Intermittent power supplies
It's not just wind that is an intermittent power source, nuclear can be too. Despite what the nay-sayers claim.
However, if a wind turbine goes wrong it might spectacularly self-destruct, but at least it doesn't cause death and contamination across a wide area.
And the moral of this little tale - we need to diversify our power generation sources.
However, if a wind turbine goes wrong it might spectacularly self-destruct, but at least it doesn't cause death and contamination across a wide area.
And the moral of this little tale - we need to diversify our power generation sources.
15 comments:
One of the worst things about the so-called energy "debate" is the way it has been reduced to the absurd "It's got to be either wind or nuclear". Which is daft. So with this...
> we need to diversify our power generation sources
...I totally agree. 97 percent of new buildings in Sweden are built with ground source heat pumps. That's one of the kinds of technology that should be encouraged here and across the UK.
And - despite the virtual absense of promotion of this technology - various places in the Outer Hebrides are sensibly installing said equipment. For example:
"Bayhead Bridge Centre, is a new multi-purpose centre in Stornoway, currently under construction, and will receive £72,459 towards installation of a heatpump to provide underfloor heating. A 91kW heatpump will supply heat to all of the building within a zoned distribution system, designed to meet all the heating needs of the facility. Expected savings in heating costs for the centre are approximately £10,000 pa. with an estimated annual CO2 saving of 70 tonnes."
So that's a constant supply of heat for them.
Unlike wind turbines, the local ones of which have been stationary for most of the last week in the still weather.
The reason that the turbines have not been operational has got nothing to do with the weather.
Apparently there is a problem with the grid conection which has taken longer than expected to resolve which only strenghens the case for the sub sea conection and ultimately the further development of wind farms in Lewis.
Anon
John lives in Berneray, so he's not talking about the turbines at Grimshader. Thanks for confirming my understanding that the turbines had not yet been fully commissioned, and consequently are not actually properly operational, yet.
IIRC, the larger turbines can run in lower windspeeds than the small 'domestic' ones in Berneray, Kildonan and Shawbost.
"Apparently there is a problem with the grid conection which has taken longer than expected to resolve which only strenghens the case for the sub sea conection and ultimately the further development of wind farms in Lewis."
Is there logic in there, somewhere? How exactly do problems with connecting turbines to the grid strengthen the case for onshore windfactories?
eeyop, Many houses in Lewis have a problem connecting to the sewage system, and SEPA want to prevent any new septic tanks being built. Should we stop encouraging people to move here because the sewers are over-capacity, or should we solve the problem and grow the community?
I would assume that the problem with the grid connection may have some baring on the fact that there is very little spare capacity on the existing interconnector and that a new purpose built interconnector would resolve these problems and would also provide the capacity to serve the proposed community wind farms as well as the commercial ones. If you read the comment correctly you will see that I did not say that problems with connection strengthened the case for onshore tubines. But it does strengthen the case for a new interconnector
It's not just wind that is an intermittent power source, nuclear can be too. Despite what the nay-sayers claim.
There's a bit of difference between the typical 20% uptime of a wind turbine (of which uptime the output is still highly variable from minute to minute, leading to grid instabilities and more unreliability), and the typical 99.999%, reliable, steady generation uptime of a nuclear station. Don't you think? You're definition of 'intermittent' for nuclear is, quite frankly, one of the most ignorant statements I've seen in a long while. One must wonder whether you are being deliberately obtuse in aid of AMEC's project (and if you are, 'why', is a valid question), or are simply technologically illiterate. I suspect the latter--I hope so, anyway.
However, if a wind turbine goes wrong it might spectacularly self-destruct, but at least it doesn't cause death and contamination across a wide area.
Tell me which reactor malfunctions have spread 'death' far and wide? Chernobyl certainly didn't. Perhaps you know of some other death-dealing plant accident? Something from a Bond film, perhaps?
Fact: there has been one, and only one, reactor accident which released radiation widely, and that occurred in an plant of obsolete design which was poorly maintained. One may as well vilify the car industry because somebody driving an antique Model T rolls his car and dies. And even so, the predictions of a Ukrainian desert didn't come to pass--indeed, the area is flourishing as never before.
As one commentator remarked, it doesn't appear to have been 'radiation' that threatened the animal life, but the presence of humans. Now that the latter have fled, the former are doing just fine, thank you.
So: you try to claim that an incredibly safe industry--one whose sole major accident hasn't even had the effects predicted--is less useful than wind turbines. The one is highly reliable and the other, not.
With such technical illiteracy, it's astounding you even considered yourself fit to vote on the AMEC project.
I think we should publish a website which lists each windfarm in Britain, the claims made for it, who made those claims, and actual production, plus the cost to the end user of the electricity. After all, those who foist these on us should be happy to have their 'achievements' publicized, eh?
Now, repeat after me: nuclear is safe. Do try to educate yourself, just a little, before posting anything further, since your ignorance and stupidity is painful to read.
Yes?
Angus, I don't really see the analogy between the industrial scale windfarms/the 'essential' interconnector, and the sewage problems of new housing.
anonymous "...there is very little spare capacity on the existing interconnector and that a new purpose built interconnector would resolve these problems and would also provide the capacity to serve the proposed community wind farms as well as the commercial ones."
I understand it would also be possible to upgrade the existing interconnector to enable enough capacity to transmit excess power from community wind farms, without any need at all for a brand new interconnector. Much the same as ex-MP Calum Macdonald suggested in the Gazette a long time ago, after losing the election ("Ex-MP brands LWP/BMP windfarms 'a total waste of time and energy'"). I seem to remember there was a stony silence from the council after that front page splash.
Or might we even be getting two interconnectors now? AMEC certainly kept that plan quiet, when the council itself wasn't aware of it until very recently...
"Now, repeat after me: nuclear is safe. Do try to educate yourself, just a little, before posting anything further, since your ignorance and stupidity is painful to read."
Anon,
I think you should be a politician as your quality of argument and debate is second to none. Calling people ignorant and stupid is so becoming and would win anyone around on an argument.
Define far and wide. I think death and destruction (or the risk of) on any level, and over any area is wrong and I don't want me or my children to live near a nuclear reactor.
So, let's have a vote then.
How many readers of this forum would be happy to have a nuclear power station situated in the Western Isles, next door to them?
Don't forget the mantra "nuclear is safe", forget all the reports of elevated cancer levels and new breeds of animals with two heads and one eye. You are stupid (anon's opinion not mine) if you believe this to be true. It wouldn't happen here.
Anon, you are stupid and ignorant if you think we believe you. You haven't even got the balls to identify yourself before you spout off. And as for accusing everyone else of being on backhanders from the windfarm companies, how much are you getting for promoting nuclear power? Go away and glow in the dark.
Anyone that can claim that Nuclear power is safe is in cloud cuckoo land.
You really need to look at the whole life cycle from uranium mining through to waste disposal.
As for suggesting that Chernoble did no lasting harm and in fact was of benefit to the environment really takes the glowing biscuit.
Enrgy security and supply is far to important to be left to market forces. Micro renewables has to be the way forward coupled with a reduction in energy use, perhaps it's time that energy consumption became part of planning legislation.
But then the energy industry wouldn't be worth the billions that it is today.
We're doing a fair bit on energy consumption reduction in the office, and I intend to blog more about it later. However, the price of low energy bulbs ....!!!
i would love to know where you got that 99.999% figure from... or is that just another page 3 girl make over?
reiver said...You really need to look at the whole life cycle from uranium mining through to waste disposal.
Hear hear! Anon; you can't go on about peoples' technical illiteracy on renewables and then spout the nuclear is our only hope line.
I'd say security of supply is one of the most important issues to consider, and if we all jump on the nuclear bandwagon, how long do you think we will be able to get hold of suitable fissile material or to pay for it when the entire world is bidding after the same stuff?
Can you imagine if there was an industry around today which dealt solely in the decommissioning of Longboats because they were dangerous to our health in some way and the Vikings had known this full well? How selfish would you think the Vikings were, pillaging aside? Yet that's what we are expecting future generations to do on our behalf with nuclear decommissioning and waste storage.
An interesting paper discussing some of the issues between us and a nuclear utopia can be found here. I'm not sure all of it is 100% accurate, but it's food for thought.
Alasdair F is right.
I've never said that renewables are the only answer, but that they form a huge part of securing our supplies from the vagaries of the market, geopolitics and technical issues.
(Soto voce) I oppose nuclear totally, but I accept that we probably have no option (due to Government policy) but to have some nuclear to balance the energy delivery.
I want to make that time as short as possible, and if it costs me some more in tax - which I dispute - then I am happy to pay it.
wisest thing anyones said on this website, Angus!
Post a Comment