On 24/07/2016 14:04, John Williamson wrote:
On 24/07/2016 13:24, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MKF
writes:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
[]
Not that nuclear power _doesn't_ have its dangers; just that, IMO,
the
public's fear of it is out of all proportion.

I agree. But you can't say that in Germany.

That is sad. And surprising; I thought the greens were strong in
Germany, and would have relished the chance to close the coal
stations (especially in the east).

They just hate nukes more.

One has to wonder why. Is it just that it's something they understand
less, or something else?

All the news they see about nuclear is when it goes wrong, while all the
news they see about wind and solar is when it goes right. After all
"Nuclear power station runs for 50 years with no problems" isn't exactly
going to make the front pages, is it? While there's a whole industry
pushing the mostly illusory benefits of renewable power with, for
example, very little mention of the way that wind turbines in use in the
UK are only expected to last for 15 years instead of the hoped for 25,
and are rapidly becoming less effective as they approach that limit.

Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.


and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 31/07/2016 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.

If they were not running economically after 15 to 20 years they would
have been switched off by the operators.


and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines

Several are.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.


and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines




I would think many people wonder why wind turbines rotate slowly
sometimes when there isn't a breath of wind?

Believe it or not they are turned by electric motors to prevent flats
forming in the armature shaft or (roller) bearings. Nobody ever
mentions that they use as well as generate electricity!



--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'economically'. Harry keeps telling us that
the energy is free, and that cost are coming down all the time. He may
be right, but still we pay high strike prices for the electricity. In
other words they're heavily subsidised to keep them running. Take away
the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many new wind farms
are built.

Far better to build a new nuke at unknown cost, no proof it will work, and
guaranteed electricity costs over twice what we pay now. Under the control
of foreigners. A win win win, as they say.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

On 31/07/2016 14:04, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:53:59 +0100, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 31/07/2016 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.

If they were not running economically after 15 to 20 years they would
have been switched off by the operators.

Depends what you mean by 'economically'. Harry keeps telling us that
the energy is free, and that cost are coming down all the time. He may
be right, but still we pay high strike prices for the electricity. In
other words they're heavily subsidised to keep them running. Take away
the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many new wind farms
are built.

By 'economically' i mean the revenue earned exceeds the all operating
costs including all maintenance and repair costs, business rates etc.

Wind farms over 10 years old do not normally receive any subsidies now.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 31/07/16 13:53, Ash Burton wrote:
On 31/07/2016 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.

If they were not running economically after 15 to 20 years they would
have been switched off by the operators.

Ah. The green definition of 'economically viable'

'subsidised enough'


and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines

Several are.

reference?





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 31/07/16 14:39, Ash Burton wrote:
On 31/07/2016 14:04, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:53:59 +0100, Ash Burton
wrote:

On 31/07/2016 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.

If they were not running economically after 15 to 20 years they would
have been switched off by the operators.

Depends what you mean by 'economically'. Harry keeps telling us that
the energy is free, and that cost are coming down all the time. He may
be right, but still we pay high strike prices for the electricity. In
other words they're heavily subsidised to keep them running. Take away
the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many new wind farms
are built.

By 'economically' i mean the revenue earned exceeds the all operating
costs including all maintenance and repair costs, business rates etc.

Wind farms over 10 years old do not normally receive any subsidies now.

utter bull****.

ROCs are still available, as are FITs for smaller iunits, or the new CFD
mechanisms.

Everybody knows that wind power only exists to harvest subsidies and is
a total joke in terms of producing economically viable or reliable
electricity.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

Dave Plowman wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Take away the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many
new wind farms are built.

Far better to build a new nuke at unknown cost

That's the price we pay for letting our previous expertise evaporate
over the last 35 years ...

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Take away the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many
new wind farms are built.

Far better to build a new nuke at unknown cost

That's the price we pay for letting our previous expertise evaporate
over the last 35 years ...

Well, quite. Governments of all colours recently seem more intent on
avoiding paying out on the infrastructure until it is forced on them.

But anything else would be socialism - to a degree. ;-)

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

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

On 31/07/2016 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:


Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

Its easy to be economic when you get a massive guaranteed payment.
Having to compete on a level field is somewhat harder and no Uk wind
farm does that.

On 31/07/2016 15:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2016 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:


Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

Its easy to be economic when you get a massive guaranteed payment.
Having to compete on a level field is somewhat harder and no Uk wind
farm does that.

You may have misconstrued what i said. In the late 1980's and early
1990's NFFO (Non fossil fuel obligation) allowed for a 5 year kWh bid
price to allow recovery of capital costs afterwhich the p/kWh paid
reduced to the 'pool price' of the day.

This was implicit in the contracts and was adhered to.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 31/07/2016 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:

Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

The 25 year lifespan thing is partly to ease planning issues. However I
believe that maintenance costs per MWh of the windmills far exceeds that
of a proper power station, and of course that has real implications for
the end-to-end lifetime CO2 audit.

Bill

On 31/07/2016 16:06, Bill Wright wrote:
On 31/07/2016 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:

Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

The 25 year lifespan thing is partly to ease planning issues. However I
believe that maintenance costs per MWh of the windmills far exceeds that
of a proper power station, and of course that has real implications for
the end-to-end lifetime CO2 audit.

Bill

I wouldn't dispute that at all Bill. However it doesn't mean they are
not 'economical' to run, otherwise why would they bother?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

Take away the subsidy and see how many of them close, or how many
new wind farms are built.

Far better to build a new nuke at unknown cost

That's the price we pay for letting our previous expertise evaporate
over the last 35 years ...

Well, quite. Governments of all colours recently seem more intent on
avoiding paying out on the infrastructure until it is forced on them.

But anything else would be socialism - to a degree. ;-)

The most rabid proponents of free markets in theory adopt a much more
(an more self-interestedly competent) socialistic attitude to military
and strategic industrial resources than that they conned Thatcher into
taking.

From digging iron ore to the remote slaughter of innocents the federal
American government makes sure every stage of the process is funded and
carried out in America. That applies to strategic food production too,
although more by manipulating tariffs than by direct investment.



--

Roger Hayter

In article , Ash Burton
writes
On 31/07/2016 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.

If they were not running economically after 15 to 20 years they would
have been switched off by the operators.

They would switch them off if they were not profitable. Not quite the
same thing.

and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines

Several are.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

--
bert

Roger Hayter wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Andy Burns wrote
Dave Plowman wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Take away the subsidy and see how many of them
close, or how many new wind farms are built.

Far better to build a new nuke at unknown cost

That's the price we pay for letting our previous
expertise evaporate over the last 35 years ...

Well, quite. Governments of all colours recently seem more intent on
avoiding paying out on the infrastructure until it is forced on them.

But anything else would be socialism - to a degree. ;-)

The most rabid proponents of free markets in theory adopt a much more
(an more self-interestedly competent) socialistic attitude to military and
strategic industrial resources than that they conned Thatcher into taking.

No one conned Thatcher into anything.

From digging iron ore to the remote slaughter of innocents
the federal American government makes sure every stage
of the process is funded and carried out in America.

It clearly isnt with iron ore.

That applies to strategic food production too,

Even you should have noticed plenty of other places do food production.

although more by manipulating tariffs than by direct investment.

On 31/07/2016 16:19, Ash Burton wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that at all Bill. However it doesn't mean they are
not 'economical' to run, otherwise why would they bother?
Because they are heavily subsidised. It's a rigged market. The money
comes out of your pocket.

Bill

In article , Woody
scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/07/16 11:56, Ash Burton wrote:
Several UK wind farms built in the late 1980's and early 1990's are
still running economically

NO windfarm in the world is running economically.


and i do not know of any later built one's
which have had a significantly truncated lifespan.

I bet none of them are running with the original turbines




I would think many people wonder why wind turbines rotate slowly
sometimes when there isn't a breath of wind?

Believe it or not they are turned by electric motors to prevent flats
forming in the armature shaft or (roller) bearings. Nobody ever
mentions that they use as well as generate electricity!




Saw that the other day out in the fens, not a breath of wind but they
are turning albeit very slowly!.

A nearby bonfire smoke was going straight up...
--
Tony Sayer