Wind farm industry in jeopardy due to financial demands of National Grid



On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
<[email protected]> wrote:

|Dave Fawthrop <[email protected]> wrote:
|> On 24 Jan 2006 01:24:41 -0800, "Chris Gilbert" <[email protected]>
|> wrote:
|
|> |
|> |Simon Challands wrote:
|> |
|> |> Should think so too. No point in worrying about environmental damage
|> |> if the solutions to it make a mess of the few places worth still
|> |> keeping.
|> |
|> |I still think that there are things that I could do with my house that
|> |would not conflict with the status of the area. Solar tiles, for
|> |example,
|> |and carefully sighted solar water heating panels, not to mention
|> |ridge-line wind turbines. My house could be generating, admittedly
|> |low wattage, electricity all day while I'm at work and not using it
|> |myself.
|> |
|> |Of course retro-fitting it all to an older house is not
|> |straight-forward
|> |but I can't see why new builds don't incorporate it as a part of a
|> |standard design.
|
|> The pay back time is still too long :-(
|
|Too long compared to what?

The interest you are paying on the mortgage.


--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg! http://www.gutenberg.net
For Yorkshire Dialect go to www.hyphenologist.co.uk/songs/
 
Dave Fawthrop wrote:

>
> Only thing you missed was felling the trees. If man were to stop managing
> the Peak District, everything would go back to scrub and after a few
> centuries Wild Wood which it was between the end of the last Ice Age 14,000
> years ago and the beginning of agriculture some 6000 years ago.


True enough.

--
Regards

Nick
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:

>>The pay back time is still too long :-(

>
>
> Too long compared to what? The problem with greenhouse emissions and
> glabal warming is that the payback time for our bad behaviour is too
> far away for accountants to recommend doing something about it as a
> sound investment. And by the time the penalty comes within range of
> accountancy myopia it'll be far too late to do anything. It's the
> short term thinking of the bean counters who run things that has led
> to the problem.
>

It depends on which school of thought you subscribe to. There is
a view that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that the
Earth's climate goes in natural cycles and at the moment we are
in a warming up phase. It is also said that while manmade
pollution is pretty indefensible it's a drop in ocean and not the
cause of global warming.

I don't have the knowledge to hold an informed opinion as to
which school of thought is the right one, time will tell us who
is right, but I like to think I have an open mind. There are
those people who latch on to an idea and refuse to question its
validity and let it go, hardly surprising if you've spent most of
your life working on and believing in a certain hypothesis.

I can't imagine it's easy for anyone to welcome the idea that
something they've believed in all their life turns out to be
untrue. History is full of truths that turned out to be anything but!

--
Regards

Nick
 
Chris Gilbert wrote:
> Nick Mason wrote:
>
> Interesting stuff, Nick.
>
>
>>So far none have managed to generate enough power to make it
>>*really* worthwhile, they're certainly a long, long way from
>>becoming self sufficient.

>
>
> I wasn't thinking in terms of self-sufficiency, although that would of
> course be the ideal. I was thinking more in terms of exploiting the
> grid as a two-way service, wherein the consumer premises could
> be modified to create electricity as well as consume it. In this way,
> when the premises is not being used it would push power back into
> the grid and reduce the amount of centrally generated power.
>
>


That of course would be power Nirvana, you generate enough power
for your own needs and enough extra to put back into the grid.

However, the people I know are finding that the truth is rather
more bleak, they currently can't generate enough power to break
even when the house is empty and all that's running is the
fridge/freezer and a few appliances on standby, they still need
to draw from the grid. It's all down to the efficiency in which
you can convert one form of energy, wind or sunlight, into
another form, electricity.

Hopefully technology is improving things, the first steam engines
were less than 1% efficient but they improved with time. All we
can hope is that the same efficiency improvements will happen in
power generation but I think we're a long way from anything
useful at the moment.

--
Regards

Nick
 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:03:10 GMT, Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

|Chris Malcolm wrote:
|
|>>The pay back time is still too long :-(
|>
|>
|> Too long compared to what? The problem with greenhouse emissions and
|> glabal warming is that the payback time for our bad behaviour is too
|> far away for accountants to recommend doing something about it as a
|> sound investment. And by the time the penalty comes within range of
|> accountancy myopia it'll be far too late to do anything. It's the
|> short term thinking of the bean counters who run things that has led
|> to the problem.
|>
|It depends on which school of thought you subscribe to. There is
|a view that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that the
|Earth's climate goes in natural cycles and at the moment we are
|in a warming up phase. It is also said that while manmade
|pollution is pretty indefensible it's a drop in ocean and not the
|cause of global warming.

I read a long article in the Scientific American which argued that we
should now be well into another Ice Age, but the agricultural revolution
starting 6000 years ago, produced just enough carbon dioxide to keep the
mean temperature at interglacial levels. The maths of where the Extra
Carbon Dioxide with any resulting warming goes is very dodgy. The earth
should really should be a lot hotter than it is. So that seems a
reasonable argument to me.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg! http://www.gutenberg.net
For Yorkshire Dialect go to www.hyphenologist.co.uk/songs/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Nick Mason wrote:
>
>> What do the panel think, is there a truly viable alternative to
>> nuclear power when fossil fuels run out?

>
>
> A primary determinant will be how much power we use. It could be
> considerably less than the current levels of profligate waste, in which
> case there'd be a lot less generation capacity to replace. Also, if
> everyone's house made, say 10% of the power they needed, that would
> reduce the generation requirements by 10%. Combining a partial local
> generation solution with much increased efficiency might bring down wide
> area generation needs to the point where predictable renewables (like
> tidal) could cope.
>
> But the first Big Step in any case is stop wasting so much energy.
>
> Pete.


Agreed, waste is a huge problem, mind you with the cost of gas
and electricity rising people will become better at only using
power as needed, only having lights on where you are rather than
leaving all the lights on throughout the whole house.

Before I started working from home I worked in an office that had
movement sensors in the ceiling. If there was no movement for a
while the lights went out, a great idea for an office full of
software engineers who's natural state is near comatose! We used
to spend hours sitting in the dark with just our desk lamps on,
very relaxing and conducive to thinking deep thoughts.

If you wanted light all you had to do was wave an arm or stand
up. :O)

I wonder if you can get similar sensors for domestic use? I'll
have to look into it.

--
Regards

Nick
 
dave hill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

> Pray how much power is required to get the plasma set up to get
> anywhere near the fission process?
> And how long has this plasma been held in trials so far?
>
> I realise that this is the way to go BUT its going to take sackfulls of
> spondulicks to perfect


If all the spondulicks being considered for new fission reactors were
put into fusion research, would it still proceed as slowly as it has done
to date ?

-adrian
 
"Allan Gould" <[email protected]> wrote

> Wind farm industry in jeopardy due to financial demands of National Grid
>
> Wind farm developers in Scotland are having to cancel future projects
> because National Grid is demanding millions of pounds in guarantees for
> electricity grid upgrades, while capacity is so limited that the queue
> for grid connections is now 10 years long.
>
> http://www.sundayherald.com/53638
>

I know this is OT but it's interesting nevertheless. There was an urban myth
doing the rounds about a guy who had a wind turbine, solar panels, etc etc
and was so sucessful he was putting power back into the grid, presumably
recovering money. Yet....all the sites I read say this is just a dream and
the best we are likely to do is contribute a third (say) of our total needs.
Anyone?

Graham
 
[email protected] said...
> However, the people I know are finding that the truth is rather
> more bleak, they currently can't generate enough power to break
> even when the house is empty and all that's running is the
> fridge/freezer and a few appliances on standby, they still need
> to draw from the grid. It's all down to the efficiency in which
> you can convert one form of energy, wind or sunlight, into
> another form, electricity.
>

I'd second that. My solar panels heated my water but nothing else.
Most days I had all the hot water I needed; some days I needed to use
the immersion heater to run a bath if the day had been particularly
overcast. A succession of overcast or otherwise dark days meant that
all my water had to be heated that way, which was expensive. At no
point did we come anywhere close to recouping the cost of the
installation of the solar panels; even were I still there we'd still be
running at a loss. Until there's some means of bringing down the cost
of installation, whether by mass takeup making it cheaper or by energy
grant (the current one is not nearly enough) I will not even consider
having solar panels fitted in my current house, even though I am well
aware of the benefits and even though it is something I would love to be
able to do. I simply do not have the funds available to have panels
installed here, and since the installation cost takes around 20 years to
be recouped it is not a viable course of action for me at all. This,
even though I have a south facing roof ready and waiting.
--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.
 
[email protected] said...
> > The pay back time is still too long :-(

>
> Too long compared to what? The problem with greenhouse emissions and
> glabal warming is that the payback time for our bad behaviour is too
> far away for accountants to recommend doing something about it as a
> sound investment. And by the time the penalty comes within range of
> accountancy myopia it'll be far too late to do anything. It's the
> short term thinking of the bean counters who run things that has led
> to the problem.
>

Hands up - how many people here have their own solar panels, wind
turbines, etc? Anyone? I've already said elsewhere that I don't,
although I have had in the past - anyone else?
--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.
 
Fran wrote:
> [email protected] said...
>
>>However, the people I know are finding that the truth is rather
>>more bleak, they currently can't generate enough power to break
>>even when the house is empty and all that's running is the
>>fridge/freezer and a few appliances on standby, they still need
>>to draw from the grid. It's all down to the efficiency in which
>>you can convert one form of energy, wind or sunlight, into
>>another form, electricity.
>>

>
> I'd second that. My solar panels heated my water but nothing else.
> Most days I had all the hot water I needed; some days I needed to use
> the immersion heater to run a bath if the day had been particularly
> overcast. A succession of overcast or otherwise dark days meant that
> all my water had to be heated that way, which was expensive. At no
> point did we come anywhere close to recouping the cost of the
> installation of the solar panels; even were I still there we'd still be
> running at a loss. Until there's some means of bringing down the cost
> of installation, whether by mass takeup making it cheaper or by energy
> grant (the current one is not nearly enough) I will not even consider
> having solar panels fitted in my current house, even though I am well
> aware of the benefits and even though it is something I would love to be
> able to do. I simply do not have the funds available to have panels
> installed here, and since the installation cost takes around 20 years to
> be recouped it is not a viable course of action for me at all. This,
> even though I have a south facing roof ready and waiting.


Alternative energy is a nice idea but large parts of the UK just
aren't suited to current technologies. As you pointed out on
overcast days you got no power from your solar panels. Where I am
there is rarely any wind to speak of, it's sometimes still for
days on end.

If you want to generate power you need a reliable energy source
of sufficient power to make it work, the laws of physics apply
and things that contain enough potential energy to make using
them worthwhile tend be dangerous, explosively so!

The energy released by nuclear fission is immense but very
difficult to control safely and the waste is a problem.

Fusion, which powers the sun, produces no high level radiation
waste like fission does but the fusion reactor does become
irradiated and the plasma needed for the fusion process has to be
heated to the point which is to hot for any material to remain
solid, the answer is to hold the plasma in empty space by
powerful electromagnetic forces, keeping the plasma contained
without it touching the sides of the vessel. If you manage to
overcome all the engineering and superconductor problems
associated with starting, containing and maintaining a fusion
reaction you then have the added problem of converting the
kinetic energy of the released neutrons into useful form of
energy, electricity.

Not the sort of thing you can build in a shed.
--
Regards

Nick
 
dave hill wrote:

> I realise that this is the way to go BUT its going to take sackfulls of
> spondulicks to perfect


So throw more money at the problems. That's what money is *for*.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch writes
>dave hill wrote:
>
>> I realise that this is the way to go BUT its going to take sackfulls
>>of spondulicks to perfect

>
>So throw more money at the problems. That's what money is *for*.
>

Well yes in a way but then there are the bean counters and our beloved
politicians only think re short term fix (next election) and don't think
long term for the good of the country.
Mind you disaster staring the politicos in the face usually makes
wondrous things happen.

Just as a matter of correctness I meant to talk about FUSION power in my
previous post not FISSION - the later is what we are being gently guided
to; a new group of reactors placed at the 'usual' locations.
--
dave hill
 
dave hill wrote:
>
> Well yes in a way but then there are the bean counters and our beloved
> politicians only think re short term fix (next election) and don't think
> long term for the good of the country.


Having been unaware of what the current state of Fusion play is I had a
quick squiz at the Wikipedia. Seems the international community have
agreed on a plan (even The Merkins dropping their own project to
concentrate resources) and the ITER project should be starting
construction in France Real Soon Now with targets for plasma production
in 10 years. That wouldn't be commercial, but may hopefully lead on to
a subsequent generation of reactors that would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Quite an interesting piece, I thought.

> Mind you disaster staring the politicos in the face usually makes
> wondrous things happen.


Yes, though I think we need more of a disaster to get them into gear
than we have right now :-(

> Just as a matter of correctness I meant to talk about FUSION power in my
> previous post not FISSION - the later is what we are being gently guided
> to; a new group of reactors placed at the 'usual' locations.


This seems to be happening not so much because it's a good idea but an
idea that has a critical degree of momentum. It's as if someone has
decided (and probably someone who doesn't really understand the issues
better than we do, I suspect) and now it's just a case of keeping it on
the horizon and not doing anything else until its too late to do
anything else.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:14:17 GMT:
> However, the people I know are finding that the truth is rather
> more bleak, they currently can't generate enough power to break
> even when the house is empty and all that's running is the
> fridge/freezer and a few appliances on standby, they still need
> to draw from the grid. It's all down to the efficiency in which
> you can convert one form of energy, wind or sunlight, into
> another form, electricity.


But why aim at breaking even? The first chunk of energy savings
can be achieved at relatively moderate cost - insulation, insulation,
heating with gas rather than electricity, and insulation. The next
chunk is more expensive - diminishing returns etc. You seem to be
saying that it's not worthwhile if you don't produce enough energy to
satisfy your own demand entirely, but why?
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
 
Richard Webb <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:07:10 GMT:
> Sadly the other useless eyesores, roads and sitka are harder to avoid.
> Most hills with windmills are honestly improved by them


I don't mind the visual impact of the windmills very much as long as
they're not all over the place, but the massive access roads needed to
install the latest industry-scale ones are really annoying.

I do think windmills are sensible if they're one part of a sustainable
energy package. I'm a bit worried though that short-termism means that
we fail to invest in the other sustainable energy technologies, including
tidal and fusion, because windmills may satisfy all our "targets" for
the moment.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
 
W. D. Grey <[email protected]> wrote on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:53:57 +0000:
> Look at the mess they've made of the hillsides from Aberystwyth to the
> North.


They're small-scale, and close to the fairly populated (by west Wales
standards anyway) coastal region. But look at the massive access roads
in the middle of nowhere to the east of here - that's what worries me!
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
 
[email protected] said...
> f you manage to
> overcome all the engineering and superconductor problems
> associated with starting, containing and maintaining a fusion
> reaction you then have the added problem of converting the
> kinetic energy of the released neutrons into useful form of
> energy, electricity.
>
> Not the sort of thing you can build in a shed.
>
>

Not even a very big shed?
--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.