How much does it cost to run the floodlights at SMS?

[bridge too far]

I'm staying static.

 

Just popped back to to say bye bye before I drive off in my Proton

:smt039

[1976_Child]

Manc City want to install a 2MW turbine. Research shows that turbines in the UK produce about 25% of that on average due to wind variance. Given that they would be using the turbine for a very small percent of the time in any week a turbine would work well for them and most other football clubs as the excess can always be sold. A turbine costs about £1.5m to install and has a planned life of 25 years. Believe me, I know these things!!!

 

What are you saying? That wind turbines produce power? Shocker! My point is that wind will NEVER be able to provide even a gnat's worth of the total UK energy consumption. It is simply nonsense to think it will. Believe ME! I really do know this subject well. I honestly wish I was wrong but sadly I am not. Wind power is an expensively subsidised con-trick. Sure, wind turbines produce power when the wind is blowing a steady 5 or 6, but there has to be the same amount of energy supply to fall back on when the wind doesn't blow. And it is no good that it is blowing in the Scottish highlands even if it is not blowing in Southampton as to 'pump' the energy the 500 miles to the South would require massive voltages due to the staggeringly high dissipation along the way. Only massive power plants - like coal or nuclear - can produce enough power to cover this dissipation cost. I could go on for ever on this subject but i need to get on a train to Southampton....

 

Besides, a much better way to power a footy club is to have solar panels (photovoltaic) on the flat roofs of the stadium. A lot of space which on a sunny day would really churn out the mega watts. (well ok, perhaps not mega- but certainly a lot)

Edited 28 October, 2008 by 1976_Child

[TopGun]

Just popped back to to say bye bye before I drive off in my Proton

:smt039

 

 

Are there any decent alternatives to this thread?

[bridge too far]

Are there any decent alternatives to this thread?

 

Not that you can get to DIRECTly.

[Teddy Nutkins]

Well i certainly sparked a debate here. I was only trying to plug a gap.

[1976_Child]

'Wnid power' is not a 'myth'. Yes it is currently heavily subsidised but so is every other power lobby.

 

What kind of 'subsidisation' (cost) is hidden in Nuclear power? The Nuke lobby is far better funded than eco-power lobbies - for the moment at least - and also has a fifty year start on alternative energy sources in terms of RnD and Deployment.

 

Build costs for Nuclear are staggeringly huge and can only be justified on a large scale (eg current plans for new UK power stations require an absolute minimum of six stations to built to meet cost expectations) and subsequent running costs are simply NOT figured into the cost per watt.

 

Clean up and disposal falls to Governments and therefor the tax payer. This is a massive hidden charge.

 

None of this mentions the safety angle, which probably need not bother us - but your Grand Kids might not be too happy with our 'state-of-the-art' nuclear power stations, in much the same way most Londoners are less than impressed with victorian 'state-of-the-art' water and sewage systems.

 

Small scale Wind (and other renewable enegy sources) are in the early days of development and deployment in the modern world, but are already showing signs of adequetely replacing Grid power. As demand and need rises, production improves and increases, economy 'acts on a scale' and the price comes down.

 

I hate the idea that people still see Nuclear power as 'clean', when it is about the dirtiest power there is. If you want to make sure your lights stay on you'd ideally get your own power source in your home.

 

I don't think of nuclear as clean. But it is the only viable alternative, save for getting the Welsh and Yorkshiremen back down the mines and burning coal. And I am very happy to see engineering investment in wind. But the simple, honest, non-biased fact is that wind power is seen as some kind of saviour to all our power needs and people should not sleep easy in the illusion that wind turbines will be enough to get the country out of the hole we are rapidly approaching. Even the wind industry has acknowledged that there aren't enough 'good quality' (read: consistently windy) locations on mainland Britain to provide even a nominal amount of power. And the government is slowly waking up to this fact too which is why off-shore wind farms are all the rage at the moment. The problem is that off shore turbines are MASSIVELY expensive to build and the VAST infrastructure needed to build even a modest off-shore wind farm is simply not available. We are talking hundreds of oil-rig sized constructions. Not cheap, and not easy. If only is was. I really honestly wish that the wind lobby were right and that it was viable. It isn't and that is why any wind based energy system will only ever be token - in the big scheme of things! Sorry, but that is the God's honest truth.. and now back to the footy

[TopGun]

What are you saying? That wind turbines produce power? Shocker! My point is that wind will NEVER be able to provide even a gnat's worth of the total UK energy consumption. It is simply nonsense to think it will. Believe ME! I really do know this subject well. I honestly wish I was wrong but sadly I am not. Wind power is an expensively subsidised con-trick. Sure, wind turbines produce power when the wind is blowing a steady 5 or 6, but there has to be the same amount of energy supply to fall back on when the wind doesn't blow. And it is no good that it is blowing in the Scottish highlands even if it is not blowing in Southampton as to 'pump' the energy the 500 miles to the South would require massive voltages due to the staggeringly high dissipation along the way. Only massive power plants - like coal or nuclear - can produce enough power to cover this dissipation cost. I could go on for ever on this subject but i need to get on a train to Southampton....

 

Besides, a much better way to power a footy club is to have solar panels (photovoltaic) on the flat roofs of the stadium. A lot of space which on a sunny day would really churn out the mega watts.

 

A spinning reserve is required whatever your primary forms of power generation. And it's a far bigger effect when a nuke/gas/coal station suddenly trips offline.

 

I agree with photovoltaics though. They could do a job on all new buildings built, not just football clubs.

[1976_Child]

A spinning reserve is required whatever your primary forms of power generation. And it's a far bigger effect when a nuke/gas/coal station suddenly trips offline.

 

I agree with photovoltaics though. They could do a job on all new buildings built, not just football clubs.

 

Agreed, but 99.9% of the time you know when the coal or nuke station is going to be powered down many months in advance and can plan the load base accordingly. Despite tonnes of computing power the Met office still can't accurately predict how strong the wind will blow on any given hill top at anny given time. So the reserve has to be fired up and running alongside the wind. which is totally counter-productive.

 

As for new buildings, the building regulations should make it compulsory to install photovoltaics on new builds... but again, the manufacturing capacity to churn out low cost cells is not established yet. Chicken and egg, and something which could be addressed very easyily by the government setting a date - three years in the future - when the new regulations kick in. As soon as it the industry sees the future demand is enforced by law just sit back and see the investment in capacity pour in!