|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jun 1, 2012 7:12:44 GMT 1
Latest Pelamis wave energy device heads out for some tough testing...  The view presented is looking west into the North Atlantic from Graemsay, just South of Stromness. Brave lads - venturing out into the maelstrom..... |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2012 8:40:09 GMT 1
Mr Smith, copy the picture's url which ends with .jpg or similar. Paste it into your post. Highlight it and then click on the picture icon from the toolbar above the post. p.s. You will have to post your message first then click on "modify" in order to get to the toolbar. Then repost. OR just type ![]() [/IMG] before and after the picture url using lower case. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jun 1, 2012 9:36:02 GMT 1
Thanks, success at last. I wonder if our resident engineers could give a rough estimate of available wave energy in the picture. p.s. Forecast - flat calm for at least a week.  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2012 18:23:09 GMT 1
Watch this, Mr Smith. It's long but it's a treat, especially the sane and sensible contributions from Peter Atherton who told the Nationalist MP's stuff they really DID NOT want to hear about what some naively perceive as Scotland's "comparative advantage" in renewable energy generation. He told them, sorry, it's England that has the comparative advantage so far! They really objected to him raining on their parade! He told them they needed £7 billion per year to meet the 100% renewables "target" rather than the £750million per year presently available. He called their ideas "borderline fantasy" Oh, dear! VERY unusual, in my admittedly limited experience of the genre, to hear such straight talking in a Parliamentary Committee! Click on the video link in this article www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18264356 |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2012 21:23:26 GMT 1
MM, Yes, it is worth a watch. The lead to the video was the BBC general, for the plebs, editorial. It makes no mention of the contributions from the rest of the committee. Here's a more balanced editorial, again from the BBC ... news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/newsid_9724000/9724386.stmI do like Peter Atherton's contributions. He's obviously been to many of these types of event and has come to realise that 'truth and frankness' is the best way. The market will not invest in the Scottish renewables as no future can be seen. The whole video highlights the "Excessive introspection, self-absorption, or concentration on a single issue:" [navel gazing] of the politicians involved. This particular venture and in time the independent Scottish State will all end the same, in penury. I repeat yet again the words of that senior civil servant, 'they make good administrators' or in other words don't leave them in charge. "Who is Peter Atherton and why do we care?" newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/3594-who-is-peter-atherton-and-why-do-we-care.htmlI doubt if any new nuclear stations will be built to completion let alone commissioning ... "EDF in talks to extend life of UK nuclear power stations" www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9281361/EDF-in-talks-to-extend-life-of-UK-nuclear-power-stations.html"EDF Energy’s public statements on nuclear policy in the UK following the earthquake in Japan" www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/March-2011/media-statements-on-nuclear-policy-in-the-UK-following-the-earthquake-in-Japan.shtmlAgain, Peter Atherton summed it up, generally when He spoke of the French nuclear industry in the '70's, in the video. and specifically on wind/renewables at 1hr 14 mins. Dr. Mackie should stick to His crisps and ice cream. He's probably very good at that. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 13, 2012 11:30:40 GMT 1
The House of Commons Committee on Energy and Climate Change has announced that it is to hold an inquiry into the economics of wind power. The Committee is particularly interested in the following, although written submission need not address all, of be confined to, these questions:
What do cost benefit analyses tell us about onshore and offshore wind compared with other measures to cut carbon?
What do the latest assessments tell us about the costs of generating electricity from wind power compared to other methods of generating electricity?
How do the costs of onshore wind compare to offshore wind?
What are the costs of building new transmission links to wind farms in remote areas and how are these accounted for in cost assessments of wind power?
What are the costs associated with providing back up capacity for when the wind isn’t blowing, and how are these accounted for in cost assessments of wind power?
How much support does wind power receive compared with other forms of renewable energy?
Is it possible to estimate how much consumers pay towards supporting wind power in the UK? (i.e. separating out from other renewables)
What lessons can be learned from other countries?
What methods could be used to make onshore wind more acceptable to communities that host them?Looks like policy-based evidence making to me. See Bishop Hill bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/12/new-commons-inquiry-wind-power.html |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 13, 2012 11:33:37 GMT 1
The Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, committing us to the most costly programme ever legislated in our history. Now they want to examine the economics!
Pharos
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 13, 2012 14:56:56 GMT 1
Crony capitalism is so entrenched, we scarcely even spot itThe Transport Committee met today for an evidence session on low carbon vehicles. It illustrated that crony capitalism is now not merely entrenched and passed over, but borne out of the good intentions of a global regulatory elite. In the first session, we learned that “consumer demand is lagging policy”, which I translated as “people don’t want to buy these expensive vehicles” (I’ll link to the transcript later). We learned that electric vehicles are expensive and impractical: £30,000 for a subsidised car with a £15,000 battery and a short range. Of course the electricity comes mostly from carbon sources, although in the end we were asked to believe that combustion-kinetic energy-electricity-transmission-charging-discharging-kinetic energy is a more efficient process than combustion-kinetic energy. Perhaps. In the second session, the motor industry welcomed the regulations that have created this new industry segment for them, calling for stability. Considerable effort went into avoiding my point that this particular set of product lines exist in the industry because of the global rules, not people’s free choices. The government were to be congratulated for creating jobs and so on. (But wouldn’t the jobs have been created somewhere else?) Finally, the Minister, Norman Baker, explained how satisfied he is with the Government’s progress. He used the example of CD adoption to explain slow uptake of new technologies. Superficially, all seems well. However, it is undoubtedly the case that considerable economic activity has been created by international government regulation to produce products which are more expensive and less useful than people want. I don’t doubt the industry like it: the rules push economic activity towards them, providing direct subsidy and underwriting the commercial risks of developing new technologies. Of course they want, as they said, stability of these rules across the world: their research and development risks have been socialised, which is good for the bottom line. Whereas CDs were introduced as a technological innovation by private entrepreneurs with the risks carried by private investors, the same cannot be said of low carbon vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are being guided by international government, not by the need to satisfy their consumers, consumers who are being taxed to subsidise the products most of them cannot afford to buy. And incidentally, when one witness, an engineer, quoted figures to illustrate the relatively poor cost-effectiveness of electric cars compared to conventional cars, he used the pump price of petrol: I pointed out that if he deducted the tax on fuel, the figures would be about three times as bad. This way of organising ourselves may now be the norm, but it is not capitalism or liberalism. It’s true that the means of production are privately owned, but their use is being directed by state power not people’s choices. Whether private ownership has any meaning is doubtful in such an environment of rules, taxes and subsidies. This may be called corporatism, crony capitalism or perhaps “socialism of the German pattern” (that of the 1930s) but what it is not is social cooperation based on choice and voluntary exchange, ie capitalism. Unfortunately, this system goes by that name and too few spot what it really is. We seem to welcome this despotism and waste of resources in the name of a half-hearted commitment to what is supposed to be an existential threat to mankind. Given the miserable state of the world economy and the rising cost of living for normal people, society needs some clear thinking about how to allocate scarce resources to best meet the needs of humanity. Socialism, economic planning, has failed for a hundred years: in the midst of our present failing interventionism, why not try freedom? by Steve Baker MP here www.stevebaker.info/2012/06/crony-capitalism-is-so-entrenched-we-scarcely-even-spot-it/#See also bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/13/electric-vehicles-crony-capitalism.html
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 6, 2012 10:19:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 7, 2012 20:12:21 GMT 1
Marchesa
Good link
Cost - £9k: Actual Electricity Saving: £243: Return 2.7%: Payback period 37 years
Not very , so bring on the subsidies:
Cost: £9k: Actual Electricity Saving: £243: Feed-in Tariff (subsidy) £782 Return 8.4%: Payback period 8 years
We have the ridiculous situation that those who cannot afford panels are now paying a subsidy to those who can.
As an mind exercise, let's assume that every house in the UK had 4kW solar panels and produced enough electricity for their needs, thus paying no electric bill.. Where exactly would the £782 subsidy everyone is receiving come from?
P
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 7, 2012 21:31:17 GMT 1
It would have to come from general taxation, principled, but I don't think we will get to that stage!
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 14, 2012 20:41:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 22, 2012 13:40:44 GMT 1
Reuters
Sun Nov 4, 2007
Australian town to run on solar power in 2 years
Nov 4 (Reuters) - A sun-drenched town in Australia's north hopes to use only solar power in two years after being chosen as the site for a solar thermal power station.
Remote Cloncurry, which boasts recording Australia's hottest day, would be able to generate electricity on rare cloudy days and at night from the station, which runs off heat stored in graphite blocks.
The Queensland state government said on Sunday it would build the A$7 million ($6.5 million), 10-megawatt power station as part of a push to make Cloncurry one of the first towns to rely on solar power alone.
"The town of Cloncurry has long claimed the title of having recorded Australia's hottest day -- 53 degrees (Celsius) in the shade in 1889, so I reckon we're on a winner," Queensland Premier Anna Bligh was quoted as saying by Australian Associated Press.
Solar thermal power differs from photovoltaic panels that make power directly.
Instead, 8,000 mirrors will reflect sunlight onto graphite blocks. Water will be pumped through the blocks to generate steam which generates electricity via turbines.
Heat stored in the graphite produces steam well after the sun goes down, allowing electricity generators to keep running at night.
The Queensland government said the station would deliver about 30 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power the entire town. It is expected to be running by early 2010.
----------
So, what actually happened? Read on.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 22, 2012 13:42:13 GMT 1
Solar Pie-in-the-Sky reported by Donna Laframboise nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/28/solar-pie-in-the-sky/June 28, 2012 at 5:23 pm How plans to run an entire Australian town on solar energy failed miserably.The article says that a sun-drenched town in a remote part of northern Queensland was chosen as the site of a $7 million, 10-megawatt solar thermal power station as part of a push to make Cloncurry one of the first towns to rely on solar power alone. The article explained that the station would use 8,000 mirrors in conjunction with graphite blocks (rather than photovoltaic panels) and said the facility was expected to be in operation by early 2010. Tellingly, the journalist made a point of reminding readers that Australia had, at that juncture, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol…[and that] Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are among the world’s highest per-capita… The article expressed not one iota of skepticism about the solar plant being completed on time or within budget. Nor did it mention the rather salient fact that Cloncurry’s population is a mere 2,400 people. So here we are 4.5 years later. How did things work out? Is Cloncurry a shining example of the clean, green, renewable future to which we should all aspire? Is the entire community humming along on “free energy” harvested from the sun? I’m afraid not. Three years after that news story appeared, the project was abandoned. According to a follow-up news clipping “significant reflective glare issues” – and possible adverse health impacts – had been identified In January of this year, the project was resurrected briefly. But the new design would have cost the same $7 million and only powered a fifth of the town. Last month, the Queensland government withdrew financing, thus saving taxpayers a pile of money. I’m a huge fan of both technology and innovation. I also think that, in order to develop a successful invention, one must often experience outright failure – sometimes repeatedly. The difficulty is that whenever renewable energy is the topic of conversation politicians and journalists seem to lose all ability to do basic math – and to think critically. The headline of that 2007 news story didn’t say: Australian town hopes to run on solar power The headline – which is all many people would ever read – declared it a fact. A done deal. A safe assumption. In reality, it was anything but. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 12, 2012 9:25:52 GMT 1
Christopher Booker has a devastating critique of the government's energy policy today. The numbers speak for themselves.  Britain would have to build 10 turbines a day every day for eight years to meet its EU renewables target At one point last week, Britain’s 3,500 turbines were contributing 12 megawatts (MW) to the 38,000MW of electricity we were using. (The Neta website, which carries official electricity statistics, registered this as “0.0 per cent”).
It is 10 years since I first pointed out here how crazy it is to centre our energy policy on wind. It was pure wishful thinking then and is even more obviously so now, when the Government in its latest energy statement talks of providing, on average, 12,300MW of power from “renewables” by 2020.
Everything about this is delusional. There is no way we could hope to build more than a fraction of the 30,000 turbines required. As the windless days last week showed, we would have to build dozens of gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing at the right speed. more www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9468604/The-great-wind-delusion-has-hijacked-our-energy-policy.html |
|
