bye bye standby?

Latest Articles

bye bye standby?
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:26 pm Post subject:

Okay, plucking the first numbers I can find, it says here that new wind turbines have a power output of around 2MW, and it says here that Sizewell B puts out around 1200MW over a 40 year design life.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as saying that you therefore need 600 wind turbines (that's a lot already!) to replace one power station, as the power station can go at full whack 24/7, whereas the turbines will not be able to put out their full potential for anyway near that. Indeed, some days there will be no wind at all, and this can go on for a period of a few days at a time (I had some figures for this the other day - might have thrown them out now

), and for these periods you need a fallback.[/url]

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45677
Location: Essex

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:28 pm Post subject:
Lets say it was 1000 2MW turbines, what would the difference in concrete be? Or the lifetime emissions, including de-commissioning?

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:30 pm Post subject:
By the way, the first website is very pro-wind power. I'd dispute some of the claims on it, such as implication that it's windier when it's cold. Not had time to read the rest.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:30 pm Post subject:
True, but wind power isn't designed to work on it's own, it's a complimentary supply designed to work in conjunction with other renewables. Tidal flow generation would certainly work almost 24/7.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45677
Location: Essex

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:31 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

By the way, the first website is very pro-wind power. I'd dispute some of the claims on it, such as implication that it's windier when it's cold. Not had time to read the rest.

That's the biggest problem, I've not seen anything that is truly unbiased

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:33 pm Post subject:

tahir wrote:

Lets say it was 1000 2MW turbines, what would the difference in concrete be? Or the lifetime emissions, including de-commissioning?

That's the thing, the emissions and storage of waste, plus the storage of the facilities themselves after decommissioning. There are waste substances in sellafield such as TC-99 for which we have no known method for treatment, they're just stored, with a half life of 120,000 years until we can come up with something.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45677
Location: Essex

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:36 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

There are waste substances in sellafield such as TC-99 for which we have no known method for treatment, they're just stored, with a half life of 120,000 years until we can come up with something.

Totally unquantifiable isn't it?

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:39 pm Post subject:
Yes, that's why I'm worried that the decisions made by our government won't solve the problem, they'll merely bury it for someone else to deal with. Cards on the table - I'm anti nuclear, but simply for the reason that we can't or won't put in the effort to deal with the inevitable waste.

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:40 pm Post subject:

Wind turbine concrete info here. Looks like around 200m� of concrete for the foundations, plus the stuff access,etc.

Apologies for posting these as I find them - maybe if I ever get time I should try to write a full length, balanced (yes, I can do them) piece incorporating all the data. That would be fun - I wouldn't know what the answer was until I'd finished, or even if I'd arrive at an answer!

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:42 pm Post subject:
200m3 isn't a lot in itself, I'll have to check how much we poured into our house founds and slab.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45677
Location: Essex

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:43 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Cards on the table - I'm anti nuclear, but simply for the reason that we can't or won't put in the effort to deal with the inevitable waste.

Agree, and that really is the only reason why, I know there are risks to nuclear power but I'd hope that newer designs would discharge much less in the way of contaminants in case of an incident, but the issue of waste can't be adequately dealt with.

Oh and then there's obviously the raving loonies that may want try their hand at using a nuclear power station to produce weapons grade material....

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:45 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Cards on the table - I'm anti nuclear, but simply for the reason that we can't or won't put in the effort to deal with the inevitable waste.

I'm not strongly pro-nuclear, but I think it needs to be considered as part of an overall review of UK power consumption and supply. Most large-scale renewables are weather dependent, and you need something to provide power when the weather really isn't doing much. I prefer to look at the waste issue with a half-full glass perspective - okay, the waste is very, very nasty indeed, and we currently can't do anything other than store it, but I think that, on balance, that's better than releasing enormous quantities of waste into the environment at the time the power is generated.

Personally, I'm a fan of biomass power generation - doesn't rely on the weather (barring widespread flooding / drought / etc) and I'd rather see large areas of coppicing or biomass crops than seeing SSSIs destroyed by vast wind farms any day.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45677
Location: Essex

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:47 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

Personally, I'm a fan of biomass power generation - doesn't rely on the weather (barring widespread flooding / drought / etc) and I'd rather see large areas of coppicing or biomass crops than seeing SSSIs destroyed by vast wind farms any day.

But whats the sums on them? And then there's the recent "discovery" that plant growth generates methane.

Shane

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:48 pm Post subject:

tahir wrote:

Oh and then there's obviously the raving loonies that may want try their hand at using a nuclear power station to produce weapons grade material....

Impossible - you could make a dirty bomb, but you can only make weapons-grade plutonium in a dedicated plant built only for that purpose. Of course, you could tell the UN that it's something else entirely and let them spend 8 years having a chat about it while you're churning the stuff out...

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 06 4:50 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Cards on the table - I'm anti nuclear, but simply for the reason that we can't or won't put in the effort to deal with the inevitable waste.

Largely agree, and I would love to be convinced that we can adequately deal with the waste as nuclear has the potential to be very beneficial to our environment.

But I am concerned that pushing for a nuclear option rather than a coal or gas powered option is advocating the lesser of two evils rather than the best way forward.

It's funny, all future demand forecasts are based on economic growth. Nobody is suggesting that our economic growth model is fundamentally flawed and we need to move away from manufacturing and consuming more and more 'stuff'

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

View Latest Posts