PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

We're running out of wind!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Wind Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
and heard.

Fortunately, most others value the landscape of Britain even if you don't - just a pity the views of the pro wind minority are rammed down their throats.


Actually I do value the landscape, but at the same time really like wind turbines so will put my vote in for more of them on visual appreciation grounds! As for "heard", well I live within 10 m of an A road and am quite ok with that. I would be more than happy to pay in my electricity bill for migitation measures such as triple glazing (especially if road users would do the same for me!).

I do appreciate that others take a different view on aesthetics, and recognise that we should be prepared to compromise...while being aware of the costs and risks involved. However, we don't hear much about compromise from the other side.

Good news if SE is as windy as northern Germany, lets get buildin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9815
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
And no, offshore wind in the SE does not count in my book as 'doing their bit'; I'll believe that when they build on Hampstead Heath.


If we're talking about fairness, London should have its own Nuclear Power station given the amount of electricity used there, but I can't see that happening either. They should store some nuclear waste there as well; London clay is a pretty stable, water proof material material and they could use the waste heat for district heating.

Quote:
At the moment there are no windfarms in Sussex, Surrey, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire; Hampshire and Kent have one each (REF data). All this region has windspeeds similar to those on the north German plane so why don't these counties get on with it and see how the locals react?


Sussex and Surrey and parts of Kent are very wooded which doesn't go very well with high wind speeds. The parts of Sussex which aren't wooded are mostly in the South Downs National Park. Much of the rest of the rural south east is AONB which again makes it virtually impossible to get Planning Permission for windfarms. That is not to say, as far as I'm concerned, that they shouldn't have windfarms but at the moment the public can say no to development without any comeback. With the right sort of smart metering, NIMBYs could be targeted for the first power cuts! Very Happy That might change a lot of people's minds.

With regard to new grid lines, who paid to connect all these remote coastal nuclear power stations, and who does the maintenance. I doubt it is the operators.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Lower wind speeds in the SE, but shorter transmission distance and thus lower grid losses.


Wind power density varies with the cube of the wind speed
Grid losses vary linearly with distance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not so familiar with the parts of the SE being mentioned, though I remember holidays in Eastbourne always being very breezy!

Where I grew up in Berkshire was certainly not windy, though Oxfordshire had some open bits of countryside that seemed to get going quite a lot (and Didcot power station to compare for visual impact!).

Tidal flow and river hydro is also an option I suppose for the Thames. And I suppose they get more sunshine down there too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

goslow wrote:
Tidal flow and river hydro is also an option I suppose for the Thames. And I suppose they get more sunshine down there too.


http://www.london-futures.com/2010/10/15/thames-tidal-power/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pepperman wrote:

Wind power density varies with the cube of the wind speed
Grid losses vary linearly with distance


I think it's even better than that. The linear with distance loss is rather small (even smaller with HTDC) with a lot of the loss occurring at the substations and in the last section of low voltage local line.

London did have some coal fired power stations but Londoners, very sensibly, seem to prefer art galleries to smoke.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2011 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed, very good point. T&D together are about 7.5%. Ofgem says 1.5% is lost through T so D accounts for about 6%
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pepperman wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
Lower wind speeds in the SE, but shorter transmission distance and thus lower grid losses.


Wind power density varies with the cube of the wind speed
Grid losses vary linearly with distance

So what? It doesn't stop the Germans plastering the north German plane with windmills.

REF reported several years ago that the capacity factor of the UK's onshore fleet was ~27 %. That includes hardly any wind power from the SE as there is none. At the same time, the German fleet was reporting 21-23 % (I can't check the paper because REF have 'improved' their web site). We can take that as the contrast between low windspeed area production (the north German plane has speeds similar to SE England) and the western fringes of the UK with higher windspeeds. There's none of the drama of your cubic relationship. Merely some small loss of capacity but that will be balanced to a significant degree by reduced transmission losses.

And the point you're trying to make, with biff, that distance is or minor consequence is countered by simple observation that NGT Use Of System Charges increase with increasing distance from the SE.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/sys_09/default.asp?action=mnch7_15.htm&Node=SYS&Snode=7_15&Exp=Y#system_Power_Losses

And biff is quite wrong to suggest that distance losses are smaller than others; in fact they are the largest part:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/sys_09/default.asp?action=mnch7_15.htm&Node=SYS&Snode=7_15&Exp=Y#system_Power_Losses
Note the soaring future distance losses as NGT projects for far-flung windmill generation (biff perhaps conflates transmission and distribution. Distribution losses are common to all configurations and thus irrelevant for this comparison.)?

and note from the report:
"The transmission heating losses (line 1) are a function of the power flow pattern around the system and the reduction in 2009/10 is due to the commissioning of new plant in the south which ‘backs off’ the north to south flows. "

London nukes? Sizewell, Bradwell, Dungenss - closer than your nearest onshore windfarm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:

With regard to new grid lines, who paid to connect all these remote coastal nuclear power stations, and who does the maintenance. I doubt it is the operators.

Try telling that to a nuke operator in, say, the NE where the Use of System Charge is about Ł30m/annum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9815
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
London nukes? Sizewell, Bradwell, Dungenss - closer than your nearest onshore windfarm.


Ah! Yes. Now you've bought them up.

The visitor centre for Sizewell used to be in the Environment Agency flood area but that area has been given the benefit of flood defences. I wonder who paid for those. The power station would be cut off by a 6m flood.

Bradwell was retired in 2002 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Operating but would be cut off by a 9m flood.

Dungeness would be cut off by a 2m flood, would be an island one mile out to sea at 3m sea level rise, and already has two full time bulldozers making up the shingle beach to stop the land around it being washed away.

The east coast has been ravaged by a tsunami that travelled 40km inland within historic time scales. The sand layer can be seen in estuarine mud deposits all along the east coast. The tsunami was set off by a land slide in Norway.

The Channel is vulnerable to a mega-tsunami generated by volcanic avtivity on La Palma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja and also to tsunamis generated by mudslides on the edge of the continental shelf so to say that our nukes are not vulnerable to tsunamis would not be true. It might be fanciful but that is what may have been said about Fukushima.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, so that's why they're not building windmills in the SE!

Oh my god, Sizewell visitor centre inundated! Ex Bradwell site inundated! Are there no limits to the reckless behaviour of the UK's nuclear industry!

"The east coast has been ravaged by a tsunami that travelled 40km inland within historic time scales"

???????

Well, if all that happens, there'll be nobody left in the SE anyway, the UK will suffer an economic collapse, our energy needs will be reduced, carbon emissions slashed, planet saved . . .

It's what you're all hoping for!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9815
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just hope that the nuclear industry in the UK will look at what has happened in Japan and work with it in view of what CAN happen in the UK. If they look at Fukushima and say "That can't happen here" and ignore it they will be sadly negligent. It's a case of Sod's Law; if you design for it, it won't happen; if you don't design for it, it probably will. With the environmental, human and financial costs involved if it does happen you have to build in the safeguards from the first. From my contact with the consultation process so far, I believe that they will design for the current minimum predicted sea level rise and not much else. After all we aren't going to be around in 100 years so who give a flying f**k!! Twisted Evil
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:

"The east coast has been ravaged by a tsunami that travelled 40km inland within historic time scales"
These are the timescales on which we have to plan if we are to have any hope of handling a nuclear legacy cleanly. Not saying it can't be done, just that it's a lot more complex, and probably expensive also, than other energy alternatives (including hanging out for small-scale, modular nuclear built by people who have first built, and paid for, its final resting place, like the one in Finland).
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9815
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Well, if all that happens, there'll be nobody left in the SE anyway, the UK will suffer an economic collapse, our energy needs will be reduced, carbon emissions slashed, planet saved . . .

It's what you're all hoping for!


I'm just hoping that no matter what happens my future family will be able to live in this bit of the world without having to worry about radioactive mutation because we were more worried about keeping the lights on in our lifetime than about what the country will be like beyond that time.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:

"The east coast has been ravaged by a tsunami that travelled 40km inland within historic time scales"
These are the timescales on which we have to plan if we are to have any hope of handling a nuclear legacy cleanly. Not saying it can't be done, just that it's a lot more complex, and probably expensive also, than other energy alternatives (including hanging out for small-scale, modular nuclear built by people who have first built, and paid for, its final resting place, like the one in Finland).

Well are they? I've not read of any tsunami inundation of the east coast in historic times - perhaps you have? Kenneal doesn't understand the word 'historic' and it seems neither do you.

Kenneal has yet to produce any evidence that the future plans for UK nuclear stations will make anything other than sensible provision for sea level change or possible inundations, and neither have you. In fact, nobody can at this stage because no detailed planning submission for a new new nuclear station has been produced.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=170021&highlight=king+waste#170021

As for waste disposal, the options are all well understood. King has produced and costed four possible scenarios for dealing with nuclear waste; each of these is perfectly doable, requiring no new technology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Wind Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group