On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:05:47 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
I don't recall anything convincing.
You are trying to pose a simple question and get a simple answer, but reality is a lot more complicated.
I, along with many others, am calling for three things:
1) reduce emissions every year so the UK reaches a target of at least 80% cuts by 2050;
2) include annual milestones and progress reports so politicians can't blame preceding Governments for missing targets; and
3) include international aviation & shipping emissions
There is no simplistic answer to how this could be done. This is not a sound bite subject.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:15:02 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
formatting link
gives some actual figures for one system, which readers may compare with your assertions.
Not a problem. They are built in a variety of places, including
formatting link
what cost?
A matter for those involved. At the moment there is some government support, though nothing like the amount of money poured into the bottomless nuclear pit.
You didn't ask how they are got into position. The answer is that they float and can be towed into position. There is a photo of one being towed on the first link.
By cable.
Readers may judge the veracity of this assertion for themselves.
In order to make these assertions you appear to believe that you can read my mind.
I have stated several times that there is no one answer.
Fascinating. Having asserted that there is no answer, you offer a single simplistic answer. Truly fascinating.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:01 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Well enough to be capable of generating 20% of UK electricity without imposing excessive costs. Obviously they don't do anything like that at the moment, but we already have the engineering knowledge to know that would work.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:55:33 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard wrote this:-
I have already indicated the numbers of turbines which would be necessary. As I indicated earlier their locations are not a matter for me, but rather are a matter for electricity generators and various parts of government.
I am however mildly touched by the impression that I control where wind turbines are located.
Whether they are or not it remains a fact that there are targets they have set.
I contribute discussion.
To demonstrate the foolishness of your line of reasoning; what was the last grid connected electricity generator which you planned, gave permission for the location of and then built?
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:45:25 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk wrote this:-
I don't think anybody has suggested that would be possible (in current conditions) for several reasons, not the least of which is that electricity generation is only part of UK energy requirements.
However, that is not the question. The question is whether it can be scaled up to say 20% of electricity generation. The answer is, yes it can. Indeed this is already demonstrated to be possible. Scotland already gets over 8% of its electricity from wind (and 12% from hydro) and the lights have never nearly gone out as a result. The greatest threat to the lights in Scotland in recent years was the failure of a coal conveyor at Longannet and the various sudden problems at nuclear power stations.
A copy of a good report on this may be downloaded from
Thus spake David Hansen ( snipped-for-privacy@spidacom.co.uk) unto the assembled multitudes:
Sure, I wouldn't want to dispute that.
Of course, it would rather help matters if energy was used less wastefully everywhere. Instead of trying to create the means to satisfy the demand, why not work on lessening the demand?
Its a hard push to satisfy 20% of existing *electricity* generation. Will make the country look like someones being playing darts with it.
Then factor in the fact that electricity generation is only about 30% of our existing use of fossil fuels - the vast majority of the rest being transport domestic and industrial heating, plus a bit for aircraft, and then add in the fact that as the population increase energy has to increase as well..all other things being equal, and you can see why all this tilting at windmills..is tilting at windmills.
The obvious starting point is to make everything that can run off electricity do so.
My calculations suggest that to totally replace all fossil fuels apart from aircraft usage, that requires at current consumption levels about
3x times increase in power generation and transmission.
In this country we don't have the land area to grow biofuels economically, and we don't have enough sun to use direct solar energy, to get anywhere near those figures.
The oil companies are pushing alternative liquid/gas fuels, like biofuels and hydrogen, because they face a dead end to their business model if these don't work. They won't.
The greenies are pushing windmills and wave power, because they can't bear to accept the fact that nuclear power is the only viable option.
Anything offshore has massive construction, service and transmission costs associated with it. No one in their right mind would build somewhere you cant drive a tipper to, or somewhere where you have to lay a very expensive undersea DC cable to reach. Or use a boat to service. Its madness.
That rules out large scale offshore power generation on economic grounds.
Used of tidal power in e.g. the Severn estuary would utterly modify the whole lower Severn ecosystem.
Contrast with nuclear stations - already in place, small, discrete, low impact and as good as or better than windmills in overall energy cost to build per unit generated.
The only part not yet in place for a total electric scenario is the batteries needed for transport and for storage..it would make a huge amount of sense for a house to e.g. have a battery/inverter to charge on off-peak and deliver at peak times - or through power cuts. To do this in lead acid at current prices would be around £3,000 per household estimated. (I estimate no more than 30KWh is really needed to carry a 12 hour outage.. a large car battery at around £100 is a kWh or so..)
Transport batteries of suitable capacity and characteristics (LIPO) can be made today - out of racked smaller cells, but retail prices I have been able to locate suggest a car system is in excess of £20,000..for
30Kwh..some 6 times greater than lead acid. There is no reason why this should eventually be the case, however.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.