Climate change: the true price of the warmists' folly is becoming clear

[Ardesco]

You put turbines offshore you numpty - very strong winds there, especially in Scotland. It's mainland countries are FORCED to put them onto countryside, there is better choice in this country and it should be made ASAP.

The sad part is that companies who won bidding for those offshore farms are mainly foreign - it could have been good job/science development if this country actually ensured that work/R&D is done here: manufacturing companies in Europe who make turbines got order books going AHEAD many years, like 2015.

So how many wind turbines do you need to produce the same power output as a nuclear power station?

How many birds do nuclear power stations kill as opposed to wind turbines.

How long will those wind turbines last before falling apart?

You still expect me to believe that wind turbines are the green option...

[AtW]

So how many wind turbines do you need to produce the same power output as a nuclear power station?

How many birds do nuclear power stations kill as opposed to wind turbines.

How long will those wind turbines last before falling apart?

You still expect me to believe that wind turbines are the green option...

I don't expect you to believe anything.

Here is the reality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

"While wind power accounts for almost 20% of the power generated in Denmark, it covers only 10–14% of the country's demand. Power in excess of immediate demand is exported to Germany, Norway, and Sweden. The latter two have considerable hydropower resources, which can rapidly reduce their generation whenever wind farms are generating surplus power, saving water for later. In effect, this is a cheap way for northern Europe to store wind power until it is needed – an opportunity which is not generally available for wind power generators."

Offshore conditions in the UK (especially Scotland) are far better wind wise for this sort of stuff - it seems like a perfect opportunity to actually export something people need: electricity, nice revenue that does not involve buying in oil from backwards regimes.

Beats having to pay a lot of money to the French to build their nuclear stations in this country.

[shaunbhoy]

The only sensible way forward for energy stability in this country is Nuclear. All the other faddy ideas like wind/wave power are decoration. Let's get cracking on building them before we get our gonads put in a vice by foreigners with on/off switches in their gas/oil pipelines.

[AtW]

The only sensible way forward for energy stability in this country is Nuclear. All the other faddy ideas like wind/wave power are decoration. Let's get cracking on building them before we get our gonads put in a vice by foreigners with on/off switches in their gas/oil pipelines.

And who do you think will be building those magical nuclear stations? The French who were clever to build them for themselves and keep expertise so that now they can (quiet rightfully) cash in.

This country has already sold out it's energy infrastructure to foreign firms.

Nuclear option should also be pursued but it's stupid to make single bet - either on windfarms or on nuclear, only a combined effort can help gain energy security.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Politics and NIMBYism.

Nuclear has had so much bad press over decades that it's pretty much a non starter in this country.

It's those uppity Scots. You used to be able to site nuclear stuff there on Westminster's say-so (if it's so safe then build it in Hyde Park and reduce transmission losses). Even, in the case of Chapelcross, build nuclear generators in Scotlandto satisfy England's demand, but pay for construction with a loan, which was then repaid by the consumers in the Electricity Generating Board area where the generators were sited.

The real puzzle is that the Scots have let you away with this sort of thing for so long.

[Sysman]

Simple, take a look at the the historic metocean data for the areas earmarked for round 3 development. the data goes back an average of 25 years, and the areas chosen have been chosen because of usable and consistent wind resource.

My own observation from when I lived in the Pennines was that there was only one truly windless day in the years I was there. The strongest and most consistent winds were in winter, which is when power demands peak.

[Addanc]

Simple, take a look at the the historic metocean data for the areas earmarked for round 3 development. the data goes back an average of 25 years, and the areas chosen have been chosen because of usable and consistent wind resource.

The long term statistics may suggest that there will generally be a usable wind resource. However unlike the tides which are a predictable resource, there is no way of predicting when the wind is going to drop-out for relatively short periods of time (say of the order of 1/2 hour); these gaps in generation need to be bridged.

[shaunbhoy]

My own observation from when I lived in the Pennines was that there was only one truly windless day in the years I was there. The strongest and most consistent winds were in winter, which is when power demands peak.

I spent 2 years in the Shetlands(Unst) in the mid-80s. I can only remember 1 day when it was windless.
If we must have them then I say carpet that place with wind turbines...............the locals were always too blootered to even notice anyway. Worst case a few might get damaged due to the locals throwing bread at them, but other than that.........happy days!

[AtW]

these gaps in generation need to be bridged.

Or you sell "cheap" energy contracts to factories saying in small print that they will be cut off in case of peak demand or if wind stops.

Simples!

[EternalOptimist]

A stoopid question



why does the power supply need to be 100% continuous