Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 05:35:30

I'd have to check your sums but seems like a bargain to me, especially if you included other renewables in the equation.

I also wonder if the air displaced by cars on motorways can be harnessed.

Posted by davetheslave on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:49:46

The fact that you call yourself physics911comfan doesn't exactly instill confidence in your sums. Maybe if you published the workings, others could judge for themselves?

Posted by physics911comfan on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:44:50

sorry Ive lost the link to the details ,it was at an online newspaper arttical challenging us to balance the energy budget
the solution I came up with for the next 20 years was roughly this : 9,600 wind turbines and or renewables power stations,
insulating 9,000,000 homes (energy reduction) . 50% of current coal powered stations.no nuclear power,no power imports
This costed out to about the same electricity bills we have now.Wish i had tagged the site I got the information from now.
maybe someone else can remember the newspaper it was in yesterday..its not much of a question without the sources I admit

Posted by Geddes on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:55:03

9600 wind turbines or other renewable sources. Its an interesting idea, where would they all go? Our countryside wouldn't look to nice would it?

Posted by canvas on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:56:53

the sea?

Posted by Geddes on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 17:26:18

The Sea's a bit expensive... and it would ruin the "sea-view". I support any initiative, as we don't have a plan whatsoever. My only problem is that wind turbines are only up to 40% efficient. (According to the BBC)

Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 19:38:45

40% efficiency is quite a lot considering the energy is actually free. Home-based solar heating is around 12% efficiency.

Where do you put them? Perhaps next to nuclear power stations. Can't imagine much demand for housing round there.

Posted by physics911comfan on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 20:09:14

we could put them on pylons , handy for the national grid , or at least near them.
putting 1 eyesore next to another seems 1/2 as painfull. 10 per week isn't rocket sceince
large wind turbines produce 5MW medium = 3MW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

 

Comment edited by physics911comfan on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 20:46:56

Posted by Lizabeth on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 20:54:37

Which sums?

Bottom line is; Professor Mike Laughton's observation that whatever we do with intermittent renewables we still have to have the whole of peak demand (60 GW) potentially supplied by thermal generation.

NOR DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO REFER TO WIND TURBINE GENERATORS (WINDMILLS) WITHOUT STATING THEIR INSTALLED CAPACITY.
50% closure ? Surely we need some posts from scientists giving true facts.

 

Comment edited by Lizabeth on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 21:06:31

Posted by physics911comfan on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 22:25:17

There was a time when living in a windmill was the high life
Old pictures of dutch landscapes comes to mind
peak demand is a habit that will change as oil runs out in 20 ish years

 

Comment edited by physics911comfan on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 22:30:06

Posted by davetheslave on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 18:52:06

To help put this debate on a little sturdier footing:

"The wind-power industry produced more than 6000 wind turbines in 2004, at an average size of 1.25 MW each. According to the European Wind Energy Association, by the end of the current decade 75000 MWof wind turbines will be installed in Europe, able to satisfy the residential electricity need of almost 200 million European citizens. The vast European wind-energy potential, in principle, would be able to satisfy all our electricity needs."
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 2 –17.

The capacity of the National Grid in 2005 was 77.4 GW (demand was 63 GW or 81% of capacity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_UK#Network_size

From these figures, (77400/1.25) it is estimated that approx. 62000 turbines would be needed to meet the current capacity of the national grid, using current technology.

Offshore windfarms being planned in the UK typically have a capacity of 1 GW. Therefore 77 of these would be needed to satisfy current grid capacity.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/08/4013
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=605&id;=1879422006

I don't imagine it's realistic that 77 offshore farms could be built off of our coasts. Wind power undoubtedly has a significant role to play in our future energy production, but only in combination with other renewables such as wave, photovoltaic and solar thermal power.

Posted by Tizzy on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 18:59:18

No to wind turbines, yes to solar (photovoltaic) panels - should be on every new house built.

PS Australia is banning all but low energy lightbulbs.

Posted by davetheslave on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:08:56

I can't see the problem with offshore windfarms. It's a cheap, clean, robust, proven technology, and doesn't get in anybody's way. Photovoltaics won't provide any significant amounts of energy here in the UK: too little sunshine unfortunately, and the same applies for solar thermal. However, large farms built in the deserts of Northern Africa, with the electricity transported here by high-voltage grid could be a viable solution. The technology to build these solar thermal farms exists already, it's merely a question of political will (and economics).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1959898,00.html

Posted by Geddes on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:09:35

Agree with Tizzy on the solar panels idea. Difficult and expensive though. However, I do think that some Wind turbines are good. Maybe one per village/town would work (I don't know the facts), and wouldn't ruin the countryside.

Posted by DaveGould on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:34:46

The Telegraph recently reported on a new type of solar converter, using a flexible, colourable semiconductor that the inventor says could end up cheaper than coal:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml