Fuel prices, wind farms + climate change
Posted: Thursday, 26 August 2004 |
Comments
Yes, IW the price rise is justified and it is as predicted BECAUSE OF the advent of windfarms. Many boffins, including Professor David Bellamy, and some politicians, predicted this rise as more and more windfarms came online. The arguments for this I have bored many with before (replies to your bloggs) and is pr茅cised (is that a word?) here http://www.argyllwindfarms.com/wind_farm_guide1/famous_quotes.htm - Prof David bellamy.
IW, you often mention things like 鈥渢he advent of renewable鈥︹ and windmills being 鈥渘ew鈥. They are not 鈥渘ew鈥 and the advent of mass windfarms was around 15 years ago, they are just new-ish to this area of the UK.
You obviously do not like the thought of a price rise (around 7%) so what can we all do about it ?
One thing we could do is to make a real effort and reduce our individual and collective consumption of electricity by exactly 7% (or more). Hence our bills could remain the same but, and more importantly, it would result in a serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, more so than building another, and another, and another windfarm.
Yes, windmills produce cheap electricity BUT the standby power stations needed for when there鈥檚 no wind (70% of the time) makes the overall price of electricity MORE EXPENSIVE. Hence, wind power IS duly priced鈥︹ unless you can image a society that would accept only having electricity when it鈥檚 windy.
Tony from Uig
There's no wind 70% of the time where you are? Wow. I'm moving over to your place!
Big Mac from Mull
Tony,
Thanks for the comment to my last blog : Fuel prices, wind farms + climate change.
We always get price increases and we have for a long time been used to them but is this justified - in my opinion no. At present the reason for this rise in domestic electricity is that the suppliers have themselves in a mess purely through a lack of expedient initative over the years as suffering consumers know too well.
I belive there is a glimmer of hope with the advent of renewable energy as we await progression to a more viable potential to avoid an undesirable dark age of forced severe economising. Most of us are already frugal users of power, and who has a right to demand that we tighten our belts further. We tremble to think what the dependence on out of date power stations could ultimately lead us into. Wind farms may not be be the supreme and ultimate answer available to us, but I personally believe that wind power is leading us in an interisting and hopeful direction.
You mentioned Prof David Bellamy - a very remarkable man, and I admire much of what he does. Unfortunately people like David don't see beyond natures intricies; were he and his followers to get full authority we'd all be in grass skirts - possibly emigrating yo Africa to keep warm.
As regards wind to drive the genrators; where I live I am convinced wind to drive the blades would be no problem all year round.According to my understanding it appears that a very moderate amount of wind is required operate the turbines.Otherwise the whole purpose of wind farms would be futile.
I trust that your comment has been suitably dealt with and that our our pet subject moves to further heights of understanding.
I therefore look forward to being in touch with you in the future.
IW.
Island Wanderer from of Tiree
Sorry IW I used an incorrect word in my last comments.
My first sentence read "Yes, IW the price rise is justified and it is as predicted ....."
I should have said the prise rise COULD be justified... and not IS justified.
It COULD be justified because it is inevitable as more and more windfarms come online.
I don't, however, belive it is justified just for that reason. I would be happy (reluctantly) to pay more if we cleaned the flue gasses from fossil fuelled power stations.
Tony from Uig
Big Mac,
Sorry I didn't spell it out clearly. It is generally accepted (by those pro and anti windfarms) that in the UK a windfarm will only be capable of producing 30% of it's full design capacity when considered over a typical 12 month period. This is due to low wind and high winds when output is minimal or none.
I shouldn't have simplified this well held belief by just saying the wind doesn't blow for 70% of the time.
Although Mull to Coll is always a step in the right direction !
Tony from Uig
Tony,
Thanks to the prompt reply to my comment. Yes I admit that a price rise could possibly be justified in certain circuimstances; but may I qualify this statement with a ? till I am further enlightened.I personally find it quite difficult to keep my electric meter in tockens. I must say that I dont look forward to the winter in spite of my fuel benefit.
I would be pleased if you would explain to me what, cleaning the flue gasses from the fossil fulled power stations, means. My knowledge lacks as regards this. Is this a process by which the atmosphere could be improved?
IW.
Island Wanderer from of tiree
IW
You raise many issues again two of which I shall highlight:-
1) "According to my understanding it appears that a very moderate amount of wind is required to operate the turbines. Otherwise the whole purpose of wind farms would be futile."
Yes, windmills do go round in a very moderate wind but there is very little or even no electical output. This doesn鈥檛 make windfarms quite 鈥榝utile鈥 but does minimise any claim they have about efficiency. Even government bodies have stated that the public perceive windmills to be more efficient that they really are. This is based purely on visuals, windmills always go round at the same speed no matter how much wind or how little power they produce.
2) 鈥淢ost of us are already frugal users of power, and who has a right to demand that we tighten our belts further.鈥
A very provocative sentence and the answer is, of course, no one has the right. But then, who has the right to pollute our planet ?
I am sorry but 鈥渕ost of us鈥 are not frugal users. You may personally be a frugal user but as a country we are increasing our usage, exactly as you have said in earlier bloggs and you have written many times about the projected increase in consumption until 2020.
Perhaps the 鈥榬ights鈥 are about morals and concern and not diktat.
Tony from Uig
Tony,
You say that I raise many issues. Well, I've got to believe you. You also comment that with moderate wind there is no electrical output.
I'm afraid there are facts and figures that I have no real knowledge of.It looks therefore that I must reassess my blogging on renewable energy as I lack numerous facts as to the mechinacs etc of wind farms. For example, I must get the hang of how electrical output is measured and so forth. A constructive argument is hopeless without facts and figures.
You,further state, If I am correct, "who has the right to pollute our planet. But I believe it is done with impunity anyway; one reason why I had faith in wind farms.
I abandon this commet at that. IW.
But before I abandon this site completely explain: "cleaning the flue gasses from fossil fuled power stations". Will this improve the state of the atmosphere already polluted to almost to irreversible proportions.
I look forward to hearing from you,IW.
Island Wanderer from of Tiree
http://www.sundayherald.com/43523
This article may put our dirty coal problems in proportion.
I.W., you asked: "Will this improve the state of the atmosphere already polluted" sadly windfarms won't cure that problem either.
pondhead from Mull
IW,
There is currently research going on into 1) removing CO2 from the atmosphere and 2) removing CO2 from fossil fuelled power station flue gasses.
Either has a similar effect in reducing atmospheric CO2 but either/both will take time in order to make any global impact 鈥 and will cost money.
An example of removing CO2 from the atmosphere utilises quicklime which converts to limestone when CO2 is passed over and absorbed. The limestone can then be heated using power station by-product heat and recycled as it reverts back to quicklime again. The absorbed CO2 is driven off in a way that can be managed, either converting it to a solid (by chemical actions), compressing it and subterranean disposal, or selling it be used commercially (it is used in fossil fuel extraction processes). At present most commercially sold CO2 is not derived from the atmosphere but is chemically created which really is quite a nonsense when there is so much (too much) in the atmosphere.
In fossil fuelled power stations, quicklime is replaced by recycle-able amines which can capture up to 90% of chimney CO2 emissions. On reheating the amines the captured CO2 is given off and can be managed as above. This technology is already in use, removing CO2 from natural gas and separating CO2 from flue gases for use in the food industry.
CO2 capture and compression imposes a penalty on the thermal efficiency of power generation, estimated to be between 8 and 13 percent.
CO2 and SO2 are similar in the political sense. SO2 emissions were eventually proven to cause acid rain, even though denial was rampant successive governments. Now we pay quite heavily (and quite rightly) for SO2 emission controls..... the simple car silencer is no longer acceptable (on new cars) and it has to be a catalytic converter... which costs at least 4 times more.
Similarly, we will eventually have to pay more for electricity, whether any of us like it or not, as we wake up to the reality that our continued pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is endangering our way of life.
Unfortunately, suggesting a 10%, 20% or whatever increase in fuel costs does not vote politicians back into power, hence little has been done and most of the (sparce) research is kept quiet.
Tony from Uig
Well,Tony,
It appears that this business regarding co2 emissions is still research and the results will take time to be known. It seems a complicated process in spite of the recycling - possibility - WELL.
so2 and acid rain,no doubt quite true; though governments as usual, like to deny new warnings while the ordinary citizen remains in the dark - but the ensuing costs must be met by whom ?.
This time I'll endeviour to say nothing about wind power in this country, except that impact here on such emmisions could be quite considerable in view of the future plans for fossil fueled power stations. But not everyone agrees!
Look forward to hearing from you.
IW.
Island Wanderer from from Tiree
IW,
I'm sorry for misleading you. It is 鈥榝act鈥 that amines can be used in CO2 chimney reduction. However, since this technology has not been used on a commercial power plant (can you image Powergen etc.. allowing this to happen on a commercial scale?) it can still only be classified as 鈥榬esearch鈥. The technology of using amines for CO2 removal is in common use (natural gas being a good example). So it鈥檚 not just futuristic 鈥 it鈥檚 real.
As with SO2, the ensuing costs must be net by the consumer.
Having read the link posted by pondhead in the Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/43523, all our banter is irrelevant !
Tony from Uig
Hello Tony,
As I can see from your comment, a product called AMINES can be used to reduce co2. but having not yet been used extensively it is still classed as research. And if ever used in fossil fuel estalishments the cost will, as so often happens, fall on the consumer.
Well, it looks as if we're up against the same old problem - pollution, and at that, as the problem appears to worsen.
Island Wanderer from from Tiree.
what a load of crap
jess from edinburgh
RSS Feed