Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: Bowwave on December 20, 2009, 12:56:47 pm
-
Contracts worth over 2 bn Euros have just been announced paving the way for the construction of Europe's largest off shore wind farm in the Thames Estuary . The supply and constuction of foundations , turbines , cabling will be undertaken by a consortium of German , Danish and Norwegian contrators . A UK company will be responsible for the substation . Forgive me if I have misunderstood what our Prime minister said at the resent Copenhagen Climate summit. This is regarding jobs and business opportunities in the new green technologies and I quote "renewable green technology will provide thousands of new jobs for British industry"?
Bowwave :((
-
The last UK wind turbine manufacturing capacity which was in the Isle of Wight shut down earlier this year.
Apparently their products were not right for British conditions. Wrong sort of wind I suppose.....
Colin
-
Wrong kind of Chunnel too. Wonder if the Alpine rail tunnels get stuck with "condensation in the electrics" ...oh I was forgetting it is a different kind of condensation there. >>:-(
-
Do you ever get the impression the the British public are just being conned by this government and the whole thing is just a means of relieving you of more of your hard-earned cash by way of, so-called 'greenhouse' taxes. >:-o :(( {:-{ >:-o :(( {:-{
I do not believe one word that the lying politicians (of whatever nationality) pass out to us - call me cycnical if you like. >:-o
Derek.
-
My sentiments exactly Derek, even if the jobs were filled by people from these shores, they would probably be the cheap labour coming in from Eastern Europe anyway. I'm afraid I liken our politicians to a bunch of overgrown schoolboys with no idea of what they are doing other than making it up as they go along and taking the public for a bunch of fools. Whatever new ideas they come up with, you can be sure of one thing, the equation will have an 'equals' sign on the end with the words 'win win' in the politicians favour following it.
Cynical? Me.... never.
-
Arghhhh, wind farms being green? improving the carbon footprint!!
how much energy and non replacable rescouces(?) go in to building a turbine? especially the blades?
colin
-
one problem with this: dartford docks
-
how much energy and non replacable rescouces(?) go in to building a turbine? especially the blades?
Actually energy input is repaid within 6 months in a properly sited turbine which will last 20 - 25 years. That is a better Energy Return of Investment than many other technologies including natural gas and coal fired power stations.
Francis Macnaughton
-
Do you ever get the impression the the British public are just being conned by this government and the whole thing is just a means of relieving you of more of your hard-earned cash by way of, so-called 'greenhouse' taxes. >:-o :(( {:-{ >:-o :(( {:-{
I do not believe one word that the lying politicians (of whatever nationality) pass out to us - call me cycnical if you like. >:-o
Derek.
Yes.
-
BY Are you agreeing or calling Derek Cynical ?
Ned :police:
-
Before I gave up the ocean-wave for a better life I now and again ran LSLs up the river to Antwerp. At first glance there were huge wind-farms all over the place. On second glance, none of them were working, even though strong breezes were blowing. Our pilot explained that the cost of maintaining these "monuments" was higher than the income gained from the usage. So they were shut down. The same will probably happen here. BY.
-
BY Are you agreeing or calling Derek Cynical ?
Ned :police:
I agree with Derek. A kinder and less cynical person would be hard to find. BY
-
BY I agree with you
Ther are a large amount of these
off Skegness and you dont seem
to see more than 30% of them
running.
Now we are going to have a large
farm off Spurn
Someone is spending our taxes
willy nilly
-
Thanks for the support Bryan.
Someone is spending our taxes
willy nilly
I don't think he is called Willy or Nilly, I think his first name is Gordon but his middle name is unprintable >:-o >:-o >:-o >:-o.
Derek
-
Before I gave up the ocean-wave for a better life I now and again ran LSLs up the river to Antwerp. At first glance there were huge wind-farms all over the place. On second glance, none of them were working, even though strong breezes were blowing. Our pilot explained that the cost of maintaining these "monuments" was higher than the income gained from the usage. So they were shut down. The same will probably happen here. BY.
The technology has changed for the turbines, look at ther two turbines at Blyth. The power cable wasn't up to the current being produced and only recently been up graded but my understanding was the two turbines were experimental anyway.
Along the tyne where the Neptune yard was has been flattened and Freddie Sheppard is building a new factory to supply the wind farm they want 50 miles off the Tyne on some sand banks.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/05/02/7-5m-wind-turbine-factory-scheme-given-go-ahead-72703-23525864/
-
i think we should invest in Tidal and Nuclear, with older fossil fuel plants replaced with third gen nuclear stations
-
i think we should invest in Tidal and Nuclear, with older fossil fuel plants replaced with third gen nuclear stations
For what I have seen of tidal it is in it's infancy and nuclear why because we haven't looked or invested in to anything else, fossil fuels are getting deeper and harder to get out so we haven't got a great deal of choice.
-
Do you ever get the impression the the British public are just being conned by this government and the whole thing is just a means of relieving you of more of your hard-earned cash by way of, so-called 'greenhouse' taxes. >:-o :(( {:-{ >:-o :(( {:-{
I do not believe one word that the lying politicians (of whatever nationality) pass out to us - call me cycnical if you like. >:-o
Derek.
I shall call you cynical. And be happy to do so.
Without non-fossil fuel energy generation, your grandchildren are doomed, if they expect anything like the standard of life that you are used to.
So - buy into wind, wave, CO2 sequistration and, later, fusion power. Or look forward to a flipping doomy future.
Your choice.
Andy
-
I shall call you cynical. And be happy to do so.
Depends what you believe about 'global warming' - whether it is man made or part of the word's natural cycle and whether anything man, in all his wisdom, can do anything to change it. :(( I have almost reached my allotted span on this earth but I do worry about how things (and not just global warming) will effect my grandson. :((
Derek.
-
Well it's not all doom and gloom. Many of us on here grew up under the shadow of the Cold War and mutually assured destruction - MAD indeed! I was old enough to be frightened by the Cuban Missile Crisis and later on at work in local government I attended a seminar which showed the likely fallout patterns should there be a nuclear atack on the UK. There were not many places where you would have stood a fighting chance of surviving.
At least my kids don't have to worry too much about that these days although they certainly have new and different challenges to contend with.
Colin
-
Depends what you believe about 'global warming' - whether it is man made or part of the word's natural cycle and whether anything man, in all his wisdom, can do anything to change it. :(( I have almost reached my allotted span on this earth but I do worry about how things (and not just global warming) will effect my grandson. :((
Derek.
Derek, show (and explain to your grandson) this:
(http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg)
..and try to convince them "you"'re not responsible? Uh-uh.
Andy
-
Means nothing without an explanation I'm afraid.
There are those who argue that the amount of CO2 is not the critical factor.
Like a lot of people, I would agree that human emissions are having a very bad effect but it's not altogether clear about how they compare with natural emissions from volcanic action for example. You only have to look at a volcanic eruption to wonder how many cars it equates to.
Maybe the answer is less people - how do you deal with that?
Colin
-
Well, all I can say is that I am very pleased to learn that somewhere else other than Wales is getting dumped on/exposed to this innefficient method of generation for a change. Many in England want wind power, but want it as far away as possible from them as it can be!!! - well it seems that way in Wales anyway!
-
I heard somewhere that one of these nests of Turbines and the amount needed to make it a viable alternative for fossil fuel power could change the coarse of the wind or reduce it enough to disrupt weather patterns for those areas down wind. So much for a Climate Change remedy.
-
I understand that this farm is being strategically located.......
There will be no 'wrong type of wind' or wrong direction or insufficient strength because........
Wimpeys have a contract to duct the hot air (of which there is a continuing reliable and predictable flow) direct from the Palace of Westminster, alhough it may have to be filtered to remove any trace of 'by product' solids.
More a 'Brown' strategy than a 'Green' one!
Rex
-
Sweden is big on wind farms but I have never felt that the environmental impact of windfarms is properly taken into consideration during planning applications. The affect on the wildlife population, birds in particular is skimmed over.
http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b2 (http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b2)
http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b1 (http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b1)
I am also not convinced that tidal and current driven water turbines are all good, to create electrical energy they must take energy from the water. To me this seeems to indicate that these natural systems will be adversely affected, reduction in speed and flow, what will this do to the natural environment.
One of the major impact studies done before allowing the bridge from Malmö to Copenhagen was regarding the effect on movement of water through the Sound. If it is considered relevant with a few large legs and a man made island to interrupt the flow why is it not considered relevant when considering the effects of turbine concentrations in the water?
-
The amount of energy the the UK requires will not be obtained from a wind farm of any size. Wind farms can not be the future they need too much energy to be constructed, and the return in energy is pitiful. The only way to support our energy usage is nuclear energy, nothing else at the moment other than fossil fuels will be of any use at all.
Andy
That was a pretty graph, pity it did not tell the truth. I presume it comes from the lies the government and environmentalists put out to make us think we can change nature.
Brian
-
That was a pretty graph, pity it did not tell the truth. I presume it comes from the lies the government and environmentalists put out to make us think we can change nature.
Thanks for that comment, Brian. I was not going to add anything further as I thought it was developing into a vendetta by Dreadnought72 against me for having the temerity to put my thoughts into print and I am not a member of Mayhem to get involved in such. :((
Derek.
-
Apart from nuclear energy, there is little or nothing man can do to produce the vast amount of energy needed to sustain the increasing population and the ever increasing energy it demands. The alternative technologies have never been financially backed up by determined government driven based research. Oil has been their taxable god, all economies are based on oil usage and there is no quick way off the oily slope. Civilised nations can act now to dramatically reduce their energy consumption and pollution by a worldwide concentrated effort to limit and indeed reduce the population such that the demand for energy and resources is equally reduced. It could be achieved by natural wastage and a combined effort to limit the growth by encouraging smaller families. The overall effect would be felt fairly rapidly I would have thought.
Perhaps if there was as much energy put into this kind of thinking as goes into finding ways to support the massive population growth we have experienced, it could bear some fruit. Why is it never put forward as an option, I have yet to hear any politician speak of it, they only appear to be interested in scheming up ways of issuing large contracts to companies, which invariably are foriegn based.
The graphs are all very pretty but I have heard a lot recently to explain that the considerable rise in CO2 levels is not primarily the result of mans activities although we obviously contribute to it. There was a theory put forward many years ago that any small activity which causes a disturbance in the atmosphere could have an accumulative and knock on effect which may manifest itself as a weather pattern change several years down the line. If this were true, I would have thought that something as dramatic as the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests which were going on for many years, would have dramatically affected our weather patterns. Not one mention of this is ever made. We are instead being bombarded with guilt and taxes and stand accused of wrecking the planet by our present day activities.
On the whole, I would say our individual contribution to atmospheric pollution may actually be less harmful since we no longer have coal fires roaring away in every firegrate in the land. We do however as individuals pollute in many other and unseen ways and by the sheer weight of consumerism, all the industries which supply us with goods and energy are themselves polluting the planet on our behalf. Therefore, my logic dictates that a large reduction in our numbers would equate to a large reduction in consumption all round with the effect that pollution would diminish accordingly. I know it appears simplistic, but as the clean technology does not exist to support our number and according to the politicians this has become a worldwide emergency (all of a sudden), then surely reduction of population is the logical, quickest and most effective step which can be made.
-
I agree with you entirely, Sheerline, and the way mankind is heading we will make our own population reduction pretty rapidly with a nuclear strike by one of the many rogue nations and a series of ongoing nuclear 'retaliations'. :(( >:-o May your God (whoever He may be) protect you (and I am not religious).
Derek.
-
I certainly believe we will see a population reduction and in a way we may not like. If we don't create a holocaust by our own hand then certainly nature will. If the apparent climate change were to continue unabated on the lines of that put forward by the 'experts' and politicians, then the change in our natural environment will ensure our numbers will be reduced very dramatically.
When that happens, our pollution level will definately drop and one can only assume that if it were our pollution which caused it in the first place, then nature will slowly repair the damage.
I am not convinced by any figures, grahs or numbers spouted by politicians as it is all coloured by money, greed and manipulation.
l am wary of what government based scientific research produces as I believe that to be maniputated too.
Use your eyes and your senses, they will tell you what is wrong with the planet... it is staring everyone in the face.
-
Use your eyes and your senses, they will tell you what is wrong with the planet... it is staring everyone in the face.
Or just try travelling on the London Underground. >:-o
-
Well I believe the Japanese have a limit as to how many offspring a family can have. As for the technology we have for producing power is in its infinities but we as a people can do what we can to help use more energy efficient items make our homes more energy smart. As for being nuked well there are still countries out there that has nukes and are threatening to use them if they do not get there ways.Nuclear energy has it problems to what do we do with the spent fuel leave it for our children the half life of the fuel is 50,000 years. We need to spend more money on research and less on tiring to fix what we have we need something else what? I'm not sure but I have been doing my small part i and now composting I plan my trips to do as much as possible in the same area. I use reusable bag at the market I try not to printout things unless I really need them. Heck I even use E-books from on-line sites etc... if we all do our part maybe the world will be here for our great great grand children.
Steve
-
I seem to remember in the distant past a former Servant of the Crown stating that we have but 45minutes to stop WMD .?
Perhaps as a fitting reminder another WMD !
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/Turrets1/IMG_2680.jpg)
Windfarm Made Dormant lack of the main ingredient they tell me ? Save us all from this green experiment and it wont be CO2 that will send us all back to penury !!
Bowwave >:-o
-
Steve
I totally agree recycling is a different matter and we should all do as much as possible. Planet earth has finite resources and we should reuse them rather than taking more.
Brian
-
I've been without a computer this past week and a half, so I haven't been able to field my comments on the windmill thing.
Having read over the comments made by the various entrants onto this thread, I've noticed a glaring omission that contributes in a major sense to the cost effectiveness and practicality of windmills as a serious power source. That that omission is the effect of windmills and other such alternate energy power sources on the power system (grid to many). Electrical power systems are run on a generation matches load scenario. That is, you turn on a light motor, whatever, there has to be a generator in the system to adjust upward to supply that extra load. If this is not done, the power system frequency ultimately slows down. If the frequency reduction is enough the grid's clocks will slow down (this means any clock driven by electricity that is not on a battery. Slow the frequency even more, and the electrical power system becomes unstable and , hopefully, automatic load shedding takes place to balance and stabilize the system again.
Most of our electrical systems are traditionally supplied by one or more of the following, nuclear, fossil or hydraulic power. Nuclear power is a base load power source, that is, it takes a long time to change load,particularly in a downward direction, and therefore is kept at a base or constant load, usually at or near full power. Fossil plants are designed to be the same for efficient operation, but can change power outputs relatively quickly. Hydraulic generation is very maneuverable, but is usually run a maximum when the water is available because it is so cheap. This leaves fossil fired plants to look after most rapid load changes inn the power system.
If we go back to windmills, they are subject to the vagaries of the wind. The wind can change hour by hour and minute by minute. Those changes up or down have to be compensated for by the traditional power sources as I mentioned above. The only one capable of doing it and maintaining the system stable are fossil fired plants. This means fossil generation, with the capacity available equal to that of the windmills, has to be on line at all times to adjust for swings in windmill loadings, which is frequent. Therefore, what are we saving from a carbon , fuel consumption or cost standpoint when we can't rely on a constant reliable out put from windmills.
In the Ontario power system, it is seen that windmills only produce about 14 percent of their capacity of the course of the year. Winter has the highest winds, but the windmills still don't approach anywhere near full power output. In summer,when the load requirement is highest, the windmill output is at its least.
Ontario windmills are still being pushed because the government pays for half of their cost and guarantees the builder income regardless of whether the machine produces or not. The farmers want them on their property because they get paid rent regardless of whether the machine produces or not. Who gains, certainly not the consumer and neither does the environmentalist whether you agree with their opinions or not.
Its all a smoke screen for big money from our taxes.
To get an idea of what Ontario's windmills put out on an hour by hour basis check out this web site http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/windtracker.asp?sid=ic
What are my qualifications? I was a power system dispatcher for 15 years.
John
-
Very well said John and i hope you get your computer back soon. :-)) I know wind is not the only answer, it may not be the answer at all but we ( the world over ) need to stop putting our heads in the sand and really look for a new way to power the grid. fossil fuels are running out and killing the planet. I know it will take time to get the governments to see the light and stop feeding the oil and coal pigs money belt and start putting some of that money in to research into new power sources. Maybe inorder to make wind power or solar power more useable it to find a way to store the extera power generated at the low demand times and use that to back up the system during high demand. I know these are very broad statements but we do need to move forward with this fossil fuels are running out faster then we think. O0
any way Merry Chirstmass everyone
-
I just got my computer back. We'll see if a new graphics card helps.
I agree we need another alternate, reliable, energy source, because fossil fuels won't last. An idea ggeorge and I have tossed around is ponding water and letting it generate electricity at peak hours. This is already done at Niagara Falls both on the US and Canadian side. A set of large pumps pump water up into a very large storage pond (a small lake actually) during low peak hours. During peak the water is allowed to run back through the "pumps" which now turn their motors as generators. Its been there for years and works away very quietly and reliably.
The same thing could be done more efficiently with windmills. If head ponds were filled with water, over a period of time using the "cheap" air, electricity could be used at peaks times allowing the base load units to operate at base load making the them More efficient both from a fuel consumption and pollution standpoint. This removes the electrical system form the vagaries of wind power, but takes advantage of the cheap rate. I'm surprised no one has done it yet.
John
-
I read somewhere that less than half of all dams in America (probably in Canada too) are generating stations, the rest are just for 'flood control'.
It would make sense to start looking at hydroelectric add-ons since the dams are already in place and not going anywhere, so the major concern with dambuilding (environmental effect) isn't applicable.
-
I read somewhere that less than half of all dams in America (probably in Canada too) are generating stations, the rest are just for 'flood control'.
It would make sense to start looking at hydroelectric add-ons since the dams are already in place and not going anywhere, so the major concern with dambuilding (environmental effect) isn't applicable.
I don't know of the percentage of flood control dams versus power dams, however, flood control dams are a necessity when a head pond is created. When the water level is raised for a power dam, there are inevitable low areas of ground that the ponding can escape through due to the higher water level. That doesn't necessarily mean these are natural water courses and, indeed, the head may be very little, which means the power available may not be worth the cost of installation and reconiguring the land to form a downstream escape for the water. Too, if other power units are installed in controll dams, that is water robbed form the main power house and a lower overall head level is realized. Its a combination of head level and water flow that determines the output of a hydroelectric generator.
John
-
An idea ggeorge and I have tossed around is ponding water and letting it generate electricity at peak hours. This is already done at Niagara Falls both on the US and Canadian side. A set of large pumps pump water up into a very large storage pond (a small lake actually) during low peak hours. During peak the water is allowed to run back through the "pumps" which now turn their motors as generators. Its been there for years and works away very quietly and reliably.
John
This is done in the UK as well. In fact right next to where the North Wales Mayhem Rally had been held for the last two years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Don B.
-
Hi Guys
Having given 45 years to the electrical industry I would like to add a few commments.
Wind is a waste of money, as stated there needs to be a 'conventional' power station on line all the time to counter the vagarities of the wind.
This is expensive because it means running plant at less than full capacity, something we try very hard to avoid.
Tidal power is a definite contender, as long as the moon stays in the sky the water will flow. Also in this country we
have two tidal systems, the North sea and the Atlantic.
Fossil fuels have a finite life as we know. Nuclear is expensive but would seem the best bet at the moment.
Sewage gas is a renewable conteder. Not much is said about this technology but with our growing population there is no shortage of raw material.
But one other point I would like to make, nature is a balancing act. A tree burns, gives off CO2 and more trees grow using the CO2 as food.
We are attacking nature from both ends, burning fossil fuels and cutting down huge areas of forest.
So perhaps we should invest more in saving and planting the natural combatant to CO2 while we figure out what is the best low emmission route.
I believe doing nothing is not an option but while large countries argue about how much CO2 to cut we could increase forestation to slow the impact.
Cheers
Mark
-
I just read this thread today, and was surprised at how people are being fooled by our government over windfarms. Then I got to John's input and breathed a sigh of relief.
I work in power generation and have been trying to point out to anyone who asks the reality of these windmills. The general public are being ripped off and conned big time.
Ironically, the company I work for has several large windfarms around the UK coast, but also has 7 power stations and a large slice of the future nuclear development.
Its my view that windfarms are seen by owners to be an easy source of income, money comes in as subsidies whether they run or not! And the subsidies are taxpayers money.
Interestingly, B&Q have recently withdrawn from sale windmill turbines for the home because they have been found unable to produce the power as advertised.
Ian
-
Slight tangent but Ironic
One of the guys wanted to/did drop a water turbine in the stream running through his back garden. When this was discovered, Welsh Water wanted to charge him for the privelage.
-
Just a little question.
All my life I've been under the impression that CO2 is heavier than air. If that is so, then why isn't all that gas sitting at about eye-level instead of rising up into the upper layers of the atmosphere? Apart from that, I believe in the theory that it's water vapour that's causing the "problem". BY.
-
Gents,
Before this thread completely degenerates completely into a "let's bash windpower" sub section of the Daily Mail perhaps a few hard facts would be in order instead of the many inaccuracies I have seen so far. Firstly, all energy generation technologies have their good and bad points and wind is no different. True, it doesn't deliver when the wind speed is below the cut-in speed, but a properly sited turbine will typically generate at least some energy for about 80% of the time. The claim that you have to have a conventional generator running at the same time misrepresents the actual situation as seen from the point of those controlling the National Grid. Demand for power varies enormously over the day and, even before wind power came on the scene, there has had to be a substantial margin of spare capacity on line and ready to go to meet sudden increases - think what happens when everyone puts the kettle on at the end of Eastenders or other popular TV programmes. Much of that is done by sophisticated computer modelling of what demand is predicted for each day so that coal or gas fired plant can be ready for the changes of demand but on top of that you need extra capacity that can respond at very short notice to allow for the unpredictable. For that reason the Dinorwig pump storage scheme in Wales (mentioned above) is the most recently built (1980s) but there are 3 others in UK built before that. These can be kept "spinning on air" and immediately ready for the water valve to be opened so that they can deliver a very large output to the Grid in seconds and maintain the frequency stability that Oldiron talked about above.
At the moment the proportion of windpower generation in UK is too small to affect the management of the Grid to any real extent and, as I understand it, the current wind contribution effectively reduces the fuel consumption of the current large generators, like Drax coal powered plant, rather than replace it. As the proportion of wind generation increases, there will come a stage (around 2020?) when the issue of variability in wind generation could affect the safe margin of total available capacity. That is where more pump storage hydro capacity such as Dinorwig could come in very handy. Power links to other countries generation could also help to smooth out the
variability and are increasingly being considered. Trying to keep the current method of grid generation management (which is little changed from the 1930s) just isn't the best way forward and a "smarter" Grid is being developed where non-essential loads (such as some industrial users and also appliances such as fridges and washing
machines) can be temporarily switched off until alternative supply can be activated. This makes sense, not just to accommodate wind power, but also many of the other Renewable technologies such as solar and wave power which are also intermittent in output.
Tidal power was also mentioned and this can make a very useful contribution but every such scheme faces a lengthy and very expensive environmental impact assessment process which is a hefty disincentive for a private company to invest in this technology if there is no guarantee that the scheme will eventually be approved to go ahead. The
costs of off-shore schemes are also much greater than those on-shore and under current legislation they will get twice the Renewable Obligation support (= subsidy) of onshore schemes. Landfill/sewage gas was mentioned by Inkmark and in fact it is currently one of the larger contributors to UK renewable energy production but its actual potential for exploitation has already been largely taken up. And that is the main point about wind power - there are plenty of studies that show that onshore windpower is the cheapest source of renewable generation in UK that has any real scope for growth. Every other technology, including tidal, wave and solar, are all either far more expensive or have a much lower total growth capacity as things currently stand.
On subsidies, sorry boatmadman but the Renewable Obligation is only paid after power has been generated. The subsidy may well be too generous to onshore wind at the very large scale and personally I think that small scale hydro deserves better support than is currently on offer but that is what the government currently has decided and if you disagree I suggest that you contact your MP.
But before you do, I would really recommend that you read David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" which is as good an explanation of this subject as you can find. It is available free as a download at http://www.withouthotair.com/ and he does a good job of making a complex subject readable and even entertaining.
I am not saying that wind is the only solution, only that if we don't exploit it where it makes sense, we will pay more for less than otherwise could be the case.
-
Arghhhh, wind farms being green? improving the carbon footprint!!
how much energy and non replacable rescouces(?) go in to building a turbine? especially the blades?
colin
Regarding "Renewable Energy" We have just received a letter from our Power Supplier saying that our Electricity will cost 14% more this year as they are changing over to such Energy Sources, away from Fossil Fuel, and because of the increased costs of producing Wind Electricity we will have to pay more!! Renewable? How does that work?
-
At the moment the proportion of windpower generation in UK is too small to affect the management of the Grid to any real extent ...
There is little point in trying to describe all the technical issues in a discussion about power generation, when so many people seem to take a semi-religious position.
All I can say is that I worked on a Grid power trading floor last year and had a good opportunity to see how the system worked. And the one thing that stood out was that wind power and our Grid do not match, and the costs of trying to make it match would completely eradicate any possible gain.
Keeping a Grid operational is like blowing into a balloon with thousands of pin-holes in it and keeping it half-inflated within narrow limits. A critical difference which is not greatly appreciated is that electricity cannot travel very far across a grid without incuring unacceptable efficiency losses, so you can't even out demand in the South with energy from Scotland. The major source of instability in the current grid is variable demand, and the one thing you do not want is variable supply as well...
Then ask anyone about wind generation capability during a blocking high, which is the weather we are currently experiencing....
-
Hi Guys
One thing that does stand out is the lack of direction and forward planning that seems to had dogged the industry since privatisation.
The governments of both colours seem to have thought that they could put it all in private hands and just walk away and let
market forces drive the industry. We now see the disparate arguments for various types of generation without it seems a clear lead.
I worked for the old CEGB at privatisation and at that time we had ten or so new power stations planned to cope with the demands of
the next generation. Those plans were binned and various smaller plants, fuelled mostly by gas, sprung up.
We are now faced with an ageing steam fleet, much of which will have to go in the next few years because of the new EU emissions laws
and as we know gas is a finite and sometimes variable supply.
So wind, water or whatever, someone somewhere has got to make the decision to build a lot of generation capacity fairly soon or we
could be in a bit of trouble. We could of course put even more cables across the channel and buy more electricity from France than we do at present.
Cheers
Mark
-
One thing that does stand out is the lack of direction and forward planning that seems to had dogged the industry since privatisation.
Not only power generation and supply. Water, and most other central utilities like roads have also suffered the same way.
While utilities were government run, the service was often inefficient. But they were planned for the long term. In particular, plans for new generators or reservoirs were made depending on population, and budgets were lined up for these.
Now we use private industry. Private industry needs continuous profits, and does NOT want to find money for long-term investment when they may not have the contract in 5 years, let alone 20.
The reason we are getting all these 'green' initiatives to 'save' water, gas, electricity - you name it, is that the providing industry does not want to spend the money building, say, a new bridge or sewage station. It would much rather run with what we have, and get people to use it less while still paying the same amount of money (or more, if it can get away with it!).
More population means more profits even if the price remains the same. What would mean less profits is investment in new infrastructure. So the 'environmental' excuse is being cynically used to suppress demand while charging us more.
In the UK there is no shortage, for instance, of water. There IS a shortage of reservoirs and supply infrastructure. We could provide ten times the current water deliveries to each house and not make any difference to the water cycle so long as the supply services were there. But in practice it is much more profitable for the water companies to put meters in each house, suppress demand, and keep operating without extending the Victorian infrastructure they inherited....
-
Wrong kind of Chunnel too. Wonder if the Alpine rail tunnels get stuck with "condensation in the electrics" ...oh I was forgetting it is a different kind of condensation there. >>:-(
Just a thought, remember the Locos etc for the Chunnel are made by Siemans, which explains why they breakdown. The High Speed trains, (ICEs) in Germany are also built by Siemans, and the wheels fall off! The Tram system in Dusseldorf were designed and built by Siemans, of 45 vehicles only 16 are still running, they have had to bring the old Trams back. The Motorway Toll System was designed and built by Siemans, It was year late and cost 3 times the original quote and breaks down often- The power lines in North germany collapsed, wrong sort of snow. Same as the overhead power lines for the Railways, wrong sort of snow, which also prevented points from functioning, need I say more?
-
I agree with you "doggy". As I mentioned before, I worked for the electric power company in Ontario, Ontario Hydro. The company was a "crown corporation" of the Ontario government. The company's mandate from its inception in the 1920's was "power at cost". This was fulfilled right to the end. However, competing concerns such as the gas companies wanted to get in on Hydro's customer base. This was done by exaggerating Hydro's costs and inefficiencies and getting the government to spin off the company. When they did the British model of "privatizing" the company was followed. The public got sucked into believing private power production would be cheaper. Boy did they get a shock!. Now we have three separate companies for the supply of electricity; the "manufacturer, the high voltage transmitter, and the local transmitter, plus an overall referee to make sure the whole mess works together. Now there is a separate bill from each participating company.
Ontario Hydro used to do major research and development in all things electrical. That is now handled on a piece meal and profit basis by who knows who.
Now with things like wind farms, the public pays for half or more of the erection and operation of wind farms through their taxes and the rest through their bills. On top of that, governmental legislation has waved environmental assessment on all wind farms. The public has no say in when or where they will go, despite the fact various groups have been fighting them.
As an illustration of the inability to get away from increased cost on utilities, the municipality below me, Durham Region, has announced an increase in water rates (urban areas have water meters here) because conservation has reduced the amount of water used. Can't win no matter what you do. Its all a scam I say.
John
-
We should not have to worry about fossil fuel replacement, there are elections every five years; with the amount of dinosaur's in Government there will be a plentifull supply. This includes the members of of my home Parliament.
Howard Q. :-)) ;)
-
Derek
How many elected members of government when they retire have to depend on the state pentsion to live... Most seem to come out of the job millionairs... As for wind farm's The last time I was in Blythe One of the tower's had blown over and 2 or 3 others had shed blades --- The same goes for the one off Great Yarmouth Thousands of ton's of Swedish stone (whats wrong with British stone and if the job was done correctly why is it needed anyway ...Who got the backhander ) being dumped on the sea bed to keep the tides and currents from washing the foundations away... It's all a badly conceived poorly implemented CON!!! Basically a sop to the masses..
Freebooter >>:-( >>:-( >:-o <*<
-
Derek
How many elected members of government when they retire have to depend on the state pentsion to live... Most seem to come out of the job millionairs... As for wind farm's The last time I was in Blythe One of the tower's had blown over and 2 or 3 others had shed blades --- The same goes for the one off Great Yarmouth Thousands of ton's of Swedish stone (whats wrong with British stone and if the job was done correctly why is it needed anyway ...Who got the backhander ) being dumped on the sea bed to keep the tides and currents from washing the foundations away... It's all a badly conceived poorly implemented CON!!! Basically a sop to the masses..
Freebooter >>:-( >>:-( >:-o <*<
Germany has more Wind Generators than any other country. Here are a few facts, They have a Service life of approx 40,000 hours. sounds a lot, but is roughly 8 years. As the Technology is changing (improving?) quickly, old Turbines are not economical to repair. so the blades are removed and the Tower left. Seems it costs more to take it down than to build a new one. Planning permission is only needed for the first one, after that they can sprout like mushrooms. German Government ignores the recommendations by EU as regards distance from habitation and nature reserves. (that is normal for Germany)
-
Germany has more Wind Generators than any other country. Here are a few facts...
The most interesting facts would describe how much they cost to run and how much energy can be got out of them.
How much energy wind power can produce is a difficult question to answer.
- There will be a hypothetical ideal figure of total possible output assuming that an optimum wind blows all the time.
- There will be an assumed figure it will actually generate - usually about 30% of ideal.
- There will be the actual figure it generates - less than the assumed for a variety of reasons.
- Then there will be the actual commercial usable energy - that is, power generated when someone actually wants to buy it. While wind power is a small percentage of total power you can usually find a buyer for the energy, even if you need to ship it over to another country. And current laws require wind energy to be bought if it is offered. Once wind power starts becoming a bigger percentage of generated power it may not be possible to sell it at the time it is generated - this is less of an issue for conventional power generation since they can plan their output to match demand.
All these features of wind power get ignored by the political proponents of wind power, who tend to cite assumed figures rather than recorded ones...
-
I agree with your observations "dodgy". However, trying to track down actual output figures from various wind farms can be difficult to say the least. I've mentioned, previously, the web site of our own power dispatching system in Ontario and their constant display of wind power out put in Ontario. They give a small write up to wind power in Ontario and it contains this paragraph that should tie in with what you point out of the difference between designed and actual windmill output. As I write this, the output in Ontario for wind power is 121 MW on a clear sunny -8deg C day. Here is the paragraph from their site:
From month to month, wind output (the amount of energy actually produced compared to the amount the turbines are capable of producing given perfect conditions) can vary. In April 2009, the average wind output was 41 per cent of capacity, while in June it was 14 per cent, reflecting the fact that the summer months aren’t as windy.
Our windmills have a total installed capacity of 1100MW, but are only putting out 10% of their designed capacity due to lack of wind at the moment. The highest I've seen was during a storm before Christmas and the highest was about 75% of installed capacity. So as you can see, windmills are not the most efficient and cost effective means of producing electricity.
John
-
.... However, trying to track down actual output figures from various wind farms can be difficult to say the least......
From month to month, wind output (the amount of energy actually produced compared to the amount the turbines are capable of producing given perfect conditions) can vary. In April 2009, the average wind output was 41 per cent of capacity, while in June it was 14 per cent, reflecting the fact that the summer months aren’t as windy.
Our windmills have a total installed capacity of 1100MW, but are only putting out 10% of their designed capacity due to lack of wind at the moment. The highest I've seen was during a storm before Christmas and the highest was about 75% of installed capacity.
John
Yup. What you have there are the ideal 'total installed capacity', which will never be achieved, and various spot figures for 'actual' generation. Spot figures are pretty useless, or course - what you need for costing is yearly averages, and if they don't give them you can bet that they're poor. The mean of the two figures you gave is 27.5% - I would guess that 20% actual or less is the yearly figure. It has become so standard to hide these poor figures that no one really comments about it....
But all this is insignificant besides the commercial use requirement - the energy must be available when you want to use it. So long as wind is a small input to the Grid, you can always turn down a coal-fired power station when the wind is generating, and sell the wind in instead. If wind were ever to become a large part of the Grid, this would not be possible.
In part, this is what a 'smart grid' is designed to handle. With this, we turn down the demand when the wind does not blow by rationing out the power. When customers begin to realise what this implies, I don't hold out much hope for its acceptance....
-
Yup. What you have there are the ideal 'total installed capacity', which will never be achieved, and various spot figures for 'actual' generation. Spot figures are pretty useless, or course - what you need for costing is yearly averages, and if they don't give them you can bet that they're poor. The mean of the two figures you gave is 27.5% - I would guess that 20% actual or less is the yearly figure. It has become so standard to hide these poor figures that no one really comments about it....
I totally agree, the full design figure will never be achieved, and in fact, isn't being achieved. The web site gives hour by hour actual outputs of generation from the installed windmills. It is almost non existent many times.
But all this is insignificant besides the commercial use requirement - the energy must be available when you want to use it. So long as wind is a small input to the Grid, you can always turn down a coal-fired power station when the wind is generating, and sell the wind in instead. If wind were ever to become a large part of the Grid, this would not be possible.
Yes, you can adjust fossil to make up the difference. Indeed, that is what you have to do, however, I'm sure you know that large fossil units weren't designed for the large number of swings that can be realized to backup wind generation. Most fossil plants were designed as base load plants then pushed into the roll of "peaking" plants. This is a tremendous wear ant tear on the equipment,especially the boilers. Tube failures become more prevalent under these conditions. Too, windmills have been touted as the great saviour of our planet, this isn't going to happen as long as there are fossil plants to pick up the pieces the windmills can't carry.
In part, this is what a 'smart grid' is designed to handle. With this, we turn down the demand when the wind does not blow by rationing out the power. When customers begin to realize what this implies, I don't hold out much hope for its acceptance....
The "smart grid" is the way things should go if everyone was truly in on the "green" thing. However, we all know that only extends to the point it affects "me". At that point don't cut back my power. There are so many new electrical items in the household and in industry than even thirty years ago, and people rely on them so much more, that a realistic "smart grid" program would be extremely difficult to implement.
This whole windmill thing is a complete false economy.
John
-
The "smart grid" is the way things should go if everyone was truly in on the "green" thing....
The "green" thing appears to be a belief that the amount of energy we used in the 1950s is the 'right' amount of energy to use - pro rata with other natural resources.
I don't know how they come to that conclusion. In 1850 the maximum power a typical human used at any one time was probably 1 Hp (if he was riding it!). By 1950 a typical commuter might use 20 Hp, by now a family saloon might be 200 Hp. If, say, we invent teleportation but it needed the output of a decent sized power station to operate, we might start placing sub-stations in everyone's back garden. I believe there is no theoretical limit to the energy an individual might use - just a practical limit enforced by the engineering of the day.
But that appears to be contrary to green thinking, where less energy use is seen as good in its own right...
-
We have just been told, here in Germany, that they have a Contract to build a Mega Windfarm in the English Channel, 20kms from Hastings. Surplus power will be exported to Holland and France. A bit like when the Nuclear Stations at Dungeness, they used to export power to France as well.
-
We have just been told, here in Germany, that they have a Contract to build a Mega Windfarm in the English Channel, 20kms from Hastings. Surplus power will be exported to Holland and France. A bit like when the Nuclear Stations at Dungeness, they used to export power to France as well.
Yes, as I indicated earlier it is critical for wind power facilities that they have somewhere to pass their power to, because they can only produce it when the wind lets them. So long as there are only a few wind facilities we will probably be able to find somewhere for the power to go, particularly if you put them in between three countries!
But the minute you get a larger number of wind power facilities it becomes impossible to place the power effectively. Wind power proponents do not reject wind because of this fundamental flaw, and argue that if you have 100% accurate wind and demand forecasting, the ability to turn off demand (smart grids), double up your reserve power generation and provide hydro storage (all at vast expense or beyond state or the art) then you might use more than 10-20% wind power.
From an engineering point of view this is madness, but I assume it sounds good in the corridors of power where maths is not a strong point....
-
If the power from wind farms is used to create hydrogen (many are standing in sea water) which can be relatively easily stored ready for use (anybody remember gasometers?) the problem of intermittent, relatively unpredictable matching of supply and demand could be managed.
Hydrogen is also a viable auto fuel, and I'm sure that somebody would find a use for the other by-product, oxygen.
-
If the power from wind farms is used to create hydrogen (many are standing in sea water) which can be relatively easily stored ready for use (anybody remember gasometers?) the problem of intermittent, relatively unpredictable matching of supply and demand could be managed.
Hydrogen is famous for being particularly difficult to store. It diffuses through most materials and reacts with them. At NTP it is high-volume, and compression/cryogenic storage exacerbate the chemical problems mentioned above.
A lot of research is going on to try to find practical ways of storing hydrogen, but (apart from occasional instances where geology permits oil replacement by hydrogen) no one has found a satisfactory large-scale method. This is a major reason why we do not use hydrogen in the same way we use oil, or put it in gasometers...
-
This is a major reason why we do not use hydrogen in the same way we use oil, or put it in gasometers...
From what I recall of my chemistry lessons, (granted, 50 years ago) hydrogen was the main ingredient of town gas, that stuff we used to use before natural gas.
-
20 Kliks from Hastings will mean we will be importing
the windy amps It will be outside the 12 mile limit
and probably the same as building a wind farm on the M25
Yours Aye
Ned
-
From what I recall of my chemistry lessons, (granted, 50 years ago) hydrogen was the main ingredient of town gas, that stuff we used to use before natural gas.
Indeed. And even at 50%, gas leakage was still a significant problem.
Hydrogen storage is not, of course, impossible, otherwise the Space Shuttle would have difficulty getting off the ground. But it is oddly low calorie per unit volume at NTP, making storage a very volume-consuming process unless you are prepared to compress and/or liquefy the gas. Gasometers would really have to be onshore for this reason, as the original poster suggested.
So we now have the vision of off-shore wind farms, connected to an onshore gas generating facility (which would look similar to a petrol refinery) and a gas storage facility (large gasometers), next to which would be a gas-fired power station. All this needs to be built because the wind cannot be relied upon to blow. The capital investment is now huge, and very uneconomic because you are not using the equipment continually at its most economic working level. It still has to be maintained and manned, of course.
Assuming you can get the planning permission to establish these stations round the country, the obvious question to ask is, "why don't we just use the gas-fired power station and not bother to build the rest?".
-
Assuming you can get the planning permission to establish these stations round the country, the obvious question to ask is, "why don't we just use the gas-fired power station and not bother to build the rest?".
How long do you think the gas is going to last if we did that?
-
Assuming you can get the planning permission to establish these stations round the country, the obvious question to ask is, "why don't we just use the gas-fired power station and not bother to build the rest?"
.
How long do you think the gas is going to last if we did that?
And, of course, it doesn't irradiate the country for the rest of humanity's existence like the nuclear option or convert locked-away chemicals back into an unbreathable atmosphere like the earth had a few hundred million years ago. The wind farm/gas option, cumbersome as it is, does have the ability to make the best possible use of a eminently renewable resource. Apart from wind variation, most of the inefficiencies probably stem from regulating the output.
All of the "from nature" systems are not reliable on a minute by minute basis for producing the controlled electricity that we as consumers want. Using the rough local product (unregulated electrical energy) to convert it into something storable and usable with existing technology to augment the existing supply will allow us to eke out the fossil material until someone clever has a better idea. Look around. Everything you see either is, or has a strong involvement with, a petrochemical product. Just seeing how fast we can burn the stuff is not a good idea.
-
How long do you think the gas is going to last if we did that?
We ARE doing that. And the gas is lasting very well.
I have no desire to prolong this thread by presenting detailed engineering data to religious believers in alternative energy - comments that nuclear power will 'irradiate the country for the rest of humanity's existence' are obviously laughable - but I will say that the 'science' behind the AGW hypothesis is now being shown to be extensively hyped at best, and plain wrong in most cases.
And the interesting developments over the next year will not be in energy-generating technology, but rather on the political and financial fronts, as we consider how to reverse the pressure for a GBP 2 trillion global tax system, justified by the AGW hypothesis and administered by international bankers....
-
""Doddgy" , just out of curiosity and not to be nosy, what is your background? You're obviously quite knowledgeable in the power industry.
For myself, I worked in coal and oil fired power plants, nuclear power plants for over ten years and was an electrical system power dispatcher in the last 15 years of my employment.
John
-
""Doddgy" , just out of curiosity and not to be nosy, what is your background? You're obviously quite knowledgeable in the power industry.
For myself, I worked in coal and oil fired power plants, nuclear power plants for over ten years and was an electrical system power dispatcher in the last 15 years of my employment.
I had intended to write no more on this thread, but who could resist such an invitation?
My background? Well, it is odd. And parts of it are frankly unbelievable. For instance, for two years of my life I was a separate one-man Government Department in Whitehall...
My degree is in Medieval Literature and Philosophy, though my specialist subject is IT Security with, as our American friends would say, a 'major' in how to break things. Much of my working life I have spent, shall we say, associated with the intelligence services, though, now I come to think of it, there are few working sectors I have not been at least peripherally involved in. Regarding power distribution, I worked on the design of the British Energy power trading floor at Barnwood a couple of years ago, but I can make rude and objectionable comments from a position of having 'been there' about NHS hospital administration, F1 racing, several financial organisations, one legal organisation, the brewing industry and the BBC since then...
Very much a dodgy geezer, you will catch a glimpse of me hanging around most of the major disasters of the late 20th/early 21st centuries, usually hurrying off before any blame could be allocated. I have burnt my fingers on more 'nice little earners' than Arthur Daly, but I am particularly gratified that I have avoided being employed in any project that the last two administrations have dreamt up - there are some things that would sully even my reputation....
-
Very much a dodgy geezer, you will catch a glimpse of me hanging around most of the major disasters of the late 20th/early 21st centuries
And now, here you are on Mayhem :o :o :o
-
And now, here you are on Mayhem :o :o :o
Indeed. And...
Oh dear, I find that I've just been suddenly called away - still, I am sure that everything will be fine - there will be no problems at all in running your servers from geothermal energy on top of that Icelandic volcano, and their financial difficulties are nothing to worry about at all....That's my cheque, is it..?
FX - sound of door slamming and rapidly departing footsteps....
-
20 Kliks from Hastings will mean we will be importing
the windy amps It will be outside the 12 mile limit
and probably the same as building a wind farm on the M25
Yours Aye
Ned
I think they mean 20kms along the coast, ie Pevensy bay or Dungeness bay. the latter would be more sensible as there are still the connections to the Grid left from the Nuclear power Stations.
-
....This is a major reason why we do not use hydrogen in the same way we use oil, or put it in gasometers...
Some one forgot to tell the Norwegians ok2
http://www.hynor.no/hydrogen-highway-opens-in-norway (http://www.hynor.no/hydrogen-highway-opens-in-norway)
http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/cars/1149-norways-hydrogen-highway.html (http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/cars/1149-norways-hydrogen-highway.html)
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm (http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm)
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/hydrogenhighway/ (http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/hydrogenhighway/)
-
Some one forgot to tell the Norwegians....
It will be interesting to see the results of this experiment - it seems to be moving very slowly, and the most recent report I can find from it suggests that it is moving away from hydrogen power and towards electric cars.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/13/norways-hydrogen-highway-gets-an-electric-back-road/
If this is the case, I suspect that this is because the undoubted difficulties with transporting and storing hydrogen have not yet been overcome?
-
Ok, looking at this thread got me thinking (a dangerous pastime around here) about storage of energy.
Years ago, the waste heat left over from power genetation at one of Londons power stations was piped through to Pimlico where it was used to heat homes in that district, so something of the wasted energy was put to use. It actually passed under the Thames through pipework as heated water.
Would it not be possible to use some of the low wind speed idling energy ie, that which is insufficient for introduction as 'useful' energy into the grid or perhaps the energy generated when not truly required and use it to heat a water storage facility on land. This could be sighted in an area demanding high water usage such as a hospital for instance. If this were introduced into the heating and hot water system of such an establishment, it could possibly reduce the energy consumption of the building by cutting back the energy requirement of the heating and hot water systems. Any establishment, be it a factory, office complexes or even housing estates could have their own sunken, insulated local hot water storage facility on site.
By storing the energy as a heated body of water, it would even out the highs and lows of output of such a generator and act much the same as a battery in a fluctuating electrial circuit.
Just another of my daydream ideas.
-
Would it not be possible to use some of the low wind speed idling energy ie, that which is insufficient for introduction as 'useful' energy into the grid or perhaps the energy generated when not truly required and use it to heat a water storage facility on land....By storing the energy as a heated body of water, it would even out the highs and lows of output of such a generator and act much the same as a battery in a fluctuating electrial circuit.
Just another of my daydream ideas.
Not a bad idea at all, actually. This is the sort of thing a 'Smart Grid' is proposed to operate, so that the drain can be controlled at the generator/dispatch facility. So people are certainly thinking this sort of way.
These ideas generally founder on economics. The local investment would be huge, and it would not be investment for a primary benefit, but to solve inherent problems with a power generation technique that other techniques do not have. The question then becomes a political one: 'How much extra are you prepared to pay to have wind energy rather than, say, nuclear?'.
-
Yes, it would certainly cost a few bob to put any of this into practice or indeed any other form of power generation source/storage.
We do appear to be spending a fortune on alternative sources of enegy right now and I believe this will skyrocket as time goes on, but then I also believe this is the price we are paying for Government complacency and our love affair with the economics and frree flowing oil supply we have enjoyed for decades.
I guess it's all going to come home to roost soon and prices for energy will soar as time goes by so perhaps a re-direction of Government finances, free handouts and general waste would go a long way to shoring up some of the costs.
Unfortunately, I fear that so long as we continue to expand as a population, there is no true shortcut to meet the demand other than the nuclear option. I do not posses sufficient knowledge of the waste product storage complications to say whether it is a good or a bad thing but knowing what little I do, it appears it should be our last option.
I understand tidal power is an area which would certainly generate huge amounts of power and we have the technology to use it, but I don't see much being done or put forward to expand on this area so am left with the belief that the wind power explosion we are witnessing is more politically motivated than anything green.
Oh, by the way, the power station I referred to in my last post was 'Battersea power station' next to the Thames.
-
The basic problem is that the Government has been, and continues to be, incompetent. Joining up the dots is a mystery to them.
Colin
-
The basic problem is that the Government has been, and continues to be, incompetent....
Incompetent is no problem. Politicians are always incompetent, and it is the job of civil servants to hide this fact from the public. Our problem now is that neither the politicians nor the civil servants have any policy direction, and they are all being torn apart by lobbying special interest groups. Copenhagen was a classic example of policy direction driven by activists...
-
DG, it looks rather like the civil servants are falling down on the job, the cat is out of the bag!
Now we know they are all incompetent (they can't even lie effectively) where the hell do we go now? I think the American expression "to hell in a handcart" is fairly apt.
I can think of absolutely no-one suitably fit to govern this land right now so how the devil is anyone able to swallow the green policies expounded by these manipulating incompetent liars. On all fronts, be it domestic or green policies, this is a very dangerous position to be in and I don't see any Genie's about. The problem with all of it is trust, none of us can actually take as gospel that the green issues they are pushing are truly for the benefit of the planet and that the data we are being fed is not heavily biased in favour of big business. Everyone has their pet sources of true and accurate information but with the amount of distrust instilled in all of us, who do we believe. I for one discount anything from 'official government sources' and I don't think I'm alone.
Another American expression I particularly like is " Why don't you wake up and smell the sh*t you is pushin" and I think a sign bearing this legend should be erected in the House for all to see.
So, it looks like windfarms are the flavour of the month, regardless of innability to meet demands or the objections of independant scientific reasearch. If the independants are to be believed, it definately all appears to be a political move to install this lot, either that or the smart business manipulators out there have simply pulled the wool over the thicko's eyes in Westminster.
-
We should not have to worry about fossil fuel replacement, there are elections every five years; with the amount of dinosaur's in Government there will be a plentifull supply. This includes the members of of my home Parliament.
Howard Q. :-)) ;) Just another thought, back in the 1930s there was a scheme zo build a Hydro Electric station on the River Severn, to utilise the double tides there ( Severn Bore). It was dropped because of protests by the Welsh Miners ( remember Miners?) who saw it as a threat to their jobs (Ha Ha!!) Well the Mines have long gone, good riddance, so why isn't the said Station being built now?
-
IIRC Largely due to environmental concerns, these being mainly related to the loss of the mudflat feeding grounds for waders. Given this loss would be on a much greater scale than the loss caused by the Cardiff Bay barrage then the opposition is on an equivalently greater scale.
Cheers
Guy