|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2010 14:37:52 GMT 1
According to the following excerpt from this ‘Offshore Wind’ article – August 27, 2010 It’s not windy. "The deals are being launched as it has become clear 2010 has been a bad year for UK wind speeds, perhaps the worse since 1821. Wind speeds clearly have a direct impact on energy MW yields from wind. A recent report from wind consultancy Garrad Hassan said UK wind yields have dropped this year to perhaps a 1 in 15 year event due to stable high pressure. Energy levels from wind dropped 27.8% in the first quarter compared with the average and 18.3% in the second quarter – compared with a 5% drop in the last quarter of 2009 and a 15.7% increase in the third quarter of 2009. The North Atlantic Oscillation index has been measured since 1821 and this correlates with the Garrad Hassan wind index which itself been in existence for 15 years. The NAO index numbers for the 4 months from December 2009 to March 2010 were the most negative since 1821. Unless something very odd is happening it is fair to assume wind yields will continue to vary quarter by quarter. ” Excerpt from: PFI Offshore Transfers Deals To Banks To Keep Financings on Balance (UK)) www.offshorewind.biz/2010/08/27/pfi-offshore-transfers-deals-to-banks-to-keep-financings-on-balance-uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 14, 2010 16:01:52 GMT 1
Re "The deals are being launched as it has become clear 2010 has been a bad year for UK wind speeds, perhaps the worse since 1821. Wind speeds clearly have a direct impact on energy MW yields from wind." from the link interesting link from Marchesarosa: www.offshorewind.biz/2010/08/27/p....-on-balance-uk/This situation may well worsen with GW i.e. if weather extremes become more exaggerated, so too may high and low pressures i.e. even less wind. (Oh and the ROCs make an appearance again: "Just over 90% of the income to the scheme is backed by power purchase agreements and renewable obligation certificates (ROCs)") |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2010 16:19:38 GMT 1
Let's not forget either that the whole rationale for renewables is predicated on (1) CO2 leading to catastrophic climate change. (2) oil and fossil fuel running out.
If the UK's options for renewables STILL require thermal generation capacity back-up what is point, please? We do not have the hydro generation which is all that makes wind power viable.
Makes more sense to skip straight to the nuclear option, doesn't it? That, at least is tried and tested and new, less dangerous fuels are being developed, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 16:41:44 GMT 1
Cloe,
One of the biggest problems I have with wind turbines is the fact that the energy they produce in their lifetimes is barely enough to build themselves.
I'm sure you have more realistic figures for this than can readily found on the web.
A thermal station would never be considered if it produced such a derisory amount of energy in comparison to the amount of energy to build it.
I think the problem rests in the lack of understanding in the general public of the amount of energy in a tonne of coal or a tankerload of gas compared to "renewable" sources.
If someone could graphically demonstrate this in an effective way, public support for renewables would wane very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 14, 2010 20:58:41 GMT 1
"If someone could graphically demonstrate this in an effective way, public support for renewables would wane very quickly." Well here's the next best thing Mr Smith: “Wind turbines in the shadow of the Drax power station in Selby” www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/12/thanet-wind-farm-energy An interesting caption for the picture. On one hand it’s correct : Drax 4,000MW when we want it. 3 wind turbines 7.5MW (being generous) when the wind wants it. However comparing like for like (well actually ‘same same but different’): Drax 4,000MW when we want it. 6,400 wind turbines 4,000MW when the wind wants it Then: “Drax in the shadow of wind turbines throughout Yorkshire” And of course, we'd still need Drax for when the wind blows too much, too little or not at all. * (4,000/2.5) x 4 = 6,400 4 is for 25% load factor; 2.5MW is turbine size |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 21:21:18 GMT 1
You're right cloe, it's the next best thing (and well done) but it's not enough to make ordinary people understand.
Did you see the graphic illustration on Q.I. (the TV programme) where the planet's oceans, fresh water and atmosphere were illustrated as spheres in comparison to the globe?
It would be useful, albeit difficult, to produce a similar illustration of the energy potential of different "fuels".
Gas, tide, wind, nuclear and coal.
Possibly production cost per kWhr as a scale?
|
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Sept 14, 2010 21:53:06 GMT 1
Sorry, no have TV here Mr Smith
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2010 10:31:13 GMT 1
From Andrew Gilligan ? Theres a name to conjure with! An ill wind blows for Denmark's green energy revolutionwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.htmlSlump in global demand for turbines. Current market over supply. Denmark has more than four thousand onshore turbines – two-thirds more than Britain - in a country a fifth the size. (!!) Danish electricity bills have been almost as dramatically affected as the Danish landscape. Thanks in part to the windfarm subsidies, Danes pay some of Europe's highest energy tariffs – on average, more than twice those in Britain. Under public pressure, Denmark's ruling Left Party is curbing the handouts to the wind industry. They don't get 20 per cent of their electricity from wind. The truth is that a much larger unit, consisting of Denmark and Germany, has managed to get about 7 per cent – and that only because of a fortuitous link with Norwegian and Swedish hydropower. Apparently oblivious to all this, the UK Government's climate change watchdog, the Committee on Climate Change, continues to praise Denmark's example and only last week demanded the building of 10,000 more onshore wind turbines to help meet a Whitehall target that 30 per cent of Britain's electricity should be generated from renewables by the end of the decade. This goal (the current figure is 4 per cent) is politely described as "optimistic" by the National Audit Office; privately, most observers view it as total fantasy. There is still much government talk of offshore wind, but Huhne has sounded a more emollient note on a new generation of nuclear stations. Hmmm! Let's wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Red on Nov 13, 2010 14:59:59 GMT 1
Maybe the question is the wrong question.
A better question is "why is the world so profligate?"
If you care about the issues, use less, waste less, and get out there and do more.
Helo? Hello? Hello? is anyone listening?
thought not!
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 13, 2010 18:24:57 GMT 1
Why is the world so profligate? Easy - we are hunter gatherers therefore we guage success by what we accumulate. Capitalism satisfies this inate desire. Socialism makes us miserable.  |
|
|
|
Post by chloepink on Nov 17, 2010 9:43:51 GMT 1
Hi folks Good to see you're all still busy. Just wanted to say how good it is to have a board like this for discussion. I was on my favourite topic here: www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053591I was appalled by the mod I encountered. Anyway that's all for now although, at my last post there, there's an interesting link regarding shale gas as put by Lord Lawson. |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 12:17:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 12:26:53 GMT 1
Renewable energy is an absurd concept that goes against the laws of thermodynamics Typical of the lefto-sentimental-disagree-and your'e-a- nasty language that is used all the time in social engineering |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 12:38:57 GMT 1
Could you please explain how solar energy goes against the laws of thermodynamics?
It may not be ideal for the UK but that's a different argument. It's the statement above that I'd like your views on.
[If you're just refering to the pedantics of calling the sun a renewable source (clearly it's not), then fairy nuff but otherwise...]
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 13:09:16 GMT 1
Could you please explain how solar energy goes against the laws of thermodynamics? It may not be ideal for the UK but that's a different argument. It's the statement above that I'd like your views on. [If you're just refering to the pedantics of calling the sun a renewable source (clearly it's not), then fairy nuff but otherwise...] I haven't made any comment upon how solar energy goes against the laws of thermodynamics. I did say renewable energy ; solar energy does not have a any 'renewal' concept - that is absurd -one you have used it it is gone- lost entropied |
|
