On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:52:57 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The more you build, the further away they are going to have to get (I am
assuming the planners will target the least cost inefficient sites first)

You are assuming that when electricity people plan a wind farm it is
then put up without any further discussion. That isn't the case,
many suitable sites have not had wind farms installed due to
opposition. As the energy crunch happens I expect that the
opposition will diminish.

The financial cost of building (or adapting as many of the roads to
sites existed in some form anyway) is also negligible. Maintenance
of them is also negligible, in both carbon and money.

Have any figures to support your assertions?

I'm happy to rely on the people who did the work for Vestas. Were
these costs high I think they would have included them.

You seem to be suggesting that you can string up 500 wind turbines with
little extra grid extension than would be required for a new nuclear
station.

I don't think I am. What I said was that the connection to the grid
tends to be short, so while it is important to include the cables on
the farm in the calculation, there will be lots of these, the cable
which forms the connection need not be included.

You claim so, without offering evidence for your assertion. The

So you don't need reserve for a wind turbine then? News to me.

Not what I said. Neither did the UKERC report which I referred to.

results of a couple of hundred studies were summarised by UKERC and
until better evidence is offered I'll stick with them.

If you want to discuss what UKERC said, rather than your straw man,
then I may respond.

Since our demand for power is growing, why would we be closing stations?
Perhaps because they are at the end of their useful life? In which case
it does not sound like a sound policy to keep an ageing and probably
inefficient plant going just to back up a wind farm.

See the reply I gave earlier. Backup is provided for all forms of
generation.

These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54