What Do You Think???.
Posted: Thursday, 04 November 2004 |
Comments
My turn to use the question mark yet??? Rather than keep going round in circles, perhaps you would like help me out by tell me how many turbines will be needed to supply 40% of Scotland's energy needs?( that's the target at the moment) Shall we base the number on 1MW or 2MW turbines - let us know which you decide. The Scottish Executive has pointed out that a mix of renewables is preferred but was aware that land based windfarm were likely to make up vast part of renewable generation. (I assume you will take the plate figure on the turbines and divide by 3 to find a more likely output figure rather than doing your sums using the plate figure?) I don't know if the Scottish Executive expect to take into account the transmission losses into the calculation...any ideas? Anyway, let us know what figure you come up with then we can have a discussion about how practical the plan is and the choices/costs involved. I presume all the information is out there on the web somewhere. You must agree that there is little point asking the question without having the figures to hand.
pondhead from Mull
The question is a bit unfair Pondhead. We would need to also know the potential for other renewables to contribute and you are - aur you? - assuming a static energy demand?
As previously posted part of the solution has to be to reduce our demand rather than just aim for a 40% figure of a too-high figure.
It's fair to ask also, given recent Hunterston B announcements - if you are rejecting renewables - what's your answer???
Malcolm from Edinburgh
Pondhead from Mull,
Regarding the comment to the blog:What do you think???
Personally I have no idea what number of turbines would be required to produce the demand of 40% of Scotlands energy needs.
At present I believe that wind farms are not in large numbers in the north,but more are to appear,- as a matter of interest, a rather big one in Lewis.
I'm,therfore, quite sure, that Scotland is able to meet any target planned for the future.
This is all I can say at the moment, not being a scientist or a mathematcean able to work out the propabalities of generators and indeed wind farms.
I am aware that the web is loaded with information on the subject of renewable energy but that is another matter entirely requiring much time and paitence.
That is all I can say at present.But lets keep at it!
IW.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree.
The climatic or global warming is a minor issue if the developed nations really want to curb the situation is only by signing and observe the KIYOTO accord and sanction the defaults especially the DISUnited State of America
ALIYU NDANA IB from MAIDUGURI NEPA OFFICE NIGERIA
Hi Island Wanderer. My mistake 鈥 clearly the information is very hard to come by - I was just after a back of a fag packet figure of the number you expect to be built. Malcolm, please don鈥檛 assume I am a rabid nuclear enthusiast - I am not. Your enthusiasm for getting rid of the 37% of our energy presently being generated by nuclear power is noted. Everyone agrees (in principal) that we should reduce energy demand and not need to produce 48,938 GigaWatt hours in Scotland each year. Why do I expect that to mean we will end up burning a lot more gas? I do not reject renewables including wind power and you will have seen my biomass blogs and blogs about suitable tidal sites. You too will have read various government reports about grid stability and backup issues and know how to counter the argument that windfarms need 100% backup spinning reserve 鈥 the much used argument by the "anti" wind turbine people. You will also have read how it is practical to have up to 10% of our energy produced by wind (after that things get difficult and increasingly expensive / unstable/ counter productive). We both understand that should some method of storing huge amounts of energy become available then that situation may change (hydrogen?). The question is how urgent the problem is? Your position suggests it is not urgent and there will not be a wee energy deficit. Cheer me up by convincing me that this is not the case!!!
pondhead from Mull
" What do you think "
Blogg:4/10/04
Comments:-
Pondhead From Mull:reply,
It's possible that I won't be able to hear James Lovelock on Sat the 13th.Thanks for the web address though; I'll see what it says there.
It appears Lovelock was all for nuclear power; what he called, clean power. This is a strange ambition as to me it sees an impossible dream yet.
Itis my hope that anything nuclear will be out of the equetion completly in this country for a start.
Aliyu Ndana ib From maiduguri,
NEPA office Nigeria.
I think that eventually the developed counteries will find it necessary to address this problem so near to all our wordly affairs.After all the situation is particularly serious; and as the years pass, will get worse. Lets hope we will not allow it to get beyond repair. surely nations with large populations don't want unending suffering.
As regards America I believe she is not as disunited as we think; I think the recent election made this fairly clear.
As in the past, when the seriousness of the problem dawns on her; I'm sure she will come round adhering to a policy compatable to the danger the world faces as regards the scurge that threatens us all,
IW.
Malcolm from Edinburgh,
Reduce the demand! No,I think we should attempt the requirement wind, wave,solar-all that is clean. We can't piossibly let conventional methods and nuclear power have precedence any more. we must give renewables a chance. who knows we might win through even if we have a few wind farms around - the 21st century at our door step,
IW.
Pondhead from Mull,
I got your last comment,will try and deal with it tommorow.
All the best,
IW.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree.
PONDHEAD,
Your comment: "My mistake..."
Sorry still do'nt have any figures, and dare not attempt yet.
As far as nuclear instillations are concerned; I hope none; but knowing how people and governments function, and should it come to desperation, maybe I shouldn't be over hopeful.I'm glad to see that you are not an engrained nuecular supporter.
To reduce demand would greatly help in the quest for clean energy.
You do not reject the use of renewables. I don't see how they would not produce 10% or more,wind energy, produced and not cause a difficlt situation.
what a good if storage facilities for large amounts of energy were available. the whole issue as regards renewables, energy etc is exceedingly pressing,
IW.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree.
IW
Re your reply to Pondhead鈥檚 鈥淢y mistake..鈥
I am astonished IW that you use such provocative words as 鈥榚ngrained nuclear supporter鈥 when you are indeed one of the most engrained supporters I have come across, just your support is for windfarms.
Life isn鈥檛 as black and white as saying 鈥淵es to windmills鈥 or 鈥淵es to nuclear鈥 (or no), it鈥檚 a balance of consequential evils and practicalities that make up and integrated electrical supply industry to service our consumer and capitalist greed.
Your dislike of nuclear is obvious but IW, nuclear power has a 40 year track record of making HUGE contributions in minimising greenhouse gas emissions, world wide. This contribution has been, and will probably continue to be, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDES greater than all our efforts via wind generation proposed for 2020 or 2040.
Why do I say this? Because IW you have clearly stated that global warming is a very serious issue, top of your agenda actually, and we all need to do our duty and stop it. Yet you dismiss, with engrained opposition, the single most important vehicle that can attain your goal 鈥 nuclear.
Many of your early blogs clearly show your strong desire for island rejuvenation. I鈥檓 not so sure you actually believe this otherwise you would NOT be pro windfarm. Windfarms employ NO ONE and have a proven track record (Wales Tourist Board) of scaring off money laden tourists.
If you really wanted to ensure a long and prosperous Tiree you would be the most active chairperson imaginable winning grants, aid and irrelevant awards for a Tiree Community Nuclear Reactor. This power station would employ at least 1/3rd of the island on an average salary of around 拢30,000-拢40,000 per annum AND spare heat could heat all your homes - free.
Yes cheap was another requirement of your early blogs and this could be free.
So, IW, there you have two very extreme yet worthy arguments.... A windfarm on Tiree that would employ no one, supply a drop in the ocean when it comes to real power, have damn all impact on minimising green house gas emissions and reduce your tourist trade - OR - a very green nuclear reactor that would create huge wealth and prosperity to your island and make a major contribution to your objective - no green house gas emissions.
Life is a compromise and neither option is completely sane. One can make a case for nuclear and can make a case for windfarms. Engrained support or engrained opposition doesn鈥檛 help when the consequences of our actions or inaction could be so profound.
Tony from a nuclear free isle of Coll
Island Wanderer, to be completely honest, at the moment the only pressing issue for me is that you have understood my instructions about how to use the "Listen Again" facility. May I borrow 3 of your question marks???
pondhead from Mull
Hi Tony from Nuclear Free Coll, I had to respond to your lengthy post鈥鈥檓 not responding on behalf of IW but entering this debate from afar.
It seems like you are confused - perhaps going through some sort of internal dialogue rather than explaining the fine shades of a complex argument. That鈥檚 okay. But when you say:
鈥淟ife isn鈥檛 as black and white as saying 鈥淵es to windmills鈥 or 鈥淵es to nuclear鈥 (or no), it鈥檚 a balance of consequential evils and practicalities that make up and integrated electrical supply industry to service our consumer and capitalist greed.
I鈥檓 baffled. Where does 鈥淥ur consumer and capitalist greed鈥 spring from? I鈥檓 afraid your down to human nature here and I for one don鈥檛 believe we鈥檙e just naturally greedy.
Do you? Are you?
Then you say: 鈥淵our dislike of nuclear is obvious but IW, nuclear power has a 40 year track record of making HUGE contributions in minimising greenhouse gas emissions, world wide. This contribution has been, and will probably continue to be, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDES greater than all our efforts via wind generation proposed for 2020 or 2040.鈥
Hmm but where have your 鈥渃onsequential evils and practicalities鈥 gone all of a sudden? We need to think of what is renewable, emission free and has minimal waste consequences. I鈥檓 afraid nuclear is positive on some of these counts but absolutely disastrous on many others.
鈥淵et you dismiss, with engrained opposition, the single most important vehicle that can attain your goal 鈥 nuclear.鈥
And this from the avowedly non-nuclear supporter? Then you lose the plot abit鈥
鈥淚f you really wanted to ensure a long and prosperous Tiree you would be the most active chairperson imaginable winning grants, aid and irrelevant awards for a Tiree Community Nuclear Reactor. This power station would employ at least 1/3rd of the island on an average salary of around 拢30,000-拢40,000 per annum AND spare heat could heat all your homes - free. Yes cheap was another requirement of your early blogs and this could be free.鈥
Okay this is jest and internal dialogues are great things but may be better, er, internal?
As for not being able to say no to nuclear that may be something you find eternally complex and confusing, but I think a majority of people in Scotland would disagree.
Malcolm from Edinburgh
Hello Malcolm
Sorry you have entered the debate this late. I suggest you read our long history of (IW) blogs and then if you aren鈥檛 sure where I鈥檓 coming from, or sit, please get back to me and I shall attempt to explain.
Your .. 鈥... internal dialogues are great things but may be better, er, internal?鈥濃 you always know where the off button is.
But then my comment about Tiree Community Nuclear plant may not have been in jest. This actually happens in France, communities compete for nuclear plant to be built on their turf! Like our community windfarms, their community receives bribes, pay-offs or whatever you wish to call them (although considerably more generous), for enduring the technology.
My final para was what it was all about 鈥 opening minds 鈥 even to nuclear 鈥 and my reasoning for this is also in one of the past blogs with IW.
Tony
Tony from a community windfarm free zone
How can money EARNED from a Community OWNED windfarm be a bribe?
WeeDobie from Mull
WeeDobie
Definition of a 鈥榖ribe鈥, courtesy of http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=9618&dict=CALD
鈥渢o try to make someone do something for you by giving them money, presents or something else that they want鈥
The government wants windfarms and the community will get some money. How does that not comply with the definition of a bribe?
Tony from windfarm free Coll
RSS Feed