Thames Estuary Wind Farm

Colin_S

Colin_S

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Jun 2004
Messages
3,172
Location
kets - help clear your nose
Visit site
Interesting link to the project - <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.kentishflats.co.uk>http://www.kentishflats.co.uk</A>

The one fact that most amazed me is that, at an average wind speed of 8.7m/s, 68 tonnes of air passes through each turbine per second. No wonder my car door got yanked out of my hand when I opened it into the (pretty strong) wind earlier today.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
There is no doubt that wind is a fantastic resource , it’s a pity that there is so much negativity about it.

We are still in the early days and will surely get better and better at generation and storage just like the early days of steam and petrol engines.

It would be great to sail our boats and have an auxiliary electric engine based on electrical power generated by windmills.

There are also projects based on 'underwater' windmills driven by tides.

The future looks bright.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Interesting but where does your base load come from on calm days. Russian gas?

One day this country will see the light and start building new nuclear stations. By then we will probably have lost our domestic nuclear expertise and we will have to buy American or French. In the meantime good luck dodging the offshore turbines in the dark.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Wouodn't it breat if wind did produce power but it doesn't/ People are negative about it because it doesn't work. People like all the major engineering institutions for example, and James Lovelock the Green guru of Gaia fame. The problem is that windmills work only 30 percent of the time so conventional power stations have to keep turning over on 'spinning reserve' and while doing so produce more pollution. Despite the massive creation of windfarms in Germany and Denmark not a single power station has closed down. Danish industry considers the whole thing a disaster. Germany is beginning to regret its earlier enthusiasm. We're phasing out our nuclear stations but to replace them with wind will require turbines virtually everywhere. It's a nice idea, just not common sense.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Bright Future?

The futures so bright companies have to spend millions putting in alternative generation. The days of when the UK had the best NG and generation system in the world under Sir A Marshall has long since been frittered away by misgovernment, their lapdog civil servants and bloody accountants.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Theres negativity about it 'coz it doesn't work. It doesn't displace CO2 as power stations are still burning gas in case the wind stops blowing. If CO2 is a serious problem then there are two answers -use nuclear generated electricitiy and tax the hell out of commercial aviation. anything else is tinkering at the edges and aint gonna make a bean of difference. I am all for renewable engergy, but I don't see why it seems to escape all the reality checks associated with any other new technology or indeed any other major project.

Want a new nuclear power station, or airport, or town? Have a 20 year public enquiry, get everyones opinion, check wether its really neaded etc etc.

Want a wind farm, hey go ahead, why not build 10. Planning permission - wassat? public opinion, can't be bothered to ask. does it work - who cares, just build em and see eh.

I would personally like to see wind farms fail as their apparent success (in terms of being built - not wether they work) means that the foot has come of the throttle in other research - the money is in wind turbines and thats that. I'm sure there is a genuine source of reliable repeatable clean energy somewhere (tidal perhaps), but it needs rational reasearch and proper scrupulous scientific analyisis, not opnions and guesswork.

Besides whilst the airline industry enjoys massive EU supplements and tax breaks and is encouraged to generate even more custom, even to the point of being GIVEN a new free airport by the UK taxpayer, then what is the point of saving a gnats tadger of CO2 elsewhere.

Rant over and out.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Very true.
There was a bit about a tidal generater of the north Cornwall / Devon coast, running 25% above target output. But then the tides can be predicted, as they are not uniform along the coast you have a rolling output along coast, therefore constant output can be achieved of a predicted value.
The advantage with wind is that it's not predicable, therefore you have to have backup gemeration, so you have power stations and wind terbines. Then firms have to buy there own gen sets, more income for people with friends in the right places. We had the hot rocks project down Cornwall, that got closed down, but not died, they are supplying geothermal heating systems. Does the government push it, have you seen it, yet it probably reduces greenhouse gas as much as wind farms.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Britain has the best potential for wind/tide power than probably any other European nation because of it’s island status. Wind power has proven to work over centuries and we are just scratching the surface at the moment.

Many other countries for example can major on their own strengths. Israel, I believe, produces 30% of it’s energy via solar power for obvious reasons. Where there is a will there is a way.

The UK’s energy requirement is increasing by 2% per annum – a massive amount . Surely we should start concentrating on our strengths . The technology will improve, but we know that there are no quick answers to the problem. Thirty year’s ago 40 mpg from a car was unheard of and look what difference solid state circuits and the alternator has made.

I agree that in the short term nuclear is the way to go. Unfortunately, the building of new plants is unlikely because of the political fallout . The alternative then, is more dependence of imports from France but this could be cut off at any time for again, political reasons.

As the third world gains momentum and prosperity, they too are entitled to some of the goodies that we have enjoyed for years. The pressure on oil will only inflame further world tensions on it’s production .




<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Thouroughly agree with the wind-farm con. One day I will work out how long they will have to run to cover the CO2 generated from the manufacture of the cement used in their construction.

Rightly or wrongly, Billy Liar has committed the UK to reducing its CO2 emmissions by 20% between 1998 and 2010. (Many other EU countries have increases over the same time). As mentioned previously, UK energy demand is still increasing.The ONLY way we can achieve our committment is by a nuclear build. It will have to start real soon. Just after an early General Election? I get the impression that there is a "softening up" campaign underway, with the publication of various reports, etc.

Andy

I'm not involved in the industry (Just burn a lot of gas for a living!) but I think nuclear is the only short / medium term solution by any rational arguement.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
On second thoughts....

On second thoughts - Build em!

Then when endless renewable energy does become available, we can power em up on calm days to generate a bit of a breeze....


Andy

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: On second thoughts....

Now theres an Idea - Kind of like an American Disney controlled sailing environment. - Could have power generated from tidal generators and powering the windmills - have constant F3/4 - with a bit of elektrikery you could even get the windmills to rotate so you are allways on a favorable point of sail!

We should let the gov build them and then once they have failed dismally, set up a syndicate and buy them for a song!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Not nuclear please

Nuclear power has been thoroughly discredited as an economic and safe energy source. The arguments seem to have been forgotton over the past 20 years.
Consider these points:
We still have no safe way of dealing with the waste.
The main function of the first generation of Magnox reactors was to provide enriched uranium for the weapons industry, but they were the most successful in terms of overall cost per megawatt
Uranium is a finite resource.
When Nuclear goes wrong it causes unacceptable damage, therefore is IMHO unacceptable.
And people are worried by the noise levels from windmills!
To provide sufficient energy from renewables requires a mix of many relatively small scale projects, spreading power over the whole population, as we can all play our part with solar, wind, heatpumps....augmenting larger scale installations.
To provide sufficient energy from nuclear requires relatively few huge projects, concentrating power at the centre.
Do we want an increase of control, with all the dangers that will bring should we get in future less benign political masters. Look at some of the whinges about life in Britain on a previous post.

Power to the people. :)

My brother is a professor of nuclear physics. Since the 60's, I have been told that fusion power will solve the problem, in 30 years all our energy will be supplied thus, cleanly. Too cheap to meter. It is still 30 years in the future...
Oh well, I've got a main to mend.
Windy, wasn't it, yesterday ;)

<hr width=100% size=1>clouty
 
Your car makes more smoke when it's idling at traffic lights because it's running inefficiently. Same with power stations (unless they're gas or hydro).

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Wind power is cosmetic and is diverting attention from an urgent need to produce an efficient long term solution to the energy equation. Meanwhile, the government has focussed base load generation on Natual Gas, which it is burning at a profligate rate, in power stations that deliver a thermal efficiency of around 40%, neglecting transmission losses.

Very little serious attention is paid to energy efficiency. Combined Heat and Power, probably on a micro scale, is the obvious way to spin out our fast exhausting domestic gas reserves, but is sadly neglected. Dubious initiatives such as Combination Boilers and Condensing Boilers are very are being forced by the new Building Regulations.

Drax coal fired power station alone, has an output of 4000 MW. To replace this with wind turbines would require 2000 turbines of typical 2MW output, working at 100% efficiency. But, with an availability of 33%, we would need to install 6000 turbines to replace Drax alone. And we would still have days without wind. This does not seem realistic.

In the short term, the increase in nuclear capacity is inevitable, and we should get on with building it, while at the same time increasing utilization efficiency particularly of gas. There is also a need to be able to influence (and profiot from) the natrure of nuclear build iin developing economies. In the longer term, we may be able to build larger wind generators.

It is interesting that there is close agreement within the engineering profession, but this appears to be disregarded by the government. Do they see a political cost in making a decision, or perhaps they need a learned judge to assess the evidence?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
A bit of a delay, but here are some figures:
Valid for the year 2000, windmills in Holland produces 865 million kWh electrical energy. This is 0,96% of the total used elec. energy in Holland for that year (or equals 0,25% of total fossile fuel to generate elec. energy). In contrast, for Denmark is was 13% of the total used electrical energy in the same year.

Once again for Holland, at this moment the figure is 2,1%. The goals for 2010 is 10%, for which we need another 500 big ones (North Sea offshore windmill park).

Fact is that in Holland, lots of small (relatively) windmills are operated on land. Due to strategic reasons (shipping lanes and harbour entrances for the South, Rotterdam and Amsterdam), it is not that easy to erect the needed offshore windparks. For sure, some will be in operaton before 2010.

Rene.

<hr width=100% size=1>Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
 
The other obvious alternative being coal, but we don't do coal anymore, it's far too socialist. Those mucky coal reserves can stay in the ground as far as HM govt. is concerned. Now, who can spell strategic economic vulnerability?

Cheers,
David

<hr width=100% size=1>I? I am Kaptain Kaos, and this is my faithful companion, Kato. Say hello Kato! Been a cop long?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top