The reasons why windmills wont work...

Up till recently I was of the opinion that thiugh i didn;t lIKE windmills, like foregoing a 6 liter V8, or taking frequent holidays in te south sea, it was probably part of the price one had to pay for the Greater Good..until certain people started shoving windmills down our throats and procalaimming them as the One True Solution to carbon free energy.

So as you know, along with all the other greenwash, I decided to take a look. The initial thrust was to simply see what energy policy was feasible for a carbon neutral UK.

The answer was ultimately that as far as I could see, there was only one practical option. Nuclear power and electric transport.

However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job.

And for very sceptical report there are ten glowing 'windpower is the answerer' articles on the net..so I looked deeper.

The more I looked the more deeply sceptical I became.

The negative issues surrounding wind power were simply not addressed by its proponents.

This article contains a good summary

formatting link
blowing the gaff on the hidden costs associated with large scale introduction of wind power.

Not to mention the rank subsidies

"According to Ofgem, the Labour government's wind subsidies currently stand at £485 million a year."

"Wind farms get around three times as much in subsidy - a mixture of selling ROCS [renewable obligation certificates] and a share of fines paid by non-renewable plants - as they do from selling electricity"

A rather more scholarly and dry critique is here:-

formatting link
as far back as 20004

formatting link
totally unexpected downside comes from here:-

formatting link
may THINK that its unlikely the Iranians or the Russians would come in low across the North sea, or up the thames estuary.. but a hijacked airliner? no problem.

It seems that pretty competent people are starting to cry out against this monumental waste of taxpayers money

formatting link
leaving that aside, and leaving the fact that the power actually generated by windmills is estimated to be (at the point of generation) somewhere between 20% and 400% of the cost by any other means (including carbon free nuclear) the real downsides only become apparent at high levels of wind farm generation..typically more than 20% of total capacity.

This is because windfarms don't operate at full capacity. Indeed at windspeeds below 9mph, they don't operate at all, nor can they be used at over 55mph. They disintegrate if not shut down.

So although the AVERAGE load capacity - the AVERAGE output with respect to the peak is somewhere around 35%, for a significant proportion of the time any given windfarm is not producing anything at all. Possibly up to

15% of the time.

The windfarm proponents will counter this by saying that that is fine, because when its flat calm in Feltham, its a gale in Galashiels..

And skip the most fundamental points: that a gale in Galashiels is all very well, but the power needs to get down to Feltham. This means some pretty hefty upgrades to the Grid..at somebody else's costs. Because the grid is required to take their energy, whether they want it or not.

As wind power gets an even higher proportion of the total it gets even worse. Even if on a calm cold winter's - or a blazingly hot summer's - day some power IS being produced somewhere, and even if its coming down a massive supergrid from Orkney..it still wont be enough..unless the total generating capacity is so over specified that in order to cover the shortfalls of calm weather, it has to be overspecified by a factor of many times. Probably around 6:1. So instead of your windfarm load factor being a nice 35%, in reality it has to be operated much lower than that - say 16% or so, OR you have to back it up with conventional gas turbines, run at disadvantageous cycling, and efficiencies.

So not only does the wind power suddenly double in actual costs, since as it reaches a high proportion of grid capacity it has to be operated at a lower factor, it also needs far more infrastructure to transport the energy from where the wind blows (typically scotland) to where its needed (typically the south east). OR it has to be backed up with a huge amount of conventional and fast cycling capacity, which probably menas that in the end the carbon gains are negligible: Certainly this seems to be the Danish and German experiences.

I can only conclude that, like so much else in the climate change lobby, the whole thing is driven by politics. Nuclear energy is never considered 'renewable' and huge subsidies are given to 'renewable' to meet self imposed targets..and the only 'renewable' source that is remotely feasible is wind, so we have wind.

The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned..

We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all!

Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity.

*NOW* what have I said?

BRG

Reply to
BRG

and your definition of a troll is...

AJH

Reply to
AJH

The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'.

Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on?

Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity.

Reply to
Andy Cap

Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines. Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic output.

OTOH I'm still unsure about climate change in general. It seems to be a good way to beat everyone around the head for extra cash. Certainly the money could be better spent on feeding the hungry...

Reply to
Doki

So Logan's Run is correct?

Adam

Reply to
ARWadworth

The message from "BRG" contains these words:

You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly.

Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before the altar of the SD-Commission.

Reply to
Roger

fact.

Nothing new, but i took you 7Kb to say it...

Reply to
zulu

Haven't the Germans some experience of this problem? ISTR the last time this was discussed here a link was posted leading to a long paper about how the fluctuating output plays havoc with the rest of the grid. But presumably in the interim solutions to this have been found.

Paul

Reply to
PaulB

if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer...

and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes?

and wheres my flying car?

Reply to
George (dicegeorge)

What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion reactors. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes but fusion was put to one side as a source of electricity back in the 1950s because the technology for fission looked easier to achieve in the short term. And so far as I can see it has never been taken up since

Because there are problems with fission - supplies of uranium are limited and controlled by a small number of countries and there is the problem of containing the waste products whereas hydrogen for fusion is readily available

The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water power. OK it has been exploited a bit with hydroelectric but tidal / wave power doesnt seem to be used much at all and I would have thought that a good source of energy

Hm and being a devils advocate, there was lots of government money put into nuclear when it was new tech so I think its only fair that lots of government money should be put into wind power too

Anna

Reply to
Anna Kettle

There *is*, it just hasn't got to the point where you get more out than you need to put in to get/keep the reaction going, and can't be kept going for a particularly long time.

Essentially you're not wrong, there is no radioactive product, but the equipment itself does get irradiated so will need a lesser form of de-commisioning.

Search for TOKAMAK and/or JET

Reply to
Andy Burns

What a damnable waste of energy - the government will have to build another three nuclear power stations to cover it!! :-)

Ah well - the tree huggers are still alive alive and kicking... I left all the post in as it takes me the same amount of energy to press the send button whether a post be 7Kb or 0.00007Kb or 7 Gigabytes.

BRG

Reply to
BRG

*That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true reason was - apart from oil!

BRG

Reply to
BRG

Bloody hell Doki, wonders will never cease - we are *almost* in agreement here :-)

But you *CANNOT* 'store' the output from a wind turbine when used in the context of powering the country - you couldn't get a Duracell battery big enough!

BRG BRG

Reply to
BRG

It was in the papers sometime within about ten or twelve days ago. Did you not read about it? I've just checked the papers that have not gone for re cycle and I can't see it to quote.

About 80 mph on the road and about 200 in the air, made in America and costs, if I remember rightly, between £150,00 to about £200,000.

Dave

Reply to
Dave

Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang - it's alive and going well and reached Australia a few day ago.

Not the original one - but a reconstruction using a model car as a pattern of all things and it cost far less to build than the Yankee one!

BRG

Reply to
BRG

Reply to
George (dicegeorge)

Very few people (despite TNP's claim) argued that wind would replace ALL carbon based energy sources, but surely you can't deny that every kWh generated by wind means that a kWh worth of carbon based generation is avoided.

You ask the people who are actually involved with 'feeding the hungry' in places like Africa. Climate change is real there and having bad effects already. We're nowhere near suffering yet - apart from the small pain due to increase in grain prices because of the real madness which is 'bio fuels'.

Reply to
OG

It has not had much profile since, however work has been going on with JET and other similar projects. There are now moves afoot to try and build a big enough experimental reactor (ITER) for the first time to see if it can be made to produce power on a commercial scale.

Some details here:

formatting link
The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water

Much depends on the environmental disruption you are prepared to tolerate... but it does superficially seem preferable to wind power in many cases.

"Wind" and "government" seem to go hand in hand!

Reply to
John Rumm

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.