Windfarms

[johndf]

Re: Hidden subsidies for windfarms

I've no evidence to back this up, but I think the main opposition to windfarms comes from those who have something to fear from them, such as the nuclear industry and the oil industry - Esso, George W, and maybe Tony B. Those with foresight in th oil industry seem to be investing in alternative energy, but Exxon and Esso (one and the same?) have their heads in the sand and one day they won't be able to suck any more oil out of it.

 

[SteveA]

Re: Hidden subsidies for windfarms

It's pleasing to hear from fellow yachtsmen who have experienced these windfarms with no ill effects - there have been so many horror stories going around here from people that don't really have a clue! - Radar going crazy, GPS stopping working, severe windshifts etc, etc. it shows what rubbish can be said by some.

With regard to the use of fossil fuels to provide energy, as someone that works for the company extracting the gas from the Irish Sea and know how long it will last, I believe greater emphasis should be given to providing renewable sources and if this means providing subsidies let them be!

I am suprised that more work isn't being done to try and harness the tidal forces.

 

[gjeffery]

Re: Hidden subsidies for windfarms

Surely the requirement that generators source 15% of their fuel from renewable sources is a hidden subsidy? I can't help thinking though that 15% saving in fossil fuel burn might more efficiently be achieved through utilisation efficiency, eg through the use of more CHP so as to improve the gas conversion efficiency from about 40% without transmission losses. It is a waste to burn gas in large base load stations.

Because of the variations in windspeed, wind generators cannot replace an equivalent base load capacity, I understand that for this reason wind generators have an average output of about 50% of their installed capacity. Any power required to be taken from intermittent sources has to be covered by base load stations on standby.

Drax power station alone has six 660 megawatt, coal-fired generating units. The largest wind generator is about 2MW and the losses in undersea transmission lines are probably high.

Any case for massive investment in wind energy should be objectively justified. The numbers are difficult to reconcile and I would like to know more.

 

[SteveA]

Re: Hidden subsidies for windfarms

The largest wind generators currently available are 3MW, I beleive, with 5 MW machines soon to be developed.

Transmission losses through undersea cables don't need to have large losses since they are HV.

I have to agree that base load stations are always going to be the 'bread & butter' on the system ( I am led to believe that wind generators have an avaerage output of only 33%).

Coal fired power stations probably have quite a long future but gas fired units are more questionable.

Gas resources in this counrty are starting to reduce dramatically so unless we start taking more from Europe they will shut down.

Going back to my original post, after hearing from some of our continental cousins, I see no reason why more windfarms can't be constructed offshore.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Capitalising on offshore windfarms

A decade or so back, there was much talk of wave generators as a source of sustainable electricty. They seem to have fallen by the wayside - one reason being the expense of collecting the power generated and transmitting it back ashore. If a wave farm where developed in conjunction with a windfarm, presumably they could share transmission facilities.

Similarly, if windfarms were to be positioned in areas with high tidal flow rates, then water turbines could be built into the base of the towers to make even more sparks. And if the towers were coated with solar panels...

 

[vyv_cox]

Gas resources....

are enormous. Uk sector supplies are reducing a little just now but there is a good deal left to be extracted. Looking further afield, several Norwegian fields have reserves estimated at 60 years, and these are often extended as more knowledge is gained. Further again, the China and Russia pipelines are being designed with an assumption of 200 years of production. So yes, either renewables or some safer form of nuclear generation is undoubtedly needed, but not quite so urgently as your post suggests.