Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Pumblechook on 09/12/2007 17:58:29
-
I think the figures don't add up.
-
Why should they? The figures come from politicians.
Just make the most of any subsidies that are offered and make it worthwhile to you, personally.
-
----" Britain is to embark on a wind power revolution that will produce enough electricity to power every home in the country.
Mr Hutton's announcement will identify sites in British waters for enough wind farms to produce 25 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2020, in addition to the 8GW already planned – enough to meet the needs of all the country's homes. " ----
http://environment.independent.co.uk/green_living/article3236132.ece
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Is this the gov. or the opposition?
The opposition have said, this week, that they want to subsidise all people to have their own wind generators (and other forms of power), and to force the power suppliers to buy our own generated electricity at a premium.
I don't think they said wind will supply all electricity for the whole UK.
Like Andrew has said above, make it pay for you, personally. I don't see what you have to lose.
-
No all the UK requirement... More than half is commercial and industrial...But they are claiming all 'homes'.
Looks like they have said 33GW is about half the UK peak load requirement of 60GW.
But the capacity factor for wind is low...about 28% (Actual energy in GWh as a percentage of the energy which would be produced if peak power could be maintained all the time...over the same period of time).
-
I can well see a year with poor winds, and the country starts suffering blacks outs (analogous to a year with poor rainfall, and they start declaring a drought).
-
If wind power could produce just 1% of our power it would be 1% we wouldn't need to burn coal for. How efficient it would be is another matter.
BTW, note to Paul etc.
The government doesn't have any money.
They use the taxpayers money instead. If it's a bad idea then I'd rather they didn't waste my money on it.
-
"BTW, note to Paul etc.
The government doesn't have any money.
They use the taxpayers money instead. If it's a bad idea then I'd rather they didn't waste my money on it."
John,
Thanks for pointing that out. Yet, the gov. will use that money for something, why not subsidise the population having the ability to generate some of their electricity?
As you yourself have said "If wind power could produce just 1% of our power it would be 1% we wouldn't need to burn coal for". If the personal domestic windturbines, solarcells or whatever they were subsidising was only good enough to heat our hot water, that would save on bills and the burning of fossil fuels. Hence my "I don't see what you have to lose"
I also doubt this proposal will actually become law, I rather think it is just another good piece of press to show the gov. and oppositions "green" credentials.
-
Yet, the gov. will use that money for something, why not subsidise the population having the ability to generate some of their electricity?
This makes two assumptions:
1) That the amount of money the government has is fixed, and the government does not raise or drop tax rates (although I agree that raising tax rates is not the same as increasing tax revenues, since it sometimes has the effect of reducing the tax base by frightening money overseas).
2) That the government has nothing else (such as health and education) that it could spend this money on if it were not spending it on this; so rather than having this money sloshing around in a bank account doing nothing, we may as well spend it on this. There is no indication at all that this government has any significant amount of money sloshing around in bank accounts, and for the most part seems to already spend more than it can afford (hence the continual upward creep of taxes). Ofcourse, fighting unnecessary wars does nothing to help balance the books, and certainly if it was a choice between fighting those wars and building wind turbines, I'd rather be building the turbines; but there is no indication that we are being given an either-or choice over this.
-
The obvious possibility for "what do we have to lose" is that it might take more energy to make a turbine than it will ever recover in its lifetime (not likely- but possible) another is that the land used by many turbines is viewed as "blighted" - the loss of value of the land might excede the value of the energy. A third is the potential damage to theenvironment caused by these things (at land or at sea)
All I was saying was that the matter needed to be fully examined before any rational government could form a policy about it (other than a policy of "let's find out"). I don't know if the data is available yet.
-
What happened to wave energy?
-
What happened to wave energy?
Still out there, but I suspect it requires specific locations to work, whereas wind energy is more widespread.
Also, wave energy works best when close to shore, whereas wind energy can be as far offshore as you like (subject to the cost of installing the windfarms in deeper water), and so avoid a lot of the political problems with local residents.
-
Wind energy siting is pretty specific, too, for an economical system. The UK Atlantic coast is several hundred km long and gets a more regular supply of waves than it gets wind.
One thing you can rely on, however, is the tides.
The Severn Estuary idea is out and about again. My only problem with that idea is what about all the silt? To avoid silting up, they could to flush it through regularly, at spring tide time or they would get Aswan Dam, Mississippi Delta . . . . . problems. There are Terrajoules of energy out there, just waiting to be snapped up - and it doesn't damage the landscape in the same way as damn great turbines sticking up in the sky. Long term impact could be interesting; the Irish Sea might fill up with sand and we could walk across!
Perhaps is it not regarded as sexy enough. Great sticky uppy turbines are very male politician, don't you think?
-
I agree that tidal power generators are less visible than wind generators, but they are only really useful where tides are funnelled (e.g. large river estuaries); have to be close inshore (i.e. even if they are smaller, people will see them because they are closer); could be a problem for navigation (because they cut across an estuary, so there is little room to travel round them - although the counter argument would be by the time you get thousands of wind turbines out in the open sea, the cumulative effect would also have an impact on navigation); and lastly, I would wonder about the ecological impact of intercepting tidal flow.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/renewables-explained/wave-and-tidal/tidal/severnbarage/page41473.html
The tidal energy resource in the Severn Estuary provides the largest potential of all the UK’s estuaries for renewable electricity generation. Previous studies indicate that up to 5% of the UK’s electricity demand could be met by harnessing the tidal energy that exists within the estuary.
At the time of the last Energy Review the Government commissioned the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government's independent advisory body on sustainable development, to carry out a major study looking at the issues arising on tidal power, with a particular focus on the Severn estuary. Further details of the study ‘Tidal Power in the UK’ and the SDC’s final report, when published, can be found at www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal.html
The Energy White Paper published in May 2007 recognised the potential contribution that tidal power could make towards meeting our long-term energy challenges of tackling climate change and ensuring security of supply.
BERR will now undertake further studies that will look at the feasibility of a tidal power scheme in the Severn. Working closely with a number of other Government Departments including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it will consider in greater depth the many important issues e.g. social, environmental and economic impacts, both national and regional, that are raised by any such development.
The Severn Estuary is of National, European and International nature conservation significance and the work will look carefully at what could be done, with commitment and imagination, to mitigate damaging effects on the rare and protected environment of the Severn estuary and deliver a balanced and acceptable package that is positive for the environment as a whole. The estuary was recently notified to the European Commission as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070831b.html
The study will also include engagement with the people and organisations that would be affected by any development.
I think the biggest incentives for building offshore wind turbines are:
a) they are a new proposal (yes, I know the idea is not new, but they are new in the political landscape), and so have not yet generated interest groups that might oppose them.
b) they are further from people's immediate visibility and so their impact will not be as immediately obvious.
c) as they are away from land (rather like oil platforms), they will be far less subject to the problems concerning planning consent that inshore projects will have.
So, basically, it is not whether it is a good idea or not; but that it is an idea that is easier to implement unopposed.