|
U-Know! Forum » Wind Farm to be placed at 'Ancient' Site |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 14:55
|
||
|
> > What I'm trying to say is, wind power is just > pissing in the wind as far as green electricity > consumption goes. Real money needs to be > invested in wave power, but it just ain't going > to happen. > i don't actually have the time today (sadly) to argue this point; but i'd have to disagree with it. Tidal power is another possible piece in the alternative fuels jigsaw; but it has sever limitations itself. Also, the idea that wind farms are being chosen in the UK for profit motives doesn't hold up when you examine the accounting (and especially given the huge subsidies provided in Norway and Germany for the same technology). Every bit of research i've carried out points to wind-power as being far and away the best localised energy solution for the countries on the East Atlantic Coastlines. The maintenance issues with tidal power (brine corrosion being just the most obvious of a large number) make it FAR more energy intensive to run than wind, and slightly more to install (per unit of power gained). I'm not saying that further research wouldn't lower the ERoEI of tidal power, but the same can be said of wind and solar.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 14:55
|
||
there's a lovely windfarm in Norfolk at Winterton (just thought I'd mention it as it totally made my mind up in favour of them)
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 15:00
|
||
|
umm... i meant to say that further research may RAISE the ERoEI of tidal / wave power. Not REDUCE it. Obviously if there's some research that lowers the efficiency of an energy source, then it's probably best not to carry it out :-)
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 15:44
|
||
some clarification on cover and conserve. Basically, they excavate the site, catalog and photograph everything, then cover it up again. Which is what they will probably do here.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:22
|
||
A term used by some achaeologists who don't like the practice is "Cut and Shut"
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:23
|
||
The west coasts or Ireland and Scotland combined have the potential to power half of Europe through wind alone - or so I've read. Seems high until you stand on a Mayo hill top!
|
|||
Kammer 3083 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:28
|
||
|
> I'm not saying that further research wouldn't > lower the ERoEI of tidal power, but the same > can be said of wind and solar. That's my point (I think). The research has been disproportionately biased towards wind power (and solar power outside Europe), so yes, it's more efficient than the alternatives. Tidal power is environmentally contentious, whereas wave power has relatively few drawbacks in environmental terms. Granted, wave power is logistically very tricky (they ran into serious difficulties during the eighties with generators breaking up in rough weather), but we haven't done enough research to right it off. There's now't in it for our European pals, so if the UK doesn't invest in wave power research, it will continue to lag behind wind power. Kammer x
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:43
|
||
|
I've tried to confirm that stat. It seems to be 'just pulled out of the air' (excuse the pun) though. I suspect it's a long way from the truth, but wind power is - without question - the best option for localised power generation in Northern Europe. I accept what Kammer says about a lack of research into wave / tidal energy. However, i think you're dreaming if you imagine that much investment has been pumped into *any* alternative energy source of late (with the exception of nuclear fission, if you consider that 'alternative'). The reason wind power is surging ahead is not because "people have chosen to invest more", but rather because the ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is demonstrably higher with wind turbines than with any currently understand tidal or wave technology. And ERoEI *has* to be the criterion upon which we judge the success of any alternative energy source. Everything else is just pissing in the wind (sorry, couldn't resist that second pun). So yeah, here's the solution to Northern Europe's energy problems... ready? Every village takes charge of it's own power generation. Government grants are provided; both for the building of the wind farm and the training of local people in running, maintaining and repairing the equipment using locally available resources. The major cities remain on a national grid, burning Natural Gas for an interim period. However, the local windfarms (owned by the village / town which runs it) can expand if they wish and sell power into the national grid; eating into the fossil energy percentage. The incentive to expand alternative energy systems - when given to small groups of local technicians - will be higher than when given to a bunch of 'shareholders' (in my opinion), and we can begin the transition away from fossil fuels. (and Kammer, i don't discount wave / tidal completely... but i do believe that this issue is a lot more urgent than most people are willing to accept; and the ERoEI of wind is enough *right now* to begin a transition. The sea doesn't offer us that yet... and having listened to one too many "fusion evangelists", i've decided that we need to be looking at solutions provided by _current_ technology). Tune in next week for my "How To" Guide on how to transition away from a car-culture. :-)
|
|||
|
Kammer 3083 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:45
|
||
|
In Scotland wind farms are few and far between compared to Wales (in proportion to the overall land mass). Not sure why this is, but I suspect it's a combination of politics and the cost of infrastructure. As for my Norfolk comment, my point was that areas like Norfolk are pretty good for wind generation (look how well the Dutch have done with similar terrain) but they're not getting much in the way of wind farms. This is in part because hilly areas even better than Fenland for regular high winds, and the greater the wind, the greater the profit. Avoiding areas like Norfolk is also a good way of minimising the negative publicity that any new wind farm generates. By focussing on sparsely populated areas, the level of objection is minimised. Is this a bad thing? It has the potential to be a bad thing, because counties like Ceredigion and Powys are now liberally splattered with wind installations (I counted 11 farms from the top of Pumlumon Fawr). It sets the local populace against wind power, because they're shouldering a disproportionate number of installations. An even spread of wind installations would make more sense to me, perhaps including more built up areas. Nationalise the wind farms, chuck in some wave power, get people to stop pissing away their electricity, and we could really start decommissioning fossil fuel powered stations. K x
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 16:53
|
||
|
I have the report done for the Irish wind power projects at home. It does state the calculated possible output, but the top figure would involve so many turbines that the island may well take off!! I'll look it up later and let you know what they reckon. The biggest drawback to the growth in Ireland is the relative cost. Fossil fueled electricity prices do not include the peripheral costs (hospital care for asthmatics etc) and so appears cheaper. The wind generated electricity is expensive in Ireland. You can ask to have XX% of your electricity from the wind farms, but it costs more than normal power (and it's subsidised!). However, all the money you pay for it is garrenteed to be put back into wind power development. Not a perfect scheme, but not a bad one either.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
