Renewable energy, Boll*cks

[Smirking_Saint]

I work within the energy industry and anyone that believes that solar panels and wind farms are the future are sadly deluded IMO (and through the education and studies i have done over the past few years)

 

Nuclear power is teh way forward, a very small carbon footprint and overall negative affect on the environment (apart from the small, and VERY small amout of nuclear waste produced)

 

Solar is the worst efficient of the renewables and wind literally is around 26% efficient as a means of producing energy.

 

The way that the french produce energy (nuclear) is the way forward, most of our power stations are to be mothballed and so put out of service within the next few years. Add to this the new energy dependant technologies that include heat pumps, Air con and electric car charging stations our energy network will be massively over loaded and so more energy will be 'brought' from France and the new connections being built to Scandanavia and Ireland.

 

Beware the proposed Green revolution, it is not any where near as Carbon efficient as it makes out.

[Whitey Grandad]

Absolutely spot on! Nuclear is the only option, like it or not.

[Joensuu]

Unfortunately what you say is true. Due to government dithering we are going to be forced down the nuclear route for the next 30 years. This however brings us the additional future issues of where to store the nuclear waste, and how to ensure that our dependency on Australian/Canadian fuel isn't restricted (either by economics or force).

 

We can use the nuclear short term fix to build substantial renewable plants, taking advantage of the unique tides of the Bristol Channel, and the winds which hit our coasts. If we are within the EU, I can see a shared energy plan with EU wide grid, sharing the solar energy of the med, and the winds of the north (with a nuclear back up option). Don't worry too much about efficiency of energy capture, that just means a high percentage of the energy at sorce is not converted to usable electricity. In other words, if efficiency is low, you just need more turbines (or to use increasingly more effiecient ones).

 

By 2025 we should be over 80% nuclear. Hopefully by 2050 we won't use fossil fuels, and our nuclear use will have declined to under 10%

[buctootim]

Agree about solar. Its next to useless in the UK with the current standard of technology. Offshore wind (and maybe wave) can and will provide 30% of our electricity over the next decades. Nuclear will have to play an important part in the supply also. Nuclear isnt ideal though. The price of uranium has shot up due to demand and limited supply and it isnt very flexible - very hard to switch nuclear off when demand is low and boot it up when demand is high.

[Whitey Grandad]

Agree about solar. Its next to useless in the UK with the current standard of technology. Offshore wind (and maybe wave) can and will provide 30% of our electricity over the next decades. Nuclear will have to play an important part in the supply also. Nuclear isnt ideal though. The price of uranium has shot up due to demand and limited supply and it isnt very flexible - very hard to switch nuclear off when demand is low and boot it up when demand is high.

There are no easy answers and after more than a decade of government dithering we are in a very sticky situation. Wind is useless for long periods of high pressure. The most efficient use of solar heating is to pre-warm water in roof panels but they are best installed on new-build properties, which isn't happening.

[Smirking_Saint]

There are no easy answers and after more than a decade of government dithering we are in a very sticky situation. Wind is useless for long periods of high pressure. The most efficient use of solar heating is to pre-warm water in roof panels but they are best installed on new-build properties, which isn't happening.

 

This is true, it is crazy that the government has not started an initiative on this issue. If say all large build plots were built with the inclusion of solar panels purely for the heating of water it could help cut energy requirements and also help the government meet renewable energy targets.

 

I agree with the Wind farms and perhaps tidal generation but you need a more stable base load generation, at the moment we have this in the form of coal, but nuclear will meet this requirement.

 

Gas stations are pretty good to use as a reserve, as is the station in wales that pumps water up the hill and then drops it down in times of need, i forget the name now though.

[Barney Trubble]

Totally agree Smirking, I have been of this view for years. I wished the government would just get on with it and stop ****ing about with nonsense quangos, which are costing us a fortune.

[bridge too far]

This is true, it is crazy that the government has not started an initiative on this issue. If say all large build plots were built with the inclusion of solar panels purely for the heating of water it could help cut energy requirements and also help the government meet renewable energy targets.

 

I agree with the Wind farms and perhaps tidal generation but you need a more stable base load generation, at the moment we have this in the form of coal, but nuclear will meet this requirement.

 

Gas stations are pretty good to use as a reserve, as is the station in wales that pumps water up the hill and then drops it down in times of need, i forget the name now though.

 

I don't know the official name but it's known as Electric Mountain. We actually visited this place last Wednesday whilst on hols up there!

 

Very interesting place indeed. It can respond to demand within 12 seconds which is amazing.

 

I guess the problem is that you need two lakes to make it work and it did cost an awful lot to construct.

[TopGun]

I work within the energy industry and anyone that believes that solar panels and wind farms are the future are sadly deluded IMO (and through the education and studies i have done over the past few years)

 

Nuclear power is teh way forward, a very small carbon footprint and overall negative affect on the environment (apart from the small, and VERY small amout of nuclear waste produced)

 

Solar is the worst efficient of the renewables and wind literally is around 26% efficient as a means of producing energy.

 

The way that the french produce energy (nuclear) is the way forward, most of our power stations are to be mothballed and so put out of service within the next few years. Add to this the new energy dependant technologies that include heat pumps, Air con and electric car charging stations our energy network will be massively over loaded and so more energy will be 'brought' from France and the new connections being built to Scandanavia and Ireland.

 

Beware the proposed Green revolution, it is not any where near as Carbon efficient as it makes out.

 

I work in energy generation development. My clients include Drax, ScottishPower, NPower, Covanta, ESBI, Intergen and Infinergy among others. Between them they build and operate wind farms, coal fired power stations, CCGTs, biomass and energy from waste plants. SP also has nuke aspirations.

 

The points made above about wind are the usual tosh. It doesn't matter if wind is 25-30% efficient as the fuel is free and non-polluting.

 

It's fine to have a spinning reserve of conventional power to back wind power up. It is still less polluting and less costly and fewer finite fossil fuels are used. A lot of people don't get that and just bang on about turbines not turning. It also needs to be pointed out that conventional gas and coal power stations are less than 50% efficient also with most of the fuel being wasted as excess heat (and CO2).

 

Offshore wind will provide huge amounts of energy in the future also.

 

Nukes are fine but they are very expensive to build, take a long time to plan and build (there will no way be a new one operational before 2025) and there remains a nuke waste problem. They are not a magic bullet as Smirking Saints suggests. Many of the French ones don't work as they should as those situated inland don't get enough water to cool properly during the summer. Nukes are also quite inflexible in an energy mix as they take a week to start up from cold. A CCGT will fire up to full capacity in a matter of minutes.

 

We have a projected energy gap as older polluting power stations are turned off under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) from 2015. The way to deal with this is by getting short term power on - wind farms and CCGTs (not gas in reserve). Longer term we will have a spread of nuclear, wind and gas as first main options with possibility of clean coal (CCS) and other alternatives now under development such as tidal.

 

Incidentally, I fail to see how a Con-LD pact or Lab-LD will work with energy as Con and Lab are pro-nuke and LDs anti-nuke.

Edited 8 May, 2010 by TopGun

[SuperMikey]

One of the few Lib Dem policies which I don't agree with, nuclear power is simply the only way forward. It's many times more efficient and powerful than the likes of wind and solar power, and the only drawback that I can think of is the waste, but with a bit more research and funding there's definitely a solution out there. Until then, I think burying it in a lead-lined glass case 60ft underground is a pretty safe bet.

[Joensuu]

Superb post TG. Although the Lib Dems are divided on nuclear. Externally they have to say no to nuclear (as it wins votes), but internally many Lib Dems know it's the only medium term option, and will be an essential stop-gap until enough renewables are built to produce the bulk of the energy demand. Both nuclear and renewables need heavy investment asap.

[norwaysaint]

Most electricity here in Norway comes from a renewable source. There are no nuclear stations here at all.

[TopGun]

Most electricity here in Norway comes from a renewable source. There are no nuclear stations here at all.

 

Not really comparable though is it?

[SuperMikey]

Not really comparable though is it?

 

Very true, Norway has a tiny population and more rural areas than over here. FWIW, I believe it's useful to have some renewable energy going, i'm all for an off-shore wind farm in the North Sea or a hydroelectric dam between Cardiff and Bristol (plans were drawn up and submitted for one with a bridge going across the top, not heard anything more on the subject since), but we're never really going to be reliant on renewable energy unless we find a new method which powers more than nuclear, which is the sensible option at the moment.

 

The next government, be it minority, coalition, whatever, needs to address our dwindling fossil fuel stocks (and reliance) and see that nuclear is good, and as the Conservatives look to be in the driving seat at the moment, there's a good chance we'll see more nuclear power stations popping up. Nuclear is not only efficient, powerful and mostly clean, it's also extremely low on CO2. France is something like 80% nuclear powered, and it's among the lowest CO2 emitters in the world. The giant wind turbine on the motorway just outside Reading actually uses 5% more power to turn than it generates. Farcical really.

[TopGun]

Very true, Norway has a tiny population and more rural areas than over here. FWIW, I believe it's useful to have some renewable energy going, i'm all for an off-shore wind farm in the North Sea or a hydroelectric dam between Cardiff and Bristol (plans were drawn up and submitted for one with a bridge going across the top, not heard anything more on the subject since), but we're never really going to be reliant on renewable energy unless we find a new method which powers more than nuclear, which is the sensible option at the moment.

 

The next government, be it minority, coalition, whatever, needs to address our dwindling fossil fuel stocks (and reliance) and see that nuclear is good, and as the Conservatives look to be in the driving seat at the moment, there's a good chance we'll see more nuclear power stations popping up. Nuclear is not only efficient, powerful and mostly clean, it's also extremely low on CO2. France is something like 80% nuclear powered, and it's among the lowest CO2 emitters in the world. The giant wind turbine on the motorway just outside Reading actually uses 5% more power to turn than it generates. Farcical really.

 

I'm afraid that's a myth though. The largest onshore turbines now have installed capacity of 3MW. Even at something less than 33% efficiency a single turbine will generate enough power on average throughout the year to power 2,000 homes all of the time for all of their needs.

 

It's absolute nonsense to suggest that the only reason turbines are constructed is because the developers get subsidies also. The ROC subsidies are paid to the developer on sale of the electricity to electricity suppliers who have to buy a minimum level of renewable power or pay a fine. The purpose for this is rightly to encourage investment in renewables that stimulates the market, creates many thousands of jobs in manufacture and maintenance and to obviously generate low carbon power.

 

It makes no difference if the Tories decide to build more nukes than Labour has planned because the first one will not be operational until 2025. In point of fact, Labour is encouraging enough nuke construction for our needs anyway, albeit belatedly. The first one will likely be at Hinckley Point by EDF but many of you will know the huge fuss that is going on about new pylons in Somerset to link the nuke with the Grid. That will take years to resolve on its own and the Tories are promising to "return democracy to local people" which will in fact delay the process even more.

 

The same reasons will delay the Severn Barrage that Mikey mentions and it is now more likely in any case that a multi-giant lagoon system will be employed which captures the incoming tide and then releases the water to turn turbines afterwards. Compared with a barrage it will be less visually intrusive, have less damaging effects on the Severn's ecology and will be cheaper. However it is estimated that a barrage could generate 6% of the UK's electricity and a lagoon system would be less. But it is worth remembering that the coal-fired Drax Power Station, the largest in Western Europe at 4,000MW, already generates 7% of the UK's electricity on average - it is of course also Western Europe's largest single CO2 emitter at over 22million tonnes annually and burns over 30,000 tonnes of coal every day.

 

Plenty of choices, plenty of complications too.

 

Drax Power Station - 4,000MW, 7% of UK electricty generation, 22m tonnes of CO2, 30 steam turbines fuelled by 30,000 tonnes of coal every day

 

Edited 8 May, 2010 by TopGun

[Thedelldays]

quite funny that new nuke power stations will be built...will probably mean pay rises for us submariners..as people they tend to readily take us in for jobs...especially the marine engineers who get quite a packet

[Baj]

Ang on a second, now, I may know next to nothing about these subjects, but waiving nuclear around as efficient is a bit odd, since they only extract 1% of the potential energy from the uranium they use.

[TopGun]

quite funny that new nuke power stations will be built...will probably mean pay rises for us submariners..as people they tend to readily take us in for jobs...especially the marine engineers who get quite a packet

 

Not just nuke stations. The new 900MW CCGT that has just opened at Langage outside Plymouth has a fair complement of former Naval engineers and artificers employed there. Centrica was keen to take on people with such skills and went out of their way to attract former Naval personnel.

[Thedelldays]

Not just nuke stations. The new 900MW CCGT that has just opened at Langage outside Plymouth has a fair complement of former Naval engineers and artificers employed there. Centrica was keen to take on people with such skills and went out of their way to attract former Naval personnel.

 

 

yep...plenty are leaving for such jobs...more so the enigineers..which will mean..PAY RISE..!!!!!!

 

the off shore gas/oil exploration companies have taken alot of the sonar training lads in recent years too..

[dune]

Man made global warming is a lie therefore any decisions on energy production should not be influenced by this wacky leftwing conspiracy.

[TopGun]

Man made global warming is a lie therefore any decisions on energy production should not be influenced by this wacky leftwing conspiracy.

 

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't believe in manmade climate change. Fossil fuels are finite and we don't want to over rely on imports of fuel/energy from other countries. I am sure that even you can see the sense in security of supply Dune! Renewables make up part of a sensible mix.

[SuperMikey]

Ang on a second, now, I may know next to nothing about these subjects, but waiving nuclear around as efficient is a bit odd, since they only extract 1% of the potential energy from the uranium they use.

 

It's extremely efficient compared to a lot of other energy sources such as solar, wind and tide, but still not as efficient as it could be.

[dune]

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't believe in manmade climate change. Fossil fuels are finite and we don't want to over rely on imports of fuel/energy from other countries. I am sure that even you can see the sense in security of supply Dune! Renewables make up part of a sensible mix.

 

I can indeed. I just wish govts. would shut up about climate change as we all know it has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.

 

I can provide you with lots of links from the Express if you would like to know more.

[View From The Top]

quite funny that new nuke power stations will be built...will probably mean pay rises for us submariners..as people they tend to readily take us in for jobs...especially the marine engineers who get quite a packet

 

My cousin, a 22year done nuc' tiff, more or less named his own price and had the pick of the world's nuc' plants when he came ashore.

[View From The Top]

25 years ago, when Thatcher shut the pits, we were told the "dash for gas" was because there was enough gas under the North Sea to last us generations.

 

Now we are reliant on gas from other countries and the prices they charge.

 

Someone was telling porkies, just about the same time British Gas was nationalised.

 

Only a bunch of idiots would have to important energy onto an island built on coal. Alas we are governed by idiots.

[suewhistle]

Thanks TopGun, you must feel you're beating your head against a brick wall sometimes. FWIW I'm an ESI pensioner (electricity supply industry) and I remember when I joined all the propaganda about nuclear energy being "too cheap to meter". Hah! How come the governments of various hue have managed to sell off all the best bits of the industry but not the (unanswered question) nuclear reprocessing and storage part?

 

Personally when I return to the UK I'm going to make an investment in PV panels and an inverter able to "island" my supply, so that even in the event of power outages I can still charge up my batteries or electric vehicle (on my budget probably an electric scooter or push-bike)!

 

I just don't trust the sources of power available today. either politically (Russia etc.) or technologically (deep sourced oil a la Louisiana blow-out, Brazil, the falklands in the future..)

[Smirking_Saint]

I work in energy generation development. My clients include Drax, ScottishPower, NPower, Covanta, ESBI, Intergen and Infinergy among others. Between them they build and operate wind farms, coal fired power stations, CCGTs, biomass and energy from waste plants. SP also has nuke aspirations.

 

The points made above about wind are the usual tosh. It doesn't matter if wind is 25-30% efficient as the fuel is free and non-polluting.

 

It's fine to have a spinning reserve of conventional power to back wind power up. It is still less polluting and less costly and fewer finite fossil fuels are used. A lot of people don't get that and just bang on about turbines not turning. It also needs to be pointed out that conventional gas and coal power stations are less than 50% efficient also with most of the fuel being wasted as excess heat (and CO2).

 

Offshore wind will provide huge amounts of energy in the future also.

 

Nukes are fine but they are very expensive to build, take a long time to plan and build (there will no way be a new one operational before 2025) and there remains a nuke waste problem. They are not a magic bullet as Smirking Saints suggests. Many of the French ones don't work as they should as those situated inland don't get enough water to cool properly during the summer. Nukes are also quite inflexible in an energy mix as they take a week to start up from cold. A CCGT will fire up to full capacity in a matter of minutes.

 

We have a projected energy gap as older polluting power stations are turned off under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) from 2015. The way to deal with this is by getting short term power on - wind farms and CCGTs (not gas in reserve). Longer term we will have a spread of nuclear, wind and gas as first main options with possibility of clean coal (CCS) and other alternatives now under development such as tidal.

 

Incidentally, I fail to see how a Con-LD pact or Lab-LD will work with energy as Con and Lab are pro-nuke and LDs anti-nuke.

 

TBF, that is a pretty well written and valid response to my original post.

Wind/solar energy generation however will never and can never be completely relied upon to meet the energy demand at all times.

 

There will still be a definate need for a base load production and a viable reserve (which i would imagine would be gas) in order to meet the occasional peaks that occur.

 

Wind farms are non polluting etc but do not work 100% of the time and indeed only produce electricity under certain wind conditions, and it is a very small window of wind speed. You then need to factor in the fact that they do not produce clean power and so the network needs to, generally, be reinforced to deal with what it feeds into it, they are not as carbon neutral than is made out.

 

As for the nuclear row, yes, it is true that they are not going to be running by 2025 at the earliest, i just think that the governments own targets are pie in the sky, the peak load is growing and with the invention of the new technologies will grow only further still, if the government are to close many of the fossil fuel plants by 2020 ?? I think ?? Then we will be 5 years from a valid solution and under generating, meaning we will be reliant on Europe etc.

 

As for Supermikeys comment on the wind turbine at Madejski, i believe it was built as part of the permission to build the industrial park there and i think when in operation is able to power the majority of it. However, i think they turn it on when it is not generating (and so use power) in order to appease the locals into believing it is actually doing more than it does.

 

Coincidentaly the new small 'windmills' in Millbrook dock gate 20 do sod all, i believe they produce about 2KVA, which is pretty much enough to power a few kettles.

[Whitey Grandad]

The pumped storage in North Wales is Dinorwig: www.fhc.co.uk

 

I read recently in the IET journal that ex vehicle batteries could have a new life as storage for wind turbines when they are no longer hold enough charge for transport purposes. It would help to make wind power more viable, but we have already had two extended calm periods so far this year and there may be more to follow.

[TopGun]

Thanks TopGun, you must feel you're beating your head against a brick wall sometimes. FWIW I'm an ESI pensioner (electricity supply industry) and I remember when I joined all the propaganda about nuclear energy being "too cheap to meter". Hah! How come the governments of various hue have managed to sell off all the best bits of the industry but not the (unanswered question) nuclear reprocessing and storage part?

 

Personally when I return to the UK I'm going to make an investment in PV panels and an inverter able to "island" my supply, so that even in the event of power outages I can still charge up my batteries or electric vehicle (on my budget probably an electric scooter or push-bike)!

 

I just don't trust the sources of power available today. either politically (Russia etc.) or technologically (deep sourced oil a la Louisiana blow-out, Brazil, the falklands in the future..)

 

It is quite hard work persuading people who have preconceptions but my role is PR and stakeholder comms so in one sense it's good for me that there is so much opposition to various ideas... it keeps me in work!

 

With regard to solar panels I also agree with you. They are much underestimated and will improve as technology such as effective magnifying lens are added to the current panels that are available.

 

I am working with a large museum in Manchester (MOSI - Museum of Science & Industry) to get a 50KW system bolted to their latticed roof at the moment. The museum has a peak load of about 250KW and the estimates show that during the daytime we can get an average of about 25KW out of the panels we want to fit, so 10% of need. The cost of the system to install is about £260,000, of which half will be met by government grants. The remainder will be paid off within 10 years in terms of electricity savings (like a mortgage) and the system should work for 60 years so is a good investment for the museum. I have no doubt that future PV technology would reduce such costs and timeframes even further.

 

Because it is a Museum of Science & Industry it is also intended to showcase the technology to 750,000 annual visitors (many school children) so it fulfils an extra educational purpose also.

[Jonnyboy]

Man made global warming is a lie therefore any decisions on energy production should not be influenced by this wacky leftwing conspiracy.

 

Are you Michael Moore trolling?

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

This is true, it is crazy that the government has not started an initiative on this issue. If say all large build plots were built with the inclusion of solar panels purely for the heating of water it could help cut energy requirements and also help the government meet renewable energy targets.

 

I agree with the Wind farms and perhaps tidal generation but you need a more stable base load generation, at the moment we have this in the form of coal, but nuclear will meet this requirement.

 

Gas stations are pretty good to use as a reserve, as is the station in wales that pumps water up the hill and then drops it down in times of need, i forget the name now though.

 

Ummm... doesn't this post contradict your first one almost entirely?

[Whitey Grandad]

Ummm... doesn't this post contradict your first one almost entirely?

I would suggest that there is a difference between photovoltaic panels and solar heating systems, which I argue are best installed with a new-build.

[benjii]

Regardless of your views on PHV and wind, if you don't have some sort of micro/small renewable generating capacity in your home you will subsidise the electricity bills of those who do for the next 25 years

[TopGun]

The Telegraph reports (as I pointed out above) that nukes will likely be delayed with a Con-LD pact. Same would apply to Lab-LD.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7702411/Nuclear-fears-over-Tory-and-Lib-Dem-coalition.html

 

This is not at all good for closing the projected energy gap.

[buctootim]

The Telegraph reports (as I pointed out above) that nukes will likely be delayed with a Con-LD pact. Same would apply to Lab-LD.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7702411/Nuclear-fears-over-Tory-and-Lib-Dem-coalition.html

 

This is not at all good for closing the projected energy gap.

 

Dont think it does say that TG. Its just one analyst saying that in his view its possible that the LDs will object to nuclear.

[TopGun]

Dont think it does say that TG. Its just one analyst saying that in his view its possible that the LDs will object to nuclear.

 

A public inquiry would be almost inevitable as a minimum. The last one into nukes in the 1990s lasted over two years. This would be the same.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

I would suggest that there is a difference between photovoltaic panels and solar heating systems, which I argue are best installed with a new-build.

 

well i would argue that i dont know what the hell you are talking about

[Whitey Grandad]

Photovoltaic panels convert light energy into electricity which then has to be converted, stored or transmitted to somewhere else and does none of these very efficiently. Solar heating uses the heat energy to preheat water and reduces fuel used on the boiler.

[aintforever]

We are going to need a combination of both renewables and nuclear , it's not an either/or thing IMO.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Photovoltaic panels convert light energy into electricity which then has to be converted, stored or transmitted to somewhere else and does none of these very efficiently. Solar heating uses the heat energy to preheat water and reduces fuel used on the boiler.

 

learn something new every week

[Smirking_Saint]

It is quite hard work persuading people who have preconceptions but my role is PR and stakeholder comms so in one sense it's good for me that there is so much opposition to various ideas... it keeps me in work!

 

With regard to solar panels I also agree with you. They are much underestimated and will improve as technology such as effective magnifying lens are added to the current panels that are available.

 

I am working with a large museum in Manchester (MOSI - Museum of Science & Industry) to get a 50KW system bolted to their latticed roof at the moment. The museum has a peak load of about 250KW and the estimates show that during the daytime we can get an average of about 25KW out of the panels we want to fit, so 10% of need. The cost of the system to install is about £260,000, of which half will be met by government grants. The remainder will be paid off within 10 years in terms of electricity savings (like a mortgage) and the system should work for 60 years so is a good investment for the museum. I have no doubt that future PV technology would reduce such costs and timeframes even further.

 

Because it is a Museum of Science & Industry it is also intended to showcase the technology to 750,000 annual visitors (many school children) so it fulfils an extra educational purpose also.

 

Ok, here we go, being an engineer and so seeing the effect that these crappy things do to the network.

 

I do not have preconceptions, however was asked to produce a report as part of my degree and so had to do a fair bit of research, this added to talking to industry experts etc etc.

 

The problem with wind power comes in many stages, one is that they are not at all reliable, saying that we can have a whole country powered by wind is just nonsense, you cannot predict the wind speeds will be within the turbines 'limited' power producing range at all times.

 

Also, wind turbines create a large amount of reactive power, reactive power is essentially useless, and actually causes there to be more volt drop/I2R losses along a line. This 'power' needs to be compensated to result in a more efficient system.

 

The way the government gives incentives is also on a turn key basis, most companies will come in and build a wind farm and then hand the keys over to the DNO's to run them, the problem is these wind farms are put up quickly, often with CE products that are legal to use however in many cases do not meet ENA requirements, dor this reason they brake down easily and actually have caused many problems, some of which are going through the courts due to injury to operatives. Wind farms currently only have a 20 year running time, they will have to be replaced after that, most fossil fuel technology can last 50-60 years or more.

 

Finally, we come to the fact that they are inefficient, i take Baj's arguement that nuclear stations probably only harness 1% of a isotopes energy, i cannot argue this either way as i just don't know, however a 5MW station will produce on average somewhere near 5MW's.

 

In comparisson a wind turbine rated to 2MW's will produce, on average 800kW, that is less than half !!!!!!!!

[John B]

I work within the energy industry and anyone that believes that solar panels and wind farms are the future are sadly deluded IMO (and through the education and studies i have done over the past few years)

 

Nuclear power is teh way forward, a very small carbon footprint and overall negative affect on the environment (apart from the small, and VERY small amout of nuclear waste produced)

 

Solar is the worst efficient of the renewables and wind literally is around 26% efficient as a means of producing energy.

 

The way that the french produce energy (nuclear) is the way forward, most of our power stations are to be mothballed and so put out of service within the next few years. Add to this the new energy dependant technologies that include heat pumps, Air con and electric car charging stations our energy network will be massively over loaded and so more energy will be 'brought' from France and the new connections being built to Scandanavia and Ireland.

 

Beware the proposed Green revolution, it is not any where near as Carbon efficient as it makes out.

 

Very True

 

 

But I think every effort should to reduce consumption of energy

[TopGun]

Ok, here we go, being an engineer and so seeing the effect that these crappy things do to the network.

 

I do not have preconceptions, however was asked to produce a report as part of my degree and so had to do a fair bit of research, this added to talking to industry experts etc etc.

 

The problem with wind power comes in many stages, one is that they are not at all reliable, saying that we can have a whole country powered by wind is just nonsense, you cannot predict the wind speeds will be within the turbines 'limited' power producing range at all times.

 

Also, wind turbines create a large amount of reactive power, reactive power is essentially useless, and actually causes there to be more volt drop/I2R losses along a line. This 'power' needs to be compensated to result in a more efficient system.

 

The way the government gives incentives is also on a turn key basis, most companies will come in and build a wind farm and then hand the keys over to the DNO's to run them, the problem is these wind farms are put up quickly, often with CE products that are legal to use however in many cases do not meet ENA requirements, dor this reason they brake down easily and actually have caused many problems, some of which are going through the courts due to injury to operatives. Wind farms currently only have a 20 year running time, they will have to be replaced after that, most fossil fuel technology can last 50-60 years or more.

 

Finally, we come to the fact that they are inefficient, i take Baj's arguement that nuclear stations probably only harness 1% of a isotopes energy, i cannot argue this either way as i just don't know, however a 5MW station will produce on average somewhere near 5MW's.

 

In comparisson a wind turbine rated to 2MW's will produce, on average 800kW, that is less than half !!!!!!!!

 

You miss the point entirely. Wind is free and non-polluting. Therefore its efficiency is irrelevant provided there is sufficient spread.

 

The reactive power point is disingenuous also. With cables designed for use at 275 or 400kV the reactive power generated by the electric field is always greater than the reactive power absorbed by the magnetic field and so cables are always net generators of reactive power. It makes no difference whatsoever from what source the energy comes from. Power is power is power.

 

In the UK there are no court cases ongoing about wind farm safety either. This is more inaccurate spin designed by the anti-wind lobby and lapped up by their followers.

 

I fully accept wind farms are designed to operate for 25 years. This helps close the energy gap which nuclear new build can not do. After that, new technologies will replace onshore wind.

 

Anybody who decries wind verbatim is deluded. The UK is lucky enough to have huge resources available and we will end up making the most of them, despite the luddite protests of people such as Smirking Saint who have not done their research properly.

[Smirking_Saint]

You miss the point entirely. Wind is free and non-polluting. Therefore its efficiency is irrelevant provided there is sufficient spread.

 

The reactive power point is disingenuous also. With cables designed for use at 275 or 400kV the reactive power generated by the electric field is always greater than the reactive power absorbed by the magnetic field and so cables are always net generators of reactive power. It makes no difference whatsoever from what source the energy comes from. Power is power is power.

 

In the UK there are no court cases ongoing about wind farm safety either. This is more inaccurate spin designed by the anti-wind lobby and lapped up by their followers.

 

I fully accept wind farms are designed to operate for 25 years. This helps close the energy gap which nuclear new build can not do. After that, new technologies will replace onshore wind.

 

Anybody who decries wind verbatim is deluded. The UK is lucky enough to have huge resources available and we will end up making the most of them, despite the luddite protests of people such as Smirking Saint who have not done their research properly.

 

Spoken from a man that has a job in PR and is a stakeholder within a wind turbine technology company i am not at all surprised that you have disregarded my arguement.

 

I understand the need for some Wind turbine technology to help bridge some of the gap that is needed and helps go towards the targets set by the government however to say that it could single handedly power the UK is deluded and unneducated.

 

Another point is that wind farms connect mainly to the 33kV network and so will not be going through 275kV and 400kV cables either, unless you are talking about large offshore windfarms, from which underwater cabling has its own issues.

 

From your arguement about reactive power also i feel you need to do a little more research, it's just wrong, reactive power is useless power no matter how you look at it.

[TopGun]

Spoken from a man that has a job in PR and is a stakeholder within a wind turbine technology company i am not at all surprised that you have disregarded my arguement.

 

I understand the need for some Wind turbine technology to help bridge some of the gap that is needed and helps go towards the targets set by the government however to say that it could single handedly power the UK is deluded and unneducated.

 

Another point is that wind farms connect mainly to the 33kV network and so will not be going through 275kV and 400kV cables either, unless you are talking about large offshore windfarms, from which underwater cabling has its own issues.

 

From your arguement about reactive power also i feel you need to do a little more research, it's just wrong, reactive power is useless power no matter how you look at it.

 

I have an interest in all forms of power, not just wind. It is sensible that wind is part of the mix.

 

I certainly did not say that wind can single handedly power the UK either. I would expect a top of about 20%.

 

The reactive power point is an absolute non-starter. My wind clients include Npower, Infinergy, Eon Renewables, Force 9 , Gamesa, Cornwall Light & Power and Novera. All agree that reactive power is a relative non-issue, no matter how the energy is distributed.

 

Additionally it should be noted that last year across Europe more renewable energy capacity was installed than non-renewable energy capcity. Most of this is in the form of wind. Are you really trying to say that all these developers, which include mixed energy giants, are ****ing in the wind and don't know what they are up to?

[buctootim]

I have an interest in all forms of power, not just wind. It is sensible that wind is part of the mix.

 

I certainly did not say that wind can single handedly power the UK either. I would expect a top of about 20%.

 

The reactive power point is an absolute non-starter. My wind clients include Npower, Infinergy, Eon Renewables, Force 9 , Gamesa, Cornwall Light & Power and Novera. All agree that reactive power is a relative non-issue, no matter how the energy is distributed.

 

Additionally it should be noted that last year across Europe more renewable energy capacity was installed than non-renewable energy capcity. Most of this is in the form of wind. Are you really trying to say that all these developers, which include mixed energy giants, are ****ing in the wind and don't know what they are up to?

 

I dont think he knows what he's saying - just letting a little knowledge run away with him. A short, self researched project on electricity as part of a course doesnt mean any more than my first year project on load bearing structures meant I knew how to build a channel tunnel.

[View From The Top]

Doesn't take a genius that a mix of wind/sea/tidal/nuclear/coal is the sensible option.

 

Energy security, to me, seems a really big deal.

[Smirking_Saint]

I have an interest in all forms of power, not just wind. It is sensible that wind is part of the mix.

 

I certainly did not say that wind can single handedly power the UK either. I would expect a top of about 20%.

 

The reactive power point is an absolute non-starter. My wind clients include Npower, Infinergy, Eon Renewables, Force 9 , Gamesa, Cornwall Light & Power and Novera. All agree that reactive power is a relative non-issue, no matter how the energy is distributed.

 

Additionally it should be noted that last year across Europe more renewable energy capacity was installed than non-renewable energy capcity. Most of this is in the form of wind. Are you really trying to say that all these developers, which include mixed energy giants, are ****ing in the wind and don't know what they are up to?

 

I dont think he knows what he's saying - just letting a little knowledge run away with him. A short, self researched project on electricity as part of a course doesnt mean any more than my first year project on load bearing structures meant I knew how to build a channel tunnel.

 

Clearly you both do not understand what i am trying to portray here, Buctoo also it is not just a research project but operational experience.

 

I also apologise to Topgun as i thought he was saying that wind power could power the most of the UK, if, like you said above it is just to produce 20% etc of the UK's total energy demand, any more would be rediculous.

 

As a technology however is still do not think it is as 'carbon neutral' as is being made out, added to the overall efficiency and power quality issues it creates, along with its small lifespan i believe that advances still need to be made here in order to make it the 'viable' solution so many believe it to be.

 

I also can see you don't understand what reactive power is, or how it effects a network.

[buctootim]

Clearly you both do not understand what i am trying to portray here, Buctoo also it is not just a research project but operational experience.

 

I also apologise to Topgun as i thought he was saying that wind power could power the most of the UK, if, like you said above it is just to produce 20% etc of the UK's total energy demand, any more would be rediculous.

 

As a technology however is still do not think it is as 'carbon neutral' as is being made out, added to the overall efficiency and power quality issues it creates, along with its small lifespan i believe that advances still need to be made here in order to make it the 'viable' solution so many believe it to be.

 

I also can see you don't understand what reactive power is, or how it effects a network.

 

No offence intended Smirking. I work for a climate change charity and know a bit about the subject and have read TG's posts on renewable energy for years. I know enough to realise TG knows far more about the technical aspects of electricity generation and distribution than me. TG is right - even if you disagree with him -its very hard to argue that the national grid and the huge utility companies investing billions in wind capacity also dont know what they're doing.

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6910298.ece

 

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/43892106-1CC7-4BEF-A434-7359F155092B/3543/Reactive_Introduction_oct01.pdf

 

"GE’s new WindFREE Reactive Power feature provides smooth fast voltage regulation by delivering controlled reactive power through all operating conditions. By supervising individual wind turbines, the WindCONTROL system ensures that the reactive power performance of a wind power plant can meet—and often exceed—the performance of a conventional (non-wind) power plant. Even when wind turbines are not generating active power, GE’s wind turbine generators equipped with the new WindFREE Reactive Power control feature can provide reactive power. The provision of continued voltage support and regulation provides grid benefits not possible with conventional generation, while mitigating adverse voltage impacts of wind turbines being off-line due to wind conditions. This feature can eliminate the need for grid reinforcements specifically designed for no-wind conditions, and may allow for more economic commitment of other generating resources that will enhance grid security by reducing the risk of voltage collapse."

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/downloads/wind_plant_perf2.pdf

Edited 13 May, 2010 by buctootim

[cellone]

Good thread ,shame about it's title.