Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 26 March 2007, 11:23   #1
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Whitstable
Boat name: Tango
Make: Avon and Narwhal2.4m
Length: 4m +
Engine: 60HP Yamaha
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
Great boat - great name - forts look awesome - hate windmills!!!

Interesting to see you are also using one of those crap LandRover's that can't tow anything and keeps breaking down all the time........
Codders - Why do you hate windmills ? surely as a retainable source of clean fuel windfarms must be the way to go, these one's in particular lay 4 miles off shore, provide enough power yearly to power a large area, they are clean, dont produce carbon deposits into the environment, produce an attraction for visitors to the area, as they have been set in the shallows dont hinder or cause a problem to shipping, you cant hear them, so whats the problem, last year Tony Blair went out to see them, so surely if big Tone says there cool.

What a silly statement to make !
__________________

__________________
Bilge Rat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 12:12   #2
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge Rat View Post
Codders - Why do you hate windmills ? surely as a retainable source of clean fuel windfarms must be the way to go, these one's in particular lay 4 miles off shore, provide enough power yearly to power a large area, they are clean, dont produce carbon deposits into the environment, produce an attraction for visitors to the area, as they have been set in the shallows dont hinder or cause a problem to shipping, you cant hear them, so whats the problem, last year Tony Blair went out to see them, so surely if big Tone says there cool.

What a silly statement to make !
What's the silly statement - what I said or Tony thinking they are cool???


The reason I HATE windmills is because they are nothing but a sop to the environmentalists. They cost more to make than they generate - they are an eyesore - we don't have much unspoiled countryside left. To get the power from them you have to have electricity pylons everywhere.

Windmills are just so inefficient - too windy they don't run - not windy enough they don't run. Typically a windfarm only produces something like 25% or a 1/4 of it's rated power. So when you see that a cartain windfarm produces 350Mw you have to divide that by 4 before you start!!!

Britian's biggest windfarm - with over 140 turbines each bigger than the London Eye - generates only 1/5th that of a gas power station at Baglan in South Wales that is so small most people don't even know it's there!!! Also the cost of building a windfarm is about 5x that of a normal power station.

Britain accounts for a tiny percentage of the World's CO2 emmisions - why wreck this country and cost us a fortune just as a token gesture?
__________________

__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 13:04   #3
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
The reason I HATE windmills is because they are nothing but a sop to the environmentalists.
Even if you believe that - there is nothing really wrong with placating a significant proportion of the population.
Quote:
They cost more to make than they generate
can you provide a quantifiable reference for that? My understanding was that the total cost of ownership over the useful life of a typical onshore wind turbine was around 4p / kWh. The wholesale price of gas alone (excluding the build cost and other operating costs, and the less than 100% efficiency at energy conversion) is rapidly approaching this. Wholesale electricity prices are significantly higher than the 4p / kWh.
Quote:
they are an eyesore - we don't have much unspoiled countryside left.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think they are impressive engineering landmarks. Coil/oil/gas/nuclear powerstations are rarely as graceful. And there is plenty of countryside left - most of the truely spectacular stuff is very unlikely to be built on by windmill.
Quote:
To get the power from them you have to have electricity pylons everywhere.
- well there are alternatives (underground) although not as affordable. However this is true of ALL power generation and distribution.

Quote:
Windmills are just so inefficient - too windy they don't run - not windy enough they don't run. Typically a windfarm only produces something like 25% or a 1/4 of it's rated power. So when you see that a cartain windfarm produces 350Mw you have to divide that by 4 before you start!!!
not sure of the point you are trying to make... most power stations do not operate at 100% capacity at any point in time. They are using wind energy - so inefficiency is a bit of a mute point - its not like buring gas or coal inefficiently?
Quote:
Britian's biggest windfarm - with over 140 turbines each bigger than the London Eye - generates only 1/5th that of a gas power station at Baglan in South Wales that is so small most people don't even know it's there!!!
Yes - I will accept that equivalent power generation requires a bigger land footprint.

Quote:
Also the cost of building a windfarm is about 5x that of a normal power station.
Only when you factor in the % utilisation - otherwise a 500 MW windfarm costs about the same as a 500 MW coal powerstation. The difference is one is almost free to run and has virtually zero carbon "cost" and the other has significant operating cost and CO2 emisions.
Quote:
Britain accounts for a tiny percentage of the World's CO2 emmisions - why wreck this country and cost us a fortune just as a token gesture?
Firstly - we are nowhere near being the leaders in the wind power world. china, and india both produce more power from wind than the UK. Secondly - why shouldn't we lead the world with green power - someone has to.

Finally - if we can reduce our reliance on imported energy in the forms of oil, gas, and coal (never mind the carbon emissions, or finite supplies of these) - then perhaps there will be less reason to create political havok in the parts of the world that have these resources and therefore safeguard our long term future.
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 16:08   #4
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Underground cables get very hot which causes a massive increase in resistance - windfarms are inefficient enough as it is.

Costs are being deliberately hidden for wind energy - they receive huge subsidies - up to 25x that of coal. Gas and nuclear get no subsidies at all. Take away the subsidies and windfarms would struggle to break even - yes the energy is free but the capital costs and running costs are not.

I also detest the use of Oil and gas to generate power - what a waste when we could have abundant nuclear power. It is strange to note that the people who actually LIVE in areas in Britain where there are nuke powerstations want them to stay. Anglesey being a classic example.

I REALLY care about the environment but I am also a realist. That is why it annoys me when the greens attack our own country and yet turn a blind eye to the REAL culprits.
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 16:46   #5
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
Underground cables get very hot which causes a massive increase in resistance - windfarms are inefficient enough as it is.

Costs are being deliberately hidden for wind energy - they receive huge subsidies - up to 25x that of coal. Gas and nuclear get no subsidies at all. Take away the subsidies and windfarms would struggle to break even - yes the energy is free but the capital costs and running costs are not.

I also detest the use of Oil and gas to generate power - what a waste when we could have abundant nuclear power. It is strange to note that the people who actually LIVE in areas in Britain where there are nuke powerstations want them to stay. Anglesey being a classic example.

I REALLY care about the environment but I am also a realist. That is why it annoys me when the greens attack our own country and yet turn a blind eye to the REAL culprits.
The western isles wind farm (approx 180 turbines) is planning to use underground cables to link to the mainland. These will work on HV d.c. - although perhaps not suited for every application.

Wind power can be financially viable without subsidy - the 4p/kWh is the price without subsidies. TBH I am not a wind power obsessed - but combined with hydroelectic, tidal, and wave power I think it holds a big part of the answer.

However I am ROTFLMAO that you have used subsidies as a counter argument for the economy of windpower in the same post as arguing for Nuclear. I don't have an in principle objection to nuclear power - but lets not pretend that nuclear powerstations are cost effective without government subsidy.
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 16:59   #6
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Nuclear power gets NO subsidies. The 4p per kw/h for wind you have quoted IS with the subsidies in place.

Tidal power I am in favour of - but only if done right - a Severn barrage for example.

As long as it makes sound economic sense I am all for it. pricing our energy so high it makes us even more uncompetitive in the World is a joke!!!
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 18:22   #7
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Colchester/Clevedon
Boat name: Barracuda
Make: Porters
Length: 5m +
Engine: Tohatsu 50hp
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
Nuclear power gets NO subsidies. The 4p per kw/h for wind you have quoted IS with the subsidies in place.

Tidal power I am in favour of - but only if done right - a Severn barrage for example.
Having grown up on the Severn I'm dead against a tidal barrage, which will damage a unique tidal range and migratory wildlife area. We should go mainly (say 80%) nuclear with the rest wind or offshore wave generated.

I agree that when found in large quantities wind mills ruin the landscape (e.g. Tarifa in southern Spain) but they'll surely become more efficient with time, so fewer will be needed.
__________________
GuyP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 18:39   #8
Member
 
Bigmuz7's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Glasgow
Boat name: stramash
Make: Tornado
Length: 5m +
Engine: Etec 90
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
Nuclear power gets NO subsidies.
Stroll on ........ How much did this technology cost to put in place and again I'm not anti nuke power but its cost is totally immense not to mention its legacy
__________________
Bigmuz7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 19:27   #9
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
Nuclear power gets NO subsidies. The 4p per kw/h for wind you have quoted IS with the subsidies in place.

Tidal power I am in favour of - but only if done right - a Severn barrage for example.

As long as it makes sound economic sense I am all for it. pricing our energy so high it makes us even more uncompetitive in the World is a joke!!!
Well - I think I know where my 4p/kWh value came from... (it included rental cost of land, cost of turbine ammortised over expected life, cost of maintainance, cost of connecting to grid, cost of finance, a realistic efficiency factor etc). A quick google reveals numbers as low as 2.7p/kWh... but I have no idea how they are caculated.

So the nuclear industry in the UK is not subsidised by the tax payer. Lets see: I am pretty sure all the nuclear power stations in the UK were built under public ownership. The design and development cost were borne by the tax payer and written off before privatisation. A fossil fuel levy was charged for many years (now replaced by the Carbon tax charged to businesses) which was created to directly subsidise the nuclear energy sector.

British Energy almost went bust - until the government bailed them out (3billion I think) with public money.

The nuclear decommissioning agency - funded by the DTI (with a budget of billions). Nuclear reactors require increased security (armed police presence) etc - I assume that this is funded centrally, as will the NII.

The situation in other countries might be different - but given the long time to financial return I would be surprised if there are many places where the private sector is putting up the sort of money required unless either their is a garunteed market price, a subsidy (or perhaps a carbon tax) or other incentive.

So - I simply don't believe claims that nuclear in the UK has not been subsidised. But with rising carbon costs it could be viable without subsidy in the future - but even then only because the government covers the risk from a major nuclear accident - not the operator. Insuring that risk would be too expensive to be economical.
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 March 2007, 21:45   #10
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Nuclear subsidy ceased in 1996.

The costs for decomissioning are way over the top - let's face it - disposal of a car these days is out of all proportion due to OTT environmental regs.

To give an idea of how little nuclear waste is allowed to escape not long ago nuclear contamination was detected on Windscale(nuke reprocessing plant) beach. the sensors went beserk - the actual cause of the "leak" turned out to be a luminous dial from a WWII bomber - not long ago people wore stuff like this on their wrists!!!

The Dead Sea is considered by many to have healing properties - as do many health spas etc - often the radioactivity of the water is over a 1,000 times higher than the waste they used to discharge before it was banned.

As to how the figures are calculated have a look at this.

http://www.countryguardian.net/ROC%2...202006%201.htm
__________________

__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.