Britain 'needs 20,000 More Wind Turbines To Stick To Green Targets'

[Riedquat]

Go ahead, invent some crap scenario to match you crap comment. Its been proven that over a large enough area there is always wind blowing, it evens itself out.

So where is it blowing right now, blowing enough to provide everyone who might theoretically want wind power? It has to be near enough to the UK to not have an utterly ludicrous-scale transmission network, which would be prohibitively expensive even if transmission losses didn't kill it. A load of pictures showing averages doesn't cut it; what is important is the minimum over the entire area you're proposing to use. Or we could just forget the whole thing and build some nukes that produce electricity all day every day, and at levels that takes thousands of wind turbines even when there's wind.

[Peter Hun]

So where is it blowing right now, blowing enough to provide everyone who might theoretically want wind power? It has to be near enough to the UK to not have an utterly ludicrous-scale transmission network, which would be prohibitively expensive even if transmission losses didn't kill it. A load of pictures showing averages doesn't cut it; what is important is the minimum over the entire area you're proposing to use. Or we could just forget the whole thing and build some nukes that produce electricity all day every day, and at levels that takes thousands of wind turbines even when there's wind.

the North sea grid is being built by 10 countries, so it will no longer be a problem

Ministers from 10 European countries bordering the North Sea have agreed the construction of a new offshore electricity grid.

The grid will link countries across Europe and make it much easier for member states to trade energy.

It will also simplify the exploitation of the 140 Gigawatt offshore windfarm currently being planned in the North Sea.

Analysts say Europe needs offshore wind farms to meet emissions targets.

The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the governments of the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

EU countries launch North Sea electricity grid

The potential job creation capacity of this activity by 2020 — 2030 is of the order of 100 to 150,000. The capacity in matters of offshore wind energy in the North Sea region is enormous. It even surpasses the energy equivalent of petrol reserves in the Middle East. Initial estimations show that 150 GW will be set up by 2030. They shall produce 563 TWh, which will represent 16% of electricity consumption in Europe. By 2050, offshore grid could even be able to supply 46% of Europe's energy consumption. "Until now, each country developed its own offshore farms", says the European Presidency. "By signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the States bordering the North Seas send out a signal that the development of their national farms is carried on henceforth in the European spirit and that all means will be put to use to get the best results out of this endeavor in the most cost-effective way. With this Memorandum, the objective of 100% renewable energy by 2050 is no longer a dream."

Such a super grid will help unite Europe as one super country with a reliable power supply for all of its citizens.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Offshore-Electricity-Grid.html

Edited December 20, 2010 by Peter Hun

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

People talk about wind power as though it's still a cranky concept promoted by a few hippies in California. But it's a sophisticated mainstream industry now.

As I said in a previous post, in the 1960's and 1970's, there was a huge programme to tap natural gas from under the north sea. Pipelines were built to bring ashore the gas, plus a major pipeline gas grid across the whole country - a huge undertaking that is largely forgotten now. And then there were the huge drilling rigs and production platforms that were towed far out into the North Sea.

All that for a finite natural resource that is already in decline after about 40 years' production.

If we could do that then, building large offshore windfarms is perfectly achievable and viable. A lot of the expertise for construction and maintenence in harsh marine environments is transferable from the declining North Sea gas and oil industries. Yes, some turbines will fail from time to time, but there are accidents and failures in the gas and oil industries, in shipping, or in onshore steam power stations like coal and nuclear.

Such a super grid will help unite Europe as one super country with a reliable power supply for all of its citizens.

Although I'm pro EU, I'd stop short of the idea of one 'super country'. But North sea wind generation could well become a joint European asset.

That map on the post above looks a bit iffy, though, since it shows windfarms in places where the sea is relatively deep in continental shelf terms, like the middle of the Irish Sea!

Edited December 20, 2010 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[Pindar]

What a load of shyte.

I disagree. People have been duped into believing they are helping the environment in the interests of big corporations. Incandescent light bulbs might consume more energy but is it acceptable that they are replaced with technology that could have far worse consequences on our survival and our very ability to creatively adapt to a changing environment?

[Soul Reaver]

You understand that man made production of C02 is not trivial? For instance 25liters of petrol burns to produce about 40Kg of CO2

Here's the wind energy stats for the current install base of UK wind power

http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp

5GW of wind power, replaces 5.8 million tonnes of CO2 per year, 136 thousand tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 40,000 tons of Nitrous Dioxide.

I did a calculation once; a life time of C02 from each person would take a storage tank the size of a small house. Anybody who produces it should be forced to buy and store the C02 for eternity, 'he who dealt it, owns it' after all. You would not need to worry about house prices, you would have a mortgage for the CO2 instead.

25 litres of petrol weighs about 25kg! How does 25kg of something burning produce 40kg of something else?

[Riedquat]

the North sea grid is being built by 10 countries, so it will no longer be a problem

And over that area there is how much wind at the moment?

[Peter Hun]

That map on the post above looks a bit iffy, though, since it shows windfarms in places where the sea is relatively deep in continental shelf terms, like the middle of the Irish Sea!

There are more accurate maps avilable, that one looked nice!

Explanation of HVDC technology, 3% losses over 1000km

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages_of_HVDC_over_AC_transmission

A map there of existing links (pre this announcement of course) is not accepted file type on HPC

Edited December 20, 2010 by Peter Hun

[Peter Hun]

25 litres of petrol weighs about 25kg! How does 25kg of something burning produce 40kg of something else?

It combines with Oxygen (O2, weight 16), which weighs more than the original fuel Carbon (C12) to produce CO2. So it weighs over twice as much, in fact, as the original fuel.

[Peter Hun]

And over that area there is how much wind at the moment?

As has been quoted, more than the energy potential of the whole of the middle east's oil. There is enough harvest-able to provide 46% of the EU energy requirements in 2050.

Wave power is several times as much as wind power potential.

Southern Europe will get power from the Sahara solar plant planned by the Germans etc. with transmission between depending on demand and storage in Norwegian Hydro plants.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Peter Hun

[Kurt Barlow]

I disagree. People have been duped into believing they are helping the environment in the interests of big corporations. Incandescent light bulbs might consume more energy but is it acceptable that they are replaced with technology that could have far worse consequences on our survival and our very ability to creatively adapt to a changing environment?

There is no dispute from me over the toxicity of mercury.

My point about the comment being shyte relates to the same old chestnut about CFL's

Yes they contain a miniscule quantity of mercury. However their use over conventional incandescent bulbs saves many times that mercury in flue stack emissions even with best available pollution control technology being applied.

Recycling facilities for CFL's are widespread - just about any civic amenity site.

For those that end up in landfills - well landfills have bit thick clay liners and big thick clay and synthetic caps which effectively eleminate migration of mercury in the way described.

[Kurt Barlow]

25 litres of petrol weighs about 25kg! How does 25kg of something burning produce 40kg of something else?

More like 20 KG. Also from your comment - did you stop listening to chemistry / physic lessons aged 11?

[jonb]

link

Climate change is rubbish. Britain's output of 'greenhouse' gasses is so small in relation to our other G8 (G20 really, as our economy is falling like a stone) competitors. It's a scam, a fvcking tax ruse, and people all over the shop are buying this one up. Lots of my friends and family have bought it, hook line and sinker

The real issue is the North Sea. Oil and gas production WILL be half or less by the year 2020.

Things are going to get so expensive it will make your head spin faster than one of these turbines.

I don't agree with your claim that global warming is a scam, but, as you point out, carbon based fuels are running out, and in 2050, it may well be difficult to emit as much as 40% of current CO2 even if we wanted to. So we still need alternative energy sources for that reason. Wind power of course is not the whole solution as wind doesn't blow all of the time. It is about 10% of the solution, but looking at energy on a Europe-wide basis, wind is about 10% of the answer to Europe's energy needs, and a fairly large proportion of that will be in and around the British Isles, because we get the most wind.

[Peter Hun]

More like 20 KG. Also from your comment - did you stop listening to chemistry / physic lessons aged 11?

Yes, petrol is lighter than water (about 0.8) so its less than 1kg per litre.

[jonb]

If only this green propaganda was true.

For example, the whole country has recently replaced traditional light-bulbs with the fluorescent ones.

As a result, you can now find little portions of highly toxic mercury in every British house. Most of them will end up in a landfill and filter through to our water.

What's the result for our future? No clean water and no healthy children (increased cancer rates).

Is this the better, 'greener' world?

Old solutions are sometimes much greener than we think but they don't generate more consumption.

Green solutions are here to make us consume more (new green cars, new green electricals, etc.). People underestimate the environmental cost of manufacturing those 'green' products.

And how many lightbulbs would you need to get enough mercury to fill a tooth?

[Riedquat]

As has been quoted, more than the energy potential of the whole of the middle east's oil. There is enough harvest-able to provide 46% of the EU energy requirements in 2050.

Right now, today? Really? No sign of any out of the window, and not very many isobars on the weather map over the North Sea suggests that there's probably not a lot of wind blowing there right now either. It's no use if it can provide 46% on average if that goes along with providing diddly squat in the middle of a cold spell, just when you need it the most. Your 46% is an utterly irrelevent number. The only one that's relevent is the minimum, because that's what you need to plan for. And the minimum isn't looking too far off zero.

[Riedquat]

It is about 10% of the solution, but looking at energy on a Europe-wide basis, wind is about 10% of the answer to Europe's energy needs

Why? If it's only that, and requires enormous numbers of turbines and a massive grid infrastructure, it seems far more sensible to forget about it and have a small expansion of the other 90%.

[Peter Hun]

So where is it blowing right now, blowing enough to provide everyone who might theoretically want wind power? It has to be near enough to the UK to not have an utterly ludicrous-scale transmission network, which would be prohibitively expensive even if transmission losses didn't kill it. A load of pictures showing averages doesn't cut it; what is important is the minimum over the entire area you're proposing to use. Or we could just forget the whole thing and build some nukes that produce electricity all day every day, and at levels that takes thousands of wind turbines even when there's wind.

How smart of you to discover that the wind doesn't blow everywhere at the same time. I bet those guys who have spent the last hundred years of constantly measuring wind using thousands of mechanical devices and who now use satellite LIDAR to plot the flow of winds and waves over the whole planet would just love to hear your insights.

Here is just one article explaining how they do it.

CALIPSO

[Peter Hun]

Right now, today? Really? No sign of any out of the window, and not very many isobars on the weather map over the North Sea suggests that there's probably not a lot of wind blowing there right now either. It's no use if it can provide 46% on average if that goes along with providing diddly squat in the middle of a cold spell, just when you need it the most. Your 46% is an utterly irrelevent number. The only one that's relevent is the minimum, because that's what you need to plan for. And the minimum isn't looking too far off zero.

You store the energy or get it from another source. Like the Sun in the Sahara desert, where the solar plants will be built.. Thank god we don't have engineers with your mental capacity in charge of its infrastructure.

Why? If it's only that, and requires enormous numbers of turbines and a massive grid infrastructure, it seems far more sensible to forget about it and have a small expansion of the other 90%.

People who can do the maths have done it and worked out this is the cheapest option.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Peter Hun

[Riedquat]

How smart of you to discover that the wind doesn't blow everywhere at the same time. I bet those guys who have spent the last hundred years of constantly measuring wind using thousands of mechanical devices and who now use satellite LIDAR to plot the flow of winds and waves over the whole planet would just love to hear your insights.

Here is just one article explaining how they do it.

CALIPSO

And that has precisely what to do with my point that I rather doubt that there's much wind at all over the whole North Sea area right at this moment? Why do you insist on bringing up a link about something that I haven't even disputed?

[jonb]

25 litres of petrol weighs about 25kg! How does 25kg of something burning produce 40kg of something else?

Because when you burn petrol, you add oxygen to it, which weighs quite a bit.

[Riedquat]

You store the energy or get it from another source. Like the Sun in the Sahara desert, where the solar plants will be built.. Thank god we don't have engineers with your mental capacity in charge of its infrastructure.

People who can do the maths have done it and worked out this is the cheapest option.

Right... resorting to insults when your opinions are challenged. Shows what sort of mind I'm dealing with, and you have the temerity to question mine!

We don't have any practical large-scale storage methods that can work on the sort of scale required; pumped storage is the current biggest one, and is rather limited by geography.

You also seem to be trying to defend yourself by expanding out into the Sahara. I'd be interested in seeing any non-pie-in-the-sky estimates about the practicality and cost of large-scale Sahara solar generation, including transmitting it all the way back here. Technically possible, perhaps, but is that being developed right now to shoehorn in with the planned wind power expansion? No.

Edit to add: Cheapest option? Maybe, but you get what you pay for, which in that case would be a less reliable system of energy generation. The world is full of examples of people going for cheapest option then finding out that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Another edit: Don't try to defend what people are trying to put into practice now by relying on "this might happen in the future", particularly not if you're then going to try to insult someone's intelligence.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Riedquat

[jonb]

Right... resorting to insults when your opinions are challenged. Shows what sort of mind I'm dealing with, and you have the temerity to question mine!

We don't have any practical large-scale storage methods that can work on the sort of scale required; pumped storage is the current biggest one, and is rather limited by geography.

You also seem to be trying to defend yourself by expanding out into the Sahara. I'd be interested in seeing any non-pie-in-the-sky estimates about the practicality and cost of large-scale Sahara solar generation, including transmitting it all the way back here. Technically possible, perhaps, but is that being developed right now to shoehorn in with the planned wind power expansion? No.

Edit to add: Cheapest option? Maybe, but you get what you pay for, which in that case would be a less reliable system of energy generation. The world is full of examples of people going for cheapest option then finding out that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Another edit: Don't try to defend what people are trying to put into practice now by relying on "this might happen in the future", particularly not if you're then going to try to insult someone's intelligence.

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are already connected to the European Grid via a cable across the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe that cable will need to be upgraded. Maybe we will also want a second one from Tunisia to Sicilly, but this all seems perfectly viable.

[Riedquat]

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are already connected to the European Grid via a cable across the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe that cable will need to be upgraded. Maybe we will also want a second one from Tunisia to Sicilly, but this all seems perfectly viable.

If it's going to provide up to 10% (or perhaps 46%, depending on who's figures you look at) to the entirety of Europe then it's a completely different scale of magnitude to what already exists. Also, I would like to see some proved, we-could-build-it-now evidence of large-scale solar generation and accompanying storage so that we can't only turn the lights on during the day, evidence that this is a viable, practical scheme to accompany a large increase in wind power generation. It all looks far more like a future concept of the type we need to be thinking up, but not part of the immediate (i.e. next 30-odd years timescale) issues that we're faced with now, which have to be based on 100% known methods that require no further development to be made practical. Who is champing at the bit to start building all of this stuff?

[Rare Bear]

25 litres of petrol weighs about 25kg! How does 25kg of something burning produce 40kg of something else?

Well, some of the petrol is carbon, its a mixture of hydrocarbons.One atom of carbon, atomic weight 12, burns with 2 atoms of oxygen, atomic weight 16, to produce 1 molecule of CO2, carbon dioxide, weight 44.

[Rare Bear]

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are already connected to the European Grid via a cable across the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe that cable will need to be upgraded. Maybe we will also want a second one from Tunisia to Sicilly, but this all seems perfectly viable.

You reckon the next Yamani will come from one of those countries?