Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Masked Tulip

Welsh Government's £48K Wind Turbine Creates £5 Of Power A Month

Recommended Posts

Bargain! I mean, it is one of the few things that the Welsh Assembly have spent public money on that actually generates an income :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182

Edit:

At that rate it would take around 452 years to offset the cost of buying and installing the turbine.

I wonder if they have allowed for compound interest on the original 48K :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's feck all to what they spend on the Welsh language, by that metric it's not too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bargain! I mean, it is one of the few things that the Welsh Assembly have spent public money on that actually generates an income :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182

Edit:

I wonder if they have allowed for compound interest on the original 48K :D

I had a similar issue at a council I I worked at 5 years ago. They proposed to spend £40K on some roof mounted chocolate teapots. I suggested that a much more environmental friendly and financially effective way of investing in wind power would be by putting the money into a wind power community scheme building utility scale wind turbines. The annual return on these is about 8-9%.

Of course the townhall mounted chocolate teapots was the preferred method :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will it take for the £16 billion nuclear power stations to 'pay back', including a few extra £billion in clean up costs?

I guess that depends on how you measure the cost of not having to have blackouts.

The really, really stupid one is having a massive natural energy resource like the Severn Estuary and not using it.

That place, with a combination of barrages, tidal pools and windfarms, maybe even some tidal turbines if the tech comes on a bit, could be generating a huge amount of energy within a few years. If we can afford to bribe the French and Chinese to build the nukes, why not the barrages and tidal pools?

I would guess that none of the Bullingdon club or their friends have relevant financial interests in the Severn projects so that would be why they shelved it so soon after election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that depends on how you measure the cost of not having to have blackouts.

The really, really stupid one is having a massive natural energy resource like the Severn Estuary and not using it.

That place, with a combination of barrages, tidal pools and windfarms, maybe even some tidal turbines if the tech comes on a bit, could be generating a huge amount of energy within a few years. If we can afford to bribe the French and Chinese to build the nukes, why not the barrages and tidal pools?

I would guess that none of the Bullingdon club or their friends have relevant financial interests in the Severn projects so that would be why they shelved it so soon after election.

closer to the truth than you know. I remember a source I knew well who worked for the old CEGB saying that when it was nuclear vs tidal planning, nukes won because i) it gave materials for our weapons and ii) none of the pollies mates could see a way of getting rich off it. That was back in the 70's and early 80's....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bargain! I mean, it is one of the few things that the Welsh Assembly have spent public money on that actually generates an income :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182

Edit:

I wonder if they have allowed for compound interest on the original 48K :D

Some completely incoherent figures in that article.

The bloke from the turbine company says it's in the wrong place and a turbine that size in the right place should produce 9000kwh a year, which seems quite good.

It is stated elsewhere that it's now operating at 68% capacity, generating 55.25 Kwh per month.

What?

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Some completely incoherent figures in that article.

The bloke from the turbine company says it's in the wrong place and a turbine that size in the right place should produce 9000kwh a year, which seems quite good.

It is stated elsewhere that it's now operating at 68% capacity, generating 55.25 Kwh per month.

What?

:blink:

Is it one of those foil windmills you give to kids, hooked up to a 3V motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it one of those foil windmills you give to kids, hooked up to a 3V motor?

Might as well be. Grid tied micro turbines on buildings are feckin useless - air flows are too turbulent plus you dont have the economy of scale with a MW sized turbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Might as well be. Grid tied micro turbines on buildings are feckin useless - air flows are too turbulent plus you dont have the economy of scale with a MW sized turbine.

Are they any use for anything? I suppose you can't rely on them and really need some way of storing the power generated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they any use for anything? I suppose you can't rely on them and really need some way of storing the power generated.

Off grid locations for storing batteries they are useful - especially if they save you from having to haul diesel to a generator. Grid connections = chocolate teapot.

Utility scale wind turbines have got bigger for a reason - economy of scale, height, and better output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

closer to the truth than you know. I remember a source I knew well who worked for the old CEGB saying that when it was nuclear vs tidal planning, nukes won because i) it gave materials for our weapons and ii) none of the pollies mates could see a way of getting rich off it. That was back in the 70's and early 80's....

Plenty of room for both, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will it take for the £16 billion nuclear power stations to 'pay back', including a few extra £billion in clean up costs?

Just to clarify: 'pay back' for who? EDF, or the taxpayer (the guy's who's promised to buy the leccy at twice today's price, and to clean up the mess afterwards)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will it take for the £16 billion nuclear power stations to 'pay back', including a few extra £billion in clean up costs?

Depends whether you're only counting the direct financial costs or the less direct benefits of having a reliable, continuous electricity supply or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will it take for the £16 billion nuclear power stations to 'pay back', including a few extra £billion in clean up costs?

Very, very roughly:

I think the combined capacity of the plants is 6,400 Mw, the wholesale price today is about £55 so the plants will earn £350,000 per hour.

£16bn/£350,000 gives approximately 45,000 hours of operation to payback the capital investment, which is roughly 5 1/2 years.

Which ignores operating costs, I'm not sure what other costs are included in the £16bn figure, also for some reason we've guaranteed a price of £95 per hour for the output.

But as a rough estimate say 5 years out of a probable 30 year life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very, very roughly:

I think the combined capacity of the plants is 6,400 Mw, the wholesale price today is about £55 so the plants will earn £350,000 per hour.

£16bn/£350,000 gives approximately 45,000 hours of operation to payback the capital investment, which is roughly 5 1/2 years.

Which ignores operating costs, I'm not sure what other costs are included in the £16bn figure, also for some reason we've guaranteed a price of £95 per hour for the output.

But as a rough estimate say 5 years out of a probable 30 year life.

I recall construction costs for new build nuke consititute about 65-70% of life time costs. Fuel only represents about 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very, very roughly:

I think the combined capacity of the plants is 6,400 Mw, the wholesale price today is about £55 so the plants will earn £350,000 per hour.

£16bn/£350,000 gives approximately 45,000 hours of operation to payback the capital investment, which is roughly 5 1/2 years.

Which ignores operating costs, I'm not sure what other costs are included in the £16bn figure, also for some reason we've guaranteed a price of £95 per hour for the output.

But as a rough estimate say 5 years out of a probable 30 year life.

So they'll get 608k per hour which after a few years, depending on operating costs will be mostly profit.

What a fabulous investment. Except that EDF aren't British and we're talking GBP here, and as GBP won't be worth anything in a few years that may reduce the brilliance of this deal from their point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: 'pay back' for who? EDF, or the taxpayer (the guy's who's promised to buy the leccy at twice today's price, and to clean up the mess afterwards)?

The taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

Off grid locations for storing batteries they are useful - especially if they save you from having to haul diesel to a generator. Grid connections = chocolate teapot.

Utility scale wind turbines have got bigger for a reason - economy of scale, height, and better output.

Yes I read of some Americans that made a wind generator, by carving the blades and sticking powerful magnets on an old brake disk. The coils were set in epoxy and it kept their battery in their "hunting lodge" charged! I'll bet they were well "off grid" to make this worthwhile. Still I'll wager it works better than those plastic ones from Maplins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.