# Wind Turbines



## david.hopcroft

Love them or hate them, onshore or offshore - and there are both close to where I am - I wonder if there is opposition to plans for Offshore fields from the Shipping industry ?

The latest in this area is for 300+ turbines on the Triton Knoll - about 20 miles off the Humber. The vast Sheringham Shoal surely forces a detour on some established routes ?

David
+


----------



## callpor

@David, I made a similar enquiry last year and was assured that the Nautical Institute and other major international maritime industry associations are keeping a very close watch and aware of all proposals for vaste offshore wind farms covering both the north and irish seas and western approaches. The NI Chief Executive spoke on this subject at the IUMI conference last summer highlighting industry concerns, to the maritime insurance industry. Any move to straddle established shipping routes, such as the North Sea DW route off the UK east coast or endanger shipping in any other areas will be strongly opposed.

Chris


----------



## david.hopcroft

Yes thanks for that Chris. Looking at an AIS site, it looks to me that anything approaching the Wash from the south has to head for Skegness first. Perhaps that is water depth though, I am not a navigator. I often think the turbines are an accident waiting to happen !

David
+


----------



## Manchester

I still cannot understand why we are not making more use of tidal power. Think of the tidal bore on the Bristol channel. Free power for everyone with no obstrusive wind towers. Guaranteed energy every six hours. To me this is the way to go.


----------



## Pat Kennedy

I would have thought that they dont site wind turbines in shipping channels, ie deep water. 
By their very nature, they are sited in the shallows, sandbanks and such.
At least thats what they have done in Liverpool Bay.
Pat


----------



## joebuckham

Manchester said:


> I still cannot understand why we are not making more use of tidal power. Think of the tidal bore on the Bristol channel. Free power for everyone with no obstrusive wind towers. Guaranteed energy every six hours. To me this is the way to go.


perhaps it would interfere with someones plans for the future by supplying a consistent source of energy and proving to be a success story, to the detriment of some other sources.(Thumb)


----------



## callpor

Manchester said:


> I still cannot understand why we are not making more use of tidal power. Think of the tidal bore on the Bristol channel. Free power for everyone with no obstrusive wind towers. Guaranteed energy every six hours. To me this is the way to go.


Totally agree, but unfortunately wind turbines are more visible hence gain greater political support.


----------



## BelliniTosi

Article in the Telegraph last year stated that the Wind Turbine industry claim that turbines only operate to 30% of their capacity.
In 2009 the government paid the Wind Turbine industry £400M in subsidies, that equated to £138000/turbine.
Makes you think if they're worth it!
There is also, apparently, a problem with wind farms and radar


----------



## stores

*wind turbines*

in ramsgate there is a fleet of tugs, tenders and barges constantly comeing and going to local wind farm, i dread to think what it costs, i hear they can only operate up to a certain wind speed, also i believe this goverment cancelled the avon hydro electric scheme. that would be guaranteed to provide twice a day, 365 days a year. instead they choose an unguaranteed supply, are they supposed to be educated, ?the MN went from sail power to steam because of the vagaries of wind,


----------



## macca57

The maximum efficiency of a wind turbine is 25% when the maximum power is applied. A physicist called Betz carried out experiments in the 1920' s and developed Beta's law.
His law states that when maximum design power (wind)is applied across the blades that equates to the maximum power flowing through the blades and at point the maximum power output is 25%.


----------



## Gareth Jones

When wind farms are announced they always state their capacity. What they dont tell you is that ths is the max capacity and is only achieved when the wind is blowing at force 7. All lower wind speeds give much reduced output especially at the lower end i.e. wind speeds of force 2 or 3 produce almost nothing.
At force 8 and above windmills have to be shut down, if not they will self destruct.


----------



## Gollywobbler

Gareth Jones said:


> When wind farms are announced they always state their capacity. What they dont tell you is that ths is the max capacity and is only achieved when the wind is blowing at force 7. All lower wind speeds give much reduced output especially at the lower end i.e. wind speeds of force 2 or 3 produce almost nothing.
> At force 8 and above windmills have to be shut down, if not they will self destruct.


Hi there

I've read recently that the National Grid can't store the extra energy produced when the wind turbines are a bit less inefficient than usual. So they pay the wind farms whopping amounts of money for energy that cannot be used and simply goes to waste, at vast cost to the taxpayer. 

I don't believe that the pollies are so naive that they can't see that their "green agenda" is a preposterous racket. I suspect that several of the pollies are making millions of bucks for themselves out of the "green" nonsense but that they are hiding the bucks behind secret trusts and whatnot. Chris Huhne is my MP. He's got no credentials that fit him up to be an expert on how to create energy but he's a genius about how to make quick bucks for himself.

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Nick Balls

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy


----------



## NoR

*Wind Turbines Stopped*

Have a look at *this* and the pic below.


----------



## Pat Kennedy

Manchester said:


> I still cannot understand why we are not making more use of tidal power. Think of the tidal bore on the Bristol channel. Free power for everyone with no obstrusive wind towers. Guaranteed energy every six hours. To me this is the way to go.


In order to harness tidal power into electrical energy, there must be at least five metres difference between high and low tides. There are only about forty sites on the Earth with tidal ranges of this magnitude.
The construction costs of tidal power plants is high, and therefore the cost per kilowatt hour is not competitive with fossil fuel.
The Scottish Government very recently approved plans for ten tidal turbines to be installed in the Sound of Islay, to generate 10Mw of power. The construction costs are around £40 million.
There are proposals to install a much bigger 1600 Mw scheme in the Pentland Firth .
Apparently, Scotland, and the UK generally, are seen as world leaders in tidal power research. 
So, I would say that tidal power will come in the near future, but will only be feasible in areas of the coast with a suitable tidal range.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12767211


----------



## Mike S

All this talk of secondary part time power be it from wind, solar, tides or whatever is all very fashionable but frankly a waste of time and energy. What we really should be doing all over the world is looking for an alternative BASE LOAD power. Many years ago the idea of using Thorium as a fuel in reactors was first mooted.
China has announced that they are going ahead with liquid sodium cooled thorium reactors and within a very short space of time they will have them up and running.
Thorium is plentiful, there are enough known deposits on earth to power the earth for over a thousand years. It leaves a minimal amount of waste and in fact can use up all the waste from the present reactors over time. The reactors cannot melt down as the system requires an outside stream of protons to work. It is all known science and it will be the Chinese and the Indians that will have it running. The American Congress is slow to act because of the oil/coal/gas lobby.
Look it up on Google............
It is all there............
It will make your wind turbine, solar power and tidal power look like what it is ........a part time excuse for not getting on with the real job of sorting out the excessive production of CO2.


----------



## PAULD

How often do you pass a wind farm and they are all turning, very rarely. Then what do we do when the wind doesn't blow, because i cant them keeping 7-8conventional or nuke power stations sat ticking over just for when the wind isnt blowing.
As for bio fuel at the end of the day that will push up the price of food,because if farmers can get more for growing wood/fuel they will grow that instead or more for their corn from an energy company than Tesco you know where they will sell it.


----------



## Pat Kennedy

PAULD said:


> How often do you pass a wind farm and they are all turning, very rarely. Then what do we do when the wind doesn't blow, because i cant them keeping 7-8conventional or nuke power stations sat ticking over just for when the wind isnt blowing.
> As for bio fuel at the end of the day that will push up the price of food,because if farmers can get more for growing wood/fuel they will grow that instead or more for their corn from an energy company than Tesco you know where they will sell it.


Paul, 
I pass one twice every day, its out on Burbo Bank in Liverpool Bay, and I rarely see any of the turbines stopped. It appears that there is a steady wind for about 90% of the time.
Perhaps offshore turbines are a better bet than onshore ones. 
Pat


----------



## Manchester

I still recommend tidal power instead of wind turbines which to me are an atrocity to look at compared to generators under the sea.

I don't understand the argument that they would interrupt shipping lanes. Their is plenty of water outside these channels where the draft is too low for a ship but the waters are still tidal.


----------



## david.hopcroft

Getting back to my earlier comment 'Accidents waiting to happen', a look at AIS for the area around the Humber and The Wash will show that many of the vessels shown in passage are small, low air-draft type coasters capable of long journeys upriver. Hardly deep water stuff. 

David
+


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> Hi there
> 
> I've read recently that the National Grid can't store the extra energy produced when the wind turbines are a bit less inefficient than usual. So they pay the wind farms whopping amounts of money for energy that cannot be used and simply goes to waste, at vast cost to the taxpayer.


Now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Anyhoo over and above that - a fair few shipping companies are getting right into wind turbines - specialist construction craft etc. Since they tend to be in rural areas they are a source of employment as well.

Efficiency? well that only really comes into play when you are paying for the fuel. In the case of wind turbines since the fuel is free the efficiency only affects the numbers required.

I personally like the thought of using fresh air to get electricity and while I can understand the controversy with on shore farms I just dont get the opposition to offshore ones


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

david.hopcroft said:


> Getting back to my earlier comment 'Accidents waiting to happen', a look at AIS for the area around the Humber and The Wash will show that many of the vessels shown in passage are small, low air-draft type coasters capable of long journeys upriver. Hardly deep water stuff.
> 
> David
> +



Maybe some navigation type skills could help!!!!


----------



## callpor

Navigational skills don't come into it if the wind farms straddle the N.Sea DW routes. Finding alternative routes can can prove very hazardous for Deep Draught vessels.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

callpor said:


> Navigational skills don't come into it if the wind farms straddle the N.Sea DW routes. Finding alternative routes can can prove very hazardous for Deep Draught vessels.


Is that liable happen?


----------



## Pat Kennedy

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Is that liable happen?


Not really, It is prohibited to site a windfarm in an established shipping lane. 
I have read that it is normal procedure to allow a 0.5 nm buffer on each side of a shipping lane when planning a windfarm.
Off shore windfarms are usually positioned on an existing navigational hazard such as banks, reefs, or in shallow waters, so a well planned windfarm can contribute towards maritime safety.
In a recent Danish risk analysis, a calculated risk in the order of one collision every ten years has been accepted by the authorities, as the risk frequency was not higher than existing baseline conditions.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Pat Kennedy said:


> Not really, It is prohibited to site a windfarm in an established shipping lane.
> I have read that it is normal procedure to allow a 0.5 nm buffer on each side of a shipping lane when planning a windfarm.
> Off shore windfarms are usually positioned on an existing navigational hazard such as banks, reefs, or in shallow waters, so a well planned windfarm can contribute towards maritime safety.
> In a recent Danish risk analysis, a calculated risk in the order of one collision every ten years has been accepted by the authorities, as the risk frequency was not higher than existing baseline conditions.


Pretty much what i suspected - I mean why would anyone build one in a shipping lane!!!


----------



## kewl dude

We have a lot of wind power generators in California. I have driven through and stopped and looked at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm near Palm Springs and the Altamont Pass Wind Farm east of San Francisco. While driving through the latter at 65 mph on the I-580 freeway the LOUD clicking sound the wind generators make was clearly heard in our closed car. Stopping at a view point and getting out the noise was incredibly loud.

Once while driving I-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass Wind farm I stopped at a view point and because the nearby wind generators were stopped there was no noise but I noticed the carcasses of dead birds around the grounds. California officially says that 4,700 birds are killed annually by these three wind farms.

Wind power in California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gorgonio_Pass_Wind_Farm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_Wind_Farm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Pass_Wind_Farm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_California

I visited the southern most point on the Big Island of Hawaii Christmas-New Years 2006-2007. There is a lot of wind at this site all the time. I saw the below quoted derelict circa 1987 wind generators and the supplies for building the newer wind farm located further inland.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Lae

Quote

In 1987 the Kamaoa Wind Farm began operation with thirty-seven Mitsubishi 250 kW wind turbines with an operationally typical total peak output of 7.5 MW.[21] By 2006 the turbines at 18°59′33″N 155°40′5″W were falling into disrepair, and they were finally shut down on August 15, 2006. At the end of August 2006, components for a new set of wind turbines were transported to South Point. The Pakini Nui project consists of 14 General Electric wind turbines constructed at 18°58′20″N 155°41′21″W, about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the old Kamaoa wind farm. Completed in April 2007, Pakini Nui supplies up to 20.5 MW of power to the island electricity grid of Hawaii Electric Light Company.[22] The wind farm is operated by Tawhiri Power, LLC. It is the southern-most wind farm in the United States.

Unquote

Greg Hayden


----------



## Gollywobbler

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Anyhoo over and above that - a fair few shipping companies are getting right into wind turbines - specialist construction craft etc. Since they tend to be in rural areas they are a source of employment as well.
> 
> Efficiency? well that only really comes into play when you are paying for the fuel. In the case of wind turbines since the fuel is free the efficiency only affects the numbers required.
> 
> I personally like the thought of using fresh air to get electricity and while I can understand the controversy with on shore farms I just dont get the opposition to offshore ones



Hi SM

I agree with you that it "does not make any sense."

However, there is somethiing called the Energy Tariff or the Energy [Something] Tariff. If you own a wind turbine, have solar panels on your roof or you can produce electricity via a water wheel, you can use what you need for your house and force the National Grid to "buy" the rest at a premium rate. 

If you own a wind-turbine farm then you can do this a hundred-fold.

Apparently the problem is that the National Grid does not have huge banks of huge batteries, so the National Grid can't accept electricity that they don't need at that minute. Nevertheless, they are obliged to pay for it - at an extortionate price - whether the take the lecky or not. 

That is why I say that the whole thing is a racket. 

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> Hi SM
> 
> I agree with you that it "does not make any sense."
> 
> However, there is somethiing called the Energy Tariff or the Energy [Something] Tariff. If you own a wind turbine, have solar panels on your roof or you can produce electricity via a water wheel, you can use what you need for your house and force the National Grid to "buy" the rest at a premium rate.
> 
> If you own a wind-turbine farm then you can do this a hundred-fold.
> 
> Apparently the problem is that the National Grid does not have huge banks of huge batteries, so the National Grid can't accept electricity that they don't need at that minute. Nevertheless, they are obliged to pay for it - at an extortionate price - whether the take the lecky or not.
> 
> That is why I say that the whole thing is a racket.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gill


Gill

The grid doesn't work like that - you dont store energy on it - and if one producer is producing a certain amount - you can reduce the amount the rest are producing with hardly any noticable change in the other outputs.

Wind Power produces about 2.5% of the demand so if you were to put all of that that on an infinite locked grid with say for the sake of arguement 100 providers - each would take a 0.025% drop in output. In technical terms this is like watching an ant trying to shag an elephant.


----------



## Gollywobbler

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Pretty much what i suspected - I mean why would anyone build one in a shipping lane!!!


Hi again, SM

I don't claim to be any sort of an expert in this subject. I'm just repeating that which I know - for a fact - genuine experts have said.

There is, or is going to be, a large wind turbine farm on the Dogger Bank. Apparently the local people and the MCA all accept that the effect of the wind farm will be that fishing boats, small coasters etc will just have to avoid the Dogger Bank in future and they will all have to use a narrower channel/area, closer inshore. 

The MCA agree that this is probable and they say that one of the reasons why they want their new Coastguard MOCs is because they think they will have to reconsider, and alter the configuration of, some of the hitherto "traditionally accepted" shipping lanes around the UK. 

Apparently the MCA might also have to force big ships to stop travelling through the Minches because the Minister has decided to scrap the ETVs. With no certainty that they could send an ETV to get a big ship in the Minches out of trouble, the MCA say that they might have to force the big ships to go round the West of Ireland and stay to the West of the Western Isles, so as to keep them out of the Minches. 

For once (you might be pleased to know!) I am quite sympathetic towards the MCA about all this. I've never been involved with a large vessel so I don't know whether it is necessary to alter the areas that can they use, but the certain thing is that the MCA did not order the construction of the wind-farms or the removal of the ETVs. I think that the MCA are just having to do what they can about this because of political decisions to build the wind-farms and remove the ETVs.

Where I do take issue with the MCA is that I see no sense in removing the local Coastguards who know about the Dogger Bank area or the Minches area better than anyone else does. If the marine dangers are going to be increased by Parliament's other decisions, surely you would leave the nearest Coastguards exactly where they are - at least for the moment until the new shipping arrangements have had a chance to settle down? 

As far as I know there are no plans to put a wind-farm in the Solent or Southampton Water, which are my own local stamping grounds. I don't think that there are - or would be - any plans to disrupt the local shipping lanes that I know about. I agree with you that trying to do that would not make sense. I have no impression of the Dogger Bank or Minches areas because I've never been to either of them. 

Plus I'm only a WAFI, apparently! I think that is fairly hilarious. There's nothing quite like insulting someone you don't know, I always think! 

I quite like the idea of trying to slalom my way through a wind-farm, relying on sail power alone, because that would need quite a bit of boat-handling skill, I reckon. Draught isn't a problem on a small yacht and if you clout a wind-turbine, the crew of the yacht will remain clouted, so I have every ambition not to aspire to that idea! 

So for me personally, I see a marine playground but I fully accept that this would not be the case with a larger vessel. 

As for the idea that yotties/WAFIs are "not welcome" on Ships Nostalgia, forget it, my friend. I'm here and I have no plans to vanish, plus I like the idea of being able to question the big ship mariners like you. I don't treat you with contempt and condescension, so I don't expect that from you either. There is no reason why you can't explain things that I don't understand in a civilised and restrained fashion. 

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> As for the idea that yotties/WAFIs are "not welcome" on Ships Nostalgia, forget it, my friend. I'm here and I have no plans to vanish, plus I like the idea of being able to question the big ship mariners like you. I don't treat you with contempt and condescension, so I don't expect that from you either. There is no reason why you can't explain things that I don't understand in a civilised and restrained fashion.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gill


Eh??????????? - dear Lord where the hell did that come from - I only tried to explain the Grid in easy terms including one of my favourite animal analogies (I have a few) - theres no need to get all over sensitive. 

One thing though - please don't go turning this into another coastguard thread - you have one to play with already.


----------



## Gollywobbler

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Gill
> 
> The grid doesn't work like that - you dont store energy on it - and if one producer is producing a certain amount - you can reduce the amount the rest are producing with hardly any noticable change in the other outputs.
> 
> Wind Power produces about 2.5% of the demand so if you were to put all of that that on an infinite locked grid with say for the sake of arguement 100 providers - each would take a 0.025% drop in output. In technical terms this is like watching an ant trying to shag an elephant.


Hi SM

I'm not saying you're wrong, but equally this is not my impression.

Apparently the rough with the smooth is that on some days, conventional power stations will be producing enough to support the National Grid and apparently in that situation, the conventional power stations get first quack at supplying the National Grid.

As I understand it, on Day Two it is sunny and windy, so all the alternative forms of power get the first quack - at premium rates - it has cost a fortune to provide the "green power" so the price for their green power includes a hefty subsidy. The National Grid is forced to accept this type of power, so the NG has to buy it at a premium rate. 

There is no way that this is a commercially reasonable arrangement. However solar panels, wind farms etc are bloody expensive to instal, ergo satisfying the Government's political, green agenda requires payment at the premium rate. 

On Day 3, it is blowing a F7 so the wind farms are trotting it out - they are only efficient in a near gale. The National Grid can't use as much power as they can produce on Day 3, but the National Grid is nonetheless required to pay for it all, because all that is "green." 

Me - the taxpayer - is paying for all this via my energy bill each quarter. Ofgas or whoever are saying that I should no longer be left in doubt about just how much I am paying towards the "green agenda." 

I entirely agree. I'm not a supporter of the "green power agenda" because I've seen ZERO to persuade me that man-made carbon emissions are making a serious difference. 

The Earth's climatology is not well enough understood to persuade 
me that you can spend a firkin carbon fortune on producing the "green gadgets" in the first place and then expect me to pay for them on the rare occasions that they are bluddy well useful, plus pay for them even when they are not useful. Grrrrrrrr.

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Gollywobbler

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Eh??????????? - dear Lord where the hell did that come from - I only tried to explain the Grid in easy terms including one of my favourite animal analogies (I have a few) - theres no need to get all over sensitive.
> 
> One thing though - please don't go turning this into another coastguard thread - you have one to play with already.



Hi SM

I do like you, even though - so far - I don't think you and I have ever agreed about anything! 

I do NOT believe that I am so gormlessly dumb that I am incapable of understanding anything, ergo where do thee & me go about this one, my friend?

So far, my impression is is that I am having to explain myself in terms that I would think are pretty idiot-proof. OK. So am I as thick as a wall or are you just an MCP, mate? 

Now - get on with it. Read what I _said_ instead of whatever you seem to have assumed, I suggest. 

I am certainly getting the impression that the men who drive around on large ships are all MCPs, though I did NOT get the same impression from the men who worked at the MCA. I think the latter had figured out that they were likely to get legally slaughtered if they tried to be MCPs, plus I think that the MCA guys were nice enough to understand that I don't know about large ships but I was (and remain) curious. So what's wrong with that? 

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> Hi SM
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but equally this is not my impression.
> 
> Apparently the rough with the smooth is that on some days, conventional power stations will be producing enough to support the National Grid and apparently in that situation, the conventional power stations get first quack at supplying the National Grid.
> 
> As I understand it, on Day Two it is sunny and windy, so all the alternative forms of power get the first quack - at premium rates - it has cost a fortune to provide the "green power" so the price for their green power includes a hefty subsidy. The National Grid is forced to accept this type of power, so the NG has to buy it at a premium rate.
> 
> There is no way that this is a commercially reasonable arrangement. However solar panels, wind farms etc are bloody expensive to instal, ergo satisfying the Government's political, green agenda requires payment at the premium rate.
> 
> On Day 3, it is blowing a F7 so the wind farms are trotting it out - they are only efficient in a near gale. The National Grid can't use as much power as they can produce on Day 3, but the National Grid is nonetheless required to pay for it all, because all that is "green."
> 
> Me - the taxpayer - is paying for all this via my energy bill each quarter. Ofgas or whoever are saying that I should no longer be left in doubt about just how much I am paying towards the "green agenda."
> 
> I entirely agree. I'm not a supporter of the "green power agenda" because I've seen ZERO to persuade me that man-made carbon emissions are making a serious difference.
> 
> The Earth's climatology is not well enough understood to persuade
> me that you can spend a firkin carbon fortune on producing the "green gadgets" in the first place and then expect me to pay for them on the rare occasions that they are bluddy well useful, plus pay for them even when they are not useful. Grrrrrrrr.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gill


Ok try it this way:

Firstly just forget about the differing costs of producing and any incentives that are given to new technology.

The Grid - this is the supply network and the power getting put into it (by power stations) equals the power getting taken out of it (by consumers) 

If the demand goes up then the suppliers all start to produce more energy to match that demand. and vice versa

Now as they are all joined together any increase or decrease in load will be shared amongst the suppliers. Therefore the more suppliers that are connected the less the the change in load per supplier

Now if we were to say take all the wind power in one massive turbine that produces 2.5 % of the total available power and put this on to a grid with 99 other suppliers and take a look at your day three.......

All that will happen is that the 99 other stations will share a 2.5 % reduction in their demand which = 0.0253% each and even if that 2.5% is more expensive then it would still only comprise a small percent of the total bill.

Where you are going wrong is thinking that wind can supply 100% of the energy requirement - it cant, there is no possibility of the grid receiving more energy than it a can use - in fact the biggest worry is it not being able to supply the demand


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> Hi SM
> 
> I do like you, even though - so far - I don't think you and I have ever agreed about anything!
> 
> I do NOT believe that I am so gormlessly dumb that I am incapable of understanding anything, ergo where do thee & me go about this one, my friend?
> 
> So far, my impression is is that I am having to explain myself in terms that I would think are pretty idiot-proof. OK. So am I as thick as a wall or are you just an MCP, mate?
> 
> Now - get on with it. Read what I _said_ instead of whatever you seem to have assumed, I suggest.
> 
> I am certainly getting the impression that the men who drive around on large ships are all MCPs, though I did NOT get the same impression from the men who worked at the MCA. I think the latter had figured out that they were likely to get legally slaughtered if they tried to be MCPs, plus I think that the MCA guys were nice enough to understand that I don't know about large ships but I was (and remain) curious. So what's wrong with that?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gill


What the hell!!!!!!!

Gill - you got it *wrong *- I tried to explain in easy terms with no patronising- what the hell is your problem.


----------



## callpor

My earlier comments were based upon concerns generated by a presentation made by Phillip Wake, Chief Executive of the NI, at the IUMI Annual Conference in Zurich last year. The slides from his presentation: " The Navigational Challenges of Offshore Windfarms", can be viewed at http://www.iumi.com/index.cfm?id=7294 where you will note that there are plans in place to straddle a number of major shipping lanes with wind turbines. You may then understand the concerns this raises.


----------



## Gollywobbler

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Ok try it this way:
> 
> Firstly just forget about the differing costs of producing and any incentives that are given to new technology.
> 
> The Grid - this is the supply network and the power getting put into it (by power stations) equals the power getting taken out of it (by consumers)
> 
> If the demand goes up then the suppliers all start to produce more energy to match that demand. and vice versa
> 
> Now as they are all joined together any increase or decrease in load will be shared amongst the suppliers. Therefore the more suppliers that are connected the less the the change in load per supplier
> 
> Now if we were to say take all the wind power in one massive turbine that produces 2.5 % of the total available power and put this on to a grid with 99 other suppliers and take a look at your day three.......
> 
> All that will happen is that the 99 other stations will share a 2.5 % reduction in their demand which = 0.0253% each and even if that 2.5% is more expensive then it would still only comprise a small percent of the total bill.
> 
> Where you are going wrong is thinking that wind can supply 100% of the energy requirement - it cant, there is no possibility of the grid receiving more energy than it a can use - in fact the biggest worry is it not being able to supply the demand


Hi SM

I hear you and in a civilised world, I'd agree with you. 

My late father was an electrical engineer. When WWII ended, he got a job with Balfour Beatty. The job involved Dad living in Malaysia, ensuring that all the tin-mines and all the towns in Perak (a State - the tin-mining State because in Malay, Perak means silver. I've held paperweights made of solid tin and it DOES look exactly like sterling silver, plus the weight is about the same, though my guess would be that tin is heavier than silver) were supplied with enough electricity, all the time. 

Apparently the risk was that if the tin-mines were not supplied with enough 3-phase power then they would not be able to run the dredgers, the huge water-blasters (that the Chinese used for open-cast tin mining) or the huge pumps to control the water in a tropical climate. Apparently the towns also needed mains power because apparently if the towns were not well-lit etc, there was a significant danger of looting. 

So don't you DARE try to suggest that I don't know why people need mains lecky. I know more about that than you do, mate. Sure, what I saw was technologically primitive by today's standards, plus it was nearly 50 years ago. Nevertheless, it was REAL and the reasons remain real, even now. 

Now then. The power-stations that supplied the lecky were a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Dad was employed by the Perak Hydro Electricity Company - which was wholly-owned by Balfour Beatty since they had built the relevant dam - back in the 1920s.

There was certainly a dam and a power station at Chenderoh. As far as I know, Chenderoh was the only hydro-electric place by the1950s and 1960s. We lived in Malim Nawar and Kampar - the power stations there were not powered by water. I think they might have been coal. Whatever they were, Dad managed them and I got used to the idea that an Expat Brat lives in strange places, so it is a good idea to be nice to everyone. 

Trust me, it is a very Good Idea to be Nice. That will get you out of a cart-load of problems when push comes to shove. Trying to be spiky and difficult is unlikely to be equally successful, I reckon. 

Equally, if someone else seems to be rearing up at you but you don't understand why, maybe you and they are not coming from the same place? So why not be Nice and try to figure out where the Common Ground is? 

Get on with it, mate, because I'll MAUL you if you don't. I have NOT revealed matters which I regard as intensely personal and private merely because I want to amuse you.

As far as I can gather, the "green energy idea" is nothing more than a political trap. My sister lives in Australia (having married an Aussie 30+ years ago.) Elaine says that she is hearing the same "green garbage."

So? Is there any real mileage in the Green Stuff, or is it all political propaganda? 

Humour me, please. I might not be brainy enough to understand your explanation unless you are kind enough to humour me, after all.....

Gill


----------



## Mike S

Mmmm..........Mike is wondering what happened to his comments in post 16!

SM and Gollywobbles seem to be having all the fun. 

I still say all this money being wasted on ALTERNATIVE power is ridiculous. On a calm windless night during neap tides what are we supposed to do.....rub two sheep together?
Sheeesh!


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Gollywobbler said:


> Hi SM
> 
> I hear you and in a civilised world, I'd agree with you.
> 
> My late father was an electrical engineer. When WWII ended, he got a job with Balfour Beatty. The job involved Dad living in Malaysia, ensuring that all the tin-mines and all the towns in Perak (a State - the tin-mining State because in Malay, Perak means silver. I've held paperweights made of solid tin and it DOES look exactly like sterling silver, plus the weight is about the same, though my guess would be that tin is heavier than silver) were supplied with enough electricity, all the time.
> 
> Apparently the risk was that if the tin-mines were not supplied with enough 3-phase power then they would not be able to run the dredgers, the huge water-blasters (that the Chinese used for open-cast tin mining) or the huge pumps to control the water in a tropical climate. Apparently the towns also needed mains power because apparently if the towns were not well-lit etc, there was a significant danger of looting.
> 
> So don't you DARE try to suggest that I don't know why people need mains lecky. I know more about that than you do, mate. Sure, what I saw was technologically primitive by today's standards, plus it was nearly 50 years ago. Nevertheless, it was REAL and the reasons remain real, even now.
> 
> Now then. The power-stations that supplied the lecky were a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Dad was employed by the Perak Hydro Electricity Company - which was wholly-owned by Balfour Beatty since they had built the relevant dam - back in the 1920s.
> 
> There was certainly a dam and a power station at Chenderoh. As far as I know, Chenderoh was the only hydro-electric place by the1950s and 1960s. We lived in Malim Nawar and Kampar - the power stations there were not powered by water. I think they might have been coal. Whatever they were, Dad managed them and I got used to the idea that an Expat Brat lives in strange places, so it is a good idea to be nice to everyone.
> 
> Trust me, it is a very Good Idea to be Nice. That will get you out of a cart-load of problems when push comes to shove. Trying to be spiky and difficult is unlikely to be equally successful, I reckon.
> 
> Equally, if someone else seems to be rearing up at you but you don't understand why, maybe you and they are not coming from the same place? So why not be Nice and try to figure out where the Common Ground is?
> 
> Get on with it, mate, because I'll MAUL you if you don't. I have NOT revealed matters which I regard as intensely personal and private merely because I want to amuse you.
> 
> As far as I can gather, the "green energy idea" is nothing more than a political trap. My sister lives in Australia (having married an Aussie 30+ years ago.) Elaine says that she is hearing the same "green garbage."
> 
> So? Is there any real mileage in the Green Stuff, or is it all political propaganda?
> 
> Humour me, please. I might not be brainy enough to understand your explanation unless you are kind enough to humour me, after all.....
> 
> Gill



What an odd post, 

You invent slights against you and in your indignation at them you threaten me, then tell me your family history and go on to suggest hidden pasts, but even stranger you talk about polyphase and heavy plant and yet...

you allegedly don't understand how a simple power distrubution network works - which after all is all that I was writing about.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.........................................


----------



## spongebob

Wind,this is getting gastric !


----------



## billyboy

Must admit i am feeling a little flatulent about it.
The wind is free...go stand in a field of sheep or cows. The wind blows a prop round and generates electricity. wheres thew problem?
Maybe if the props were painted green it would help...LOL


----------



## ART6

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Ok try it this way:
> 
> Firstly just forget about the differing costs of producing and any incentives that are given to new technology.
> 
> The Grid - this is the supply network and the power getting put into it (by power stations) equals the power getting taken out of it (by consumers)
> 
> If the demand goes up then the suppliers all start to produce more energy to match that demand. and vice versa
> 
> Now as they are all joined together any increase or decrease in load will be shared amongst the suppliers. Therefore the more suppliers that are connected the less the the change in load per supplier
> 
> Now if we were to say take all the wind power in one massive turbine that produces 2.5 % of the total available power and put this on to a grid with 99 other suppliers and take a look at your day three.......
> 
> All that will happen is that the 99 other stations will share a 2.5 % reduction in their demand which = 0.0253% each and even if that 2.5% is more expensive then it would still only comprise a small percent of the total bill.
> 
> Where you are going wrong is thinking that wind can supply 100% of the energy requirement - it cant, there is no possibility of the grid receiving more energy than it a can use - in fact the biggest worry is it not being able to supply the demand


I don't want to get in the way of a good fight, but given your example above (and the point you are making is correct) then I have to wonder why anyone bothers with wind turbines at all if they only reduce the outputs from conventional stations by tiny amounts. I have seen figures that suggest the wind contribution to the nation's energy is about 3%, so your figure seems to support that. So the next question must be that since the purpose is, apparently, to reduce carbon emissions, how much _carbon_ do the things save and not how much _electricity_ do they produce. That would permit a straightforward cost/benefit calculation perhaps?

On the subject of efficiency, a wind turbine may be only 25% efficient, but then a conventional power station, depending upon its fuel, is generally between 25% and 30% efficient. The conversion of one source of energy into another is always inefficient unless it is nuclear.

Personally I think wind farms are an environmental blight.


----------



## 40907

spongebob said:


> Wind,this is getting gastric !


Oh stop frting about, you old windbag! (Jester)


----------



## NoR

The trouble is that wind turbines are a political issue, not a practical one. If the practicalities were a consideration there would hardly be any turbines. This is a bit like the giant plastic wheelie bin issue, some dim politico has decided that these things are a necessary part of the 'green agenda' And now the planet is infested with them, you can see them on tv in the US, Australia, NZ....everywhere! As probably one of the few people on her to have driven a dustbin lorry, I can tell you for a fact that it is a least twice as fast to collect rubbish in bags rather than the new plastic bins.
the point of this rant is to say that the 'Green' issue is a hot political bandwagon........err sorry 'potato', so we can expect to see all kinds of daft emanations of it incl. Windmills and giant wheely dustbins. Rest assured that someone is making money out of it.


----------



## ART6

NoR said:


> The trouble is that wind turbines are a political issue, not a practical one. If the practicalities were a consideration there would hardly be any turbines. Windmills and giant wheely dustbins. Rest assured that someone is making money out of it.


Dead on. Political naivety and a nice profit from the public purse is as good a justification as any for wind turbines. As SM has pointed out, a wind farm is likely to be only 25% efficient, and as I pointed out earlier a conventional power station is little more so. But there is an alternative: A combined heat and power plant can achieve efficiencies of up to 80% -- a much better investment prospect. So, in my book, logic would indicate financing (perhaps by tax incentives) industrial estates around power stations where the waste heat, and steam and hot water services are supplied to the companies based there. That way those companies don't burn fossil fuels to create their own services -- they buy them from the central power generator.

A good example of this concept is the very large Slough Trading Estate west of London. Their power station supplies all services to the estate and has done for many years. Some years ago they converted their boilers to fast recirculating fluid beds that could burn almost anything, and they installed a power station extension to burn solid refined fuel (SRF) made from commercial and industrial wastes (my company designed the SRF production plant for the site). Nowadays the plants burn SRF and waste wood chip in vast quantities, and virtually no fossil fuels.

Taking this concept further, the UK creates around 30 million tonnes of municipal and 60 million tonnes of commercial and industrial wastes every year, and given modern processing plants most of those could be converted into clean SRF biofuels instead of being buried or "recycled" at outrageous cost. The technology for doing so was developed in the UK in the late 1970s and is robust and environmentally sound. So why isn't there more of it? Why not many more Slough Trading Estates? Because in the mid 90s the politicians gold plated a European Directive in such a way as to kill the developing industry. 

Now the same politicians are crying out for the biofuels that they would have had in plenty if they had kept their noses out of an area they and their civil servants didn't understand, and they would have also solved (or avoided) the UK's growing waste disposal problems as well. Instead of investing in that industry they now insist on funding and building more wind farms that can never make any worthwhile contribution to the national requirements. If I ever needed evidence of just how vacuous British politicians can be, this is it!


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

ART6 said:


> I don't want to get in the way of a good fight, but given your example above (and the point you are making is correct) then I have to wonder why anyone bothers with wind turbines at all if they only reduce the outputs from conventional stations by tiny amounts. I have seen figures that suggest the wind contribution to the nation's energy is about 3%, so your figure seems to support that. So the next question must be that since the purpose is, apparently, to reduce carbon emissions, how much _carbon_ do the things save and not how much _electricity_ do they produce. That would permit a straightforward cost/benefit calculation perhaps?
> 
> On the subject of efficiency, a wind turbine may be only 25% efficient, but then a conventional power station, depending upon its fuel, is generally between 25% and 30% efficient. The conversion of one source of energy into another is always inefficient unless it is nuclear.
> 
> Personally I think wind farms are an environmental blight.


Its an odd one - for me it is not the relative efficiencies that are the issue it is - how would I put it - the specific square meterage!!!!

Which is my odd way of saying that they take up a lot of space per kWB\)
I am not the biggest fan of onshore plant but they are not always a blight. Offshore - they are a very interesting prospect indeed - and there is a lot of space as well.
No one for a second thinks that they are a solution to all our ills but any sensible strategic power system will include a variety of power sources and I see no reason why we should not make use of the wind and water resources when they are avaiable


----------



## ART6

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Its an odd one - for me it is not the relative efficiencies that are the issue it is - how would I put it - the specific square meterage!!!!
> 
> Which is my odd way of saying that they take up a lot of space per kWB\)
> I am not the biggest fan of onshore plant but they are not always a blight. Offshore - they are a very interesting prospect indeed - and there is a lot of space as well.
> No one for a second thinks that they are a solution to all our ills but any sensible strategic power system will include a variety of power sources and I see no reason why we should not make use of the wind and water resources when they are avaiable


I take your point SM, and the space per square meter of ground is not a way of looking at it that I had thought of. Agreed that there would be plenty of space for wind farms offshore, but I would think the cost of siting and maintaining them there would be huge. Let's face it, the sea is not a very forgiving environment for man-made constructions. So perhaps a yet further way of looking at the issue is in terms of lifetime cost per kW? 

Would those things be built on land or at sea if there was no government subsidy? I don't know, but I doubt it. If they have to be massively subsidised because their lifetime costs are too high to be economically viable, then they are not, in my view, the way of fulfilling the green agenda.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

ART6 said:


> I take your point SM, and the space per square meter of ground is not a way of looking at it that I had thought of. Agreed that there would be plenty of space for wind farms offshore, but I would think the cost of siting and maintaining them there would be huge. Let's face it, the sea is not a very forgiving environment for man-made constructions. So perhaps a yet further way of looking at the issue is in terms of lifetime cost per kW?
> 
> Would those things be built on land or at sea if there was no government subsidy? I don't know, but I doubt it. If they have to be massively subsidised because their lifetime costs are too high to be economically viable, then they are not, in my view, the way of fulfilling the green agenda.


All energy is going to go up in price for the foreseeable future so there will come a time that there will be a crossover in cost!!!

For me its a question of scale - the more there are the more cost effective they become.

Again I view it as a stop gap measure but also a developing technology. In the future I could maybe see Fusion being the main provider with wind etc. for remote areas - a village could say have its own turbine/battery / inverter set with a back up.

As an engineer it is an interesting technology to watch developing, as a shipping company guy it is an area we are looking at and as a man who believes we should tread lightly and carefully on the Earth it is just nice to see. 

I don't get too worked up about it to be honest, I suppose there is a sort of irony in burning fossil fuel in order to get somewhere to appreciate nature


----------



## ART6

Satanic Mechanic said:


> As an engineer it is an interesting technology to watch developing, as a shipping company guy it is an area we are looking at and as a man who believes we should tread lightly and carefully on the Earth it is just nice to see.
> 
> I don't get too worked up about it to be honest, I suppose there is a sort of irony in burning fossil fuel in order to get somewhere to appreciate nature


The one thing I would agree with wholeheartedly is that burning fossil materials as fuels is madness when those limited resources can provide so much else that we need. Humanity _must_ find other ways of generating power before it's too late. I'm just not convinced that wind farms are more than a distraction.


----------



## Malky Glaister

Hi SM I would give up trying to explain the Grid. I doubt if the control room in DRAX would notice if all the wind farms in the UK supplied full power but if all the nations kettles go on during a break in a gripping episode of Corrie, well that's a different matter.

A grid is a Class 56 locomotive!!

regards Malky


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Malky Glaister said:


> Hi SM I would give up trying to explain the Grid. I doubt if the control room in DRAX would notice if all the wind farms in the UK supplied full power but if all the nations kettles go on during a break in a gripping episode of Corrie, well that's a different matter.
> 
> A grid is a Class 56 locomotive!!
> 
> regards Malky


Hence the ant and elephant analogy[=D]


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

It has been suggested by some on here that GW is indeed BD and how she (he) managed to bring up so much about the CG on this particular thread and at the same time pleading her (his) ignorance on how the grid worked beats me. Further compounded by her (him) jumping down your throat about power stations, family members etc etc. 

by the way, day 3, would probably generator no power as they, the turbines have to be stopped in strong winds. 

as for a blight on the land scape, how about putting them all on the island (s) of your ancestors that have no tree's on them due to the daily winds or better still put them on the beach (s) that the puffers used to come into, no puffers now, very few tourists, few locals and they now have spray nozzles on the turbine towers to spray toxic chemicals onto the leading edges of the blades to remove the bugs and dead bird bits. 

I think I read somewhere that under Blair he decided that the UK should generator 20% of its energy needs from "alternative" sources. This would require something like 30,000 wind turbines and at the present scale it would take 40 years to achieve that.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

MARINEJOCKY said:


> It has been suggested by some on here that GW is indeed BD and how she (he) managed to bring up so much about the CG on this particular thread and at the same time pleading her (his) ignorance on how the grid worked beats me. Further compounded by her (him) jumping down your throat about power stations, family members etc etc.
> 
> by the way, day 3, would probably generator no power as they, the turbines have to be stopped in strong winds.
> 
> as for a blight on the land scape, how about putting them all on the island (s) of your ancestors that have no tree's on them due to the daily winds or better still put them on the beach (s) that the puffers used to come into, no puffers now, very few tourists, few locals and they now have spray nozzles on the turbine towers to spray toxic chemicals onto the leading edges of the blades to remove the bugs and dead bird bits.
> 
> I think I read somewhere that under Blair he decided that the UK should generator 20% of its energy needs from "alternative" sources. This would require something like 30,000 wind turbines and at the present scale it would take 40 years to achieve that.



You mean like this B\)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/14095411


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

I was thinking more about the beaches on the west side of Uist and Benbecula.

what do they mean by "150 full time equivalent construction jobs"

I would certainly think removing 14 turbines standing 145 meters high from their original plans would stop the noise and remove the un-sightly things but hang on, there are still 39 remaining, are they all 145 meters high. 

Maybe move a few down to the Solent would provide some "equivalent" jobs for seafood as well. Great idea MJ, create wind farms around the coast and recruit all of the striking CG's to run them. Put them into government subsidized rescure boats and there would be no need to have CG's and stick antenna's at the top of those 145 meter towers and think of the coverage. 

SM, not sure if you are qualified to answer this, maybe another learned member could, how do the good folks in Lewis propose to join the "grid" if they do not have a connection already. My grandfather was a post man in 1948 so do not try and tell me it is easy.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

MARINEJOCKY said:


> My grandfather was a post man in 1948 so do not try and tell me it is easy.


Don't you DARE (Jester) tell me about of Lewis postmen - my father's first cousin got a BEM for being one in Uig.

Ah but which Uig - you'd need local knowledge for that


----------



## kewl dude

NoR said: I can tell you for a fact that it is a least twice as fast to collect rubbish in bags rather than the new plastic bins.

Not to start any kind of new argument here but at least as practiced in my area this cannot be correct? Prior to switching to the new system each truck had a driver and one or two loaders. They needed to work six days a week in order to pick up everyone’s trash.

Now each right hand drive truck has only the driver who also operates the electro-hydraulic system that picks up and dumps the plastic wheelie bins into the trucks. There are three different trucks to pick up trash, recyclable and yard waste recyclable: collected mowed grass and plant and tree trimmings. 

Each truck has just the one driver/operator although the yard stuff guy has to get out and pick up homeowner owned max 35-gallon waste containers and dump them in his truck. This driver does not sit down when driving rather he stands up as he moves from home to home. He does have a fold down seat for when he is full and headed for the dumpsite. Which around here are indoor urban central collection points where the garbage is repacked into eighteen wheel tractor closed trailer rigs for the trip to the far away dump.

Switching to the new system allowed daily service areas to be nearly doubled in size and the whole deal dealt with in four days versus six. Used to be the trash collection people would have a weekday, often Monday, off for some national holidays; but then have to work the following Saturday and Sunday to catch up.

http://www.edcodisposal.com/video.html#2

This very nice albeit long PR video for EDCO my local trash folks shows HOW recyclable items are sorted via machines and workers. You will also see examples of their trucks picking up and dumping curbside wheelie bins.

Greg Hayden


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

I think some have started on the bottle a bit early especially on the west coast, or are we all engineers in the duty mess talking about everything under the sun as usual. 

actually I am filling time in to charge my iphone battery to answer SM's question, start the clock SM I will tell you in a minute


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

isle of skye would be too easy but then again I liked the following much better

www.uigandbernera.com


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

4 minutes, not bad (*))


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

MARINEJOCKY said:


> 4 minutes, not bad (*))


(Jester)(Applause)

Well done MJ - that was pretty bloody impressive and you not even from those parts - which as it happens are also my favourite places in the whole world and they are indeed as you say not on the Grid (where electricity goes for a wee rest when not required)


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

SM, do not tell "Bantam" that, he is still looking for an Island off North Berwick


----------



## McCloggie

While in no way wanting join in or to start an arguement (not what I do at all) I would point out that firstly wind turbines onshore can create visual pothlution problems. Offshore in this context is of course different.

In addition to that you must take into consideration the payment that landowners get (about 14000 GBP I think) that landowners get for putting turbines on their land.

Secondly I have read in the press that when the National Grid could not/would not take power from wind farms they still had to pay the windfarm owners. This cost is of course eventually passed on to the end user - us!

Finally, like evrything else, a wind turbine has a design life which is about 20 years I am told.

So, while the concept is good, the reality - as normal - is not what it might seem. We really should ask ourselves if wind turbines are the ultimate solution or indeed if we can rely on them.

McC


----------



## reefrat

Ive got green power,,solar panels installed with a generous grant from the govmint, and a nice earner from the power I put back into the grid, measured at source by a dinky little meter showing grid power used and solar power sent into the grid.

But as per previous explanations the grid can only accept my power when it passes through a transformer out on the street,, as more and more of us locals are generating surplus power the transformer can't handle it and to avoid the cost of installing a bigger transformer, the current transformers are being fitted with heat sinks to dissipate this surplus power for which we get paid at twice the price we pay for grid power.. Crazy ?? you bet


----------



## ART6

reefrat said:


> Ive got green power,,solar panels installed with a generous grant from the govmint, and a nice earner from the power I put back into the grid, measured at source by a dinky little meter showing grid power used and solar power sent into the grid.
> 
> But as per previous explanations the grid can only accept my power when it passes through a transformer out on the street,, as more and more of us locals are generating surplus power the transformer can't handle it and to avoid the cost of installing a bigger transformer, the current transformers are being fitted with *heat sinks to dissipate this surplus power *for which we get paid at twice the price we pay for grid power.. Crazy ?? you bet


Ah but the heat you are putting into the atmosphere is carbon neutralB\)


----------



## NoR

ART6 said:


> Now the same politicians are crying out for the biofuels that they would have had in plenty if they had kept their noses out of an area they and their civil servants didn't understand, and they would have also solved (or avoided) the UK's growing waste disposal problems as well. Instead of investing in that industry they now insist on funding and building more wind farms that can never make any worthwhile contribution to the national requirements. If I ever needed evidence of just how vacuous British politicians can be, this is it!


Politicians and civil servants understand very little. Most of them have never had a practical job in their lives.


----------



## barrinoz

I don’t know diddly-squat about electricity apart from the fact that when I plug a gadget into a wall socket it does what it says on the packet. I also know that it’s created by using another form of energy, like water, coal, nuclear fusion/fission etc. Problem appears to be that they’re all natural resources which are either dwindling, dangerous or deadly. Seems to me the problem was created when old Ben Franklin farted about with a kite and a fork on a dark stormy night. Prior to that things mostly got done by man-power, beast of burden, paddle or sail. Steam popped up later and helped with the heavy lifting. The difficulty with electricity is that it’s only good for certain things. Won’t fly a plane, for instance. Combustion engines require a different form of energy. Currently, they also rely on dwindling fossil fuels. Electric vehicles? Only useful if you can generate electricity and provide fuelling points. Also requires vast resources of electricity (again) to manufacture the batteries-another appallingly polluting and dangerous industry. Creating electricity is the problem. Did we just get lazy when old Ben did his magic trick and became the second person in history to utter, “Eureka.” Perhaps we should be looking at alternative forms of energy to electricity to drive our machinery. All we seem to be doing is trying to find ways to make electricity. Are there other ways? Mankind is an incredibly smart creature. Surely we can come up with an alternative.
barrinoz.


----------



## spongebob

Yes Barrinoz, we have to keep trying, what if Stephenson gave up on his engine, Diesel on his ventures, the Wright Brothers, not to forget Faraday and Edison etc? 
What if Whittle whittled instead of thinking of thrust while the rest of us thought more about lust!
Pioneering is by no means over although much of the research is done in a laboratory or on a computer but it still requires the input of men and women with vision.
We are repeatedly told that crude oil is a finite resource and if that story is not true what oil that remains undiscovered is going to be more and more costly to extract.
Right now there are rumours that exploration and extraction of gas and oil in the area off the NZ Taranaki Coast is only scratching the surface but deeper rigs and technology is needed. Like wise the offshore areas of the North Island's East Cape are being seismically surveyed and are said to be full of promise, the ocean south of Stewart Island showed positive signs during the Hunt Petroleum search perhaps 30 to 40 years ago but depths to the ocean floor and prevailing weather conditions still have the would be drillers technically stumped.
If there is oodles more oil to come it wont be within the price range of the man in the street.
Give Australia its due, a give it a go attitude sees them drilling very deep in South Australia down to hot rock territory in order to inject water and retrieve the resulting steam for use in a conventional turbine generator. Huge projects are underway by Shell, British Gas and others to tap deep nonviable to mine coal seams and recover coal seam gas that will be tankered all around the world.
Queensland Company Linc Energy is re jigging the technology for igniting deep seam coal underground and retrieving a gas that will be catalytically converted to deisel and aviation fuel.
Wooly thinking? not really, the Germans did this in a crude way during WW2 and the Russians also used this concept in times before their abundance of natural gas. A highly developed and refined pilot plant based in Chinchilla on Queensland's Darling Downs has been producing deisel from deep seam coal for some time and the entrepreneurial CEO and Major share holder Peter Bond recently drove a car from Queensland to Perth on the end product.
No government cash input involved only a man's commitment and the support of risk taking minority share holders.
Of course I would say that being a small shareholder myself!

The clean up of exhaust emissions from coal fired thermal power stations, perhaps the world's biggest bogie after man's own pollutive indulgences,is being well investigated extending to the extraction of CO2 gases and attempts to store the gases underground.
All this effort is exploratory without guarantee of success but it is better than sitting back and declaring Wind Power as a waste of time, It may be for many applications and although its contribution will always be miniscule it does work well in many places of relatively low demand.
The NZ Antarctic team at Scott Base apparently uses windpower generation with some success .

Then there is many people's obvious answer- Nuclear power generation- great if a country can afford it, maintain and retain it within its boundaries to exacting standards but few countries can afford it at this stage but I am sure that Australians feel well for an eventual nuclear future as BHP Billington continually test drill North of their giant South Australian Olympic Dam Mine to fine more and more yellow cake, perhaps the icing on Aussie's future

Bob


----------



## macca57

For years anyone that criticized the inefficiency of these monsters and quoted that they required backup when the wind failed were derided by the proponents of these machines.
Now the Industry wants the population to pay for gas powered stations that will generate power when the wind turbines can't.
If they (wind turbines)require backup why are we investing in them?


----------



## Gareth Jones

Shhh Macca - No-ones supposed to know that the Coal fired and Gas power stations have to be running in case the wind fails - they take so long to get started they can't be shut down !


----------



## callpor

macca57 said:


> For years anyone that criticized the inefficiency of these monsters and quoted that they required backup when the wind failed were derided by the proponents of these machines.
> Now the Industry wants the population to pay for gas powered stations that will generate power when the wind turbines can't.
> If they (wind turbines)require backup why are we investing in them?


Precisely! (Thumb)


----------



## Nevasa

May I recommend the book _The Wind Farm Scam_ by John Etherington?

It deals with the subject of wind farms in a clinical manner, avoiding all the 'green' hysteria.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

So we should just not bother using a free natural resource to produce *some* of our power. We as a race should just stop trying to develop technologies that can help free us from our fossil fuel requirements. 

No one claims that it will solve all our ills but to write it off completely is a bit harsh


----------



## ART6

macca57 said:


> For years anyone that criticized the inefficiency of these monsters and quoted that they required backup when the wind failed were derided by the proponents of these machines.
> Now the Industry wants the population to pay for gas powered stations that will generate power when the wind turbines can't.
> If they (wind turbines)require backup why are we investing in them?





Gareth Jones said:


> Shhh Macca - No-ones supposed to know that the Coal fired and Gas power stations have to be running in case the wind fails - they take so long to get started they can't be shut down !


What I fail to understand is why logic keeps rearing its head in this thread. Both points made here are _logical_ and that flies in the face of the Green Agenda. Wind turbines generate no CO2 (except in their manufacture and maintenance, when there is actually quite a bit), and the gas, oil, and coal fired power stations that back them up do not create CO2 when they are on low load -- that's a well known fact to be used when you are a politician pressing your "green" credentials, and are not an engineer or even someone with a grain of common sense.

What I believe we must begin to understand is that all this wind power business is a _political_ initiative. It is necessary to allow the great and the good to parade on the world stage and say "We are going to reduce our carbon emissions by 30% by lunch time tomorrow." To do so, funds must be released to encourage a technology that's actually a complete waste of time, but that doesn't matter because we will simply pass the cost onto the consumer of the product whether he bloody well likes it or not. We will studiously avoid calling it a tax, while in reality that's exactly what it is. Spending your money is always much easier than spending mine. 

In addition, think of all of the British industry that will benefit from building and installing these things. Jobs will be created, and the UK will become the centre of excellence in a technology that is actually useless, as sooner or later the very cynical global financial investment industry will realise when the returns (ca.30% pa) do not materialise.

Of course industry then will climb on the bandwagon. I would too if there is money to be made out of it for my shareholders. Burn biofuels and earn Renewable Obligation Certificates that allow you to effectively double the amount that you sell a Megawatt of electricity for (roughly from £45 per MW to £90 per MW, or even £135 per MW for combined heat and power). Create power from wind and yet more subsidies will slide effortlessly into your bank account.

Everyone benefits. The world doesn't heat up and the mastodons in Siberia don't die. Polar bears don't go short of ice floes. (*Oh wait*). The environmental activists hug their trees in delight and the politicians bask in a rosy glow of self-gratification. 

At the bottom of the food chain, of course, is Joe with a wife, family, mortgage. Good old Joe. Here's the bill Joe!


----------



## ART6

barrinoz said:


> I don’t know diddly-squat about electricity apart from the fact that when I plug a gadget into a wall socket it does what it says on the packet. I also know that it’s created by using another form of energy, like water, coal, nuclear fusion/fission etc. Problem appears to be that they’re all natural resources which are either dwindling, dangerous or deadly. Seems to me the problem was created when old Ben Franklin farted about with a kite and a fork on a dark stormy night. Prior to that things mostly got done by man-power, beast of burden, paddle or sail. Steam popped up later and helped with the heavy lifting. The difficulty with electricity is that it’s only good for certain things. Won’t fly a plane, for instance. Combustion engines require a different form of energy. Currently, they also rely on dwindling fossil fuels. Electric vehicles? Only useful if you can generate electricity and provide fuelling points. Also requires vast resources of electricity (again) to manufacture the batteries-another appallingly polluting and dangerous industry. Creating electricity is the problem. Did we just get lazy when old Ben did his magic trick and became the second person in history to utter, “Eureka.” Perhaps we should be looking at alternative forms of energy to electricity to drive our machinery. All we seem to be doing is trying to find ways to make electricity. Are there other ways? Mankind is an incredibly smart creature. Surely we can come up with an alternative.
> barrinoz.


There is of course an alternative -- it's called horses (hence the expression "horse power" as applied to machines). Horses have the advantage that the only fuel they need is grass, so they can dual task by keeping your lawn mowed, and they create a useful byproduct that is great for fertilising roses. They are also carbon neutral and when they reach the end of their useful life they can be eaten.

No electrical machine or wind turbine can do that. B\)


----------



## Ron Stringer

ART6 said:


> They are also carbon neutral...


The ones that I have met have all been significant producers of methane - a far more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2


----------



## Don Matheson

Last CHP (Combined Heat and Power) job I did was in an installation at a leisure centre which used four gas fired boilers, normally three on at a time, Two gas fired heat exchangers and also used electricity for lighting and all other electrical units like swimming pool pumps etc.
Installed a CHP which used around the same gas as one boiler. It provided 126KW of electricity and 175KW thermal.
When running, boilers were not needed, but one always ran for around 6 minutes in the hour just to keep warm, that was the standby. No heat transfer boilers were required as the CHP engine did that but also provided heat for the pool and air spaces. The 126KW electrical load took over the building load thus reducing electricity costs. Once up and running properly, which took a while as it was a council running it, they were amazed just how much monthly bills were reduced and the annual saving would pay for the CHP and installation within three years, win win situation.
Not as enviromentally friendly as wind turbines but it could bang out its 126KW and 175 Thermal KW for the running costs of one boiler.

Don


----------



## eddyw

Nevasa said:


> May I recommend the book _The Wind Farm Scam_ by John Etherington?
> 
> It deals with the subject of wind farms in a clinical manner, avoiding all the 'green' hysteria.


Not so simple. Mr Etherington is in 'climate change denial' and a supporter of nuclear energy. The nuclear lobby do not like wind turbines. He acts as a consultant for Country Guardian.
"The anti-wind lobby took off in 1992 with a group called Country Guardian, which was worried by wind power's potential to damage landscape. It strongly denies accusations of having close links with the nuclear industry (its chair is Sir Bernard Ingham, who is a paid lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels). Its arguments were supported by many conservationists who feared the visual impact on lovely places, but also by old Labourites who supported the unions in Britain's nuclear industry, and others who accurately foresaw that wind power could scupper plans for new nuclear stations."


----------



## Mike S

Interesting point in this anti nuclear movement. 

Are we talking about the old LWR reactors that no one in their right mind would advocate or are we talking about the new Gen 4 IFR reactors that can use up the exiting waste, do not have a propensity to melt down and use 99.5% of the available fissionable material?


----------



## eddyw

Mike S said:


> Interesting point in this anti nuclear movement.
> 
> Are we talking about the old LWR reactors that no one in their right mind would advocate or are we talking about the new Gen 4 IFR reactors that can use up the exiting waste, do not have a propensity to melt down and use 99.5% of the available fissionable material?


Well that's according to the prospectus ( Are they not still on the drawing board and likely to be available only after 2030?) Then again
"Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

* Nuclear waste that lasts a few centuries instead of millennia 
* 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel 
* The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
* Improved operating safety

One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes". As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".

Another set of disadvantages is related to the risk of using metallic sodium as a coolant. In case of a breach, sodium explosively reacts with water. Fixing breaches may also prove dangerous, as the noble gas argon is also used to prevent sodium oxidation. Argon is an asphyxiant, so workers may be exposed to this additional risk. This is a pertinent problem as can be testified by the events at the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Monju at Tsuruga, Japan"


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

We can pontificate all we want about nuclear fission power and how good it is in reality - and I write as a supporter of it. But that fact of the matter is that after the whole Japan Tsunami incidents they are going to be in the bad books for years to come no matter how many reassurances you give.


----------



## PAULD

To me if politicians and civil servants are getting involved then its never going to be efficient, cost effective, or practical.

Would you let politicians or civil servant design a ship?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

PAULD said:


> Would you let politicians or civil servant design a ship?


Seen it done - could write a book(Thumb)


----------



## Manchego

Don't know whether it is of any interest in this context, but it costs you nothing to look - http://www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf


----------



## JonHare

I have heard that offshore windfarm installations can be of great benefit once bedded in. As the structures attract marine growth thus helping the ecological environment around the farms. As this attracts marine wildlife thus could in future become marine nurseries for fish and other marine wildlife. As fishing around wind farms is probaly unworkable due to obstructions etc underwater. So it is pretty much a protected environment for fish is concerned so could be seen as marine sancturaries. Allowing fish to grow then spread out so fish populations could become more viable. 

Something along them lines was explained by Kate Humble on BBC Springwatch (or off shoot) program a couple of months ago.


----------

