Western Isles windfarm application



Dominic Sexton wrote:

> I doubt that even for houses with a southerly aspect to one
> of the roof slopes.

Only in present consumption models.

Like other people I'm a big supporter of getting energy consumption
down ahead of significant changes in the way it is generated. Why
we're still building house with 240v lighting is beyond me.

Chris
 
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:55:34 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:06:03 -0000, "Duncan Gray"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>But the Western Isles doesn't need all that power. Your nuclear power
>>station could probably be built more cheaply close to where the demand for
>>electricity is, and save all that transmission loss through hundreds of
>>miles of cable.
>
>I'm not technically minded, Duncan.
>But does cabling it really lose much energy?

Under 2% on a national level. But on average supply is close to demand, so
you can up that a bit for a wind-farm on Lewis if new cable is needed.

However, if the national grid (presumably) runs out to Lewis anyway, then as
long as the cable has capacity for the generated power, then I don't see any
additional losses. Power just simply flows the other way... To put in new
cabling would obviously cost, and add to transmission losses, though.

We'd do better reducing our consumption, or looking at wave-power, imho.
(Actually, nuclear power still makes huge sense. Far more sense than
burning gas, for a start.)

--
Don't let your superiors know you're superior to them.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On 10 Dec 2004 07:11:46 -0800, "Chris Gilbert" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Why we're still building house with 240v lighting is beyond me.

Same reason the national grid is very high voltage. 12V lighting can
require silly amounts of cabling or transformers everywhere.

--
Try to look unimportant; the bad guys may be low on ammo.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Gilbert <[email protected]> writes
>
>Dominic Sexton wrote:
>
>> I doubt that even for houses with a southerly aspect to one
>> of the roof slopes.
>
>Only in present consumption models.

Well I was questioning Norman's assertion that it would only cost £2k
per head to equip houses to be almost self-sufficient in electrickery.

I agree that energy consumption could and should be very much reduced
however there are a few sticking points with the sloar/battery/inverter
proposal mentioned (unless all the high wattage appliances are replaced
with the equivalent gas appliances).
>
>Like other people I'm a big supporter of getting energy consumption
>down ahead of significant changes in the way it is generated. Why
>we're still building house with 240v lighting is beyond me.

Why? Where is the inefficiency in 240v?

Compared to heating (buildings and water) lighting does not take much
energy so improving the efficiency of the high energy systems will give
the greatest savings. I would love a system that took heat from waste
water and stored it to preheat water used for washing etc.

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:00:03 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:


>We'd do better reducing our consumption, or looking at wave-power, imho.
>(Actually, nuclear power still makes huge sense. Far more sense than
>burning gas, for a start.)

In the home I like a choice of fuels though. I used to love it when we
had our coal fire, years ago. But we now have a gas fire that belts
out 5.5 kw on full. I've not seen a comparable electric fire - and I
can't fit a nuclear reactor in the grate.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:48:21 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lachie wrote:
>>
>> Ask the locals, not the white settlers and I would imagine that the
>> majority would be in favour of the project.
>
>In the NW the "white settlers" often /are/ the locals. You don't give
>up the ratrace to become a crofter because it's some easy option, and
>places like the Yorkshire Dales are more attractive as venues for
>retirement to the country.
>
>Pete.

Yes, I can't see many wrinklies heading for Lewis, somehow.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
sgrìobh Peter Clinch

>Lachie wrote:
>>
>> Ask the locals, not the white settlers and I would imagine that the
>>majority would be in favour of the project.
>
>In the NW the "white settlers" often /are/ the locals. You don't give
>up the ratrace to become a crofter because it's some easy option, and
>places like the Yorkshire Dales are more attractive as venues for
>retirement to the country.


Fair point.

Do you mean that there are very few WS in the Outer Heebrides? I still
think that the locals would run with it, remember the super quarry. WHFP
was against it but they Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and the Gazette seemed
to me to be quite keen.


I am not using the term "white settlers" pejoratively, well OK, maybe a
bit.
When the bridge was mooted for Skye the indigenous islanders, i.e.
Macthis, Macthat and Macother supported the building of the bridge, a
lot of the incomers were against it. Allegedly.

The most vigorous campaigners to rid the Holy Loch of the US were the
WS.

Actually the idea of crofting fills me with dread after trying to make
money on an Argyllshire hill farm.

However I would also point out that I have been a WS in deepest, darkest
Hertfordshire and I also answer to sobriquet of Jock and sweaty.

BTW have got the wrong end of the stick and you are actually railing
against the Vikings? If so I apologize.
--
Lachie.
"durian jatoh, sarong ankgat"
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:12:36 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>
>Compared to heating (buildings and water) lighting does not take much
>energy so improving the efficiency of the high energy systems will give
>the greatest savings. I would love a system that took heat from waste
>water and stored it to preheat water used for washing etc.

A friend of mine has just been telling me about a visit to a
colleague's house, filled with Heath-Robinson contraptions. When the
bath drains it is used to flush the toilet. There is a bike connected
to a generator and storage batteries. The fridge uses no electricity -
it has the water pipes running through it. The lights stop working
automatically in daylight, etc. There was much more, but I can't
remember it all.
Needless to say, the man is single and has no kids!


--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:28:38 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:00:03 +0000, John Laird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>We'd do better reducing our consumption, or looking at wave-power, imho.
>>(Actually, nuclear power still makes huge sense. Far more sense than
>>burning gas, for a start.)
>
>In the home I like a choice of fuels though. I used to love it when we
>had our coal fire, years ago. But we now have a gas fire that belts
>out 5.5 kw on full. I've not seen a comparable electric fire - and I
>can't fit a nuclear reactor in the grate.

I was referring to burning gas to generate electricity. Sure, it's clean
and cheap, but very soon we will lack self-sufficiency and I'm not looking
forward to sitting in the dark and freezing when some pipeline in a
corruption-ridden ex-communist state gets fouled up...

--
What is a "free" gift? Aren't all gifts free?

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
"John Laird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:55:34 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:06:03 -0000, "Duncan Gray"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But the Western Isles doesn't need all that power. Your nuclear power
> >>station could probably be built more cheaply close to where the demand
for
> >>electricity is, and save all that transmission loss through hundreds of
> >>miles of cable.
> >
> >I'm not technically minded, Duncan.
> >But does cabling it really lose much energy?
>
> Under 2% on a national level. But on average supply is close to demand,
so
> you can up that a bit for a wind-farm on Lewis if new cable is needed.
>
> However, if the national grid (presumably) runs out to Lewis anyway, then
as
> long as the cable has capacity for the generated power, then I don't see
any
> additional losses. Power just simply flows the other way... To put in
new
> cabling would obviously cost, and add to transmission losses, though.

The plan is to build an entirely new line - underwater cable from the
Western Isles to hit the coast somewhere in the area of Ullapool, and then
create a new line of pylons from there to join the existing interconnector
at Beauly. The line from there to the central belt is also up for renewal
and upgrading (from 132 to 400kV capacity), not always following the
existing line.
There was a plan to provide an undersea cable down the west of Scotland to
eventually make a landfall in England, but that seems to have been
forgotten.

>
> We'd do better reducing our consumption, or looking at wave-power, imho.
> (Actually, nuclear power still makes huge sense. Far more sense than
> burning gas, for a start.)

Absolutely agree.
Earlier this year, the The Enterprise and Culture Committee of the Scottish
Parliament issued a report issued a report which said much the same, except
that as it was a "Renewable Energy report" they didn't mention the nuclear
options.

--
Duncan Gray

www.duncolm.co.uk
also The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:52:41 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:28:38 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:00:03 +0000, John Laird
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We'd do better reducing our consumption, or looking at wave-power, imho.
>>>(Actually, nuclear power still makes huge sense. Far more sense than
>>>burning gas, for a start.)
>>
>>In the home I like a choice of fuels though. I used to love it when we
>>had our coal fire, years ago. But we now have a gas fire that belts
>>out 5.5 kw on full. I've not seen a comparable electric fire - and I
>>can't fit a nuclear reactor in the grate.
>
>I was referring to burning gas to generate electricity. Sure, it's clean
>and cheap, but very soon we will lack self-sufficiency and I'm not looking
>forward to sitting in the dark and freezing when some pipeline in a
>corruption-ridden ex-communist state gets fouled up...

We need to conquer more territory. Antarctica seems to be up for
grabs!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to Rooney

>We need to conquer more territory. Antarctica seems to be up for
>grabs!

I think the army is busy at present.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:42:39 +0000, The Reids wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>We need to conquer more territory. Antarctica seems to be up for
>>grabs!
>
>I think the army is busy at present.

Send the marines then :)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:44:54 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:42:39 +0000, The Reids wrote:
>
>>Following up to Rooney
>>
>>>We need to conquer more territory. Antarctica seems to be up for
>>>grabs!
>>
>>I think the army is busy at present.
>
>Send the marines then :)


Didn't we find it anyway? So it's ours.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to Rooney

>>>I think the army is busy at present.
>>
>>Send the marines then :)
>
>
>Didn't we find it anyway? So it's ours.

Who stuck a flag on the pole?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:11:18 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>>>I think the army is busy at present.
>>>
>>>Send the marines then :)
>>
>>
>>Didn't we find it anyway? So it's ours.
>
>Who stuck a flag on the pole?

Could have been some Norwegian cheat - but they aren't the imperial
type.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:50:34 +0000, Malcolm
>>>
>>>Pete.
>>Yes, I suppose it would be fair game for a proposed site if the
>>necessity arose.
>>Some thoughts on the subject:
>>I understand that when the wind generators are past their useful life
>>they can be dismantled and the area returned to its previous state
>>within a few days.
>
>Hardly "to its previous state" and hardly "within a few days", as each
>tower stands on several tons of concrete, plus there have to be
>load-bearing roads built to get the towers there in the first place.
>
>And while the turbines may have a 25-year life, who is going to turn
>down a further application to upgrade and extend the life of the wind
>farm as the initial period comes to an end, when all the infrastructure
>is in place?

One would expect the energy technology to move on considerably in the
next 25 years. Exisiting systems should become obsolete and be
replaced with hydrogen fuel cells etc.
A hydrogen fuel cell operates like a battery. The chemicals are very
simple, just hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms are
joined together to produce water and electricity.

A hydrogen fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched around an
electrolyte. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the
other, generating electricity, water and heat. Hydrogen is fed into
the "anode" of the fuel cell. Oxygen (or air) enters the fuel cell
through the cathode. Excited by a catalyst, the hydrogen atom splits
into a proton and an electron, which take different paths to the
cathode. The proton passes through the electrolyte. The electrons
create a separate current that can be utilized before they return to
the cathode, to be reunited with the hydrogen and oxygen in a molecule
of water.

Since hydrogen fuel cells rely on chemistry and not combustion, its
emissions are virtually zero in comparison to the cleanest fuel
combustion engines.

Hydrogen fuel cells can be made in a vast quantity of sizes. They can
be used to produce small amounts of electric power for devices such as
personal computers, or be used to produce high voltage powers for
electric power stations. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are an attractive
alternative to regular battery-powered vehicles. They can be refueled
quicker and even run longer between refueling.

Norman
 
In article <[email protected]>, Norman
<[email protected]> writes
>Hydrogen fuel cells can be made in a vast quantity of sizes. They can
>be used to produce small amounts of electric power for devices such as
>personal computers, or be used to produce high voltage powers for
>electric power stations

And where do you think the hydrogen comes from?

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:53:04 +0000, Malcolm
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>>[email protected]
>>
>I didn't follow this thread - I've been away rather a lot recently.
>
>Assuming the bird was of similar size to a Fieldfare, it is a Mistle
>Thrush.

Can anyone tell me how to find a URL for this? When I tell Agent it's
a message ID I don't get anywhere. I'd like to see the picture of the
mistle thrush: I've been trying to learn to ID them for a year or so.

Thanks for any help.


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back