Peppermint
New member
The MCA tests to find the extent that windfarms screw up GPS, Radar, EPIRBS etc. look interesting.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Windfarms. Not all good news then.
- Thread starter Peppermint
- Start date
AlexL
Member
yes added to the fact that they are in oil rig supply helicopters airspace, the airspace of the proposed airport in the thames estuary, they are in the way of all the east coast sailing, they kill migrating geese, and whats the other bit.... oh yeah - THEY DON'T WORK!
Most pilot schemes have concluded that offshore wind farms do not work - they are maintenance intensive so actually generate a large amount of carbon dioxide when you consider the energy in manufacturing, installing and maintaining them and they do nothing to alleviate the energy shortage in this country. People who are very bad at maths say they are about 20-30% efficient which is the same as other forms of power - true but gas power stations generate 30% of the engergy , 100 % of the time, whereas wind farms are 100% efficient, 30% of the time - i.e you can only boil your kettle when its windy! The net effect is that on top of building 10000's of windmills , more gas and oil power stations are also needed - which will be idle when its windy - really efficient that! Wind power works fine on land (although i'd be pretty pi55ed if I lived near the pennines and had to look at them all day)- we've got 2 huge wind turbines at work - anyone driving along the A13 in east london can't miss them - but they are right next to our factory and right next to a power station so can work very efficiently as the power is used at source.
Greenpeace have gone all quiet about CO2 now it emerges that if CO2 really, really is a problem the only viable alternative is nuclear - and if it can work on a submarine, its gotta be able to be made perfect in a fixed installation.
Rant over.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Most pilot schemes have concluded that offshore wind farms do not work - they are maintenance intensive so actually generate a large amount of carbon dioxide when you consider the energy in manufacturing, installing and maintaining them and they do nothing to alleviate the energy shortage in this country. People who are very bad at maths say they are about 20-30% efficient which is the same as other forms of power - true but gas power stations generate 30% of the engergy , 100 % of the time, whereas wind farms are 100% efficient, 30% of the time - i.e you can only boil your kettle when its windy! The net effect is that on top of building 10000's of windmills , more gas and oil power stations are also needed - which will be idle when its windy - really efficient that! Wind power works fine on land (although i'd be pretty pi55ed if I lived near the pennines and had to look at them all day)- we've got 2 huge wind turbines at work - anyone driving along the A13 in east london can't miss them - but they are right next to our factory and right next to a power station so can work very efficiently as the power is used at source.
Greenpeace have gone all quiet about CO2 now it emerges that if CO2 really, really is a problem the only viable alternative is nuclear - and if it can work on a submarine, its gotta be able to be made perfect in a fixed installation.
Rant over.
<hr width=100% size=1>
dralex
New member
I don't object to the sight of windfarms- I used to live in Yorkshire and had one just up the road and actually found it rather elegant. That's besides the point though because I don't believe they are the way forwards for energy production in the UK. Intermittent power is a waste of time unless you can store it, which is pretty impossible unless you route it into hydrolectric stations at times of high wind and low demand. The energy demand of current life and society is huge and is getting bigger- society expects to have as much power as it wants on demand but will not tolerate things like nuclear power! There have to be compromises if people want to carry on living as they are.
Members of this forum will all be aware that we manage to live on boats for weeks at a time using alternative sources of energy. We accept that we don;t have as much power and therefore use it sensibly. Funnily enough, the power goes further.
<hr width=100% size=1>Life's too short- do it now./forums/images/icons/wink.gif
Members of this forum will all be aware that we manage to live on boats for weeks at a time using alternative sources of energy. We accept that we don;t have as much power and therefore use it sensibly. Funnily enough, the power goes further.
<hr width=100% size=1>Life's too short- do it now./forums/images/icons/wink.gif
AlexL
Member
Yes, the answer is actually to use less power - not follow the Blair / Bush road of providing more supply! We can all still have our toys if we used power a little more sensibly and efficiently. Nowhere in the whole argument and consultation about windfarms, nuclear power etc has anyone stuck their hand up and said -er... why don't we use a bit less.
I've got an idea - I bet all these bloody speed cameras use tons of leccy ;-) - get rid of them and then obviate the need for windfarms - 2 birds with 1 stone!
<hr width=100% size=1>
I've got an idea - I bet all these bloody speed cameras use tons of leccy ;-) - get rid of them and then obviate the need for windfarms - 2 birds with 1 stone!
<hr width=100% size=1>
ParaHandy
Active member
got an instinct that the benefit to the owner of these 'farms' comes from selling the emission levy (or lack of) certificates which might be more valuable than the electricity generated ... so, nothing to do with renewable energy but a wheeze ...
prof haldane (think the brains behind the "wind farms will stop earth rotating in 200yrs") will be happy when the gov introduces 'wind farm set-a-side' in a few years time due to cost of emission certificates eg contra-rotating so to keep earth rotating ....
<hr width=100% size=1>
prof haldane (think the brains behind the "wind farms will stop earth rotating in 200yrs") will be happy when the gov introduces 'wind farm set-a-side' in a few years time due to cost of emission certificates eg contra-rotating so to keep earth rotating ....
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimi
Well-known member
Nuclear power
Agree completely that a properly managed nuclear power programme is the only viable long term sustainable energy source. However given the lack of investment in engineering training, shoddy british workmanship, lack of project expertise and political short termism, I doubt if we will go that way. We will inevitably in the longer term suffer a further widening in our competitive position and living standards. This would be a way to make a real difference to our emissions as well as guarantee self sufficiency in power requirements.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Agree completely that a properly managed nuclear power programme is the only viable long term sustainable energy source. However given the lack of investment in engineering training, shoddy british workmanship, lack of project expertise and political short termism, I doubt if we will go that way. We will inevitably in the longer term suffer a further widening in our competitive position and living standards. This would be a way to make a real difference to our emissions as well as guarantee self sufficiency in power requirements.
<hr width=100% size=1>
ParaHandy
Active member
Re: Nuclear power
hee ... heee ... remember (Lord) Plowden and his report? the good lord recomended the nuclear program when fred whats-is-name (the trade union heavy in Wilson's gov) extolled the virtues and opportunities of the magnox reactor. the CEGB had a large number of scientist & engineers who were against this choice of reactor but each and every one of them was purged out of a job. the end result was the largest single write-off by any company, organisation or government dept in the world; larger than enron, worldcom, NY Hedge fund put together it was never, ever, debated or subjected to any public scrutiny ....
and that was when we had some decent engineers ...
<hr width=100% size=1>
hee ... heee ... remember (Lord) Plowden and his report? the good lord recomended the nuclear program when fred whats-is-name (the trade union heavy in Wilson's gov) extolled the virtues and opportunities of the magnox reactor. the CEGB had a large number of scientist & engineers who were against this choice of reactor but each and every one of them was purged out of a job. the end result was the largest single write-off by any company, organisation or government dept in the world; larger than enron, worldcom, NY Hedge fund put together it was never, ever, debated or subjected to any public scrutiny ....
and that was when we had some decent engineers ...
<hr width=100% size=1>
AlexL
Member
Re: Nuclear power
However, the nuclear programs in Britain, France and US of the 60's, 70's and 80's was primarily to generate weapons grade plutonium, a useful by product of which is electricity. With a different engineering brief the solution will probably be very different.
We all know what a harsh environment boats are and yet the americans and to a lesser degree the british navy seem to be able to have nuclear reactors in the backs of ships and submarines without any problems at all.
Mind you after Geoff "Hatchet Man" Hoon's latest cull of our armed services which appears to leave us with a couple of Zodiacs, A tiger moth and 4 wooden guardsmen to stand at buck house; surely there are some spare Nuc submarines around - just tow a couple up the thames run an extension lead into london and turn them on?
<hr width=100% size=1>
However, the nuclear programs in Britain, France and US of the 60's, 70's and 80's was primarily to generate weapons grade plutonium, a useful by product of which is electricity. With a different engineering brief the solution will probably be very different.
We all know what a harsh environment boats are and yet the americans and to a lesser degree the british navy seem to be able to have nuclear reactors in the backs of ships and submarines without any problems at all.
Mind you after Geoff "Hatchet Man" Hoon's latest cull of our armed services which appears to leave us with a couple of Zodiacs, A tiger moth and 4 wooden guardsmen to stand at buck house; surely there are some spare Nuc submarines around - just tow a couple up the thames run an extension lead into london and turn them on?
<hr width=100% size=1>
ParaHandy
Active member
Re: Nuclear power
i'm definitely wrong .. it was AGR reactors (advanced gas cooled) each of which took an average of 20 years to build and which Fred Lee announced as "we have hit the jackpot (for commercial sales overseas)" but these were not required for production of plutonium, i think, and not one was ever sold to any overseas buyer. the previous magnox were plutonium by producers? the AGR reactor program came from the power black-outs in the winter of 1964-65 - just after wilson's white hot heat of technology gov was elected ...
<hr width=100% size=1>
i'm definitely wrong .. it was AGR reactors (advanced gas cooled) each of which took an average of 20 years to build and which Fred Lee announced as "we have hit the jackpot (for commercial sales overseas)" but these were not required for production of plutonium, i think, and not one was ever sold to any overseas buyer. the previous magnox were plutonium by producers? the AGR reactor program came from the power black-outs in the winter of 1964-65 - just after wilson's white hot heat of technology gov was elected ...
<hr width=100% size=1>
Peppermint
New member
Re: I suspect
that the true value of windfarms is that you can see them
HMG can point at them and say "look how green we are".
The whole policy is rubbish.
Energy conservation is whats needed, but your politician can't point at something except a column of figures on a bit of paper and nobody believes government figures any more
<hr width=100% size=1>
that the true value of windfarms is that you can see them
HMG can point at them and say "look how green we are".
The whole policy is rubbish.
Energy conservation is whats needed, but your politician can't point at something except a column of figures on a bit of paper and nobody believes government figures any more
<hr width=100% size=1>