Beginning of the end . . . .

For discussion, news, comments, questions and information about Crete & Greece.
peebee
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:07 am
Location: Kalyves

Postby peebee » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:30 am

Eleni13 wrote:Or fall down.

[url][http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html][/url]


1 down, only 2619 to go.

Jeffstclair
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: The centre of the universe

Postby Jeffstclair » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:05 pm

I've not read any figures on the costs of building and running large scale wind farms ,( I will later after I've done a few out side jobs ) but from some posts on this thread " they will never in their life time generate as much as it take to build and maintain them" I don't understand how or why any get built . standing in a high wind tearing up 50 euro notes would be cheaper :wink: ...jeff...

Kilkis
Posts: 11619
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:10 pm

A fat bloke down the pub said it so it must be true.

Warwick

filippos
Posts: 5833
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Kalyves
Contact:

Postby filippos » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:31 pm

Without Government subsidies they'd be losing so much money private companies wouldn't build them. As things are, the companies are raking in taxpayer money.

Eleni13
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:13 am
Location: UK

Postby Eleni13 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:49 am

filippos wrote:Without Government subsidies they'd be losing so much money private companies wouldn't build them. As things are, the companies are raking in taxpayer money.


Collected from our electricity bills without an option to decline contributions.

Eleni13
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:13 am
Location: UK

Postby Eleni13 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:50 am

Kilkis wrote:A fat bloke down the pub said it so it must be true.

Warwick


Many eminent scientists also say it, but are drowned out by the commercial interests.

NTABID
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:41 pm
Location: Saddleworth / Apokoronas

Postby NTABID » Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:38 pm

The broken-down windmills and windpumps on Lasithi used to be in the guide books, so maybe...

George
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:59 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby George » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:58 am

There's a lot of negative press concerning windfarms, but what else is there? Do we just start building new nuclear reactors everywhere and to hell with the consequences?
Wind farms are a temporary, ongoing system, much improved over the past few years. Continued investment will make them better till a better solution comes along. If you walk round a windfarm there aren't mounds of dead birds everywhere - it's actually quite rare for them to get killed.
If you're human you are part of the problem - it's as simple as that.

moved 2 crete
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Kolimbari, Chania

beggining of the end

Postby moved 2 crete » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:51 am

Well said George, plus solar panels. no more reactors.
Dave H

peebee
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:07 am
Location: Kalyves

Postby peebee » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:24 pm

Modern Nuclear reactors are far more efficient than the old ones, and produce far less radioactive waste. Thorium reactors are a possible solution bur are still in their infancy.
Wind turbines on the other hand are extremely inefficient and only produce electricity when the wind is blowing, except when they can't be used at all because it's too windy or they have fallen over.
So on calm sunny days, no leccy, go to the beach :lol:

Kilkis
Posts: 11619
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:23 pm

I'm not sure why people are so concerned with wind turbine efficiency?

In the case of a nuclear, coal, oil or gas fired power station the efficiency is critical because if the efficiency is low we are using up a valuable natural resource for little benefit, i.e. wasting that resource.

In the case of a wind turbine, the efficiency is measured as the useful energy produced as electricity relative to the total available wind energy flowing through the area swept out by the turbine blades. From an economic point of view the higher this is the better but that wind energy is flowing through that area of space whether we harness any of it or not. Nothing is actually wasted. The efficiency has steadily increased since wind turbines were first used and will no doubt continue to increase as the technology matures.

A more useful measure is the cost per kWh compared to other technologies. This has to include construction costs, production costs and any decommissioning costs. Those figures may be a bit different from what people imagine? See for example http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02 ... and-solar/ This example is a pro-nuclear site so we probably suspect that the nuclear figures might be a bit optimistic but it has no advantage to be gained from presenting low wind figures. If you do some searching you will find plenty of sites that quote figures for wind generation that are comparable with other sources. It is also worth noting that the construction costs per kWh are steadily reducing as the number in service increases, as occurs with most products, i.e. economies of scale. If you follow the link for operational costs per kWh for wind from the above link you will also see that the more modern bigger turbines have a much lower operating cost than smaller turbines and much less than older turbines. I suspect that a lot of the negative publicity is based on figures for older turbines.

There is still one major problem for all renewables and that is the problem of storage. The wind does not blow all the time. The sun does not shine all the time. Wave energy is related to wind energy so is also variable and available tidal energy varies with a fortnightly cycle. Non of these are a major problem as long as renewables are providing a small proportion of the total energy consumed, e.g. less than 20 %, but become massive problems as the proportion increases. Storage is relatively easy on a small scale installation, e.g. to power a single dwelling but becomes very difficult as the generation is scaled up.

Warwick

john4d
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Location: Near Vamos

Postby john4d » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:27 pm

Can anyone point me in the direction of a website, preferably official, which produces daily information on any wind farm which shows the installed capacity, the available capacity and the actual output. This might show an instant reading and a daily output. A website which showed this information for all wind farms would show diversity.

John

If this information is not available to the public perhaps I should ask why not?
There's no such thing as a bad taste joke

Kilkis
Posts: 11619
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:04 pm

Not what you want but this http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html shows some information that allows you to compare different generation methods for 2012.

Incidentally a Wiki article on wind farms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm contains the following comment:

"The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months."

The quote is attributed to a published article http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/ ... rength.pdf but the article doesn't seem to be accessible.

Warwick

PS For those who ascribe to the Clarkson philosophy that every fact on the Internet is wrong you might to look at the "Talk" section of each Wiki page to see how much effort goes into trying to make it accurate and backed up by references.

scooby

Postby scooby » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:17 pm

I personally think they are a waste of time, effort and mostly money, but that is just my opinion. There is a link here and I am not bothered who he is and what he stands for etc etc but just came across it and there are lots of links on the page that might be interesting to some. I like the videos involving Jane lol.


http://windpowerfacts.info/

Kilkis
Posts: 11619
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:05 pm

I am suspicious of articles that make exaggerated claims and I tend to especially distrust articles where I find immediate demonstrable lies.

On the first page he states:

"Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance, b) the economics of the power produced, and c) its FULL environmental impact.

All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts."


This is demonstrably untrue. The article I referenced earlier shows that on economic grounds wind generation is cheaper than natural gas, which most people support changing to because it is "cleaner than coal". He also tells direct lies in his own take on global warming. He states that the case for man made global warming "is entirely built upon computer modelling projections." This is blatantly untrue. The main case is based entirely on measurements. The detail of probable outcome is based partly on computer models but the fact that it is happening is well established and even most serious climate sceptics agree with this.

I know you think coal is the answer. The link I referenced earlier tends to support you economically but coal does have negative consequences as well. The economic costs of those negative consequences have not been included in that link and they would tend to make the overall cost of coal more expensive. Would it then finish up higher or lower than wind I don't know. One thing I do know is that the cost of wind generation will continue to decrease as the technology matures. The cost of burning fossil fuels will increase, possibly drastically, as we get (further?) past the point of peak production. Nuclear always tends to be the Marmite solution.

Warwick


Return to “General Discussion & News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests