What to back wind farms with?

SeanW

Hi everyone:

I think I'm in agreement with all here when I say I wish there was more renewable energy in this country. Like, among other things, wind farms. Nice clean, no CO2, but only as reliable as ... the wind.

Of course, winds can slow down, stop, or exceed safe operating thresholds. When that happens, you don't get no power so there has to be something to back the windfarm with to cover this.

My question to environmentalists and semi-environmentalists alike, what should be that backup form, and indeed plug the gap renewables cannot fill?

lostexpectation

wow thats an incredibly narrow set of options there, how about other forms of renewable 'energy' and batteries.

foamcutter

Surely as an island nation we should look into wave/tidal power.

piraka

SeanW wrote:

Hi everyone:

I think I'm in agreement with all here when I say I wish there was more renewable energy in this country. Like, among other things, wind farms. Nice clean, no CO2, but only as reliable as ... the wind.

Of course, winds can slow down, stop, or exceed safe operating thresholds. When that happens, you don't get no power so there has to be something to back the windfarm with to cover this.

My question to environmentalists and semi-environmentalists alike, what should be that backup form, and indeed plug the gap renewables cannot fill?

SeanW wrote:

Hi everyone:

I think I'm in agreement with all here when I say I wish there was more renewable energy in this country. Like, among other things, wind farms. Nice clean, no CO2, but only as reliable as ... the wind.

Of course, winds can slow down, stop, or exceed safe operating thresholds. When that happens, you don't get no power so there has to be something to back the windfarm with to cover this.

My question to environmentalists and semi-environmentalists alike, what should be that backup form, and indeed plug the gap renewables cannot fill?

From this comment it would appear that you are presenting wind as the primary energy source to power.

If that is the case, Ireland would have to install about 7000 2 MW turbines (or a line of 2MW turbines side by side from Malin Head to Roches Point) just to meet the current winter demand without considering the growth expected in demand.

From the survey waste-to-energy is in the lead as a back up supply.

One would hope that there would be no accidents in the incinerator as this would lead to widespread dioxin contamination of the countryside, as there is no containment of emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin

Pocari Sweat

Rather than stunt the growth of Ireland over the next 15 years with minor quick fixes to energy demand, both in terms of the economy and for development of population numbers, why not go super green like finland to protect the environment with the range of heat saving measures they introduce into house building and nuclear power generation that the fins swear by as efficient, low cost, safe and zero emmissions.

As the fins are the world leaders pushing to the limit domestic green policy why not follow their example and plan well ahead, and start making the changes now before it is too late?

piraka

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Rather than stunt the growth of Ireland over the next 15 years with minor quick fixes to energy demand, both in terms of the economy and for development of population numbers, why not go super green like finland to protect the environment with the range of heat saving measures they introduce into house building and nuclear power generation that the fins swear by as efficient, low cost, safe and zero emmissions.

As the fins are the world leaders pushing to the limit domestic green policy why not follow their example and plan well ahead, and start making the changes now before it is too late?

We are obliged to improve the energy performance of our housing

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_001/l_00120030104en00650071.pdf

All we need is the nuclear plant

SeanW

From this comment it would appear that you are presenting wind as the primary energy source to power.

With wind as a major part of a clean energy policy (like we should have) there are 2 key weak points.

1: Winds can stop or exceed safe operating thresholds, and according to Eirgrid, there have been times recently when wind generation has been exactly 0 MW. So building wind farms does negate the need to have other generation mechanisms, at least on a standby basis.

2: Obviously wind alone cannot be a source of power.

So the poll question applies to both problems, what should fill the permanent gap wind can never fill, and what should should backup wind farms when their unreliable fuel intermittently stops delivering?

lostexpectation

but you didn't put in solar and wave, and an option that includes the obvious continued use of all of the above apart from nuclear, or whether waste the can be reused or recycled in other ways should be used as fuel, you choices were way to narrow.

piraka

lostexpectation wrote:

but you didn't put in solar and wave, and an option that includes the obvious continued use of all of the above apart from nuclear, or whether waste the can be reused or recycled in other ways should be used as fuel, you choices were way to narrow.

Wind has become the renewable energy of choice, possibly due low capital and electricity generation costs with substantial returns on investment compared to other methods of renewable energy generation described, most of which are still only in development.

These methods are all intermittent sources of electricity generation. The grid operates are required by EU legislation to provide a constant supply electricity to the customer.

If electricity demand and generation are not maintained in balance, then the frequency of the system will deviate from its statutory level. All power systems within the EU are required to maintain a frequency of 50Hz, with an error tolerance of no more than ±0.5 Hz (that is a range of 49.5 Hz to 50.5 Hz). If there is insufficient generation to meet demand at any time then the system frequency will fall (a low frequency event), whereas a surplus of generation over demand will lead to an increase in system frequency (a high frequency event). Low frequency events can be corrected through an increase in generation or a reduction in demand, whereas high frequency events require a reduction in generation (or increase in demand).

The consequences of an unchecked frequency excursion are potentially severe and can in extremis result in a blackout across the entire electricity system. Electrical systems are designed to operate in accordance with the statutory requirements. Some manufacturing processes are intolerant of variations in frequency (and/or voltage), potentially leading to equipment damage. Accordingly, protection equipment is installed at some consumer premises, on the transmission and distribution systems and at power stations, which will
disconnect load and generation when the frequency drops below or exceeds defined thresholds. The effect of a frequency incident that breaches these protection thresholds could lead to a rapid failure of the electricity grid as power stations and demand trip off the system.

Source
http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/InfoCentre/IlexWindReserrev2FSFinal.pdf


If we are dependant on intermittent renewable sources of power generation it is much harder to balance the system, which in turn can leads to frequency excursions i.e., wind drops, waves calm, cloud passes in front of the sun.


http://www.edf.com/html/mee/pdf/dir_secu-approvision_060118_va.pdf

piraka

SeanW wrote:

So the poll question applies to both problems, what should fill the permanent gap wind can never fill, and what should should backup wind farms when their unreliable fuel intermittently stops delivering?

Which ever provides the cheapest electricity to the consumer, but with operational inefficiencies due to stop/start of all the technologies described you can expect the cost of electricity to rise substantially, if they are a backup to wind.

Capt'n Midnight

lostexpectation wrote:

wow thats an incredibly narrow set of options there, how about other forms of renewable 'energy' and batteries.

* Pumped storage
* Methane Hydrates
* Tidal turbines
* Wave power
* willow coppicing / other renewable biomass
* flywheels - http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_cure_battery_blues/index.html
This could be done on the windmill itself for gaps of a few minutes or at substations
* And the obvious one - Other Wind Farms
http://airtricity.com/ireland/media_center/news/recent_news/airtricity_briefs_mps_on_/index.xml

Airtricity briefs MPs on Pan-European grid plan
Irish Times Monday 8th of May 2006
Airtricity, the Irish wind energy company, will brief MPs at the House of Commons in London today in a effort to win political support for an initiative to build a pan-European subsea electricy grid at an initial cost of €22 billion. The company is seeking support for its Supergrid initiative, the first phase of which is a 10 gigawatt windfarm project in the North Sea that would be connected to the national electricity grids in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. The ultimate aim is to create a system that would link offshore windfarms in the Mediterranean to the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bwea.com/ref/stop.html

What happens when the wind stops blowing?
...
Putting it into perspective

The other threats to the system, which far outweigh the variability of wind are:

* Failure of the cross channel link. The UK is connected to France by two 1000MW circuits which periodically fail. Loss of one circuit occurs more frequently than the loss of both, but neither occurrence causes any significant upset to system operations.
* Steam turbine trips - these occur for many reasons, including false alarms. The largest stets have a rating of 660 MW and, again, the system is managed so that these cause no problems.
* Transformer failures - when these occur on the national grid, significant imbalances can occur and load sometimes needs to be shed as a result.
* Thunderstorms - National Grid network circuits can trip out if struck by lightning.
* Unexpected increases in demand - e.g. dark storm clouds can cause a sudden increase in lighting demand. Most increases in demand are predictable and so pose less of a problem.

The imagined threat due to wind generation is simply not in the same league as any of these occurrences.

...

What actually happens?

When the system has to cope with a sudden shortfalls in supply (or a sudden increase in demand) the following help to protect the system against failure:

* The inertia of generating plant initially keeps the system smooth.
* The voltage can be reduced slightly.
* Pumped storage. The pumped storage systems at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog can respond within 15 seconds or so and can provide a maximum of 2160MW.
* Spinning reserve. Some plant is kept on part load, and its output can be increased relatively rapidly.

When there is a loss of demand, these things work in the opposite direction. For example the output of reserve plant is reduced and the turbines at the pumped storage reservoirs pump water back up to the reservoir.
...
Over the summer the capacity factor was 0.167 but during the winter quarter, when electricity demand is higher, it was 0.445.

Experience gained from UK wind farms suggests that during the triad periods (the three half hour periods with the maximum electricity demand in the year) wind farms tend to be operating at around two thirds capacity factor. (This is no surprise, because electricity demand increases on very cold days, and the 'wind-chill' factor increases the heat loss from homes, hence increasing their demand for heating).

lostexpectation

piraka wrote:

Wind has become the renewable energy of choice, possibly due low capital and electricity generation costs with substantial returns on investment compared to other methods of renewable energy generation described, most of which are still only in development.

but none of them would fail at the same time, and I and most wannabeegreen people Im sure would wholeheartedly agree on having (much reduced) iol/gas/coal/peat/ generator use continued and used as a back up, its total strawman to isolate wind and say its intermittment. Its ridiculous.

and reduction and diversifying is more important then wind.

piraka

but none of them would fail at the same time...

How can you predict that none would fail at the same time. You are heading into weather predictions in order to ascertain where our energy will be coming from next. Good Luck!!!!

Capt'n Midnight

piraka wrote:

How can you predict that none would fail at the same time. You are heading into weather predictions in order to ascertain where our energy will be coming from next. Good Luck!!!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The ultimate aim is to create a system that would link offshore windfarms in the Mediterranean to the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

bound to be some wind somewhere eh ? Air moves from an area of high pressure to one of low pressure. Next time you see a weather map of western europe with just one isobar let me know.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

* Pumped storage. The pumped storage systems at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog can respond within 15 seconds or so and can provide a maximum of 2160MW.

and that's not taking into account tidal / wave / biomass / interconnector etc.

We can also do like they do in the UK pay large industries to NOT use electricity at peak times or if there a problem with supply. (they do this because they get cheaper electricity at other times) As per previous quote lack of wind power is really only a problem if there were serious supply problems anyway with other stations off line and other demands.

piraka

bound to be some wind somewhere eh ? Air moves from an area of high pressure to one of low pressure. Next time you see a weather map of western europe with just one isobar let me know.

Weather is symptomatic of non-linear mathematics. Easy to give general predictions, but hard to give accurate predictions. How was the chaos theory first described? Modeling weather patterns!!.

Capt'n Midnight

piraka wrote:

Easy to give general predictions, but hard to give accurate predictions.

I'm taking about an interconnector from the Baltic to the Med. Not a few geographically close wind farms.

piraka

Point Taken:)

Pocari Sweat

In the Daily mail this week it showed a map of the ESB network in Ireland and the cable link from Dublin via the Isle of Man to Stranrare, to import nuclear electric from the UK.

If ireland wants to be nuclear free, but needs sufficient electric in the future with growing population, will they go for building nuclear plant in the UK and send across the supply, so as to get best of both worlds, NIMBY and plenty of safe nuclear electric without the fear?

As for my theory of goat powered stations in Ireland, surely they are better than burning turf off the bogs?

stonecipher

I have found a project website for the interconnector www.eastwestinterconnector.ie it has some interesting stuff there, including a route map.

Black Swan

Check out the last issue of WIRED magazine with the picture of Al Gore on the cover. It's their green issue and addresses a lot of these issues.

Personally, I would amend your poll to include hydrogen fuel cells, which produces an emission of water after burning.

Glenbhoy

As for my theory of goat powered stations in Ireland, surely they are better than burning turf off the bogs?

Can goats be used as fuel without the emissions that many incinerators are accused of?
For my money, a range of wind farms, investing in tidal generators, allied with the Finnish model as described by Pocari Sweat earlier would be the best way forward. That gives us generally clean, renewable supplies with back up nuclear at all times (at least in my non-scientific opinion).
We also have to address the multiple energy inefficiencies in our housing stock and embrace any type of energy (such as solar water heaters etc) that can be used in a given situation.
This gives the nation low cost (hopefully, as long as the wind, wave and nuclear workers union doesn't get in there) and secure energy into the future with the added benefits of reducing emissions of greenhouse and other waste products (bar a wee bit of nuclear waste which we'll ship off to some poor country).

saibhne

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Personally, I would amend your poll to include hydrogen fuel cells, which produces an emission of water after burning.

Hydrogen fuel cells do not create energy they store it - the Hydrogen needs to be created by electricity generated by some other means.

I also think the poll is very limited - Wind can be backed up by numerous other renewable sources, as mentioned earlier by lost expectation more can be achieved through the reduction of our energy requirements and the diversification of the way we produce.

Interestingly, in Spain domestic producers of solar energy are paid a tarriff of 39 cent per KWh for the energy they produce and put on the grid (see:http://streference.jrc.cec.eu.int/pdf/PV%20Report%202005.pdf beware it's a hefty .pdf) this I've been told is about 3 to 4 times the price the user buys their electricity at.
Here the Spanish are encouraging the public to utilise a natural resource, the sun in this case, which they have plenty of. Also interesting is Germany which in terms of insolation has the same solar potential as Ireland, has also seen a massive increase in the use of solar in domestic situations.
With some decent home energy management, a few right steps in market and technology, (particularly the Irish grid opening up to domestic inputs), then add a generous sprinkle of Government subsidy to get things moving I think it's possible for an average Irish house's energy demands to become at least neutral.
Picture every south facing roof tiled with a few solar panels and a small quiet wind turbine attached to every chimney and all this energy going to the grid. Am I dreaming?

SeanW

In all fairness to defend my poll choices some of the stuff you guys have mentioned like solar power and windfarms elsewhere can only come from other countries falls under International Interconnection which only recieved a few votes.

I was surprised to see a lot of people voting for Nuclear Power - it seems many of you guys are switched on and have done your research. You should feel justifiably proud.

Waste to Energy is slightly dodgier in that the incinerators have to be operated at a very high temperature, otherwise pollution will be caused, and the use of trash as "renewable" raises its own questions. Of course trash is going to be generated anyway, and it HAS to go somewhere, right now that means ever expanding landfills.

lostexpectation

SeanW wrote:

In all fairness to defend my poll choices some of the stuff you guys have mentioned like solar power and windfarms elsewhere can only come from other countries falls under International Interconnection which only recieved a few votes.

I was surprised to see a lot of people voting for Nuclear Power - it seems many of you guys are switched on and have done your research. You should feel justifiably proud.

Waste to Energy is slightly dodgier in that the incinerators have to be operated at a very high temperature, otherwise pollution will be caused, and the use of trash as "renewable" raises its own questions. Of course trash is going to be generated anyway, and it HAS to go somewhere, right now that means ever expanding landfills.

thats not right these 'thermal treatments' plants want to use potentially recyclable trash as a fuel source, or atleast compete with the others for that material.

I think your question is wrong too?
What to back wind farms with. Who said windfarms are going to be the main source of power over and above everything else?

You are heading into weather predictions in order to ascertain where our energy will be coming from next. Good Luck!!!!

and thanks to the cap for pointing another misnomer about predicting weather? jeez :rolleyes: and wind neededa back, how do you back up wind with other wind!

surely the most power will be saved and produced by individuals, and not necesarily by anything or anyone connceted to the grid?

SeanW

thats not right these 'thermal treatments' plants want to use potentially recyclable trash as a fuel source, or atleast compete with the others for that material.

To be fair I did say that using trash as a fuel source raised these kind of questions.

Obviously "Reduce, Reuse Recycle" is a better way of dealing with some waste, but and the end of the day stuff will still have to be dumped.

The poll question isn't perfect becuase I was trying to ask 2 questions at once and it didn't really work.

saibhne

SeanW wrote:

In all fairness to defend my poll choices some of the stuff you guys have mentioned like solar power and windfarms elsewhere can only come from other countries falls under International Interconnection which only recieved a few votes.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post here but I'll just clarify, my suggestion was to change focus and not to look at big individual methods of generating power as the only way to back up wind power (assuming this would be our main energy source) but to bring it down to the micro and local level.
This would be power generated at home literally where each house/building/community would have an energy generating capacity capable of powering the essentials but the potential is there to power a lot more. All small scale renewable systems are properly designed with a three day equivalent minimum power storage in case the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine or the water doesn't flow.
Larger generating systems would be there to augment the local system - not the other way around..

SeanW

No saibhne, I was not referring to any post in particular. There appeared to be a general theme of discussion about my poll not showing things like solar power and a trans-European wind network, my point was that that was all covered under International Interconnection.

So you'd prefer an increase in local power generation?

Ok, how would some of these grab you? The folks of Galena, Alaska, seem to think the Toshiba 10MW Micro-Nuke is the answer to their unique energy problems.

damiand

Hi All,

Few issues

1. We are a net importer of electrictity from the UK. A percentage of this is Nuclear. That is a small percentage of our National usage of electricity is provided by the deaded nuclear power plants in england and further afield. So much for being a nuclear free country.

2. Wind power is not all its cracked up to be. The so call environmnetal gains are minimal if not flat. The average wind turnine 65m requires nearly 1000 tonnes of material in its on site construction. This figure is made op of 100 tonnes of steel in the tower, 100 tonnes of steel/alaminium in the blades and the nautilice, 100 tonnes of steel in the foundations and close to 700 tonnes of concret and stone in the foundations and associted service roads. These figures are all rough but detailed figures can be provided should they be required. Steel smelting is a very dirty business.

The way forward is probably tidal power, with some wing power, biomass along with an integrated waste inceneration system nationally.

saibhne

SeanW wrote:

Ok, how would some of these grab you? The folks of Galena, Alaska, seem to think the Toshiba 10MW Micro-Nuke is the answer to their unique energy problems.

Interesting, although I'm mostly convinced by the technical arguments in favour of Nuclear and it's safety I still don't see it as desirable right now for two main reasons.

Firstly, Uranium is a finite resource and will run out eventually, If Nuclear is adopted worldwide as a major energy source some predictions put the Uranium "peak" at just 20 years away and on the other hand others predict up to 100s of years of joyous Nuclear energy. When the peak occurs is immaterial to me in the argument of adopting Nuclear when the fact reamins that it will happen.

The article you linked to suggests the micro Nuclear reactor needed to be replaced in 30 years, what would the world situation be like then? Better because we use one finite resource over another? Maybe in terms of climate change but I doubt the world will be a nicer place to live in. When the chips are down and resources scarce if Britain and America are willing to go into Iraq guns blazing will a situation arise where they consider the same for Brazil perhaps or will China or N. Korea consider going into Kazakhstan to secure their own Uranium source? It's a scenario we have witnessed for hundreds of years throughout history where the big players go looking to secure resources by force, only difference this time is that they'll have lots of Nuclear bombs to play with.

Secondly, In terms of an Irish Nuclear capability an Irish government would have to commission and oversee the creation of the reactor - that instills a great amount of trepidation in me. To have a politician who sees life in a maximum of five year chunks responsible for something that will last safely for 30 years isn't something palatable to me and it's my guess that it's for this reason above all others that Ireland won't go Nuclear.

At least with renewables in a local scenario a household or community can control it's own energy output and be responsible for it's own energy destiny. This is positive action in terms of both climate change and takes the wind out of international conflict for resources. Nuclear, in the best case scenario, addresses only the climate change aspect and prolongs and postpones addressing the global conflict issues we are encountering now, leaving our children this mess coupled with Nuclear waste to deal with.

We inherited the world in the state it is in now from previous generations but in their defence at least they were ignorant of the detrimental consequences of their actions. We don't have the same luxury, personally I would feel guilty passing the world on in the knowledge that there is a sleeping giant of a problem waiting to pounce.

SeanW

Well, I don't know much about the Uranium supply but it may be a case of proven reserves being so small only because noones been looking for new deposits for the last 25 years. The Uranium supply market has taken a bunch of hits over the last 30 years so that's to be expected. Uranium report. Another analyis here which among other things talks about the woes, and ultimately contraction of the uranium mining industry. This problem is also mentioned in the World Nuclear association website FAQ

And that's before we start talking about Thorium breeder reactors about which I know too little to comment, but probably could provide more fuel.

Suffice to say, if we ever needed more fuel than todays Nuclear practice can provide, we can probably get it for many years to come.

As for the problems passed on to future generation, let's face it, EVERYTHING we're doing today will leave problems for future generations, but nuclear power is one of those that will not leave such a huge problem for them.

The WNA claims that the amount of high level waste produced to provide energy for one person over a normal lifetime is this much:

Yet 1kg of CO2 emissions comes from the generation of 1kw/h of Coal generation.

Put that in perspective. 1kw/h is:

1. Playing a new game on a high spec PC or latest generation console for approx. 3 hours. That's not counting monitor and speakers.
2. Leaving a 100W lightbulb on for 10 hours
3. Cooking on an electric cooker
4. Watching a CRT television/monitor for 3-4 hours.

If I knew my personal legacy to future generations was going to be a bad one, which it probably will, and I had the choice of whether that was to be one handful of radioactive crap or heaven only knows how much damage to the global ecosystem due to CO2 emissions, I know in a heartbeat which one I'd choose.

And judging by these poll results I get the feeling I'm not alone.

I agree with you on 2 points however:

One about our ridiculous excuse for a government, if Bertie and Co. wanted to establish a nuclear reactor anywhere near me, I would not oppose it per se, but I would require independent verification both of the plans and the operation as safe.

Also about the finiteness of Uranium, I agree it's not susatainable in the super-long term but most likly will be for our lifetimes. In any event, we need to start ameliorating climate change NOW, and give ourselves time to do more work on the renewables, research etc. In the medium to medium-long term, however, I remain convinced Nuclear Power is the answer.

kiffer

I've a bit of a stupid question about that Alaskan reactor... it says that it won't need to be replaced for 30 years, what does that mean?

SeanW

That means 30 years is its projected lifetime.

Glenbhoy

Wind power is not all its cracked up to be. The so call environmnetal gains are minimal if not flat. The average wind turnine 65m requires nearly 1000 tonnes of material in its on site construction. This figure is made op of 100 tonnes of steel in the tower, 100 tonnes of steel/alaminium in the blades and the nautilice, 100 tonnes of steel in the foundations and close to 700 tonnes of concret and stone in the foundations and associted service roads. These figures are all rough but detailed figures can be provided should they be required. Steel smelting is a very dirty business.

But does the end justify the means? Should we stop smelting steel and making concrete? Surely these are once-off procedures, whilst the turbine keeps on creating electricity subject to maintenance for a long time (absolutely no idea about life span obviously) . Also you say steel smelting is dirty, what about aluminium - is that cleaner?
Re nuclear and the finiteness of uranium, why don't we produce our electricity using fusion;)

lostexpectation

wrote:

Wind power is not all its cracked up to be. The so call environmnetal gains are minimal if not flat. The average wind turnine 65m requires nearly 1000 tonnes of material in its on site construction. This figure is made op of 100 tonnes of steel in the tower, 100 tonnes of steel/alaminium in the blades and the nautilice, 100 tonnes of steel in the foundations and close to 700 tonnes of concret and stone in the foundations and associted service roads. These figures are all rough but detailed figures can be provided should they be required. Steel smelting is a very dirty business.

yeah you always need to go back up the line to see how they are produced but they don't create any waste in themselves.

Capt'n Midnight

Glenbhoy wrote:

But does the end justify the means? Should we stop smelting steel and making concrete? Surely these are once-off procedures, whilst the turbine keeps on creating electricity subject to maintenance for a long time (absolutely no idea about life span obviously) . Also you say steel smelting is dirty, what about aluminium - is that cleaner?
Re nuclear and the finiteness of uranium, why don't we produce our electricity using fusion;)

Nuclear plants also use a lot of concrete and metal, think of a conventional steam plant with much thicker walls, also add in the toxic waste holding tanks etc.

Aluminium like copper to a lesser extent is "solid electricity". It's made using electricity, the plant in anglesy means that the nearby nuke power plant supplies it's power locally, if it had to come from the gird about £3m worth of electricity would be lost in the extra voltage drop over longer wires.

Windmills have very long operation lives, probably similar to hydroelectric, ardnacusha will outlast all existing nuclear power plants, turlough hill is older than most nuclear plants. - this is very important, it's like comparing buses with rail without taking into account that trains and trams have much longer working lives than buses could ever have

Windmills could be used for other purposes if they were to be decomissioned, aerials, viewing platforms etc. nuclear power plants are a money sink until you have cleaned the site.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Windmills have very long operation lives, probably similar to hydroelectric, ardnacusha will outlast all existing nuclear power plants, turlough hill is older than most nuclear plants. - this is very important,

I should point out that Ardna has just undergone a complete refusbishment, as it was approaching the end of its operational life. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the first it had either.

While this still means that the civil engineering (at least) was reuseable, it is conceivable that the civil engineering of nuclear plants could also be safely refurbished, even allowing for changing reactor designs. A blast shield remains a blast shield...and so on. I admit I'm speculating here, but whatever about the older designs, I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of refurbishment with newer designs even if its not possible in existing ones.

If nuclear stations weren't being built, its not unreasonable to assume that they wouldn't be refurbished either. Now that nuclear is apparently coming back in fashion, I would even expect to see some stations re-opening, presumably after refurbishment.

I'm not saying there still isn't a difference, but I'm not sure nuclear station lifespans are in reality significantly shorter than hydro - and I assume wind stations also undergo refular parts-refurbishment, up to and including the main parts of the generator.

Do you know if anyone has actually published detailed research looking at that?

jc

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

Well, I don't know much about the Uranium supply

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9069-1735134,00.html

However, a recent report by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada said that there was likely to be a 45,000-tonne shortage of uranium in the next decade, largely because of growing Chinese demand for the metal. Prices for uranium have almost tripled, to about $26/lb between March 2003 and May 2005, after being stable for years.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development’s Nuclear Agency’s “red book” — its statistical study of world uranium resources and demand — the world consumed 67,000 tonnes of uranium in 2002. Only 36,000 tonnes of this was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary sources, in particular ex- military sources as nuclear weapons are decommissioned.

In 2001 the European Commission said that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. With military and secondary sources, this life span could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world’s energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.
...
Uranium mining production peaked in 2001. Experts believe that it will take more than ten years to open new mines.

Peak Oil ?
Peak uranium was 5 years ago :rolleyes:

SeanW wrote:

And that's before we start talking about Thorium breeder reactors about which I know too little to comment, but probably could provide more fuel.

I'm very against them because as far as I can tell you can assemble gun type weapons from them once you figure out remote handling because of the high radioactivity. - you don't need massive expensive processing plants or fancy high tech explosive lenses. Thorium is about three times as plentiful as uranium.

SeanW wrote:

Suffice to say, if we ever needed more fuel than todays Nuclear practice can provide, we can probably get it for many years to come.

12 years U + 18 years Th = 30 years
( don't forget half of the 12 years comes from military )
Gas/Oil/Peat/Coal plants can be modified to take other fuels if need be, nuclear power plants can't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4333534.stm the UK have 50 years left with coal from wales alone.

BTW: china is opening a new coal fired plant about every 7 weeks