Robbing Isolated Farms Doesn't Seem To...
News1 min ago
Wind Turbines
50 Answers
Did not know where to put this question - but on the subject of wind turbines - why are people so against them. I genuinely know nothing about them.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Connemmara. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The main problem with wind turbines is that they only produce a meaningful amount of electricity for about one third of the year. For two thirds of the year they're mostly standing idle or at best producing a fraction of their capability.
During those windless periods, the slack has to be taken up by conventional power stations (ie. gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric). Even when the wind turbines are spinning like tops and producing electricity like there's no tomorrow, all the above mentioned power plants – with the exception of hydroelectric – need to be kept running so that they can kick in at a moment's notice when the wind drops. During this cycle ('non-spinning reserve') the conventional power station is still consuming fossil fuels (albeit at a decreased rate than when operating at full capacity) but cannot be switched off since it takes months to get them back online after they've been fully shut down. So they must keep running if we want to keep the lights on.
This situation cannot currently be changed since there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels. It's really that simple. Neither wind nor solar nor tidal power can currently replace the fossil fuel power stations in this or any other country. That's not to say we shouldn’t be financing projects that are looking at ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels – in fact, for long term electricity generation, we have no choice. But to commence shutting down conventional power stations in the next couple of years to meet some dreamt up carbon emission targets is truly insane.
As to a wind turbine's aesthetic qualities, despite all my above reservations, I rather like the way they look.
During those windless periods, the slack has to be taken up by conventional power stations (ie. gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric). Even when the wind turbines are spinning like tops and producing electricity like there's no tomorrow, all the above mentioned power plants – with the exception of hydroelectric – need to be kept running so that they can kick in at a moment's notice when the wind drops. During this cycle ('non-spinning reserve') the conventional power station is still consuming fossil fuels (albeit at a decreased rate than when operating at full capacity) but cannot be switched off since it takes months to get them back online after they've been fully shut down. So they must keep running if we want to keep the lights on.
This situation cannot currently be changed since there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels. It's really that simple. Neither wind nor solar nor tidal power can currently replace the fossil fuel power stations in this or any other country. That's not to say we shouldn’t be financing projects that are looking at ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels – in fact, for long term electricity generation, we have no choice. But to commence shutting down conventional power stations in the next couple of years to meet some dreamt up carbon emission targets is truly insane.
As to a wind turbine's aesthetic qualities, despite all my above reservations, I rather like the way they look.
....when its cold and frosty theres very little wind so we go flying and risk wing icing...when its cold and frosty theres very little wind so we go water skiing and risk frost bite on a lake as flat as a millpond.When we get home and its cold and frosty we put on the leccie fire and nowt happens ....because the 50 grand turbine needs wind to work ...so we go flying again.
-- answer removed --
↑
Solar Panels – Insignificant power generation potential (in the UK).
Wave Power – Entirely experimental at the moment.
Nuclear Power – Possibly our one and only hope.
Hydro-electric Power – Almost entirely impractical for most of the UK.
Wind Power – Hugely expensive and largely ineffective.
You say that France are well ahead of the UK. Ahead of us in what regard? You can build as many wind turbines as you like but they only operate when the wind is blowing. When the wind drops, conventional power stations need to kick in such as coal, gas and nuclear. None of these conventional power stations can be shut down while the wind is not blowing and immediately be brought back on-line when it drops. They still consume fossil fuels even when in non-spinning reserve mode. By building more and more wind turbines and decommissioning conventional fossil fuel power stations, you're essentially guaranteeing mass black-outs in the very near future.
The consequences of mass black-outs are catastrophic but that's another debate.
With regards to batteries, you are in wishful thinking territory. At this moment in time, the technology to store electricity in large quantities simply doesn’t exist and won't exist in the foreseeable future. Your entire post seems to assume that we have the technology right here and now to essentially abandon fossil fuels.
The kind of thinking you're advocating is whimsical, dangerous and wrong.
Solar Panels – Insignificant power generation potential (in the UK).
Wave Power – Entirely experimental at the moment.
Nuclear Power – Possibly our one and only hope.
Hydro-electric Power – Almost entirely impractical for most of the UK.
Wind Power – Hugely expensive and largely ineffective.
You say that France are well ahead of the UK. Ahead of us in what regard? You can build as many wind turbines as you like but they only operate when the wind is blowing. When the wind drops, conventional power stations need to kick in such as coal, gas and nuclear. None of these conventional power stations can be shut down while the wind is not blowing and immediately be brought back on-line when it drops. They still consume fossil fuels even when in non-spinning reserve mode. By building more and more wind turbines and decommissioning conventional fossil fuel power stations, you're essentially guaranteeing mass black-outs in the very near future.
The consequences of mass black-outs are catastrophic but that's another debate.
With regards to batteries, you are in wishful thinking territory. At this moment in time, the technology to store electricity in large quantities simply doesn’t exist and won't exist in the foreseeable future. Your entire post seems to assume that we have the technology right here and now to essentially abandon fossil fuels.
The kind of thinking you're advocating is whimsical, dangerous and wrong.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Methyl -
I started to formulate a long response to your quite absurd replies. I stopped. I stopped because it quickly became clear to me that you simply do not understand some quite fundamental aspects of power generation and storage.
I loved your statement which read, “... The battery technology certainly exists. Look under a modern electric car...”. Your delusions apparently know no bounds. I have a question for you – how large would a battery have to be in order to provide a non-interrupted power supply to a million homes for 24 hours in the middle of winter?
I started to formulate a long response to your quite absurd replies. I stopped. I stopped because it quickly became clear to me that you simply do not understand some quite fundamental aspects of power generation and storage.
I loved your statement which read, “... The battery technology certainly exists. Look under a modern electric car...”. Your delusions apparently know no bounds. I have a question for you – how large would a battery have to be in order to provide a non-interrupted power supply to a million homes for 24 hours in the middle of winter?
