Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Wij]

Let's try another way:

The London Array is a 620 MW wind array. It covers 1200km2.

To allow for the capacity factor of wind the UK would need 76 GW of wind capacity. Ignore the gas plant.

76000 / 620 is 122.6. So we'd need a shade over 120 of these arrays.

120 x 1200km2 is 144,000km2.

The size of Great Britain is 230,000 km2.

144 / 230 = 0.626.

So we'd need to cover 62.6% of Great Britain.

Sorted

 

[Raven]

...and how much of what's left would be covered by gas plants to cover days when its not very windy?

Well actually it wouldn't matter because there would be no room for stuff that uses the power anyway!

 

[Tom]

[quote="Wij, post: 3976321, member: 601"So we'd need to cover 62.6% of Great Britain.[/quote]


Just to put that into context, 7% of the UK is urbanised. But the area that's actually built on is 2.27%.

 

[Raven]

Yeah because houses are all we use the land for.

Agriculture is around 70% btw.

 

[rynnor]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about wind is its finite.

If you harness it enough you can deplete it - you cant literally build wind turbines everywhere because after a certain distance from the shore you would barely get any wind having depleted its energy.

I will have to dig up 'without hot air' for his estimate of the potential.

 

[Job]

Its been worked out..we' d need all the windturbines in the world on our coast and land plus every lake in Britain would have to be turned into hydro electric storage.

 

[Scouse]

This would not be a big problem if wind got cheap enough so it was producing under ~£40/MWh unsubsidised but it is a problem if it is producing at ~£100/MWh subsidised.

New nuclear build at Hinkley.

£90-93/MWh subsidised, guaranteed for the next 40 years - with zero cleanup, storage or decomissioning costs.

Those costs are being picked up by the mugs - us.

 

[rynnor]

New nuclear build at Hinkley.

£90-93/MWh subsidised, guaranteed for the next 40 years - with zero cleanup, storage or decomissioning costs.

Those costs are being picked up by the mugs - us.

Not a bad deal tbh - thats going to be chickenfeed in 30 years time - we still wont have fusion or other cheapvmeans of production in that timescale.

 

[Scouse]

Not a bad deal tbh - thats going to be chickenfeed in 30 years time - we still wont have fusion or other cheapvmeans of production in that timescale.

That, of course, will go up in line with inflation. Decomissioning and disposal costs are rising. Wind is coming down in price (and doesn't have a 40-year guarantee - wind (onshore and the more expensive offshore) is being renegotiated on a 15-year cycle as costs are projected to fall continuously).

So at the moment costs look reasonably equal - as projected...

...now, if we could only do something with that waste, eh?

 

[Raven]

New nuclear build at Hinkley.

£90-93/MWh subsidised, guaranteed for the next 40 years - with zero cleanup, storage or decomissioning costs.

Those costs are being picked up by the mugs - us.

Common sense prevails. Or would you rather we bulldozed Norfolk and filled it with wind farms?

 

[Raven]

...now, if we could only do something with that waste, eh?

We can get those lads who are working out where we get our power from when it isn't windy to get on it ASAP.

 

[rynnor]

Wind is coming down in price.

No - the unit cost to produce a wind turbine may be decreasing but all the best sites are gone so now they are looking at the less attractive ones - either too remote or with lower average wind or in areas that will mean a lengthy planning dispute - all with greater costs.

As the percentage of wind power increases more shadow capacity has to be created for the unwindy days = greater cost.

All of this costs and all has to be maintained forever - some of the big turbine blades only last a decade for example.

 

[soze]

I think the wind farm off Clacton ended up costing a fair bit more than they were ready for. As they had to change the motors to allow them to generate in low wind conditions but that now means they have to be turned off when it is too windy as it risks them catching fire. Also the blades have been changed already on some of them because of bird damage or something.

Also the maintenance company rip the piss on going out there to do any work.

Wind power with its guaranteed purchase price and subsidized installs are a better return that Nuclear. I would bet EDF could make more profit from filling Scotland with wind-farms than they do on the power station which is set to make 10% profit over its life.

 

[Raven]

Not to mention most of the parts are shipped from China at whatever cost (both financially and energy use)

 

[Exioce]

Let's try another way:

The London Array is a 620 MW wind array. It covers 1200km2.

To allow for the capacity factor of wind the UK would need 76 GW of wind capacity. Ignore the gas plant.

76000 / 620 is 122.6. So we'd need a shade over 120 of these arrays.

120 x 1200km2 is 144,000km2.

The size of Great Britain is 230,000 km2.

144 / 230 = 0.626.

So we'd need to cover 62.6% of Great Britain.

Sorted

Er, the 630MW phase 1 of London Array covers 100km2, so you're out by a factor of 12. Also it's offshore, and nobody is suggesting we get 100% of our power from wind, so your 60% figure is facetious in a number of ways.

 

[Ctuchik]

Yes. But it's not like new build has zero decomissioning or disposal problems. Yes, they've got smaller unsolvable problems - but they're still unsolvable problems.

And the renewables we have now doesn't have those? Sure they don't have to worry about radioactive waste cleanups, but that doesn't mean that THEIR unsolvable problems aren't as bad but in different ways.

Every alternate solution available at the moment has it's own issues (the most frequent one being the space needed to make it viable), one of them just happens to not be radioactive. But the problems they do have isn't any less dangerous because it's impacting local wildlife and the nature in a far more direct way. So it's kinda like choosing between the plague and cholera with what we have now...

Just because something is "green" doesn't mean it's harmless.

 

[Embattle]

Simple fact is that Nuclear is cheaper per MW generated compared to the offshore wind farms that are the used in the UK for visual reasons.

 

[rynnor]

Simple fact is that Nuclear is cheaper per MW generated compared to the offshore wind farms that are the used in the UK for visual reasons.

The very simplest fact is that of Wind and Nuclear - only one can actually supply the constant power we need - end of story.

 

[Embattle]

I've said it many times before whenever the loonies appear in real life and FH, I support green energy but the reality is they aren't ready to take over yet. I've also stated many times ideally you need massive investment in the R&D of green power particularly in the storage of power, probably a matching figure of what is required for new nuclear.

 

[Embattle]

In the press conference they just had Ed Davey claimed it would take 6000 wind turbines to match the new reactors output.

 

[Scouse]

Not to mention most of the parts are shipped from China at whatever cost (both financially and energy use)

The price of energy (double the current already inflated wholesale cost) that future consumers will be paying for Hinkley will be a 1bn a year subsidy to who? Oh yes - the Chinese government - who's effectively doing the borrowing for us, because the treasury won't stump up the cash to do it itself.

But don't worry - I think the plans still have to be ratified by the EU because of the levels of subsidy involved. So it still may come to tatters.

The "cover the landscape in wind farms" argument is bullshit (as Exoice has ably demonstrated) - and the governments own figures show that Nuclear and Wind - both onshore and offshore - will cost about the same. Onshore wind being cheaper, offshore wind being slightly more expensive in the short term - but with wind being the technology that's getting cheaper.

The figures they use are for meeting demand (and factoring in keeping the stock maintained rynnor). Not falling short. And nobody seems to acknowledge the very sound argument that if we went all-in for renewables their price/MWh would fall dramatically.


Face it folks. Nuclear, at best, costs the same as renewables and has an unsolveable disposal problem.

 

[leggy]

The phrase for today is "Generation Mix". This isn't an argument that can be won, because it is fundamentally flawed; no one in their right mind hedges their bets on a single tech or method of generation. We are trying to protect ourselves against energy insecurity and gas prices which force us to mothball plants, while trying to meet increasing energy demands (created by the consumer). Let's stop deluding ourselves that wind alone can replace aging coal and gas plants which are currently LOSING money. Remember, Generation is a business now and whether we like it or not companies will not make unprofitable capital investments. Do you think we'll continue to build wind parks when the trade of Renewable Obligation Certs is no longer profitable?

Incidentally, arguing about energy prices being too high and slamming the big six for profiteering is crazy when we are happy to accept stupidly high food prices from Tesco; who rob us on a daily basis and force us to discard 300,000 tonnes of the same overpriced food - annually.

 

[Embattle]

But don't worry - I think the plans still have to be ratified by the EU because of the levels of subsidy involved. So it still may come to tatters

Utter tosh, they will say nothing considering the actual subsidy isn't known in this case since it'll depend on the market price at the time. Plus if you know anything about the subsidy game you would know that there are vast sums given in many European countries for various green energies etc - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...ity-threatened-by-renewable-energy-subsidies/

 

[Scouse]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...ity-threatened-by-renewable-energy-subsidies/

From a guy who blogs at Forbes who's previous articles include "Forget Eagle Deaths - Wind Turbines Kill Humans" and "Wind Energy Gets Away with Murder".

The figures are open, and in. There's not much to choose from between them in terms of cost. And all along I've said it's the unsolveable disposal issue with it's never-ending cost basis, and the fact that the UK taxpayer foots all of that risk and all others, that's the big issue...

 

[Embattle]

There are plenty of links about German subsidies for Wind and other such subsidies if you prefer a non Forbes one.

 

[Scouse]

There are plenty of links about German subsidies for Wind and other such subsidies if you prefer a non Forbes one.

I'm not, and have never, disputed there are subsidies for wind. There are also subsidies for Nuclear. But at least wind has a decreasing cost profile, will be renegotiated in 15 years (not 40), and doesn't have nuclear's problems..

 

[Embattle]

My reference was to your comment about the EU, but feel free to go else where as normal.

 

[Scouse]

My reference was to your comment about the EU, but feel free to go else where as normal.

Sorry, in between CS:GO so I lost thread. My bad

But yep. Subsidies have been ratified by the EU for wind. And rightly so IMO - nuclear has been being subsidised at much higher levels for half a century and more - and has failed to be what it promised.

 

[Poag]

I'm not, and have never, disputed there are subsidies for wind. There are also subsidies for Nuclear. But at least wind has a decreasing cost profile, will be renegotiated in 15 years (not 40), and doesn't have nuclear's problems..

No but it does have a set of different problems...the key one being unreliability. So we have to have a second set of power producers to provide security in case of low wind output.

 

[soze]

I like this thing about wind being a finite resource. If all of Europe covered themselves with Wind farms and so did Ireland I wonder how much of a effect this would have on England's coastal wind farms.