- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
Before the wind (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Before the wind
12:06pm Wednesday 26th September 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter
Mr Beisly (The Press, September 24) suggests that the UK should rely on gas for energy generation rather than wind power as the later is unreliable because wind is intermittent.
In fact wind farms in the UK generate energy between 70 per cent and 85 per cent of the time and what he fails to mention is that all forms of energy generation are intermittent.
No power station, whether fuelled by coal, oil, gas, or nuclear fission operates all the time, but is out of action at regular intervals either to fix faults, address safety concerns, or for routine maintenance.
In this respect wind power has the advantage of being a simple technology and less likely to need either maintenance or repair.
There is certainly no possibility of a wind farm being out of action for six months as the biggest reactor at Sizewell B was in 2010 because of technical problems, or all four nuclear power stations along the Loire, in France, in 2003 because the river contained insufficient water for cooling.
But then it is also worth noting that wind is both locally sourced and free, unlike gas, which increasingly has to be imported from Norway and Qatar, thereby helping to keep our fuel bills high and the country’s balance of payments in the red.
Colin Campbell, Fulford Park, Fulford, York.
Comments(28)
ColdAsChristmas
says...
2:42pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Wind like solar are not feasible without huge subsidies we all pay as hidden green tax on our energy bills. Solar gives you least when you need it most and wind efficiency is low, like 15-20% typically. Don't forget, these monstrosities can't operate in a gale.
As for maintenance, gearbox failure is common and especially susceptible in the freezing weather we are not supposed to have. Typically wind turbines have a life span of 15 years and a payback of 12 years. Only if you believe the hysterical Stern Report would you believe this a sound investment.
Good you mentioned Norway selling us their North Sea gas. Norway don't need it because they invested in hydro electricity, which is 80% efficient. What do we get, stupid windmills for which we pay big time for. Maybe we are just plebs and have to take what we are given?
PinzaC55
says...
4:08pm Wed 26 Sep 12
You would need 60,000 of the current style of turbine to supply the UK, plus the conventional power stations.
Jezreel
says...
5:08pm Wed 26 Sep 12
On my last visit to Zeebrugge I saw that the old generation of wind generators are being replaced after forty years by the new highly efficient generation. The programme has been a great success over the years.
The evidence is no longer seriously disputed. The future is going to be a combination of renewables.
YSTClinguist
says...
6:40pm Wed 26 Sep 12
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/home/moslive/
article-1350811/In-C
hina-true-cost-Brita
ins-clean-green-wind
-power-experiment-Po
llution-disastrous-s
cale.html
We do have to consider the source of course. It does have pretty pictures though.
All manufacturing causes waste and pollution. Most companies actively try and minimise it and do the right thing, even if they see their products dumped in a landfill without recycling attempts.
But National Geographic has published stories with Africans chopping up asbestos with machetes and no protective equipment, South American kids leaning into the smoke of the fires they are stripping the plastic off wiring they are reclaiming, and the (not done anymore) electronic waste we shipped to China where the lowly peasants in the countryside were burning the metals off our circuit boards whilst breathing in the waste.
It must not be a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' where sourcing our consumer goods from foreign markets is concerned. We must not, if building more nuclear reactors, merely go for the cheapest quote. In the meantime, with a lack of detailed information various groups and the general populous are arguing back and forth giving themselves headaches. We should be asking for more data.
PinzaC55
says...
7:29pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:The statement was a sworn statement and backed by figures. Try Googling "how much backup do wind farms require?".
Pinza, Eon is an electrical supply company. Eon and renewables = turkeys and Christmas.
On my last visit to Zeebrugge I saw that the old generation of wind generators are being replaced after forty years by the new highly efficient generation. The programme has been a great success over the years.
The evidence is no longer seriously disputed. The future is going to be a combination of renewables.
Jam tomorrow
says...
11:15pm Wed 26 Sep 12
You mean the blades are moving, it's a very misleading statement. Onshore they only produce 25% of their rated output.
See the blog of rogerhelmermep if you want unbiased and interesting information.
PinzaC55
says...
12:44am Thu 27 Sep 12
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200708/ldselect/l
deconaf/195/195we28.
htm and to the original statement
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200708/ldselect/l
deconaf/195/8061708.
htm
Jezreel
says...
8:08am Thu 27 Sep 12
Industry will be reluctant for commercial reasons, but the direction of travel is irreversible.
John Etherington is a renewables crank totally out of touch with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Think of him as like the oddball mediocos who denied a link between smoking and cancer long after the facts were proved with certainty. There s always one.....
PinzaC55
says...
8:34am Thu 27 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:"Please get it right. It is not just about wind farms. It is about renewables, a combination of tidal, solar and wind energy. "
Please get it right. It is not just about wind farms. It is about renewables, a combination of tidal, solar and wind energy. Initially there will be back up from conventional power stations, but greatly reduced. It is no longer theoretical, The process is well under way. Germany has permanenently abandoned the nuclear option.
Industry will be reluctant for commercial reasons, but the direction of travel is irreversible.
John Etherington is a renewables crank totally out of touch with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Think of him as like the oddball mediocos who denied a link between smoking and cancer long after the facts were proved with certainty. There s always one.....
Moving the goalposts.
"John Etherington is a renewables crank totally out of touch with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community."
Ad Hominem attack - attack the person not their argument.
Jezreel
says...
10:47am Thu 27 Sep 12
Nowt ad hominem about it.
I have attacked his cranky ideas. Ad Hominem attacks are attacks on the person, ie, "I don't like his ideas because he is ugly, or thick" Probably best to avoid the expression if you are not familiar with how it is used.
Nor have I moved the goalposts. I don't think there is anyone in the world who thinks that windpower alone can replace nuclear and coal fired.
It has to be combined renewable sources
The Great Buda
says...
11:52am Thu 27 Sep 12
The flat-earthers need to accept they've lost.
ColdAsChristmas
says...
1:02pm Thu 27 Sep 12
ad of pld rubbish. ****, you talk of Germany, well their renewable industry is bankrupt, like most of it without massive subsidies. Some German nuclear reactor decommissioning has been put on hold while new COAL power stations are built. In fact coal power generation is currently at its highest since 1969. We can't afford renewables, get it!
Incidentally, you spoke of tidal energy, do you know what proportion of that more reliable source the UK is investing in? A good idea since the tide is more reliable than the wind or seasonally changing daylight hours.
Jezreel
says...
2:01pm Thu 27 Sep 12
ColdAsChristmas wrote:Cold a*se please provide sources.
Buda, despite the warming alarmists indoctrinating the schools, politicians and most of the media their evidence does not stack up, all based on 16 parts per million man made CO2. Then look at what Climategate exposed with the PAL review system, yes, that's right, sceptics never got a look in so they could say 90 odd % of scientists........Lo
ad of pld rubbish. ****, you talk of Germany, well their renewable industry is bankrupt, like most of it without massive subsidies. Some German nuclear reactor decommissioning has been put on hold while new COAL power stations are built. In fact coal power generation is currently at its highest since 1969. We can't afford renewables, get it!
Incidentally, you spoke of tidal energy, do you know what proportion of that more reliable source the UK is investing in? A good idea since the tide is more reliable than the wind or seasonally changing daylight hours.
I have checked the BBC, Telegraph and Guardian. All mention Germany abandoning nuclear power but NONE of them mention an increase fuel. Here Is what Angela Merkel says, and she ought to know (from Daily Telegraph)
"Despite the fact that Germany gets 23 per cent of its power from its 17 nuclear reactors, nine of which are currently running at full capacity, Mrs Merkel claimed that wind and solar energy could meet the shortfall."
Far from being bankrupt, share prices in renewables have rocketed since the announcement that nuclear was finished in Germany.
I am happy to provide sources to back what I say. Lets see yours.
The Great Buda
says...
3:43pm Thu 27 Sep 12
ColdAsChristmas
says...
4:02pm Thu 27 Sep 12
"Germany is being horribly caught out by precisely the same delusion about renewable energy that our own politicians have fallen for. Like all enthusiasts for “free, clean, renewable electricity”, they overlook the fatal implications of the fact that wind speeds and sunlight constantly vary. In fact, a mighty battle is now developing in Germany between green fantasists and practical realists. Because renewable energy must by law have priority in supplying the grid, the owners of conventional power stations, finding they have to run plants unprofitably, are so angry that they are threatening to close many of them down. The government response, astonishingly, has been to propose a new law forcing them to continue running their plants at a loss. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 23 September 2012"
The recent end to this is a realisation that renewables are only a gimmick and coal is the answer. I will provide that link if you can't find it.
Jezreel
says...
5:21pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Why am I not surprised?
No source either for the bogus contention that Germany's renewable industry is bankrupt.
Here is the truth, pasted from the BBC website, posted just after Germany announced the new policy.
"Shares in German nuclear utilities RWE and E.On fell on the news, though it had been widely expected.
But it was good news for manufacturers of renewable energy infrustructure.
German solar manufacturer, Solarworld, was up 7.6% whilst Danish wind turbine maker Vestas gained more than 3%."
Colda*se you say you stand to be corrected. Consider it done.
It's a bad do when the best case you can offer is based on porkies.
PinzaC55
says...
8:05pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:"Moving the goalposts". Without acknowledging the sworn statements you move on to include nuclear , hydro etc. You could include batteries and cold fusion if you wish.
Pinza
Nowt ad hominem about it.
I have attacked his cranky ideas. Ad Hominem attacks are attacks on the person, ie, "I don't like his ideas because he is ugly, or thick" Probably best to avoid the expression if you are not familiar with how it is used.
Nor have I moved the goalposts. I don't think there is anyone in the world who thinks that windpower alone can replace nuclear and coal fired.
It has to be combined renewable sources
Dictionary definition of "Ad Hominem"
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Calling Etherington's arguments (and thereby the man "cranky" tells us nothing. You need to show why his statements and figures are incorrect, otherwise your argument is as fallacious as me saying "Oh Jezreel with his asinine arguments" Bearing in in mind your following posts to "Cold As Christmas" you also need to cite links to back up your arguments with figures to show why the stated 80-90% backup for wind turbines is incorrect. Good luck.
ColdAsChristmas
says...
9:40pm Thu 27 Sep 12
http://www.google.co
.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&frm=1&sourc
e=web&cd=2&cad=rja&v
ed=0CCkQFjAB&url=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomb
erg.com%2Fnews%2F201
2-08-19%2Fmerkel-s-g
reen-shift-forces-ge
rmany-to-burn-more-c
oal-energy.html&ei=T
LhkUMnKG8fB0QX69IDoC
w&usg=AFQjCNHN2EqfwL
zXxKWAAgtf0cOju8eITw
OR:
http://www.google.co
.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&frm=1&sourc
e=web&cd=3&cad=rja&v
ed=0CC8QFjAC&url=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwit
hthat.com%2F2012%2F0
8%2F28%2Fgermanys-ne
w-renewable-energy-p
olicy%2F&ei=TLhkUMnK
G8fB0QX69IDoCw&usg=A
FQjCNH4zZZzitlNdMtvS
BEhTa35OAy81g
That'll keep you quiet for a while.
You didn't comment on the CoYC EX wind turbine either?
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:34am Fri 28 Sep 12
Tinyurl.
Jezreel
says...
7:43am Fri 28 Sep 12
The new fossil plant referred to is already online, it was not ordered in response to the move from nuclear. The same article makes it clear that Germany is still on course to replace nuclear with renewables. Moreover the spike in lignum burning is nothing to do with nuclear. It is a commercial decision by the industry caused by the astronomical price of gas and oil.
Germany is still on course to phase out nuclear by 2012, though nobody will be surprised if it takes longer.
I can't open your second link, but check this article (which unlike yours is neutral and not from a vested interest) showing that German wind capacity has increased by 2000% since 1990 and solar by 15000%.
The direction of travel is relentless and away from carbon and nuclear fusion, though we may hope that some day we have access to safe and clean nuclear fission.
http://www.globalcha
nge.umd.edu/energytr
ends/germany/
Jezreel
says...
7:47am Fri 28 Sep 12
The Great Buda
says...
12:12pm Tue 2 Oct 12
/news/science-enviro
nment-19785689
Ichabod76
says...
3:49pm Tue 2 Oct 12
BBC, Telegraph and Guardian + Daily Telegraph
all very credible sources !
try quoting some scientists who actually do the research
looking forward to you giving me a snide user name
Ichabod76
says...
5:45pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Just 100 cod left in North Sea
there only out by about half a billion
the worst of it is that it comes from a marine biologist at York university
Following the publication of this article, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has stated that there are "around 21 million mature cod in the north sea". It says "there are a small number of cod over the age of 12 years old which has always been the case in the North Sea even when fished at lower levels in the 1950s and 1960s".
sensationalist reporting much
Ichabod76
says...
6:47pm Tue 2 Oct 12
The Great Buda wrote:Liquid nitrogen production is an energy-intensive process.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/science-enviro
nment-19785689
where will this energy come from ?
The Great Buda
says...
9:06am Wed 3 Oct 12
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/world-europe-1
9804817
Jezreel
says...
6:13pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Ichabod76 wrote:Hi Itchy
Hahahaha
BBC, Telegraph and Guardian + Daily Telegraph
all very credible sources !
try quoting some scientists who actually do the research
looking forward to you giving me a snide user name
So you dont like a) Telegraph, a right wing source b) Guardian, a left(ish) wing source or c) BBC a centrist source.
Is the Sun ok?
The Great Buda says...
12:22pm Wed 26 Sep 12
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/bl
og/2012/sep/26/myth-
wind-turbines-carbon
-emissions