Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
Up till recently I was of the opinion that thiugh i didn;t lIKE
windmills, like foregoing a 6 liter V8, or taking frequent holidays in te south sea, it was probably part of the price one had to pay for the Greater Good..until certain people started shoving windmills down our throats and procalaimming them as the One True Solution to carbon free energy. So as you know, along with all the other greenwash, I decided to take a look. The initial thrust was to simply see what energy policy was feasible for a carbon neutral UK. The answer was ultimately that as far as I could see, there was only one practical option. Nuclear power and electric transport. However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. And for very sceptical report there are ten glowing 'windpower is the answerer' articles on the net..so I looked deeper. The more I looked the more deeply sceptical I became. The negative issues surrounding wind power were simply not addressed by its proponents. This article contains a good summary http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/wind-turbine-facts.htm essentially blowing the gaff on the hidden costs associated with large scale introduction of wind power. Not to mention the rank subsidies "According to Ofgem, the Labour government's wind subsidies currently stand at £485 million a year." "Wind farms get around three times as much in subsidy - a mixture of selling ROCS [renewable obligation certificates] and a share of fines paid by non-renewable plants - as they do from selling electricity" A rather more scholarly and dry critique is he- http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0605.pdf and as far back as 20004 http://www.windaction.org/documents/225 A totally unexpected downside comes from he- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300814.ece You may THINK that its unlikely the Iranians or the Russians would come in low across the North sea, or up the thames estuary.. but a hijacked airliner? no problem. It seems that pretty competent people are starting to cry out against this monumental waste of taxpayers money http://www.glassclash.info/pdfs/Telegraph050326.pdf But leaving that aside, and leaving the fact that the power actually generated by windmills is estimated to be (at the point of generation) somewhere between 20% and 400% of the cost by any other means (including carbon free nuclear) the real downsides only become apparent at high levels of wind farm generation..typically more than 20% of total capacity. This is because windfarms don't operate at full capacity. Indeed at windspeeds below 9mph, they don't operate at all, nor can they be used at over 55mph. They disintegrate if not shut down. So although the AVERAGE load capacity - the AVERAGE output with respect to the peak is somewhere around 35%, for a significant proportion of the time any given windfarm is not producing anything at all. Possibly up to 15% of the time. The windfarm proponents will counter this by saying that that is fine, because when its flat calm in Feltham, its a gale in Galashiels.. And skip the most fundamental points: that a gale in Galashiels is all very well, but the power needs to get down to Feltham. This means some pretty hefty upgrades to the Grid..at somebody else's costs. Because the grid is required to take their energy, whether they want it or not. As wind power gets an even higher proportion of the total it gets even worse. Even if on a calm cold winter's - or a blazingly hot summer's - day some power IS being produced somewhere, and even if its coming down a massive supergrid from Orkney..it still wont be enough..unless the total generating capacity is so over specified that in order to cover the shortfalls of calm weather, it has to be overspecified by a factor of many times. Probably around 6:1. So instead of your windfarm load factor being a nice 35%, in reality it has to be operated much lower than that - say 16% or so, OR you have to back it up with conventional gas turbines, run at disadvantageous cycling, and efficiencies. So not only does the wind power suddenly double in actual costs, since as it reaches a high proportion of grid capacity it has to be operated at a lower factor, it also needs far more infrastructure to transport the energy from where the wind blows (typically scotland) to where its needed (typically the south east). OR it has to be backed up with a huge amount of conventional and fast cycling capacity, which probably menas that in the end the carbon gains are negligible: Certainly this seems to be the Danish and German experiences. I can only conclude that, like so much else in the climate change lobby, the whole thing is driven by politics. Nuclear energy is never considered 'renewable' and huge subsidies are given to 'renewable' to meet self imposed targets..and the only 'renewable' source that is remotely feasible is wind, so we have wind. The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned.. We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all! Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Up till recently I was of the opinion that thiugh i didn;t lIKE windmills, like foregoing a 6 liter V8, or taking frequent holidays in te south sea, it was probably part of the price one had to pay for the Greater Good..until certain people started shoving windmills down our throats and procalaimming them as the One True Solution to carbon free energy. So as you know, along with all the other greenwash, I decided to take a look. The initial thrust was to simply see what energy policy was feasible for a carbon neutral UK. The answer was ultimately that as far as I could see, there was only one practical option. Nuclear power and electric transport. However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. And for very sceptical report there are ten glowing 'windpower is the answerer' articles on the net..so I looked deeper. The more I looked the more deeply sceptical I became. The negative issues surrounding wind power were simply not addressed by its proponents. This article contains a good summary http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/wind-turbine-facts.htm essentially blowing the gaff on the hidden costs associated with large scale introduction of wind power. Not to mention the rank subsidies "According to Ofgem, the Labour government's wind subsidies currently stand at £485 million a year." "Wind farms get around three times as much in subsidy - a mixture of selling ROCS [renewable obligation certificates] and a share of fines paid by non-renewable plants - as they do from selling electricity" A rather more scholarly and dry critique is he- http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0605.pdf and as far back as 20004 http://www.windaction.org/documents/225 A totally unexpected downside comes from he- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300814.ece You may THINK that its unlikely the Iranians or the Russians would come in low across the North sea, or up the thames estuary.. but a hijacked airliner? no problem. It seems that pretty competent people are starting to cry out against this monumental waste of taxpayers money http://www.glassclash.info/pdfs/Telegraph050326.pdf But leaving that aside, and leaving the fact that the power actually generated by windmills is estimated to be (at the point of generation) somewhere between 20% and 400% of the cost by any other means (including carbon free nuclear) the real downsides only become apparent at high levels of wind farm generation..typically more than 20% of total capacity. This is because windfarms don't operate at full capacity. Indeed at windspeeds below 9mph, they don't operate at all, nor can they be used at over 55mph. They disintegrate if not shut down. So although the AVERAGE load capacity - the AVERAGE output with respect to the peak is somewhere around 35%, for a significant proportion of the time any given windfarm is not producing anything at all. Possibly up to 15% of the time. The windfarm proponents will counter this by saying that that is fine, because when its flat calm in Feltham, its a gale in Galashiels.. And skip the most fundamental points: that a gale in Galashiels is all very well, but the power needs to get down to Feltham. This means some pretty hefty upgrades to the Grid..at somebody else's costs. Because the grid is required to take their energy, whether they want it or not. As wind power gets an even higher proportion of the total it gets even worse. Even if on a calm cold winter's - or a blazingly hot summer's - day some power IS being produced somewhere, and even if its coming down a massive supergrid from Orkney..it still wont be enough..unless the total generating capacity is so over specified that in order to cover the shortfalls of calm weather, it has to be overspecified by a factor of many times. Probably around 6:1. So instead of your windfarm load factor being a nice 35%, in reality it has to be operated much lower than that - say 16% or so, OR you have to back it up with conventional gas turbines, run at disadvantageous cycling, and efficiencies. So not only does the wind power suddenly double in actual costs, since as it reaches a high proportion of grid capacity it has to be operated at a lower factor, it also needs far more infrastructure to transport the energy from where the wind blows (typically scotland) to where its needed (typically the south east). OR it has to be backed up with a huge amount of conventional and fast cycling capacity, which probably menas that in the end the carbon gains are negligible: Certainly this seems to be the Danish and German experiences. I can only conclude that, like so much else in the climate change lobby, the whole thing is driven by politics. Nuclear energy is never considered 'renewable' and huge subsidies are given to 'renewable' to meet self imposed targets..and the only 'renewable' source that is remotely feasible is wind, so we have wind. The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned.. We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all! Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact. Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. *NOW* what have I said? BRG |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
The message
from "BRG" contains these words: Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly. *NOW* what have I said? Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before the altar of the SD-Commission. -- Roger Chapman |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT, Roger
wrote: The message from "BRG" contains these words: Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly. What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion reactors. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes but fusion was put to one side as a source of electricity back in the 1950s because the technology for fission looked easier to achieve in the short term. And so far as I can see it has never been taken up since Because there are problems with fission - supplies of uranium are limited and controlled by a small number of countries and there is the problem of containing the waste products whereas hydrogen for fusion is readily available The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water power. OK it has been exploited a bit with hydroelectric but tidal / wave power doesnt seem to be used much at all and I would have thought that a good source of energy Hm and being a devils advocate, there was lots of government money put into nuclear when it was new tech so I think its only fair that lots of government money should be put into wind power too Anna -- ~ ~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Lime plaster repair and conservation / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____| www.kettlenet.co.uk |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On 06/03/2008 23:24, Anna Kettle wrote:
What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion reactors. There *is*, it just hasn't got to the point where you get more out than you need to put in to get/keep the reaction going, and can't be kept going for a particularly long time. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes Essentially you're not wrong, there is no radioactive product, but the equipment itself does get irradiated so will need a lesser form of de-commisioning. Search for TOKAMAK and/or JET |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
Anna Kettle wrote:
What I would like to know is why is there no push for nuclear fusion reactors. Because I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe that fusion does not produce radioactive isotopes but fusion was put to one side as a source of electricity back in the 1950s because the technology for fission looked easier to achieve in the short term. And so far as I can see it has never been taken up since It has not had much profile since, however work has been going on with JET and other similar projects. There are now moves afoot to try and build a big enough experimental reactor (ITER) for the first time to see if it can be made to produce power on a commercial scale. Some details he http://www.iter.org/ http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...244574,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER The other option which AFAICS has not been exploited much is water power. OK it has been exploited a bit with hydroelectric but tidal / wave power doesnt seem to be used much at all and I would have thought that a good source of energy Much depends on the environmental disruption you are prepared to tolerate... but it does superficially seem preferable to wind power in many cases. Hm and being a devils advocate, there was lots of government money put into nuclear when it was new tech so I think its only fair that lots of government money should be put into wind power too "Wind" and "government" seem to go hand in hand! -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT
Roger wrote: The message from "BRG" contains these words: Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly. *NOW* what have I said? Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before the altar of the SD-Commission. I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. R. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT Roger wrote: The message from "BRG" contains these words: Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly. *NOW* what have I said? Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before the altar of the SD-Commission. I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. There's plenty of radioactive material. And you can as you say make more. Its really a question of cost, thats all. You can pull uranium out of seawater, if you process enough of it. Hardly economic at todays prices.. BUT its like desalination ..if te price is right, its viable. Thats a thought..use off peak nuclear power and waste CO2 and heat to desalinate and carbonate sea water, and then bottle it as..'Atomic Fizz'. should sell like hotcakes. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On 7 Mar, 08:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:57:22 GMT Roger wrote: The message from "BRG" contains these words: Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. You may be right for the short term. Unlike TNT I think there may be some credibility in the notion that if nuclear power generation is widespread the supplies of Uranium may run out pretty quickly. *NOW* what have I said? Your head is now on the block. Be on the lookout for marauding greenies looking for someone to sacrifice at feet of Arch Druid Porritt before the altar of the SD-Commission. I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. There's plenty of radioactive material. And you can as you say make more. Its really a question of cost, thats all. You can pull uranium out of seawater, if you process enough of it. Hardly economic at todays prices.. BUT its like desalination ..if te price is right, its viable. Surely your anti-green stance is predicated ENTIRELY on price, since no-one in their right mind could argue, absent considerations of cost, that nuclear power was preferable to renewable energy. In other words, ignoring considerations of cost, tidal/wind/solar etc. would be better in all possible respects than nuclear. Plus you can't make WMD out of the by-products of tidal energy. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
The message
from TheOldFellow contains these words: I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component than as reactor fuel. -- Roger Chapman |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
Roger wrote:
The message from TheOldFellow contains these words: I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component than as reactor fuel. Depends whether your priorities are to warm peoples homes or melt them really :-) |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:51:56 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:- I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. IIRC they produce plutonium which is only available for use after reprocessing and then it could be more attractive as a bomb component than as reactor fuel. Another bit of that dream has gone belly up, despite decades of vast taxpayer subsidies http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/minister-admits-total-failure-of-sellafield-mox-plant-793489.html It is a pity officials and party politicians were too arrogant to listen to the voice of sanity before wasting vast amounts of my money on this white elephant. "Minister admits total failure of Sellafield 'MOX' plant "By Geoffrey Lean "Sunday, 9 March 2008 "It was a deeply embarrassing moment for the Government, though it passed almost without notice. "Late last month, the Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, had to admit to one of the most comprehensive and catastrophic failures in British industrial history – and one that has led directly to the plans to ship weapons-ready plutonium to France. "Answering a question from Dai Davies, the independent MP for Blaenau Gwent, Mr Wicks confessed that a new plant at Sellafield, built amid great controversy at a cost of £473m, had comprehensively failed to work. Originally designed to produce 120 tons a year of "mixed oxide" (MOX) nuclear fuel – made of plutonium and uranium separated from nuclear waste by reprocessing – it had in fact managed only 5.3 tons in five years of operation. "The admission constituted a wholescale vindication for critics, including The Independent on Sunday, who have long denounced the plant as a waste of money based on unproven technology, which could also pose a terrorist risk. "After the assault on the World Trade Center in September 2001, which came just before the plant was given approval to start operations, the then environment minister, Michael Meacher, asked for information on the opportunities it afforded terrorists after reading an article in The Independent on Sunday. But only a cursory review was carried out by the Office for Civilian Nuclear Security, which denied any threat in terms identical to those used by British Nuclear Fuels." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/dirty-bomb-threat-as-uk-ships-plutonium-to-france-793488.html outlines the consequences of this failure. -- 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 |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
"BRG" wrote in message ... The Natural Philosopher wrote: fact. snip Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. *NOW* what have I said? BRG sigh Nothing new, but i took you 7Kb to say it... -- ¦zulu¦ |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
if theres enough coal for 5 years
but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? and wheres my flying car? -- [george] ~ [g] ~ ~ ~ ~ 07970 378 572 ~ ~ www.dicegeorge.com ~ ~ (c)2008 ~ ~ ~ |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
George (dicegeorge) wrote:
if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? and wheres my flying car? It was in the papers sometime within about ten or twelve days ago. Did you not read about it? I've just checked the papers that have not gone for re cycle and I can't see it to quote. About 80 mph on the road and about 200 in the air, made in America and costs, if I remember rightly, between £150,00 to about £200,000. Dave |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
Dave wrote:
George (dicegeorge) wrote: if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? and wheres my flying car? It was in the papers sometime within about ten or twelve days ago. Did you not read about it? I've just checked the papers that have not gone for re cycle and I can't see it to quote. About 80 mph on the road and about 200 in the air, made in America and costs, if I remember rightly, between £150,00 to about £200,000. Dave Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang - it's alive and going well and reached Australia a few day ago. Not the original one - but a reconstruction using a model car as a pattern of all things and it cost far less to build than the Yankee one! BRG |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
George (dicegeorge) wrote:
if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, Dunno. This whole planet is made out of nuclear waste anyway. Always has been. It seems to have coped. Shove the waste back down where it came from I guess. or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? What about atmospheric CO2 halflives. Somewhat longer... and wheres my flying car? IN your flying dreams.. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:58:50 -0000
"George \(dicegeorge\)" wrote: and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? You should use subduction zones to get it back into the Earth's core where it belongs. There's a good one in California where the stupid Americans build cities on it. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On 6 Mar, 22:58, "George \(dicegeorge\)"
wrote: if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? and wheres my flying car? -- * * * * * * * * * *[george] ~ * * * * * * * * * * *[g] * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ ~ * * * * * *~ ~*****************************07970*378*572******* ************~ ~ * * * *www.dicegeorge.com* * * *~ ~ * * * * * * * * * * (c)2008 * * * * * * * * *~ ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ Some thirty years ago the Selby coalfield was opened amidst claims of one hundred years of coal supplies. The same seams continue out towards the North Sea at varying depths and accessibilities. The Selby field has been closed down as the faces became uneconomically distant but what happened to the residual seventy odd years of coal supplies? |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
cynic wrote:
On 6 Mar, 22:58, "George \(dicegeorge\)" wrote: if theres enough coal for 5 years but we only use it when the winds not blowing then it will last longer... and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, or just leave it to pollute future generations and hope they invent something to deal with it contrary to our present understanding of nuclear halflifes? and wheres my flying car? -- [george] ~ [g] ~ ~ ~ ~ 07970 378 572 ~ ~ www.dicegeorge.com ~ ~ (c)2008 ~ ~ ~ Some thirty years ago the Selby coalfield was opened amidst claims of one hundred years of coal supplies. The same seams continue out towards the North Sea at varying depths and accessibilities. The Selby field has been closed down as the faces became uneconomically distant but what happened to the residual seventy odd years of coal supplies? Still there. But its cheaper to import coal. Same goes for Cornish Tin. ALMOST worth opening the mines again. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
In message , at 22:58:50 on Thu, 6 Mar
2008, "George (dicegeorge)" remarked: and how do you budget for guarding nuclear waste for thousands of years, If we are reduced to a stone-age existence by a combination of energy poverty and global warming, this is not an issue. You just pile it all in a big heap somewhere like the Isle of Man and tell everyone to keep away. -- Roland Perry |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
zulu wrote:
"BRG" wrote in message ... The Natural Philosopher wrote: fact. snip Nuclear power rules - that is the only logical and reliable option for electricity. *NOW* what have I said? BRG sigh Nothing new, but i took you 7Kb to say it... What a damnable waste of energy - the government will have to build another three nuclear power stations to cover it!! :-) Ah well - the tree huggers are still alive alive and kicking... I left all the post in as it takes me the same amount of energy to press the send button whether a post be 7Kb or 0.00007Kb or 7 Gigabytes. BRG |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
"Andy Cap" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. So Logan's Run is correct? Adam |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
In message , ARWadworth
writes "Andy Cap" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... -- geoff |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
geoff wrote:
snip So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... But she is naked, puts a dress on, bends over and shows knickers. Where did they come from? Rubbish continuity. -- Rod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
"Rod" wrote in message ... geoff wrote: snip So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... But she is naked, puts a dress on, bends over and shows knickers. Where did they come from? Rubbish continuity. The knickers came from the Railway Children. Adam |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
"geoff" wrote in message news In message , ARWadworth writes "Andy Cap" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London. Adam |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
ARWadworth wrote:
snip So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London. Adam Walkabout... -- Rod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
In message , ARWadworth
writes "geoff" wrote in message news In message , ARWadworth writes "Andy Cap" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. So Logan's Run is correct? Jenny Agutter getting her tits out - gets my vote ... They looked so much better in An American Werewolf in London. Walkabout - has to be the best -- geoff |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
ARWadworth wrote:
"Andy Cap" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. So Logan's Run is correct? Essentially. Adam |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
Andy Cap wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. *That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true reason was - apart from oil! BRG |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:00:59 -0000, "BRG" wrote:
Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. *That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true reason was - apart from oil! The population in developed countries naturally falls. What you don't then do, is import 10 million from elsewhere, else you simply exacerbate the problem. Other countries survive quite well on just a few million. Why do we need 70 - 80 million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20. It's a quality of life issue. It's just that those making the decisions don't experience the consequnces. Andy |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Mar 7, 6:32*am, Andy Cap wrote:
Why do we need 70 - 80 million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20. In the 1980s? And the rest! MBQ |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On 2008-03-07, Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:00:59 -0000, "BRG" wrote: Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. *That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true reason was - apart from oil! The population in developed countries naturally falls. What you don't then do, is import 10 million from elsewhere, else you simply exacerbate the problem. Other countries survive quite well on just a few million. Why do we need 70 - 80 million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20. snip Which anti-immigration propaganda did you get that from? The ONS reports[*] a rise from 55.9 m to 60.6 m over the period 1971-2006. That's less than 5 million more over 35 years. * http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950 Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
BRG wrote:
Andy Cap wrote: On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: However the windmillers started to scream and create and say that windpower could in fact do the job. The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Mind you, the REAL answer is still less people and not 75 million more, EVERY year, added to increasing longevity. *That's* why Bush and Blair went to war - kill off a few million and save the cost of building a few power stations - I often wondered what the true reason was - apart from oil! Because his Dad didn't go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 and he wanted to be able to say "look Dad I did it!" (and the oil) Tragic isn't the word. Paul -- Add an underscore after the p to reply |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:21:09 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
The other day, I heard a proponent answer the question, ' What happens when the wind doesn't blow ?', with, 'Well conventional power stations fail and we manage'. Yep, we up the output of a worker or switch on a spare conmventional power station. What planet are these people on? Maybe it will become our public duty when the wind falls to go to the nearest wind turbine and breathe heavily on the blades? |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned.. We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all! Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact. Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines. Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic output. OTOH I'm still unsure about climate change in general. It seems to be a good way to beat everyone around the head for extra cash. Certainly the money could be better spent on feeding the hungry... |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
x"Doki" wrote in message
... The Natural Philosopher wrote: The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned.. We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all! Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact. Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines. Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic output. Haven't the Germans some experience of this problem? ISTR the last time this was discussed here a link was posted leading to a long paper about how the fluctuating output plays havoc with the rest of the grid. But presumably in the interim solutions to this have been found. Paul |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y,cam.misc
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons why windmills wont work...
PaulB wrote:
x"Doki" wrote in message ... The Natural Philosopher wrote: The fact that at a national level it probably does nothing for fossil fuel consumption at all, looks ugly, is bloody expensive, and reduces the value of local houses to nil,. is never mentioned.. We seem to be, essentially, paying taxes - or higher electricity bills - in order to meet paper targets that don't and wont affect CO2 production at all! Sigh. Just like every other climate change initiative the governments of Europe have come up with in fact. Pretty much the conclusion I came up with a while ago. Even the BWEA admit that you tend to get nowhere near the rated capacity out of wind turbines. Then you need huge energy storage facilities to make use of the erratic output. Haven't the Germans some experience of this problem? ISTR the last time this was discussed here a link was posted leading to a long paper about how the fluctuating output plays havoc with the rest of the grid. But presumably in the interim solutions to this have been found. But if the solutions lead to more cost or more CO2 than the windmills save, its actually a useless solution isn't it? Paul |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
10 Reasons to go veggie | UK diy | |||
10 Reasons to go veggie | UK diy | |||
HOT Please help me... Air conditioner wont work HOT | Home Repair | |||
My Washing Machine wont work | UK diy | |||
my amplified ear wont work! | Electronics |