The Lemon Fool

doolally wrote:Maybe it's cheaper to install a turbine, but is it cheaper per MW? Onshore wind is lower speed and less reliable compared to offshore. See https://www.windy.com/?54.841,-3.683,5
Perhaps the extra cost of installing larger offshore turbines still produces lower cost overall and more reliable supply
doolally

I see you threw in a link, but there was nothing in that link about costs. I think it's pretty well known that on-shore is cheaper.

DrFfybes wrote:Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

They look great out of my back window.
Very stately as they spin on the hill across the valley.

On shore wind is still growing rapidly in Scotland - and that's partly because of the financial benefits it brings to some of the smaller villages in rural localities, which helps pay for the upkeep of village halls etc.

But as I said earlier, upgrading windfarms that are already there can yield impressive results. We have around 14,000 onshore wind turbines. The Octopus project focuses on 1000 of them.

MrFoolish wrote:

DrFfybes wrote:

MrFoolish wrote:

Tedx wrote:I think we have a fantastic opportunity to steal a march with offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

Even better is on-shore wind generation, which is much cheaper to install.

Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

OK, we'll put the on-shore wind turbines where you and the other NIMBYs can't see them - which basically means nowhere. Apparently we put up a grand total of TWO onshore wind turbines last year. It's no wonder we have an energy crisis when people adopt this selfish "me me me" attitude.

Did it really need "irony tags"?

MrFoolish wrote:

doolally wrote:Maybe it's cheaper to install a turbine, but is it cheaper per MW? Onshore wind is lower speed and less reliable compared to offshore. See https://www.windy.com/?54.841,-3.683,5
Perhaps the extra cost of installing larger offshore turbines still produces lower cost overall and more reliable supply
doolally

I see you threw in a link, but there was nothing in that link about costs. I think it's pretty well known that on-shore is cheaper.

I couldn't find any links to cost expressed in a simple way, though it's clear that measuring cost is not easy. Obviously, sticking a turbine in a local field is cheaper than offshore, especially if offshore is deep water, but installation cost is not the main driver,
What's the point of wind turbines? It's to generate electricity. If the wind isn't blowing, the turbines can be as cheap as you like but the cost per MWh will be high.
The main driver for offshore is not to make turbines nimby-proof, it's to provide the greatest amount of power and to do that reliably. And offshore wind is stronger and far more reliable than onshore. It costs more to install and maintain, but should reduce the amount of back-up required from gas or nuclear.
doolally (renowned non-expert)

doolally wrote: It costs more to install and maintain, but should reduce the amount of back-up required from gas or nuclear.
doolally (renowned non-expert)

When there is no wind you need the full name plate replacement wattage ie an entire fleet of nuclear stations or gas turbine generators with the full replacement wattage capacity. Either that or an awful lot of batteries or energy rationing.

doolally wrote:What's the point of wind turbines? It's to generate electricity. If the wind isn't blowing, the turbines can be as cheap as you like but the cost per MWh will be high.

I used to be sceptical of wind power for the reasons you give. But my understanding is that the costs have fallen significantly and it's now the cheapest source of supply. After the initial costs, it's largely free energy. And of course, no greenhouses gases on an ongoing basis.

Yes, the wind doesn't always blow (though most of the time it does). This is why you need back-up supplies. I favour energy diversity - wind, nuclear, solar, storage and international interconnectors (the wind is generally blowing somewhere). Even gas, to be used at times of short supply.

It's silly and impractical to stop wind turbines because some people don't like the look of them. There's a million things I don't like the look of - welcome to the real world!

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:When Sustainable Energy Becomes Unsustainable

Renewables are supposed to be saving the planet. Instead, they’re making the problem worse. Here’s why: Installing wind and solar increases CO2 emissions.

Surely they only increase CO2 emissions as the "greener" schemes are first being launched? But eventually the power made by green energy can used in the manufacturer of more solar panels, turbines. Energy is interchangeable. Just need to figure out how to make practical in all cases.

(And yes, a few nuclear power stations could come in handy).

Matt

Urbandreamer wrote:

DrFfybes wrote:Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

They look great out of my back window.
Very stately as they spin on the hill across the valley.

We are in the Fens and are surrounded by them. Literally. There's a small farm of 5 visible out of the study window (they are about 1 mile away).

3 miles away there's a farm with about 20 odd. Etc. etc. Can't hear em, their sight isn't upsetting, blah.

Matt

MrFoolish wrote:It's silly and impractical to stop wind turbines because some people don't like the look of them. There's a million things I don't like the look of - welcome to the real world!

Oh, I agree. Wind turbines are currently a necessary evil, like high-rise flats, factories, electricity pylons, etc. We just have to get used to it. But if offshore can be shown to have other benefits (like greater reliability), the extra cost may be worthwhile. Life is a compromise.
doolally

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:When Sustainable Energy Becomes Unsustainable

Renewables are supposed to be saving the planet. Instead, they’re making the problem worse. Here’s why: Installing wind and solar increases CO2 emissions.

Surely they only increase CO2 emissions as the "greener" schemes are first being launched? But eventually the power made by green energy can used in the manufacturer of more solar panels, turbines. Energy is interchangeable. Just need to figure out how to make practical in all cases.

(And yes, a few nuclear power stations could come in handy).

Matt

Hi Matt,

If you're interested I'd suggest reading about the so called "Duck Curve". I don't know if it's an argument that holds water so can't comment further really.

The Duck Curve

AiY(D)

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:

Urbandreamer wrote:

DrFfybes wrote:Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

They look great out of my back window.
Very stately as they spin on the hill across the valley.

We are in the Fens and are surrounded by them. Literally. There's a small farm of 5 visible out of the study window (they are about 1 mile away).

3 miles away there's a farm with about 20 odd. Etc. etc. Can't hear em, their sight isn't upsetting, blah.

Matt

I think complaining about things gives a lot of rural dwellers something to do. It's kind of a hobby for them. I'm talking about people who moved there from the towns rather than those that work the land.

I've read the planning objections from locals to some business development plans (on a brown field site as it happens). They write page after page with every imaginable problem - traffic, parking, light pollution, noise, floods, disturbing newts, pestilence, "we used to come 'ere when this was all fields" - you name it. I suspect at the heart of it, they worry anything new could affect their house prices.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:When Sustainable Energy Becomes Unsustainable

Renewables are supposed to be saving the planet. Instead, they’re making the problem worse. Here’s why: Installing wind and solar increases CO2 emissions.

Surely they only increase CO2 emissions as the "greener" schemes are first being launched? But eventually the power made by green energy can used in the manufacturer of more solar panels, turbines. Energy is interchangeable. Just need to figure out how to make practical in all cases.

(And yes, a few nuclear power stations could come in handy).

Matt

Hi Matt,

If you're interested I'd suggest reading about the so called "Duck Curve". I don't know if it's an argument that holds water so can't comment further really.

The Duck Curve

AiY(D)

Thanks mate, I was about to start a few minutes ago... but got distracted by reading TLF!

MrFoolish wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:

Urbandreamer wrote:

DrFfybes wrote:Great idea. I'm all in favour. Just not where I can see it, OK.

They look great out of my back window.
Very stately as they spin on the hill across the valley.

We are in the Fens and are surrounded by them. Literally. There's a small farm of 5 visible out of the study window (they are about 1 mile away).

3 miles away there's a farm with about 20 odd. Etc. etc. Can't hear em, their sight isn't upsetting, blah.

Matt

I think complaining about things gives a lot of rural dwellers something to do. It's kind of a hobby for them. I'm talking about people who moved there from the towns rather than those that work the land.

I've read the planning objections from locals to some business development plans (on a brown field site as it happens). They write page after page with every imaginable problem - traffic, parking, light pollution, noise, floods, disturbing newts, pestilence, "we used to come 'ere when this was all fields" - you name it. I suspect at the heart of it, they worry anything new could affect their house prices.

Yeah. Kinda weird. I must admit when we first moved here, I was a bit anxious of the proximity of the turbines. I even went as far as asking the local shop keepers if they could hear the turbines ever and whether they were a problem. They looked at me like I was bonkers!!

Funny you mentioning "house prices" - there's actually a dwelling about 1/4 mile up the road. Number 79 I think - and they have somewhat ostentatiously named their semi (which was probably built in 1930s) "Windfarm View"

Some things change, some things stay the same.

Matt

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:When Sustainable Energy Becomes Unsustainable

Renewables are supposed to be saving the planet. Instead, they’re making the problem worse. Here’s why: Installing wind and solar increases CO2 emissions.

Surely they only increase CO2 emissions as the "greener" schemes are first being launched? But eventually the power made by green energy can used in the manufacturer of more solar panels, turbines. Energy is interchangeable. Just need to figure out how to make practical in all cases.

(And yes, a few nuclear power stations could come in handy).

Matt

Hi Matt,

If you're interested I'd suggest reading about the so called "Duck Curve". I don't know if it's an argument that holds water so can't comment further really.

The Duck Curve

AiY(D)

Ok read it.

I can't see anything more in it, than it building a stronger case for more energy storage. And diversification of energy supply sources. I didn't think that it implies that green energy generation in and of itself is a particularly bad thing.

Storing it isnt difficult. We all know about pumped hydro, but lifting anything against gravity with regenerative braking will work. I've seen ideas like multiple railways on the side of a hill in the US with carriages loaded with concrete dragged up the line with excess electricity. In the UK, we're compressing air to a liquid and I believe theres a company lifting weights up redundant mine shafts.

And then you have flywheels, chemical batteries, storage heating, home batteries, electric cars, hydrogen and so on.

Anything really.

In the late 18th century there were over 10,000 windmills in England:

https://link.springer.com/referencework ... %20Holland.

I bet the people then never complained about the view as they helped them live a more comfortable life.

Big towers with rotating sails are nothing new in the English countryside.

FD

when it comes to determining whether or not sustainable energy is sustainable, it is important to consider all of the factors involved. Cost is certainly an important factor, but it is not the only one. By taking all of these factors into consideration, it is possible to determine whether or not sustainable energy is sustainable in the long run.

Power mix right now:
Gas turbines- 55%
Nuclear- 10%
Wind- 8%
Coal - 5%
+ the rest.

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

They aren't preheating the coal plant, they are actually on line.

funduffer wrote:In the late 18th century there were over 10,000 windmills in England:

FD

Aye, and about 1/6th of the height