Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

[David Hansen]

On 11 Jul 2006 16:49:15 -0700 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

I think everyone would agree so far.

Nuclear accounts for what? ISTR less than 5% of UK energy use. Blowing a huge and unknown amount of money on something so dubious for that is not what I would call a strong contender, especially as the taxpayer will again be subsidising it in all sorts of ways, no matter what Mr Darling may claim.

The Daily Torygraph and Scum are in favour of nuclear power. That is a convincing reason to be against it:-)

I gather that the dodgy dossier said nothing on emissions from transport, which are the most rapidly growing part of total emissions.

[David Hansen]

On 11 Jul 2006 17:06:02 -0700 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

That is something we do agree about.

One of the points that is worth emphasising about the photograph is that the land is in use, other than where the turbine base and the (presumably) switchgear (and perhaps transformer) hut is, for farming. That is why claims about the area of land for wind farms are somewhat misleading.

In contrast other sorts of power stations are surrounded by a fence and essentially sterilise the land inside the fence, though I suppose a few may have some sheep as a cheap means of keeping the grass short.

[unopened]

Would you possibly like to qualify that statement as applying solely to AC?

Regards,

Sid

[David Hansen]

On 12 Jul 2006 00:53:49 -0700 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

Only up to a point. In DC there is also be something that travels along the wiring very much faster than electrons do. Otherwise there would be a significant delay between closing a DC switch and the end of the circuit being energised. While the delay would not be noticeable on household scale DC circuits it would be noticeable on large scale DC circuits.

[Bob Mannix]

The electrons don't queue up the other side of the switch and then sprint for the load! Think of it more like a car production line. A car (electron) may take hours to get from one end to the other but, as soon as the line starts, cars pop off the end every few minutes.

[The Natural Philosopher]

25% of *electrical* power generation is nuclear.

A FACT. Heard of them?

[Guy King]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

20% is more often quoted.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:00:29 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

First the narrow issue. Nuclear generated electricity accounts for

19 to 20% UK of electrical generation.

The DTI say 20% for 2005 in the dodgy dossier, which you may download from

14 to be precise. Their figures are gas 37%, coal 34%, nuclear

20%, renewables 5%, others 3% and oil 1%.

Second the broader issue. Electricity is only a proportion of energy use and nuclear electricity is only a proportion of electricity generation.

As a quick and dirty reality check I have looked at the DTI figures for total *inland* energy consumption, seasonally and temperature corrected. Table 1.2 of Energy Trends June 2006. This gives the consumption (in million tonnes of oil equivalent) as total 245.6, coal 52.3, petroleum 76.1, gas 97.1, nuclear 19.1. As percentages Bill Gates' calculator and my fingers come to coal 21%, petroleum

31%, gas 40% and nuclear 8%. I suspect close enough to "ISTR less than 5%" when one adds in other UK energy consumptions, none of which is nuclear.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:53:12 +0100 someone who may be "Bob Mannix" wrote this:-

Indeed. A far better set of words than I managed while rushing out.

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:17:55 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

This of course is moving the goal posts of the discussion when one realises that one has made a mistake with the information.

Since one of the primary objectives is reducing carbon emissions, then the role of nuclear, as an essentially non-carbon means of energy production becomes significantly more important.

Of course the other aspect of this attempt to change the frame of the discussion is that it makes fringe technologies like industrial windmills even less important.

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:06:02 +0100, [e-mail] wrote (in article ):

I don't think it's an issue of reality and sympathy at all.

The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and don't have any impact.

The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature. They don't blend in with the landscape or the environment and should be subject to the same strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major industrial development gets.

Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning and energy policy. We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is proper.

In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to be massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would not be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them.

With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries, their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were deemed ugly.

I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be pleased to help him place the charges.

[Timothy Murphy]

That's a silly remark. Stick to logic. You've been fairly sensible so far.

[Timothy Murphy]

That seems very improbable to me. Kerosene is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons. It would be a sort of miracle if rotting tree trunks produced the most efficient propulsive agent.

You said it was easy ...

[Timothy Murphy]

Uranium is quite a rare metal. IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves (particularly if shale is taken into account).

So it is not at all clear to me that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.

The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs. The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.

[meow2222]

this isnt even relevant to the purpose of the discussion

if you say so. Not sure theres much point discussing it.

and one of the easiest to tackle, fwiw

NT

[meow2222]

neither of which tells us anything about whats best chosen to generate our future leccy, other than that there is plenty of room to expand nuclear capacity.

NT

[meow2222]

as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is well.

thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we should choose now.

NT

[meow2222]

what someone says a lobbyist says is of no relevance to deciding how we should generate electricity in future.

yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out.

they blend in no more or less than pylons. Compared to the real issues this is trivia.

none of this has anything really to do with the question.

like pylons.

we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it.

Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost.

NT

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, [e-mail] wrote (in article ):

Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is.

I think that this is a real issue.

It has a great deal of relevance to the notion that this stuff is all cuddly, benign and nice as the promoters would have one believe.

It's a commercial and political agenda exactly the same as any other energy related topic.

Exactly, so again, no need to add to it.

If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills in some of the best natural environment in the country.

The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:01 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

The only problem with this assertion is that I didn't make a mistake with the information.