"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ernativeenergy

wrote:

speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

Only 15 years? Bet it is more by the time you add the carbon cost of
transporting, fitting, and ultimately disposing of it.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 6 Jan, 01:56, John Rumm wrote:
wrote:
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

Only 15 years? Bet it is more by the time you add the carbon cost of
transporting, fitting, and ultimately disposing of it.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| * * * * *Internode Ltd - *http://www.internode.co.uk* * * * * *|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| * * * *John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk * * * * * * *|
\================================================= ================/

As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

wrote:
"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

That'll be because the vast majority of things designed to combat the
'excessive use of natural resources' and to challenge the 'deadly threat of
global warming' are, in fact, a complete load of old ********.

We could no more reverse any change in the climate, however miniscule, than
we could put out a volcano by getting a small boy to **** on it, and a fan
and an alternator onna stick from B&Q would be even less effective.

Si

In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses, factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce enough
power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use. Show me
some wind turbines or solar panels for domestic use that can power an
electric shower, kettle, TV and radio, maybe even a computer.

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:26:15 -0800 (PST) someone who may be cynic
wrote this:-

As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

As it says in the article:

"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft,
said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban
and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative
leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones
in high-rise and coastal locations.

"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say
seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes,
Encraft's managing director. 'There is no doubt that microgeneration
as a whole has a critical role to play in delivering a low carbon
and secure energy future for the UK.

"'Micro wind turbines are part of this mix, but they need to be
installed in a responsible and appropriate manner.'"

As I have said in the past, before installing a local wind turbine
people should measure wind speeds to get an idea of what it will do.
http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm has a little weather
station for 85 pounds which will measure this.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:42:52 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say
seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes,
Encraft's managing director. 'There is no doubt that microgeneration
as a whole has a critical role to play in delivering a low carbon
and secure energy future for the UK.

So there's obviously a market for 'model' wind turbines that don't
actually do anything, then - as useful reminders.

Oh, I forgot...B&Q (inter alia) already sell those.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000 someone who may be "john"
wrote this:-

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce enough
power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use.

Eigg.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...ark.3628820.jp

"At the heart of its scheme will be five wind turbines. The new
"power station" will also incorporate solar-energy panels and three
hydro-generation systems.

"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and
batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."

On the mainland wind turbines and solar panels are part of an
integrated electricity system.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 6 Jan, 11:19, David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000 someone who may be "john"
wrote this:-

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce enough
power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use.

Eigg.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...-from-dark.362...

"At the heart of its scheme will be five wind turbines. The new
"power station" will also incorporate solar-energy panels and three
hydro-generation systems.

"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and
batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."

Don't forget this bit:

"However, using green energy to give the neighbouring island of Muck
mains electricity was hit by a series of disasters.

For much of last winter, its 35 residents had to do without
electricity for five hours a day. Its 60ft high wind-turbine scheme
was also broken for months".

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, john wrote:

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce
enough power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use.

Solar panels as in photo-voltaic or thermal?

Show me some wind turbines or solar panels for domestic use that can
power an electric shower, kettle, TV and radio, maybe even a computer.

Plenty of wind turbines about, you could pick up a 400kW jobbie from the
side of the road at the end of last month, bit bent mind... Smaller ones
say 5kW rated to be useful are also easily available.

But using wind and or thermal solar panels is not about replacing mains
power or fuels but reducing ones consumption of them. If I had the spare
cash, I'd be installing a large heat bank with wind (5kW or so), thermal
solar, wood burner and oil boiler as energy sources. If the heat bank was
up to temperature and the wind was blowing I'd be wanting o sell the
excess power to the grid, that still seems to be rather hard to set up.

OK at current fuel prices it would take a long time to pay back but with
kero now at 40p+/l when it was 30p+/l only 2 years ago and 17p/l 7 years
ago using todays energy prices in the pay back calculation is not entirely
accurate...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
wrote:
"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

That'll be because the vast majority of things designed to combat the
'excessive use of natural resources' and to challenge the 'deadly threat of
global warming' are, in fact, a complete load of old ********.


Yes.
We could no more reverse any change in the climate, however miniscule, than
we could put out a volcano by getting a small boy to **** on it, and a fan
and an alternator onna stick from B&Q would be even less effective.


Well we CAN reverse the climate, but not using a load of CFLs and widnmills.


Si

On 6 Jan, 13:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:



wrote:
"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":

That'll be because the vast majority of things designed to combat the
'excessive use of natural resources' and to challenge the 'deadly threat of
global warming' are, in fact, a complete load of old ********.

Yes.

We could no more reverse any change in the climate, however miniscule, than
we could put out a volcano by getting a small boy to **** on it, and a fan
and an alternator onna stick from B&Q would be even less effective.

Well we CAN reverse the climate, but not using a load of CFLs and widnmills.

Si

Reducing our greedy energy consumption is not just about reducing
global warning. It can also eleviate other problems such as diesel
emmisions, noise, landfill, waste transport etc. etc. all of which
kill.

nafuk wrote:
On 6 Jan, 13:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:



wrote:
"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
Britain.
An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":
That'll be because the vast majority of things designed to combat the
'excessive use of natural resources' and to challenge the 'deadly threat of
global warming' are, in fact, a complete load of old ********.
Yes.

We could no more reverse any change in the climate, however miniscule, than
we could put out a volcano by getting a small boy to **** on it, and a fan
and an alternator onna stick from B&Q would be even less effective.
Well we CAN reverse the climate, but not using a load of CFLs and widnmills.

Si

Reducing our greedy energy consumption is not just about reducing
global warning. It can also eleviate other problems such as diesel
emmisions, noise, landfill, waste transport etc. etc. all of which
kill.

Reducing our energy consumption is not necessarily anything to do with
CO2 or waste and landfill.


This is another GreenMyth.

Many energuy sources have no CO2 impact whatsoever in operation, and not
a lot on building either.

- nuclear.
- wind
- geothermal
- hydroelectric.
- direct solar

All these have another factor in common: largely the energy is free,so
arguments about 'but you cant turn them on and off at will' (nuclear,
geothermal wind) is totally ********. You can just dump the excess
capacity at no real extra cost.

I WISH the Bunny Huggers would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.

What we are short of is metals, and oil/gas. What we have too much of is
*waste* metals, oils (plastics), and gas...we can't do much about he
metals apart from recycling them, but we sure can synthesize the rest if
we need them and *have the energy* to do it.

David Hansen wrote:

"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and
batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."

The reality probably being the generator will be supported by backup
wind turbines...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


As I have said in the past, before installing a local wind turbine
people should measure wind speeds to get an idea of what it will do.
http://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm has a little weather
station for 85 pounds which will measure this.

That's another £85 to add to the pay back time then. ;-)

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:32:24 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

That's another £85 to add to the pay back time then. ;-)

Naw, you use it then sell on...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 6 Jan, 10:42, David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:26:15 -0800 (PST) someone who may be cynic
wrote this:-

As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

As it says in the article:

"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft,
said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban
and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative
leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones
in high-rise and coastal locations.

"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say
seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes,
Encraft's managing director. 'There is no doubt that microgeneration
as a whole has a critical role to play in delivering a low carbon
and secure energy future for the UK.

"'Micro wind turbines are part of this mix, but they need to be
installed in a responsible and appropriate manner.'"

Micro generation is mostly about people feeling they are 'doing
something'. It is just fashion statement.

Like the MP in "In the Thick of It" puts a wind turbine on his house
to 'send a message' to voters, only to find he has to power it via
electricity to make it rotate. "The nieghbours like it because it
helps dry their washing"

If you want to get serious about global warming you need to do
something big and centralised. That is how efficiency is obtained,
and the rest of us don't even have to think about it (so not good for
the more eco-religious folks). E.g. if a new coal-fired power station
can be made more efficient, that is likely to be a better solution.

Similarly wind power can have a role: centralised in a place where it
is very windy..! Solar power is also taking off in a big way (I heard
grid parity in some countries). Niether will ever provide for all
needs, but we are on the way to the tipping point where economies of
scale may kick-in.

--
* David Hansen, Edinburgh
*I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message
,
wrote


"The nieghbours like it because it
helps dry their washing"

I listened to a radio program recently where the 'expert' suggested that
wind turbines were changing local weather patterns and in coastal
locations the effect was to dry the land, to the detriment of farming.


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:42:52 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:


As it says in the article:

"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft,
said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban
and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative
leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones
in high-rise and coastal locations.

There was indeed a marked disparity, the worst site produced an
average of 16 Watt hours a day, the best (on a building) 255 Watt
hours a day.

The Interim report of this trial, the Warwick Urban Wind Trial, is at
http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/...rt+Final+2.pdf

and a presentation is at
http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/...ember+2007.pdf

Some limited data from the sites can be downloaded from
http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/8.html towards the bottom of the
page.

In true greeny style most figures have been stripped from these
reports but some of the data is contained in "Installation and
performance of household wind turbines" Client report number 237-412
from the BRE. This is basically the trial interim report but with the
performance data (which was replaced by an "attitude survey" in the
interim report).

All the locations bar one (which wasn't the worst) had been approved
by wind turbine installers as suitable for wind generated electricity
and potentially capable of yielding 1,000kW hours each year.

The "poor" location has averaged 16 Watt hours a day (that's sixteen
watt hours, not kilowatt hours). On top of an 8 storey building a
staggering 180 watt hours a day was generated and this went up to as
much as 255 watt hours on the edge of flat roof 7 storey building
facing open fields and 30m above the ground (there are two turbines
mounted on this building - together they produce 430 watt hours a
day).

The best house installation managed 68 Watt hours a day.

The best site is the reference site - a completely bare hill in open
country close to the sea in Cornwall with the windmill on a pole at
the optimum position on the slope with not a building in sight, this
managed 900 watt hours a day.

"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say
seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes,
Encraft's managing director. 'There is no doubt that microgeneration
as a whole has a critical role to play in delivering a low carbon
and secure energy future for the UK.

"...urban wind systems are potentially making a positive
contribution to enhancing the energy efficiency of the domestic estate
because they give the press something tangible and accessible to talk
about.." Just about sums up the hollow propaganda exercise.

"'Micro wind turbines are part of this mix, but they need to be
installed in a responsible and appropriate manner.'"

On bare fields in Cornwall?

Do you really think a 2% capacity factor is going to pay back
manufacturing and installation energy costs? Or is it just about the
publicity value and fooling people?

However, fear not, after tears of assiduously pushing local generation
(because it automatically excluded nuclear - the prime greeny aim) the
chickens have come home to roost :-)

"Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size [200 kW] Nuclear
Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or
city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could
change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or
even a group of neighbours who are fed up with the power companies and
want more control over their energy needs...The whole process is self
sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for
only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy."

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...ar-12.17b.html

I listened to a radio program recently where the 'expert' suggested that
wind turbines were changing local weather patterns and in coastal
locations the effect was to dry the land, to the detriment of farming.

For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert

(Arthur C Clarke)

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:03:05 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:42:52 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:


As it says in the article:

"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft,
said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban
and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative
leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones
in high-rise and coastal locations.

There was indeed a marked disparity, the worst site produced an
average of 16 Watt hours a day, the best (on a building) 255 Watt
hours a day.


That equals roughly tuppence worth of electricity at our local rate.

But wait, we are in an inner city urban environment shame ...

So are more likely to achieve the 16 watt than the 250, so lets settle
on roughly tuppence per month shall we ?

DG

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:03:05 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:42:52 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:


As it says in the article:

"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft,
said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban
and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative
leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones
in high-rise and coastal locations.

There was indeed a marked disparity, the worst site produced an
average of 16 Watt hours a day, the best (on a building) 255 Watt
hours a day.


That equals roughly tuppence worth of electricity at our local rate.

But wait, we are in an inner city urban environment shame ...

So are more likely to achieve the 16 watt than the 250, so lets settle
on roughly tuppence per month shall we ?

Mr. Dawes Sr, Mr. Banks and Bankers:
If you invest your tuppence
Wisely in the bank
Safe and sound
Soon that tuppence,
Safely invested in the bank,
Will compound

And you'll achieve that sense of conquest
As your affluence expands
In the hands of the directors
Who invest as propriety demands


etc ...

it's too ****e to copy any more

mary porpinns

--
geoff

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:55:24 GMT, geoff wrote:


it's too ****e to copy any more

mary porpinns

Is she related to Mary Porpouts ?

DG

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:35:12 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

David Hansen wrote:

"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and
batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."

The reality probably being the generator will be supported by backup
wind turbines...

We will soon be able to see and I doubt your interpretation will be
shown to be correct.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

If you want to get serious about global warming you need to do
something big and centralised.

That was certainly the thinking ye olden days. A thinking driven by
a requirement to produce electricity as cheaply as possible in an
era of low fuel costs. It was also easier to control a small number
of large power stations in ye olden days. However, the Scottish
Hydro Electric Board demonstrated that even in ye olden days it was
possible to control a large number of small power stations when
their stations were progressively linked from the mid 1960s onwards.
Eventually they had only two control rooms for their hydro stations.

That is how efficiency is obtained,

Not if one looks at the whole system. Throwing heat into the
atmosphere without making an use of it is not good for efficiency
and neither are transmission losses. It is more efficient to make
use of it for heating.

and the rest of us don't even have to think about it

I'm sorry if "the rest of us" would rather not think about it, but
it is far too important a subject for burring one's head in the
sand.

(so not good for the more eco-religious folks).

The people who appear to be religious on the subject are those who
deny any step forward on the subject.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:25:24 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Many energuy sources have no CO2 impact whatsoever in operation, and not
a lot on building either.

- nuclear.

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods. Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.

In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.

I WISH the Bunny Huggers

It's always reassuring when the best someone can do is insult their
opponents.

would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.

A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 6 Jan, 14:35, John Rumm wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and
batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."

The reality probably being the generator will be supported by backup
wind turbines...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

You could buy a lot of diesel for the 1.5million that scheme cost. I
wonder who actually paid for it?

T

On 7 Jan, 08:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:25:24 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Many energuy sources have no CO2 impact whatsoever in operation, and not
a lot on building either.

- nuclear.

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods. Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.

In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.


A MWe turbine in a typical wind-energy system operating with a 6.5
metres-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of
460 tons of steel and 870 cubic metres of concrete. For comparison,
the construction of existing 1970-vintage US nuclear power plants
required 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic metres of concrete per
average megawatt of electricity generating capacity. Wind's
infrastructure takes five to ten times the steel and concrete as that
of nuclear.

We buy about as much nuclear generated electricity from France as all
our "renewable" sources combined.

T

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

A MWe turbine in a typical wind-energy system operating with a 6.5
metres-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of
460 tons of steel and 870 cubic metres of concrete.

Ah, unreferenced figures.

Meanwhile the following leading article provides a good framework
for the discussion
http://comment.independent.co.uk/lea...cle3312758.ece

================================================== ===================

Leading article: Nuclear power is a distraction
Published: 06 January 2008

Remember that excruciating picture last autumn of the Prime Minister
greeting Margaret Thatcher for tea at No 10? You can bet that Gordon
Brown does. For that photo-call – then hailed as a brilliant
tactical coup by jubilant Brownites bent on destablising the Tory
party – is now increasingly seen as helping to turn the son of the
manse's glorious summer into his winter of discontent, persuading
the public, together with the on-off election, that the Prime
Minister was as opportunistic as his predecessor. We don't know
precisely what the pair discussed over their china cups, but Mr
Brown is now set to revive one of the Iron Lady's most
controversial, and least successful, policies – and with similar
effect.

Mrs Thatcher promised a massive expansion of nuclear power.
Originally she wanted to build 10 plants, one a year. By the time
she published her nuclear White Paper in 1981, this had come down to
five, at an indefinite rate. In the end only one saw the light of
day – a full 15 years later – at Sizewell. Plus ça change. Gordon
Brown, like Tony Blair before him, is taking us down the same dead
end. This week he will publish his own nuclear White Paper, again
hyped as the dawn of a new atomic age. Again, we were originally
being promised 10 new reactors, again expectations are now being
scaled down: ministers are now deeply reluctant to specify any
number at all, insisting that they will leave it to private
companies. And again it is unlikely that many will be built, unless
the Prime Minister breaks his repeated undertaking – to be
reiterated by Business Secretary John Hutton this week – not to
subsidise them with public money.

Indeed conditions are far less propitious than a quarter of a
century ago. Back then, power stations were built by a nationalised
monopoly, run by nuclear enthusiasts, able to hide the costs of
constructing reactors and with no competition. Now we have a
liberalised, fiercely competitive energy market. No nuclear reactor
has so far been built in such conditions, anywhere in the world.
Investors know that they will have to lay out large sums both to
construct the plant and to dispose of its waste. And they also know
that they will receive no revenue at all for at least a decade, and
can have no certainty, in a liberalised market, of what price they
will get for their electricity at the end of it. Despite all the
ministerial rhetoric about the Government having decided to "allow"
the building of nuclear power stations, there is actually nothing
stopping their construction. The silence of the sites speaks
volumes. Of course it is possible that Mr Brown intends after all to
subsidise the atom. Our revelation today of his nuclear waste
sweetener invites suspicion.

Other arguments that ministers will advance this week are as flawed
as their economics. We will be told that we need the atom to avoid
dangerous dependency on overseas energy – especially Russian gas.
But analysis done for the Government's energy White Paper shows that
by 2020 – the earliest any new reactor could come online – gas
supplies will be more, not less secure, coming from a diversity of
countries. And as most gas is used in industrial processes and
heating homes, nuclear power – which produces only electricity – can
do little to replace it. We will also be told that it is a major
answer to climate change. If it were, it would be well worth
accepting not just the environmental risks of the atom, but its
dodgy economics too. But even building 10 reactors would only save 8
per cent of Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide, when we actually
need to cut them by 10 times as much. Indeed, if the Government
really wants to tackle the security and climate issues it should
dramatically step up its lamentable efforts at saving energy, which
has huge potential and seven times as much effect as nuclear power
for every pound spent.

But we do need to keep the nuclear power option open. Climate change
is so serious that we simply cannot afford to discard any low carbon
technology. It would be far, far better to build a nuclear power
station than to give the go-ahead to the coal-fired one planned for
Kingsnorth in Kent. But neither should be the priority. The first
task is to embark on a massive energy-saving programme energy. The
next must be to boost renewables: the Government made a good start
with its announcement last month of a massive increase in offshore
windpower. Nuclear power may have a part to play. But giving it top
billing, as Mr Hutton's officials want, will not only be self
defeating, but give support to those critics who have long alleged
that New Labour is merely Thatcherism in trousers.

================================================== ===================





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, "john"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses, factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

"Nanosolar is one of several companies .. racing to develop different
versions of "thin film" solar technology. It is owned by Internet
entrepreneur Martin Roscheisen...the company, which claims to lead the
"third wave" of solar electricity, is notoriously secretive and has
not answered questions about its panels' efficiency or their
durability."

Style over substance perhaps?

On 2008-01-07 11:10:06 +0000, Peter Parry said:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

"Nanosolar is one of several companies .. racing to develop different
versions of "thin film" solar technology. It is owned by Internet
entrepreneur Martin Roscheisen...the company, which claims to lead the
"third wave" of solar electricity, is notoriously secretive and has
not answered questions about its panels' efficiency or their
durability."

Style over substance perhaps?

They sell them in the Bose shop....

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

Ooo-oooooooooooooh "British Scientists" call it "a revolution"

and there was I thinking it was a figment of the imagination of a
Bowldy-Headed hack in the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

That's good news then ...

Can I buy them online ? No

Can I buy them offline ? No

Can I buy them at all ? No

Can I see some samples No

Has anybody seen them working No

Does anybody know how long they'll last Not even Dynamo Hansen

Best have another look at that authoritative article then :

"Britain was unlikely to benefit from the technology for some years
because other countries paid better money for renewable electricity,
it added."

Looks like it's our fault, cheapskates that we are.

"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in
Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland.

California, Germany, Switzerland, Far away places with strange
sounding names, no wonder our money is not good enough for them.

"We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is
comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal."

How do you work that out ?

"We cannot disclose our exact figures yet as we are a private company
but we can bring it down to that level. That is the vision we are
aiming at."

Fools and their money are soon parted.

DG

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:25:24 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Many energuy sources have no CO2 impact whatsoever in operation, and not
a lot on building either.

- nuclear.

In operation. Provided one ignores the emissions involved in
converting the ore dug out of the ground into fuel rods.

Done electrically, from nuclear generated el;ectricity, they are very low.


Provided
the emissions involved in dealing with the spent fuel rods (which
are very high if one reprocesses the fuel but much less with storage
at the site). With these two provisions the emissions in operation
are low.

Emergy use does *not* equal emmissions. There is no reason to suppose
that reprocessing generates Co2.



In building. Nuclear power stations involve a lot of concrete. They
also involve large amounts of rare materials. All of these have to
be produced.

So do bloody windmills,. So do solar panels. Concrete anyway.I refute
that rare materials are needed for nuclear power stations.



I WISH the Bunny Huggers

It's always reassuring when the best someone can do is insult their
opponents.

would understand that we don't have an energy
problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash
with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into
electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.

A point environmentalists have made for a considerable time.

No, they haven't. The are focussed totally on conserving energy, not
generating it cost effectively from non fossil fuel sources.

This post from you demonstrates the Usual GreenMyths.That making power
stations generates CO2 in vast quantities. It doesn't. That
reprocesssing nuclear fuel does ditto, It needn't.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

A MWe turbine in a typical wind-energy system operating with a 6.5
metres-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of
460 tons of steel and 870 cubic metres of concrete.

Ah, unreferenced figures.

Meanwhile the following leading article provides a good framework
for the discussion

I have never read such utter ******** in my life.

The only thing IO agree with is that we need to city C02 emissions by 80%.

The rest is completely the reverse of every single calculation I have made.

Thatcher had north sea gas. It was politically a lot easier to build gas
stations than nuclear. They are very cheap to build. Nuclear was quietly
dropped as politically too hard to justify.

Today, the conditions are not worse, they are HUGELY better. Oil/gas is
so expensive that nuclear energy is actually profitable. Even with the
punitive clean up tax imposed on it. Check the rise in share price of
British Energy.

There is a practical irreducible minimum to which energy use can be
reduced before it impacts severely on lifestyle and social conditiopns.
We simply cannot even get food from field to fridge without transporting
it in huge quantities. We cannot simply knock 80% off everyones fuel use
and 80% off their car use.

Ergo we have to find alternatice energy policies, not as he says'; focus
on conservation'

This is a typical piece of greenmyth ****e written by a journalist, not
by an engineer or scientist. It contains no facts at all.






http://comment.independent.co.uk/lea...cle3312758.ece

================================================== ===================

Leading article: Nuclear power is a distraction
Published: 06 January 2008

Remember that excruciating picture last autumn of the Prime Minister
greeting Margaret Thatcher for tea at No 10? You can bet that Gordon
Brown does. For that photo-call � then hailed as a brilliant
tactical coup by jubilant Brownites bent on destablising the Tory
party � is now increasingly seen as helping to turn the son of the
manse's glorious summer into his winter of discontent, persuading
the public, together with the on-off election, that the Prime
Minister was as opportunistic as his predecessor. We don't know
precisely what the pair discussed over their china cups, but Mr
Brown is now set to revive one of the Iron Lady's most
controversial, and least successful, policies � and with similar
effect.

Mrs Thatcher promised a massive expansion of nuclear power.
Originally she wanted to build 10 plants, one a year. By the time
she published her nuclear White Paper in 1981, this had come down to
five, at an indefinite rate. In the end only one saw the light of
day � a full 15 years later � at Sizewell. Plus �a change. Gordon
Brown, like Tony Blair before him, is taking us down the same dead
end. This week he will publish his own nuclear White Paper, again
hyped as the dawn of a new atomic age. Again, we were originally
being promised 10 new reactors, again expectations are now being
scaled down: ministers are now deeply reluctant to specify any
number at all, insisting that they will leave it to private
companies. And again it is unlikely that many will be built, unless
the Prime Minister breaks his repeated undertaking � to be
reiterated by Business Secretary John Hutton this week � not to
subsidise them with public money.

Indeed conditions are far less propitious than a quarter of a
century ago. Back then, power stations were built by a nationalised
monopoly, run by nuclear enthusiasts, able to hide the costs of
constructing reactors and with no competition. Now we have a
liberalised, fiercely competitive energy market. No nuclear reactor
has so far been built in such conditions, anywhere in the world.
Investors know that they will have to lay out large sums both to
construct the plant and to dispose of its waste. And they also know
that they will receive no revenue at all for at least a decade, and
can have no certainty, in a liberalised market, of what price they
will get for their electricity at the end of it. Despite all the
ministerial rhetoric about the Government having decided to "allow"
the building of nuclear power stations, there is actually nothing
stopping their construction. The silence of the sites speaks
volumes. Of course it is possible that Mr Brown intends after all to
subsidise the atom. Our revelation today of his nuclear waste
sweetener invites suspicion.

Other arguments that ministers will advance this week are as flawed
as their economics. We will be told that we need the atom to avoid
dangerous dependency on overseas energy � especially Russian gas.
But analysis done for the Government's energy White Paper shows that
by 2020 � the earliest any new reactor could come online � gas
supplies will be more, not less secure, coming from a diversity of
countries. And as most gas is used in industrial processes and
heating homes, nuclear power � which produces only electricity � can
do little to replace it. We will also be told that it is a major
answer to climate change. If it were, it would be well worth
accepting not just the environmental risks of the atom, but its
dodgy economics too. But even building 10 reactors would only save 8
per cent of Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide, when we actually
need to cut them by 10 times as much. Indeed, if the Government
really wants to tackle the security and climate issues it should
dramatically step up its lamentable efforts at saving energy, which
has huge potential and seven times as much effect as nuclear power
for every pound spent.

But we do need to keep the nuclear power option open. Climate change
is so serious that we simply cannot afford to discard any low carbon
technology. It would be far, far better to build a nuclear power
station than to give the go-ahead to the coal-fired one planned for
Kingsnorth in Kent. But neither should be the priority. The first
task is to embark on a massive energy-saving programme energy. The
next must be to boost renewables: the Government made a good start
with its announcement last month of a massive increase in offshore
windpower. Nuclear power may have a part to play. But giving it top
billing, as Mr Hutton's officials want, will not only be self
defeating, but give support to those critics who have long alleged
that New Labour is merely Thatcherism in trousers.

================================================== ===================

judith wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, "john"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.
If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses, factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

Before you get too excited, I would compare the average insolation of
California, with the UK.

If you know anything about [photography, you will know that teh light
level from even one cloud, knocks back solar energy by about 16 times.
Deep and full overcast is more - much more.

Now look out of the window.

Even at massively optimistic efficiencies, we would have to cover an
area of the country larger than that used for farming, with solar panels.

Its a different story in the Mojave desert, where a flat sheet of black
steel is at egg frying temperatures in minutes.

On 7 Jan, 10:33, David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:31:54 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

A MWe turbine in a typical wind-energy system operating with a 6.5
metres-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of
460 tons of steel and 870 cubic metres of concrete.

Ah, unreferenced figures.


I'm taking a leaf out of your book - a bit like calculations you
pretend to have done.

All you have to do is find a GW nuclear reactor and look at it. These
things are tiny for their output. They also use a tiny amount of fuel
- about 20tonnes a year per GW.

Find a wind farm anywhere in the world which actually produces more
than 1.5W/m2. Cities can consume 15W/m2!

By the way, at 1.5W/m2, wind is still about 10 times better power
density than biomass, which is about 10 times better than hydro.

If wind power is so good, explain why Denmark, the country with the
highest installed wind capacity in the world is the second worst CO2
per capita producer of the EU 15 countries?

T

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf...M?OpenDocument

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

"Nanosolar is one of several companies .. racing to develop different
versions of "thin film" solar technology. It is owned by Internet
entrepreneur Martin Roscheisen...the company, which claims to lead the
"third wave" of solar electricity, is notoriously secretive and has
not answered questions about its panels' efficiency or their
durability."

Style over substance perhaps?

Of course, I made that point already in another thread.

I base my predictions on data that *is* available, and on technology
that is available and for which costs are pretty well established.

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:37:32 +0000, judith wrote:

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.
The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

Ooo-oooooooooooooh "British Scientists" call it "a revolution"

and there was I thinking it was a figment of the imagination of a
Bowldy-Headed hack in the Grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

That's good news then ...

Can I buy them online ? No

Can I buy them offline ? No

Can I buy them at all ? No

Can I see some samples No

Has anybody seen them working No

Does anybody know how long they'll last Not even Dynamo Hansen

Best have another look at that authoritative article then :

"Britain was unlikely to benefit from the technology for some years
because other countries paid better money for renewable electricity,
it added."

Looks like it's our fault, cheapskates that we are.

"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in
Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland.

California, Germany, Switzerland, Far away places with strange
sounding names, no wonder our money is not good enough for them.

"We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is
comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal."

How do you work that out ?


Precsiely. I suspect what he is saying is that in bright california
sunshine the PANEL COST is about $1 per watt generated.

The capital cost of a nuclear set, which DOES work in dull overcast
conditions, and at night, is around $2000 per KW. Or $2 per watt.

(its about 3-10 times that for a windmill)

Now of course its not in the costings as to how much tranmission line
and ancillary control stuff you need to manage around 3 million square
meters of solar panels..Thats 3 square kilometers..to generate the same
amount of electricity as a large power station.

The avearge insolatin of California is about three times what it is in
the UK.


In December/January - when wee need the MOST energy, the average
insolation is is less than 1Kwh/day/sq meter..

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22019.pdf

Our total energy consumption is 160GW average. More in winter, Say
300GW. Say 12.6GWh per day.

At 100% efficiency, - probably ten times what is realistically
achievable by ANY technology - that means AT LEAST 300 square kilometers
of solar panes. Realistically at 10% efficiency thats 3000 square
kilometers, and thats daytime only power. So an area the size of the
lake district covered in solar panels. Right. And a hell of a lot of
overnight storage heaters or batteries.

Its greenmyth nonsense.

Sure it can help a little, but like all greenwash ********, it can't do
more than nibble at teh edges of the problem.









"We cannot disclose our exact figures yet as we are a private company
but we can bring it down to that level. That is the vision we are
aiming at."

Fools and their money are soon parted.

DG