Popular Wind Power Myth Busted

[beso]

Contrary to the claims of some at this site:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.200-wind-power-delivers-too-much-to-ignore.html

Comment.

[New Judge]

No Thanks.

[bookbinder]

The article clearly states that, if the wind doesn't blow, a conventional power station is needed to provide backup. I doubt that a power station can be kept dormant until the wind ceases to blow, and then suddenly be switched on, so that means that power stations are still needed. So, why bother with wind turbines that don't work when there's no wind?

[New Judge]

Be very careful bookbinder! Stand by to receive details of the forest that beso has planted and, if you still show dissent, take cover !!!

[emmie]

vile on and offshore

[bookbinder]

Thanks for the warning, New Judge! My loins are girded, and my steel helmet is to hand.

[heathfield]

"Even when winter delivers a "long, cold, calm spell" with low temperatures and little wind, the system can cope." What that says is, the conventional power stations can switch from running on standby to increasing their output to meet demand.

[gen2]

Be careful.
Although the article is published on the New Scientist's website, it is clearly headed OPINION.

[Teddio]

This may sound old fashioned but why not build a new generation of nuclear fission power stations for the UK with a generating capacity of around 60 Gigawatts ? This could be supplemented with a little Hydro and Pumped Storage capacity.

There is plenty of Uranium (and Thorium) in the world and their fission won't contribute to Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect.

The power output quoted for a given wind turbine is the peak power which is hardly ever attained. If it's too windy then the blades are feathered producing no power and if there's anticyclonic weather then the power output is negligible. If the wind speed halves then the power output falls to one eighth. In a word they are unreliable.

[jake-the-peg]

Anybody other than me read the actual report?

Firstly it says that the model is a simple one and the level of data needed to better it is not available in the UK - so I think the enthusiasm for it needs to be tempered a bit.

It also accepts that it is part of a mixed energy strategy and cannot compete on its own. Which I think everybody recognises.

I'm not sure this report busts any myths

Try this one

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/MML%20final%20report%20for%20CCC%209%20may%202011.pdf

It calculates on shore wind farms now produce cheaper energy than new nuclear.

Personally though I think we should be concentrating on getting the costs of off-shore down.

[emmie]

ok admit i didn't, at least all of it, i hate them, onshore, offshore, eyesores every last one.

[jno]

I thik they're elegant, so we should have them whether they produce power or not.

[jake-the-peg]

Teddio


The answer to why not nuclear is cost

It's only affordable if you ignore decommissioning costs

Successiive governments have been in a stand-off with industry for years each refusing to pick up decommissioning costs

Blair's government wrote it into law that we wouldn't do this

This government quietly made some changes to that act a few months before these new reactors were announced.

Nuclear is a strategic energy source - it's low carbon long term and reliable but if you ran the whole country's energy strategy on it the end-of-life cost would be enormous

[Clanad]

Here in the western U.S., where the towers are erected by the hundreds at a time, they've produced a number of drawbacks that weren't expected. Firstly, the environmenatalists are upset since they kill birds by the dozens, including migrating ducks and geese in the Central Flyway.
Secondly, the are very noisy, especially when hundreds of them are operating at one time...
Additionally, here, where electricity from coal fired plants is extremely cheap to produce, the wind towers cannot compete. "Critically important among the elements of true cost that are often understated or ignored by wind energy advocates is the huge cost of tax breaks and subsidies provided to the wind industry. Initially, tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy were justified on grounds that they were necessary to help an emerging technology compete with existing technologies for producing electricity until the technology was more thoroughly developed and demonstrated.

Federal, state and local government tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy have become so prevalent that it’s virtually certain that the politicians and regulators who provide them have no understanding of their magnitude and cost. It’s also virtually certain that they have not weighed benefits and costs. If they really have done either, there is no question but that they have decided to put the special interest of the wind industry ahead of the interests of taxpayers and electric customers who are paying for their largess." (Source: National wind watch.org)

[woofgang]

I saw the windfarm at Caister a few years ago...its so beautiful, like a huge offshore sculptural installation

[woofgang]

Clanad, what will the US do when the coal runs out, also isn't coal a very dirty method of energy production?

[Clanad]

Actually not, woof... the scrubbers installed on th epower plants are very efficient. As far as running out of coal... I don't think so. Here in the Powder River Basin of the western U.S. (an area about 300 miles long and 100 miles wide), the high quality, low sulphur coal is within 100 feet of the surface and it's estimated there's at least 500 years supply at current use rates... That doesn't include the traditionally underground mined coal of the eatern States, such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia...

[jomifl]

What Britain needs to do re. wind power is to prevaricate for as long as possible using the arguments of the anti-wind power/huntin'shootin'fishin' lobby as a cogent reasons to do nothing. When other countries have perfected the exploitation of wind power, Britain simply buys the cheap mass produced wind turbines and installs them where they can make a decent profit for landowners. Sounds familiar?

[beso]

Yeah. Britain lost its edge long ago because it relied on exploiting the labours of the citizens of its empire for so long.