Wind farms outstrip nuclear power

The UK's wind farms generated more power than its nuclear power stations on Tuesday, the National Grid says.

The energy network operator said it was caused by a combination of high winds and faults in nuclear plants.

Wind farms are causing controversy in rural areas and the government is choking off planning permission for new sites.

But for a 24-hour period yesterday, spinning blades produced more energy than splitting atoms.

Wind made up 14.2% of all generation and nuclear offered 13.2%.

It follows another milestone on Saturday, when wind generated a record amount of power - 6,372 MW, according to National Grid.

This formed nearly 20% of the the UK's electricity, albeit at a time at the weekend when demand is relatively low.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796

Of course the point is the potential is there. I am a critic of wind farms. The cost to build in terms of the carbon footprint is high and the conditions have to be just right for them to work. I still don't see why we (as an island) don't invest more in hydro power. However, I'd take more wind farms over nuclear power plants (usually funded by China) any day, and this proves that is a realistic future.

Ah, but a long-lived turbine can even out the initial carbon footprint -- I've read of turbines in Denmark that have been running with minimal maintenance for 20 years. There's no comparison to a coal-burning plant's carbon footprint over two decades.

WHERE'S Victor or one of the others who can regularly regurgitate the mining lobbies' falsified "windmills can never turn a profit" propaganda puff pieces...

THERE'S one company over here these days that is buying up old wind turbines, overhauling them and re-using them in new developments..

THEY recently bought one off a State government power utility here on Kooragang Island, and are taking it down to Tassie to join a couple of others helping to power a whole town down there.

Eilzel wrote:
Of course the point is the potential is there. I am a critic of wind farms. The cost to build in terms of the carbon footprint is high and the conditions have to be just right for them to work. I still don't see why we (as an island) don't invest more in hydro power. However, I'd take more wind farms over nuclear power plants (usually funded by China) any day, and this proves that is a realistic future.

Hydro Power has only a limited potential before it hits a brick wall where increasing environmental damage from holding and rerouting water flows overtakes the benefits...
MAYBE if Britain had a few more real mountains (i.e. over 5000 ft/1500 metres), there would have been more scope ~ a handful of hydro-electric power stations in Scotland would be the more realistic outcome..

A couple of more promising alternatives for long-term consideration in places like Britain could be "Hot Rocks" [i.e. Geothermal] and Tidal Power electricity generation..

and HERE is the problem

quote from http://farminguk.com/news/New-research-says-windless-days-not-a-problem_16860.html
   " Author and UK renewable energy consultant David Milborrow reports that even if wind energy was to provide all of the government’s 2020 target of 40 percent low-carbon generation, the additional cost of ’windless days’ would only add around £6 per MWh to the cost of electricity at most; less than five percent increase to typical electricity bills. "

oh well thats ok then

except first it isnt 5%

you need to add vat to that (at 5%)

Now then...its ONLY 5% ...sounds like the other leftie chant does it not??? its only a few....

yet another 5% (wich will be nearer 10% by the time these bloated greedy b'stards get to pass it on)
will kill how many more poor and elderly.....


or is that the leftie dream...reduce the population....


why cant they at least be honest about it and just deny health care food and fuel full stop to the elderly and poor...

these environmentalist lefties are closer to you Know who than any number of R/W ers....

Yes we may well go down the route of windmills with everything eventually....
but these costs should be forced back onto the overpricing greedy profiteering energy companies...

OR the energy supply should be re-nationalised...WITHOUT COMPENSATION...forthwith and run (as it should be ) on a "breakeven " principle.

of course....we all know bee, didge and most other "fan fans" would soon change their tune if they had one for a neighbour, let alone a herd of 50 or more.....

Alternatively the artificial and unnecessary red tape and over regulation of private electrical installation should be removed....

People should be absolutely free to "go off the grid" and supply their own power. I would wholeheartedly support nationalized energy while retaining the ability to opt out if you want to adorn your home with solar panels, etc. But really -- wars have already been fought over that issue, and right now Big Energy is winning.

Solar (in several forms), wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, nuclear and biofuels will all eventually become bigger players in the energy game, gradually overtaking fossil fuels as we run out of them (see -- offshore drilling, fracking, tar sands). At this point that's not even really a question; the questions are, will we be able to transition to the new energy future a) in time to change the curve on climate change and b) without a major disruption that forces first-world nations to live like we did a few centuries ago before the infrastructure is back in place.

Killing people is wrong; Hitler was evil (<<< obligatory statement of the obvious in futile attempt to assuage paranoia)

Ben_Reilly wrote:People should be absolutely free to "go off the grid" and supply their own power. I would wholeheartedly support nationalized energy while retaining the ability to opt out if you want to adorn your home with solar panels, etc. But really -- wars have already been fought over that issue, and right now Big Energy is winning.

Solar (in several forms), wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, nuclear and biofuels will all eventually become bigger players in the energy game, gradually overtaking fossil fuels as we run out of them (see -- offshore drilling, fracking, tar sands). At this point that's not even really a question; the questions are, will we be able to transition to the new energy future a) in time to change the curve on climate change and b) without a major disruption that forces first-world nations to live like we did a few centuries ago before the infrastructure is back in place.

Killing people is wrong; Hitler was evil (<<< obligatory statement of the obvious in futile attempt to assuage paranoia)

So you say....but perhaps it doesnt count if you merely commit a "sin of ommission"

is the guy who walks away from a drowning man a murderer?

Well yes.....people SHOULD be absolutely free to go off grid...and the powers that be over here would tell you thats the case.....

but in reality it isnt,

you are faced with an almost impossible to surmount and vastly expensive load of legislation

you are not allowed (except under licence (expensive) ) battery storage capacity above about 3.6 KWhrs
if you do have that capacity ther regulations vis that storage are complex and to a large degree unnecessary

you have to pay a fortune to EITHER ...get a sitably qualified person (of which there are very very few) to do the job or alternately...if you want it doing right (as opposed to what these suposedly qualified persons THINK is right) (qualified sparkies over here are generally regarded by REAL electronics and electrical engineers with the same studied horror and dislike as a turd on your shoe) you have to PAT some berk from your local council... to come and inspect the work...

now there is a laugh...last time someone had the council out to inspect (a simple domestic change of wireing to accomodate an extension)...along came an office dolly bird, who quite clearly had NO idea (and I do mean NO IDEA) even of what she was supposed to do....
she looked at the wires went uhmmmmm ok and signed it off... As it was it didnt matter as I had actually supervised the installation so it was done right.....

Now this is what ammused me...it cost my mate 480 quid....for what....???

I have seen installations which whilst within spec as far as the regs were concerned were appalingly poor...(from an electronics engineers point of view.)

Now...WHY...cant I do my own installation without needing some berk to say its OK


christ there are (usually) at MOST 4 wires in mains circuits and normally only 3

live neutral and ground AND its ONLY 240 volts

YE GODS

when I wired up transmitters there could be 96 pairs of wires....

one time there were 96 pairs of wires...ALL black......

some were carrying 440v, and some 3.6Kv

as a team we got em right first time ...every time....

why OH why does someone have to charge me a small fortune to "inspect"

there was another one to tell but...its rather technical...but was something that NO sparky could answer......I had in the end to refer it to the IET who agreed that what I wanted to do was not only "within regs" but was the only feasible way of doing things.... and THEY told me...just get on with it.....because no one presently authorised to inspect domestic installation would be qualified to make judgement on it..... (it was a apecial earthing solution for a ham radio transmitter....)

Is this the solution....?






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsmezEOXDjU&feature=youtube_gdata_player