mate, and they want to raise some cash they kind of ask people to help.
Each person giving a little, following me?
They could come up with a crazy idea like cycling from one end of a country to another and get people to sponsor them.
Lots of tiny insignificant amounts.
After a few kind folk give their tiny insignificant amounts you end up with say .. (hmmm lets pick a "random" number here) £245
So these tiny insignificant amounts put together add up to a not so tiny insignificant amount.
But if...... .......then I'll have my tenner back!
Can you specify which 10 changes that we can make that are tiny around the home that will significantly make a huge difference?
To put thing into perspective, having a car just sitting their doing nothing uses up approximately twice as much energy as the average domestic electricity usage. This is what I mean by the smalls not meaning anything. I'm no saint, I'm just as guilty as the next person.
Your analogy with charity doesn't apply unless the outcome is supposed to make a huge change which I'm not even pretending it will.
The news report that China will not meet its obligation to reduce emissions.
Which obligations is that, do they have any?
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/90857/90860/6650353.html
tonkatojo
18-Sep-09, 14:52
Which obligations is that, do they have any?
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/90857/90860/6650353.html
I believe it was signed along with the rest of the G8 along the lines of the KYOTO agreement.
But I am probably "WRONG". ;)
I am not as enthusiastic as you, mainly because all scientists do not agree with this greenhouse theory.
How much of the green house effect is caused by natural disaster, such as the wild fires in Greece, California, Australia, these are the ones widely reported, how many are not. then there is volcanoes still spewing gasses into the atmosphere.
I may be a sceptic but are we not fighting the forces of nature to no avail.
Goodness, just realised how much off thread we are :roll: . I'm afraid I have to agree with you there as I suspect nature is just as responsible as man and there's not a lot we can do about that. Still makes me feel better to try and do my little bit where man is responsible, if only because I hate waste.
tonkatojo
18-Sep-09, 15:05
Goodness, just realised how much off thread we are :roll: . I'm afraid I have to agree with you there as I suspect nature is just as responsible as man and there's not a lot we can do about that. Still makes me feel better to try and do my little bit where man is responsible, if only because I hate waste.
Yer, i'm a bit tight arsed my self so it comes naturally to me.
If you read my post again, Rheggy, you will see that I was suggesting what the Govt. could do as well as individuals (and we can all do our bit although I agree more compulsion would help). .
Perhaps you don't appreciate the enormity of the difficulty in getting off fossil fuels?
Cutting our energy consumption is a complete, no-no. Lets not pretend that the masses are going to do this in some form of altruistic gesture towards the good of the planet. It is not going to work if we are going to rely on this for a sustainable energy future.
The Government needs to railroad through large renewable schemes against the wishes of local populations and people need to be more enthusiastic towards such schemes. (Some 10% of UK must be given over to windfarms for example)
The Government needs to force landlords, house owners to comply with very strict housing regulations wrt insulation and force leaky old buildings to close.
The government needs to be pro-active in finding alternative ways to heat homes and water like heat source pumps, solar panels etc.
The Government needs give funding to countries such as Algeria and Libya to build a HVDC line to the UK and fund solar farms in those countries, thus improving poverty and supplying energy to where its needed.
The Government needs to assist with upgrading the Grid to reach to the Continent.
The Government needs to assign a carbon allowance to each of us which we can sell or buy from each other.
The Government needs to assist in the making of a electric car transport policy and get involved in creating a battery exchange scheme and at the same time make that the cheaper and attractive option rather than taxing the car owners out of pocket.
The Government needs to move away from free trade policies which do nothing more than increase international freight.
The Government needs to give financial assistance to displaced house owners with a brand new energy efficient home.
The Government needs to make all energy saving items VAT-free.
We need incentives to catch a train or a bus and not feel that we are being ripped off. The cost of public transport should be at least a third of the cost to drive anywhere and it needs to be when we want it.
I can think of more.
tonkatojo
18-Sep-09, 15:22
Perhaps you don't appreciate the enormity of the difficulty in getting off fossil fuels?
Cutting our energy consumption is a complete, no-no. Lets not pretend that the masses are going to do this in some of altruistic gesture towards the good of the planet. It is not going to work if we are going to rely on this for a sustainable energy future.
The Government needs to railroad through large renewable schemes against the wishes of local populations and people need to be more enthusiastic towards such schemes. (Some 10% of UK must be given over to windfarms for example)
The Government needs to force landlords, house owners to comply with very strict housing regulations wrt insulation and force leaky old buildings to close.
The government needs to be pro-active in finding alternative ways to heat homes and water like heat source pumps, solar panels etc.
The Government needs give funding to countries such as Algeria and Libya to build a HVDC line to the UK and fund solar farms in those countries, thus improving poverty and supplying energy to where its needed.
The Government needs to assist with upgrading the Grid to reach to the Continent.
The Government needs to assign a carbon allowance to each of us which we can sell or buy from each other.
The Government needs to assist in the making of a electric car transport policy and get involved in creating a battery exchange scheme and at the same time make that the cheaper and attractive option rather than taxing the car owners out of pocket.
The Government needs to move away from free trade policies which do nothing more than increase international freight.
The Government needs to give financial assistance to displaced house owners with a brand new energy efficient home.
The Government needs to make all energy saving items VAT-free.
We need incentives to catch a train or a bus and not feel that we are being ripped off. The cost of public transport should be at least a third of the cost to drive anywhere and it needs to be when we want it.
I can think of more.
What government would do all that ?. did they not try something similar in Russia a few decades ago, and it didn't work, to many fat cats in power for it to work here.
China one of the biggest users doesn't want to know, so our small country's effort is wasted.
Halkirk District Benefit Fund doesn't want to know either with their floodlighting project on the back of the windmill money, however some folks seem to think it makes sense.
redeyedtreefrog
19-Sep-09, 12:08
Perhaps you don't appreciate the enormity of the difficulty in getting off fossil fuels?
Cutting our energy consumption is a complete, no-no. Lets not pretend that the masses are going to do this in some form of altruistic gesture towards the good of the planet. It is not going to work if we are going to rely on this for a sustainable energy future.
The Government needs to railroad through large renewable schemes against the wishes of local populations and people need to be more enthusiastic towards such schemes. (Some 10% of UK must be given over to windfarms for example)
The Government needs to force landlords, house owners to comply with very strict housing regulations wrt insulation and force leaky old buildings to close.
The government needs to be pro-active in finding alternative ways to heat homes and water like heat source pumps, solar panels etc.
The Government needs give funding to countries such as Algeria and Libya to build a HVDC line to the UK and fund solar farms in those countries, thus improving poverty and supplying energy to where its needed.
The Government needs to assist with upgrading the Grid to reach to the Continent.
The Government needs to assign a carbon allowance to each of us which we can sell or buy from each other.
The Government needs to assist in the making of a electric car transport policy and get involved in creating a battery exchange scheme and at the same time make that the cheaper and attractive option rather than taxing the car owners out of pocket.
The Government needs to move away from free trade policies which do nothing more than increase international freight.
The Government needs to give financial assistance to displaced house owners with a brand new energy efficient home.
The Government needs to make all energy saving items VAT-free.
We need incentives to catch a train or a bus and not feel that we are being ripped off. The cost of public transport should be at least a third of the cost to drive anywhere and it needs to be when we want it.
I can think of more.
and The Public need to elect a government with courage who can actually pull it off. The Lib Dems are the closest: http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Simon_Hughes_announces_part y_consultation_on_personal_carbon_trading&pPK=d4868e2b-5ce2-45c8-a2ed-1d857bc30b54
Tubthumper
20-Sep-09, 22:55
Halkirk District Benefit Fund doesn't want to know either with their floodlighting project on the back of the windmill money, however some folks seem to think it makes sense.
That's what we need, someone looking at the bigger picture!
So. To get the thread somewhere near back on track...
Are offshore windfarms the future or are we going with my idea of a wind turbine on the top of the car?
betchya looked didncha?
China one of the biggest users doesn't want to know, so our small country's effort is wasted.
The UK is a developed country. China is in the process. Many other countries are living in the dark ages. Countries that do not have the quality of life that the richer developed countries have, have to be allowed to catch up. Carbon emission control was always about controling the emissions of the big grade polluters of developed countries. If you are going to point a finger at any country that does not care, point it across the pond at USA.
tonkatojo
21-Sep-09, 10:00
The UK is a developed country. China is in the process. Many other countries are living in the dark ages. Countries that do not have the quality of life that the richer developed countries have, have to be allowed to catch up. Carbon emission control was always about controling the emissions of the big grade polluters of developed countries. If you are going to point a finger at any country that does not care, point it across the pond at USA.
Why agree to something and not do it ?. This goes for your foe across the "pond" as well.
You need to look at China my friend, and quantify your statement. To my eyes most of there major cities are far advanced than the UK major cities. Also look in any shop and scrutinise where things are made, your talking a load of crap mate.
Why agree to something and not do it ?. This goes for your foe across the "pond" as well.
You need to look at China my friend, and quantify your statement. To my eyes most of there major cities are far advanced than the UK major cities. Also look in any shop and scrutinise where things are made, your talking a load of crap mate.
First of all, I ain't yer mate, mate.
Second of all, yes it has a strong production component based on the low wage system and yet it is still a rural based economy country mate. Until their (THEIR) citizens are having a comparable quality of life to here, they will still be a developing country, mate. Everyday I see the sun moving in the sky, but because I observe it, it still doesn't mean the sun is going around the earth, mate. So go find out what China (and India and other upcoming economies) are about mate, before calling crap what others are "asaying", mate. :roll:
tonkatojo
21-Sep-09, 13:38
First of all, I ain't yer mate, mate.
Second of all, yes it has a strong production component based on the low wage system and yet it is still a rural based economy country mate. Until their (THEIR) citizens are having a comparable quality of life to here, they will still be a developing country, mate. Everyday I see the sun moving in the sky, but because I observe it, it still doesn't mean the sun is going around the earth, mate. So go find out what China (and India and other upcoming economies) are about mate, before calling crap what others are "asaying", mate. :roll:
OK OK, thank Christ your not my mate.
Just because their economies are run with a work force that is exploited by the rich in their country's it doesn't say we have to prop them up.The workforce in China and India should wake up to why their major city's are so magnificent and they are in poverty (which I think your implying), or better still you go there and enlighten them,but don't preach to the likes of me. The so called developed country's for decades have been pouring funds into the likes of Africa and are not much further forward, I don't see why we should jepodise our economy further until ALL country's agree on how to save the planet.
I am still not convinced on "global warming" causes.
So. To get the thread somewhere near back on track...
Are offshore windfarms the future or are we going with my idea of a wind turbine on the top of the car?betchya looked didncha?
It sort of depends on a number of factors.
Up to now, offshore wind has been largely situated in shallow water areas, ie <25m in depth, the vast majority of this is in English waters, some 40,000 sq km. I've seen estimates of ~3W/sq m being a reasonable estimate of what power can be gained per unit area. That's an estimated average of 120GW (net average) power that we can theoretically get from offshore wind, assuming we utilise 100% of UK shallow water. Obviously that is an over estimate due to shipping lanes etc so realistically I would estimate 25% being available so 30GW (~75% of our existing electrical energy needs). Average power consumption in UK is ~44GW by comparison so offshore wind can bite a big chunk out of our existing dependence on fossil fuels, but it is not the complete answer unfortunately. All that varying power needs to be balanced by consumption which is where the electric cars come in. There is a nice synergy between satisfying the varying nature of renewable energy and the energy required to electrify our transportation.
The Beatrice field is in deepwater but there is no clear indication whether it will be a financial or technological success.
I am still not convinced on "global warming" causes.
OK so you aren't convinced 100%, neither am I for that matter, neither is the IPCC. But would that doubt make you throw all caution to the wind?
I'm not even as closely convinced the next time I get in a car that I'll be involved in a car crash but I'd sure as hell put my seat belt on. So why play dice with shorter odds and with more to lose?:confused
tonkatojo
21-Sep-09, 17:40
OK so you aren't convinced 100%, neither am I for that matter, neither is the IPCC. But would that doubt make you throw all caution to the wind?
I'm not even as closely convinced the next time I get in a car that I'll be involved in a car crash but I'd sure as hell put my seat belt on. So why play dice with shorter odds and with more to lose?:confused
That's why I am so sceptic about other nations, we always play ball and the rest do nowt, Me I am fed up of being the mugs all the time. Take the French with CAP they don't give a stuff they look after their own interests while good ole UK knuckle down and obey the rules. After a while playing ball on your own gets boring.
I feel the same way with climate change.
That's why I am so sceptic about other nations, we always play ball and the rest do nowt, Me I am fed up of being the mugs all the time. Take the French with CAP they don't give a stuff they look after their own interests while good ole UK knuckle down and obey the rules. After a while playing ball on your own gets boring.
I feel the same way with climate change.
I take a more holistic attitude, basically because of the need for international co-operation, no one nation can cure the energy crisis on their own before it's too late for the planet. If we work together then a sustainable energy programme can be rolled out across the globe that can meet the needs of everyone. The Chinese and India have pledged that their carbon emissions will not exceed those of the West per capita. We can only take their word for that. If you really think about it, China does really have the right to emit 5 times as much carbon as the USA if we are going to live in a safer and fairer world. What is up to us is to show what can be done in terms of carbon emissions per capita so that China and India will not wreck the ecosystem of the planet. It is not about 'I will if you will' or 'I won't because you won't', we will get more progress by 'I will, even if you won't'.
tonkatojo
21-Sep-09, 21:19
I take a more holistic attitude, basically because of the need for international co-operation, no one nation can cure the energy crisis on their own before it's too late for the planet. If we work together then a sustainable energy programme can be rolled out across the globe that can meet the needs of everyone. The Chinese and India have pledged that their carbon emissions will not exceed those of the West per capita. We can only take their word for that. If you really think about it, China does really have the right to emit 5 times as much carbon as the USA if we are going to live in a safer and fairer world. What is up to us is to show what can be done in terms of carbon emissions per capita so that China and India will not wreck the ecosystem of the planet. It is not about 'I will if you will' or 'I won't because you won't', we will get more progress by 'I will, even if you won't'.
I disagree, it is about I will if will other wise it doesn't work.
It will not matter a jot if our country is carbon neutral if the big players are not in the game.
I disagree, it is about I will if will other wise it doesn't work.
It will not matter a jot if our country is carbon neutral if the big players are not in the game.
Do you think the Chinese and Indians want to be carbon neutral? I think they are as acutely aware of the 'problem' as much as we are...
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.