But no-one has yet invented a good way of storing electricity.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Rampion wind farm - Turbines will be 689 feet tall !!!
- Thread starter seagullsslimjim
- Start date
But no-one has yet invented a good way of storing electricity.
A massive f*ck-off capacitor
That's what I had in mind! With a gap one atom wide between the plates!
There are some great detailed reports available if you have the time to plough through them. Onshore wind generation is currently cheaper than solar, offshore is considerably more expensive.
Offshore has one big advantage that I don't think anyone is talking about, because it could be very damaging for marine life and that is, it offers a simple proven means of storing energy. Essentially you place a bloody big hollow concrete tank on the seabed and fill it with water. When you have excess energy produced from your wind turbines, you use this to pump the water out of the tank. When demand increases you open up gates on the bunker and let the water flood in. The incoming sea water then drives turbines, that generate electricity. The cost argument only becomes viable when you have enough scale that you can start to shut down carbon based generation and the impact on marine life, will have to be assessed long term, especially as we have some every sensitive areas for marine life, just off the Sussex coast.
Theatre of Trees
Well-known member
Fair enough, thought you were talking about whacking any old turf down.
Theatre of Trees
Well-known member
Indeed and the reason why man was turfed off the Downs in the 13th and 14th centuries and replaced by sheep was the huge amounts off cash to be made by landlords and the crown by the selling of fleeces to feed the lucrative cloth industry in Flanders.
drew
Drew
Why not try and reinstate the area to it's original state as forest? More trees can't be a bad thing.
Beat me to it.
Having seen Notters answer, for the uk he seems to dismiss wind power for nuclear whereas I would argue there should be a combination of both together with, especially in the south, photovoltaic and, where practicable, tidal barrages. It strikes me as short sighted that new properties in the south aren't required to to incorporate PV panels to reduce reliance on generated electricity. I have PV panels and due to the quirks of government policy benefit financially from what is generated however if all new builds had them, the cost would be considerably less than adding them later. You wouldn't need incentives, just a slightly higher initial purchase price but savings would be made from reduced electric bills.
As for someone's comment that they are not cost effective because of the energy used to build them in the first place. Well of course that is the case because we don't have significant green energy. More green energy being used would mean the carbon emissions for building them in the future would be less.
But again this is due to the fact that electricity can't yet be stored very effectively or efficiently. Most electricity is needed at night, in the winter.
In an average year, how many days would there be:
a) not enough wind
b) the right amount of wind
c) too much wind
It sounds like a sensible question, but it can probably be answered in a multitude of ways, which just provoke more arguments. The complexity is enough to make your head spin. I would say from a tax payers perspective.
1 We don't care this is purely at the risk of the supplier, once a subsidy tariff has been agreed, if they get the wrong wind and can't generate, they bear the loss.. Obviously we would all like to see this reduced to zero over time.
2 To contradict what I said above, the National Grid, has to plan alternate capacity (via market pricing), based on predictions of how much energy will come from wind sources. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Today wind is supplying less than 1% to the grid, by some measures it has reached over 10% of capacity on good days. How this is calculated I don't know, when a large proportion of wind and solar energy is used at source, rather than fed into the grid. The National Grid has a wind monitoring system, which can predict with 87% accuracy when and where the wind is blowing. If they are able to improve this forecasting, it will not make any difference to the cost of wind energy, which is fixed by tariff, but it will bring down the input cost and CO2 emissions from carbon sources, because they will be able to run more efficiently, rather than responding to unpredictable spikes in demand.
Totally this.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Well that's what was said and I guess it hit home because I always remember it. Also you have to remember that the acre of forest that is cut remains cut...as in forever. So assuming a lifetime is 70years, the cut rainforests impact is forever. Sort of makes sense to me. Either way it is the worlds biggest problem regarding climate change. A bunch of wind mills plocked off the coast to show everyone what a good job the uk is doing is a crock of crap. I can't see the local population of Brighton building and maintaining them, more like some foreign firm. So it's not creating local jobs, rather importing jobs.
If BA, a cut throat business Airline can do this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...tish-Airways-to-fuel-planes-with-rubbish.html then it can be done for anything using diesel. I understand the capacity is limited at the moment but the possibilities are increadable. Yet the government insists on showroom green projects, that do almost nothing.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,292
they mandated bio-diesel in Germany, the knock on effect was that rather than waste, they started importing palm oil from Malaysia, causing thousands of acres of deforestation to supply this new demand.
All the Cressidas and Tarquins who are bemoaning the potential 'spoiling' of our sea view, by these structures. If you swapped the word 'turbines, for 'sculptures' and told them Sir Anthony Gormley had designed them, they'd be all over it.
drew
Drew
Thanks for answering just one point. Of course most energy is needed in the evenings but households still do an awful lot during daylight hours. For example, tumble drying during the day, setting dishwashers and washing machines to operate when the house is generating it's own electricity. And, when not using that electricity, it can go back into the grid and reduce the amount that other sources need to produce. Also, where practicable, excess energy can be used to pump water from a low level to a high on so that when more energy is required it can flow back through turbines creating energy.
It's about having a 'joined up' strategy rather than one or the other. As for the european grid, sounds feasible but would you really have some of our power being generated in North Africa where it would be very susceptible to local influences.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
It's a much cleaner way to make bio diesel than before. The using of rubbish and waste increases it's clean properties. My point being that there are better things to spend money on for the long term goal of a clean environment than wind farms.
One for the geeks here. An interesting insight into the European super grid, if you are into that sort of thing.
The secret world of power generation, and the arrival of Earth-spanning super grids http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ziff...and-the-arrival-of-world-spanning-super-grids
The secret world of power generation, and the arrival of Earth-spanning super grids http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ziff...and-the-arrival-of-world-spanning-super-grids
symyjym
Banned
Just paint them different illuminous colours that will also glow in the moolight and job done.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
Depends which way you're facing.
If I look through my legs, which way am I facing?
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
Especially when a super tanker loses power in a storm and goes tenpin bowling at £2m a pop!