Profs: Massive use of wind turbines won't destroy the environment

Windy professors in the States have produced research in which they say that massive use of wind power would not, as had been thought, damage the planet's atmosphere and cause undesirable climate changes. They also argue that it would be "practical" to obtain half the energy required by the human race using wind turbines. …

[Hieronymus Howerd]

Give it a rest, Page.

We don't come here to read your ill-informed crap about non-IT subjects.

No, we come here to read your ill-informed crap about IT subjects, so have at it.

[NomNomNom]

"Is that actually enough to provide half of humanity's power? Well, 7.5 terawatts is the same as 237 exajoules each year. Total world energy supply at the moment is 490 exajoules annually right now, so it would seem that Jacobson and Archer have cocked their sums up right out of the gate. Even if they're right, wind can only do 48 per cent of the job."

Oh yeah that massive difference between 50 and 48 per cent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, I stopped reading at that point. If it's going to be a splitting hairs I don't need to read two pages of it (but will complain here, so el reg knows why I didn't read it). A far better first argument, which may appear later in the article, would be to point out that global energy consumption is increasing, so half of today's usage won't be half tomorrow's.

[h4rm0ny]

Same here - I largely agree with Lewis (this time), but when I saw him gloating over them saying half when the actual figures were 48%... that's a significant red flag. If you get excited about scoring those sorts of cheap shots, it makes the reader doubt if they have any really significant arguments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

I'll just leave this here, then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/17/register-climate-myths

[cnapan]

Re: Hmm...

If you'd bothered to read the comments section of that article, you'd see what a mistake it was to use it to try to prove a point.

And in any case, what does this have to do with Page's article today? Are you that unable to counter his argument here and now that you feel the need to try raking around for some dirt to throw?

I think the answer to that is clearly yes!

[solidsoup]

Re: Hmm...

I'll take Register over Guardian any day.

[Wilco 1]

Re: Hmm...

Eventhough I'm not a Guardian reader, I know which one I would trust to provide me the facts and which would spin the facts so they claim exactly the opposite from what the original research says.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm...

"I'll take Register over Guardian any day."

I take the register and the guardian sometimes (and the torygraph too to balance it out).

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Hmm...

I read the Express and the Economist.

I think government regulation of the markets killed Diana.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm...

"I'll take Register over Guardian any day".

High praise indeed. After all, The Guardian is the gold standard worldwide for truth, integrity, factual accuracy, and scientific insight.

[Katie Saucey]

50 and 48 per cent....

I think the point is that the entire idea is batshit insane, 50, 48% who cares? I really wish I could get paid for writing out my BS dreams (BTW is my engineering degree the last one to teach that the bottom line is getting the most bang for your buck?) Most wind power is generated by the politicians and lobbyists.

[Ray 11]

He is not quibbling over 2%

If you had read the article you would have read that they were claiming wind could handle 50% of the energy needs up to 2030. As noted in the article the 7.5 teraWatts would only account for 48% of the energy needs in 2012. Do we really expect a negative growth in energy usage over the next 18 years?

[Wilco 1]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

Yes, by improving efficiency. Wide scale adoption of saving energy (such as insulation, LED lighting, hybrid/electric cars, etc) could reduce our overall energy needs considerably. Claiming that the developing world would require the same energy needs as Americans today is ridiculous.

[A n o n y m o u s]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

He's not claiming all the developing world will require as much as Americans but there are a LOT of people in the developing world and over the next 15-20 years their power requirement is likely to increase (as a percentage) very quickly.

Perhaps we should compare power usage 36 years ago, 18 years ago and now to better judge where we might be in 18 year time. Any efficiencies are likely to be swamped by increased power requirements in the developing world and increased population and 'growth' worldwide.

[nsld]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

Wilco you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

Our consumer economies require the waste of massive amounts of energy to produce consumer goods we dont actually need for us to buy to keep the economy turning.

The only way to move away from current energy usage levels would be a massive change in how we live in the "developed" world.

The only problem with that is that about 2 billion Indian and Chinese people now want microwave ovens, colour TV's and MTV so the global consumption of energy is going to far outstrip any pious changes you dream of.

If we want to consume 30% less energy as a planet now we need to move to a far more simple way of living, we cannot simply replace our current modalities with more efficient ones to achieve your dream, we are many, many years away from electric cars that are not a joke or from renewables that can provide enough energy without doing massive harm to the environment in the process, after all, your 4 million wind turbines at 100m height will require a rather large amount of cement to hold them down and how many billion tonnes of CO2 will be produced to make that cement? And thats before we look at the other raw materials required.

The reality is we still want a comfortable way of living and for that we need large amounts of energy, and with that comes a decision on how that is generated, and that decision needs to be a global one, it matters little if the UK produced zero CO2 if India and China continue at current rates.

[Wilco 1]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

The thing is there aren't really massive amounts of energy available to us, so there is little opportunity to allow for large increases in the amount of energy we use. The oil price has gone up 5x since the 90's, and production has stagnated. I very much doubt we can provide enough oil at low prices for a few billion extra people in 2030.

So unless we find a way to dramatically increase the availability and price of energy, the energy use per person will have to come down significantly as population grows while scarcity and prices increase.

Now this can be done in several ways, deny a large part of the population energy, lower our living standards, use technology to increase efficiency or find cheap supplies of renewable energy. I am sure you'll agree we need to concentrate on the latter 2 options. And yes, you're right that this needs to be a global decision to make an impact on the amount of CO2 we release. But it doesn't mean that improving energy efficiency or renewable energy is a bad idea even if done unilaterally. For example a 50mpg car costing £5000 more than a 25mpg car pays itself back in 2-4 years. Win-win situation for your wallet and the environment. If enough people start to think like that (and that does seem to happen given current oil price) then it does make a difference.

Electric cars are already becoming a reality, so in 5-10 years I'd expect battery technology to have improved enough that the issues of range, cost and charging will have been solved. In 2030 most new cars will be electric - with an optional fuel-cell range extender running on bio fuel.

The paper is about the potential of wind power resource, getting 50% of world energy use just from wind power is not realistic with current technology. While it is true a large turbine needs a lot of concrete and steel, the amount required per KWh produced is decreasing fast due to efficiency improvements. Note the CO2 emissions from building a turbine are typically repaid in a few months.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

@Wilco1 wrote:

Wide scale adoption of saving energy (such as insulation, LED lighting, hybrid/electric cars, etc) could reduce our overall energy needs considerably.

If you try to replace internal combustion powered vehicles with electrically powered ones then you will massively increase the amount of electrical energy you need to generate.

[Wilco 1]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

Not massively. There is no denying that we need to improve the grid. But electric cars can actually help with stabilizing it rather than causing it to fall apart.

Firstly remember at night power consumption is low so even the current grid can be used to charge a few million cars overnight. Secondly assuming a range of 150-200 miles most people would need to recharge only once or twice a week. So only a fraction of electric cars will need charging from empty to full. Finally any plugged in car can become part of a smart grid and provide temporary storage to smooth out peaks in demand.

[veti]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

There's a considerable sleight-of-keyboard that Lewis engages in here. (He's not alone, almost everyone elides this, I'm not sure that half of them even know they're doing it, though Lewis surely does...)

There's a huge difference between "electricity" and "energy". Global *electricity* production amounts to about 22 PWh, or 79-odd exajoules. (Source: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037156&contentId=7068663 ) Global *energy* production (consumption) is much higher - the '490 exajoules' that Lewis talks about - because that includes all the power that never gets converted into electricity, such as the natural gas and biomass that's burned in stoves and boilers, the petrol in cars and planes, etc.

7.5 TW of installed wind capacity, operating at an average efficiency of about 35%, would replace *all* the world's current electricity generation, including the 13% that's already generated from renewable sources (not including nuclear). If the 7.5 TW is meant to be the *average* power output, then global *electricity* consumption could increase six-fold, and the wind generation would meet 50% of it.

[nsld]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

Veti

35% average efficiency? Didnt they look at Scottish wind farms over a year and work out it was around 22%?

35% would need consistent high winds, few calm days, more resilient turbines etc etc

The problem with wind is that its neither a fixed variable or even a dependable one, what's your plan if we have a low wind period?

[theblackhand]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

Re: 35% average efficiency? Didnt they look at Scottish wind farms over a year and work out it was around 22%?

I know of one large utility company that uses 12% average efficiency in their budget calculations.

And that isn't including the wind farm (purchased as part of a larger purchase) that has a average utilisation of less than 1% as it was built where there was no wind. The funny thing is that the government subsidies in these countries actually make all the wind farms profitable in the first 5-10 years of operation....

[veti]

Re: He is not quibbling over 2%

@nsld:

I don't have a plan. I don't know how much efficiency you get out of the wind turbines in practice, or how much you might be able to improve that in principle. I was just pointing out why Lewis's figures are meaningless. He's comparing apples to marrows. And I'm pretty sure he knows it.

In fact, as I understand it, the average efficiency is irrelevant, because the paper is talking about the effect of taking that much energy out of the atmosphere - so the '7.5 TW' must refer to the average power output, not installed capacity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think the point he is making is that they said if they installed all those wind turbines they could generate "more than enough to power half the world's power demand in 2030" (18 YEARS IN THE FUTURE) but in reality they would generate less than 50% of our power requirement TODAY.

Which is plainly unrealistic - i.e. unless our power requirement over the next 18 years just stayed the same.

[Psyx]

This entire article can be summed up with a single quote from it:

"So, assuming..."

[Scott 1]

You rather missed the point. The authors were talking about meeting 1/2 of the energy demand *in 2030.* How are the wind turbines supposed to do that when:

a) They would only meet about half of today's requirements

and

b) World energy consumption is going up, not down?

[Shannon Jacobs]

More fundamental fuckup

Actually, his screw-up is more basic than that, though I have to post the warning that I can only scan his garbage for a few seconds before getting too nauseous to continue.

Thermal energy is NOT equal to electrical energy. When we burn hydrocarbons to generate electricity, there is a massive waste, either when we convert it to electricity or when we burn it in smaller and much less efficient devices (AKA cars) to produce direct motion. In contrast, wind turbines are measured directly by their electrical output.

Let's not consider the complexity of batteries, since the distinctive characteristic of the author of the article is that he demands extremely simplistic answers to every question. That's good when there is a simple answer, but he persists in tackling questions where his simplistic answers are not just wrong, but downright idiotic.

My own view is that future generations will look back at us and curse us for burning the hydrocarbons. Their advanced chemical processes will be able to do extremely impressive things--but we shall have burned almost all of the complicated hydrocarbons. If they put up a statue to this author, it shall be to his monumental stupidity and shortsightedness, even though his contribution to anything was minor.

[cnapan]

Re: Give it a rest, Page

A well reasoned counterargument...

Not.

And what's with the 'we'? Who elected you?

Did you get upset at the link to the Nature article which backs up Page's contention that Fukushima wasn't actually that harmful, or was it the sums which confused you?

I quite like the coverage of 'technology'. It would be boring if it was just about IT.

[Oninoshiko]

Re: We

Obviously, it's the queen posting anonymously.

[ez2x]

There seems to be a problem in the calculations

When calculating the energy required, Page says we should assume a growth in energy use of 3x as the world's economies grow. He calls that "realistic".

Then when calculating the GDP he says we should assume a "drastic" reduction in output because of those evil IPCC scientists.

Finally Page assumes that even when producing 4 million wind turbines there will be no economies of scale whatsoever, instead suggests we should "multiplying our $12tn cost figure a few times at the very least".

[David Dawson]

Re: There seems to be a problem in the calculations

"When calculating the energy required, Page says we should assume a growth in energy use of 3x as the world's economies grow. He calls that "realistic"."

This is vastly more realistic that fantasising about energy consumption reducing. Its unlikely that energy consumption will drop in the developed world, and terribly unfair if it doesn't rise in the developing world. There are many times more people in the developing world... so, yeah, I'd say thats realistic.

"Then when calculating the GDP he says we should assume a "drastic" reduction in output because of those evil IPCC scientists."

Yes, that has been stated on more than one occasion that the most realistic way to drop CO2 emissions is to cut energy use. The two statements are in opposition, that's really the point. One is the demand, the other is what is going to happen. Guess which is which.

"Finally Page assumes that even when producing 4 million wind turbines there will be no economies of scale whatsoever, instead suggests we should "multiplying our $12tn cost figure a few times at the very least"."

The multiple was about including all the costs of building the infrastructure necessary to support the millions of turbines. Did you not see that? Economies of scale don't really exist in the way you seem to expect for building huge new road networks, electricity grids and so on. The technology is all there now and well refined, very little refinement economies to be had here, engineers could price out an implementation pretty well for all the support infrastructure.

There's problems in this article, but these ain't them.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Re: There seems to be a problem in the calculations

It's not realistic at all.

Simple fact is there will be massively destructive resource wars before India and China come anywhere close to reaching the consumption levels of the USA.

It makes zero, zip, nada, fuck all sense to complain about a 2% or whatever shortfall in projected energy output while ignoring the fact that there simply aren't enough physical ingredients - water, rare earths, accessible nitrates for fertiliser, copper, and many, many, more - to make all the shiny the developing world might be persuaded to want.

Yeah, and we waste a lot of energy too.

Oh - and only a troll like Page seriously thinks renewables people obsess about wind to the extent he does.

People in the biz are waiting on tidal barrage, tidal stream, osmotic, hydro, geo, OTEC and the many varieties of solar to make up the rest of the mix.

The real problem isn't that renewables don't work - it's that some people still believe that renewables are some kind of personal insult for entirely irrational reasons that have no basis in fact or science.

They're the kind of people who would have laughed at the Wright brothers for trying to get one of their basket contraptions to fly.

[David Dawson]

Re: There seems to be a problem in the calculations

Tidal barrage - will interfere with migration patterns, generally screw around with the estuary causing many known and unknown effects.

Wind - I want a cup of tea when the wind is not blowing, got it! Uses significant amounts of rare earths in the generators, which are necessarily not the larger/ massively more efficient ones used in large power stations.

Hydro - probably the best understood, but still involves covering rather large areas of nature with a shiny new lake. Hence a very limited supply of useful locations.

Geo - Yay! Not enough locations available with current tech... but looks good as far as I can tell.

Solar - Very significant amounts of rare earths required. What to do in the night time?

--

There are huge engineering challenges to be met in building the above at the scales needed. Sourcing the required rare earths alone is going to be prohibitive at current costs.

It is not irrational to point this out.

Neither is it irrational to say that a toy power installation is not representative of a commercial scale installation. You can make a solar panel that works without any issues.

If a large country were to convert to solar/ wind (for example, although it holds for most renewable sources as they are currently understood) in earnest, then the minerals needed to manufacture them would run out almost immediately, causing large price spikes; as these minerals are shared with other industries, it would make electronics, motors and the like spike in price as well.

Then there's the more basic commodities like steel, concrete and the like. These are already in heavy demand due to economic development around the world. It is not clear that sufficient quantities are even available, let alone that they can be had at a price that makes the project economically viable.

It is not a simple, or straightforward, thing that is being proposed.

I have an issue with people looking 10 years down the road and saying that we will have to endure power cuts and rolling black outs. I refuse to accept that this is somehow reasonable; given how much warning we have, it simply isn't.

If that is the projection, then we cannot 'wait on XXX', we need to build power stations now, of any description, so long as they will generate power when it is required.

[Richie Hindle]

Bah

Stopped reading when you pooh-poohed the researchers for referring to 48% as "half" as though that invalidates the whole thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bah

Shame you didn't read it properly then - he was saying they got it wrong comparing the best estimates for wind power generation 18 years from now with the actual power usage today when power usage is going to increase.

[Lord Voldemortgage]

Nice

To see an acknowledgement on El Reg that there are 'greens' (as opposed to Greens, perhaps) who favour nuclear power.

[cnapan]

Re: Nice

Unfortunately, those greens who have faced up to the facts about nuclear power - specifically its actual risk to life (even when the worst happens) and its capacity to generate low carbon baseloads the world needs *today*, have found themselves largely ostracised by the green movement.

Such is the disconnect between reality we're seeing in the 21st century.

A country no less at the centre of western civilisation than Germany only recently decided it was going to ditch its nuclear plants, then pretend it had solved a problem while quietly getting its neighbours to burn fossil fuels to power the country. It is no surprise that Germany is sprinkled with wind turbines. The people there probably think they're generating all the power now.

Bless.

[d3rrial]

Re: Nice

German guy speaking: The ditching of Nuclear Plants was a stupid Idea of our Government. Most people were actually against it and know it to be stupid, but the green party think that Nuclear Power is the root of all evil and they just needed to convince the other parties (who are also very much incompetent) that getting rid of nuclear power is a good idea that'd get them elected... In reality getting rid of them has nice side effects for us: France is building Nuclear Plants near the Rhein, the High-Tech-Fortress that is Poland is getting excited about Nuclear power and may even start building Nuclear Plants also (near the German border of course, so exporting is as cheap as possible and when something should blow up, the winds carry the radiation to Germany)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Nice

Seems like a great plan.

The Greens like it so they vote for you.

Still mine the same amount of coal so the unions vote for you

Pay lots of feed in tarrif for solar so the home owners vote for you.

The only people that lose are the poles that are now burning the dirty coal - and if they don't like it they shouldn't have put their country next door to Germany.

[John Smith 19]

Re: Nice

I saw an old school Czech nuclear plant back in the late 80's on a film by a German reporter.

It had the word "Skoda" on the side.

There next nuke will be a VW.

[Davidoff]

Germany and nuclear power

"!The ditching of Nuclear Plants was a stupid Idea of our Government."

No, it wasn't, It actually was a great idea, and probably the single good thing this and the previous government has done. Around 35% of electricity in Germany now comes from "green" sources, and this percentage is increasing. All the scaremongering by the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear activists about the lights going out in Germany because of the lack of electrictity has turned out to be utter BS. In fact, it has turned out that the nuclear plants weren't even needed, as even them Germany produces a lot of excess energy which is regularly bought buy neighbouring countries like France.

"In reality getting rid of them has nice side effects for us: France is building Nuclear Plants near the Rhein, the High-Tech-Fortress that is Poland is getting excited about Nuclear power and may even start building Nuclear Plants also (near the German border of course, so exporting is as cheap as possible and when something should blow up, the winds carry the radiation to Germany)"

So you think abandoning nuclear by the German government was bad because other countries are building power plants close to the German border (which they probably would have done anyways even in Germany had kept nuclear)? What a stupid argument. As Chernobyl has demonstrated clearly, it doesn't really matter that much where on the continent a power plant is going bang, it will always have a drastic effect on Germany (as it has on other countries).

Actually, one of the main reason nuclear has been abandoned was that if something goes wrong, a huge area is affected. This and the fact that the nuclear industry has clearly proven on every occasion to be completely dishonest with borderline on being criminal, and have a complete lack of regard for public safety.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: Nice

"Unfortunately, those greens who have faced up to the facts about nuclear power - specifically its actual risk to life (even when the worst happens) and its capacity to generate low carbon baseloads the world needs *today*, have found themselves largely ostracised by the green movement"

Yes we have. We very much have. I am an active environmentalist who cannot join any of the main environmental lobbying groups because whilst they'll happily take my money, they wont listen if I try to point out flaws in their anti-nuclear stance. Yes, Friends of the Earth, I am very much looking at you.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Re: Nice

Actually Germany has a plan - to reach 39% renewables by 2020.

The plan was greeted by the usual hooting, shrieking and faeces throwing from the 'critics' when it was announced.

The reality is that renewables have been breaking generation and reliability records year by year, and 39% is now looking like a conservative estimate.

[cnapan]

RE: There seems to be a problem in the calculations

What adjustment in the calculations would you suggest to make wind viable as a the primary source of power for humanity?

You see, when I have a go, the costs are absolutely off the scale.

What is odd about the 21st century and specifically wind generation is that when the maths get in the way, they seem to just be ignored, and the politicians plough regardless. Wind turbines are *visible*, and it that's enough to make it seem they're working for a better world.

Meanwhile, nuclear power - the only viable low-carbon base load generating technology at our disposal, is reviled and neglected.

The consequence? The world continues to fuel itself largely by digging out vast quantities of carbon rich fuel from fossil reserves and liberating it into the atmosphere.

So much for the enlightenment...

[Wilco 1]

Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

You and Lewis may be happy to have a nuclear power station in your backyard, but most people do not. The chances for another Fukushima are slim of course, but non-zero nonetheless. None of our ageing nuclear power stations are 100% safe. And there have been plenty of accidents in the UK where nuclear material was released in the environment. We need reactors with 100% passive safety - and that is going to cost a lot more.

Nuclear power is ridiculously expensive already, from planning to building to decommissioning, and then there is the fuel cost, and completely unsolved issue of waste disposal. Remember we will be paying well over £73 billion to close down the current reactors in the UK. Storing used reactor cores in open water in open air, eventhough the cores have been rusting for years and are leaking (on some UK sites), is just asking for trouble. Such is the sorry state of nuclear power in the UK. And you want more of this?

Until we have good solutions for all these issues nuclear should be off limits. Clearly we do not know how to deal with nuclear power safely and cost-effectively yet.

[Wilco 1]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

Btw for those who don't believe we actually have open air fuel ponds in the UK which contain a dangerous mess of corroded fuel and other radioactive waste exposed to the air, here is a link:

http://sellafieldsites.com/solution/risk-hazard-reduction/first-generation-magnox-storage-pond/

Is that your preferred solution of dealing with radioactive waste too? Let the downvoting by the true nuclear supporters begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

A pal of mine works at Sellafield and that pond isn't apparently the most dangerous part of the site. What has to be remembered is that the place was put together in a great hurry for the purpose of creating material for bombs and was criminally mismanaged by the military for a number of years afterwards. It is completely atypical of the legacy of a commercially run electricity generating installation, and it is slowly being cleaned up (at great expense).

Nuclear physics remains the most intensely studied branch of science in human history. If we can't apply that knowledge, we are all doomed.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

>Is that your preferred solution of dealing with radioactive waste too?

The obvious solution to dealing with nuclear waste is to mix it with fossil fuels, burn it and send it out of a chimney. After all we have been doing it with the radioactive material in coal for 300 years and nobody has objected.

[Anonymous Coward]

@YAAC 15:45

Very nicely put. Or, as Fred Hoyle wrote half a century ago in "Energy or Extinction", we could put it back underground where we got the ore from in the first place - and where, far from causing any noticeable harm, it actually took great efforts to detect and dig up. http://tinyurl.com/9fglhet

[Wilco 1]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

If the pond isn't even the most dangerous part then I'd rather not know what is... Who knows where else some of the large amounts of plutonium they accidentally lost are still lurking. Cumbria is nice for holidays but given their track record ever since the WindScale disaster I wouldn't want to live near Sellafield.

Yes it's partially a result of the atom bomb projects, but that's not an excuse for the way we have dealt with nuclear power in the UK. There never even was a plan for safety or waste disposal. Cockcroft's folly - air filters which avoided a Chernobyl like disaster in WindScale - were deemed a waste of money by the very engineers who built it! With that kind of insane attitude to safety among nuclear engineers, how can we ever trust people designing and building nuclear power stations?

Indeed, if only we did apply our knowledge about nuclear power and its dangers. Unfortunately humans have an amazing capability of messing everything up.

[John Smith 19]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

In the 1950's and 60's it was.

The site you link to explains that is not the case now. Agree it's taken a *long* time to do something about it but things are changing.

Key question. Air data samples from *above* the pond?

[solidsoup]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

Most modern reactor designs, including Westinghouse and General Electric have passive safety. Anti-nuclear activists are stuck in the 1970s. Even TMI had passive safety features (which failed to prevent the partial meltdown because of a malfunctioning valve). Nuclear reactor design has advanced tremendously over the past 20 years. The efforts to stop nuclear are counter-productive. Old dangerous designs that produce a lot of waste are still being operated because opposition to building new stations using modern reactors is so great. The costs of waste disposal are wildly overstate. A reactor produces 10-16 cubic meters of high grade waste per year. That costs $2-5 million to dispose. I won't even mention low grade waste because that's pocket change. Those figures are much lower for newer reactors (though can't quickly look up the study).

If we built national or international infrastructure for radioactive waste disposal and long-term storage, the costs for disposal and insurance would come down tremendously (and something like Fukishima wouldn't happen and there would be no long-term local storage of expended rods). That's not to say they are now exorbitant. Nuclear costs about the same as oil and coal-fired plants, but without all the fuss of pollution. Only gas is cheaper and that's a temporary phenomenon because of US fracking boom. The decommission costs that greens like to bring up so much are already accounted for as, at least in the US, power companies are required to create a special fund for decommissioning and pay into it from operational proceeds.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Re: Nuclear is reviled for good reasons

Heh.

Nice try to confuse people who don't know anything about nuke technology by pretending that 'passive safety' has some relationship to 'fail safe.'

"If we built national or international infrastructure for radioactive waste disposal and long-term storage"

and if pigs could fly we'd have all our electricity generated by sparkly magic ponies.

Says Wikia: "In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."[13] Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.[13] The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."[13] The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.[13][14] DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. "

Good luck with that as a plan.

[solidsoup]

@ OtherHobbes

When pigs fly? Well, I heard swine flu...

There's nothing technologically impossible or even challenging in indefinitely storing nuclear waste. Sub-seabed disposal has been studied and is completely realistic with today's technology. 25% of ocean floor is covered with clay sediment that will preserve nuclear waste indefinitely if waste is buried under 20 meters of it. We regularly conduct operations at these depths when we drill for oil. The reasons its not done are political in nature. As an international project, this makes a lot of sense. But we don't even need to do it now. Just announcing a consortium of nuclear powers that will study the solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal with an eye towards building an international facility will do wonders for investment into nuclear and even lower the insurance rates for current projects.

I will agree that a lot of opposition to nuclear comes from Cold War scare and the past mismanagement of nuclear sites. However, at this point, the opposition is based on sentiments and not logic. This fear is jeopardizing our future as a civilization and I'm not talking about global warming (though if you believe in it, then you should doubly support nuclear).

[Anonymous Coward]

@TheOtherHobbes

'The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product"...'

Cool. 15-odd thousand tons of uranium should ensure we don't run out for many, many years to come.

[Wilco 1]

Re: @TheOtherHobbes

That's most likely depleted uranium hexafluoride - very nasty stuff. DU is used in tank shells and armor piercing bullets.

[IHateWearingATie]

To be fair to Lewis...

... regarding the half vs 48% thing mentioned earlier, I read his main point as being they had assumed it was good for half right now, rather than half in the future with the inevitable growth in energy consumption.

Every time I read articles such as this, I wish I had a lot more time to read through the papers themselves so I could form a better informed view rather than relying on other people's interpretation of the papers. Maybe after a nice lottery win...

[John H Woods]

Wind Turbines...

.... not a big fan.

[cnapan]

Re: Naughty Lewis

Though to be fair, this isn't some silly spat between iPhone and Android users. This stuff actually matters.

We really are stuck in a world which, both at the same time, has politicians who largely accept that we're stuffing up the climate with emissions, yet by their decisions are guaranteeing that civilisation will continue to be powered mainly by digging up and burning vast quantities of fossil fuels and liberating it into the atmosphere.

Wind Turbines in the UK are effectively just expensive, occasionally operating spare parts for gas and coal fired power stations. We still need just as many of these fossil plants as we would do if there were no wind turbines, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow at all.

What we need to be doing is removing the reliance of fossil base-load power stations in the first place.

Germany - supposedly the 'Greenest' large country in Europe, is busy pushing up its carbon emissions massively (only they take place over the border. How convenient). In the UK, we've watched our nuclear industry atrophy to the point that most of it will be offline in 20 years, and we're belatedly having to bus in the French to tell us how to build new ones because our own people are retiring.

So, at the very point in history where we ought to be racing to completely replace our dependence on fossil fuels, the world is, each year, growing at an extremely fast rate the amount of CO2 liberated from fossil sources.

The world has gone mad, I tell thee!

[Dr Dan Holdsworth]

The main problem with this article is that it misses out on a couple of very major factors where power generation is concerned. The first major factor is expense; wind-generated power is expensive in and of its self, and as the wind doesn't blow steadily in most places a back-up system such as pumped storage or massively large-area high voltage interconnectors is required. These factors combine to raise the cost of wind power from "expensive" to "outrageously high".

The second major factor is public tolerence for wind turbines, which is generally low as the low-frequency sonics tend to cause quite a few nasty health side-effects, not least of which is crashing the value of nearby properties. As people tend to see property as an investment, doing anything which causes the value to dramatically decrease is deeply unpopular with the people concerned. Continuing to try to force the building of wind turbines can only lead to local unofficial turbine demolition attempts.

When suitable alternatives such as the many forms of nuclear power exist and are widely known by the populace, then the question "Why do we have to have these poxy horrible turbines and these heinously high power bills when a few nuclear stations would supply several times as much power at a fraction of the cost?" gets asked.

Britain is a democracy, with fairly low barriers to standing as a member of parliament. Should the mainstream parties not take notice of this question, I would wager that many an independent MP would be elected on the platform of "Build nukes, not turbines" to the extent of being able to manipulate government policy on the matter.

[Wilco 1]

Since when is nuclear cheap?

Or are you ignoring the long term decommissioning costs, the cleanup costs of the sites (Sellafield alone "lost" a few hundred kilos of plutonium), as well as waste storage and disposal? Remember the cleanup of the nuclear folly in the UK is going to cost us taxpayers £73 Billion by a 2008 estimate (and costs are rising fast).

Note also wind power is at grid parity, with cost per generated MWh for on-shore windfarms well below the cost of building a new nuclear power station.

[David Pollard]

Re: Since when is nuclear cheap?

To put the cost of disposal of waste into perspective, it amounts to about 2.8 p/kWh of electricity generated in the UK to date using nuclear energy. A very large proportion of this waste arose not from the civil energy programme but from the arms race during the cold war; and the latest designs of reactors will both utilise fuel more efficiently and produce much less long-lived waste.

Even if wind energy were free at the point of capture, provision has to be made for its variability and for extended periods of calm. This puts an extra load on the grid and requires additional back-up capacity. It also requires greater modulation of background generators with concomitant reduction of efficiency. The costs incurred are by no means negligible, though they are often ignored by wind's proponents.

[Tom Reg]

Re: Since when is nuclear cheap?

The numbers I have show nuclear with all decommission etc at about 8c, and wind at 25c. Offshore is more. The way to tell for sure is to stop all subsidies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Since when is nuclear cheap?

Oh wilco, don't the miriad of downvotes suggest you're in the wrong place for these arguments?

I'll make it clearer; please fuck off back to the guardian.

[Wilco 1]

Re: Since when is nuclear cheap?

I don't care about downvotes, most likely a few idiots with many logins. Nobody seems to be able to provide a compelling counterargument but then again you can't expect too much intellect these days...

Anyway why don't you fuck back off to the Sun or Daily Mail?

[Sir Sham Cad]

Re: Should the mainstream parties...

Well, UKIP have actually taken this up as one of their platforms so, potentially, the Laboural Conservacrats will have to pay attention at some stage if they can win a few seats.

[handle]

Huh?

Dr Dan: "The second major factor is public tolerence for wind turbines, which is generally low as the low-frequency sonics tend to cause quite a few nasty health side-effects, not least of which is crashing the value of nearby properties."

Since impact on property values is not even a "health side-effect", if that's all you can come up with to support an allegation that low-frequency sounds are a problem, then you're a pretty unconvincing contributor. I had a quick scout round and it seems that this is a symptom of old non-European turbines which had their blades downwind of their masts, and is therefore a non-issue nowadays. If you know better, please provide evidence rather than weasel words, otherwise your credibility is shot and you simply undermine any more sensible arguments you may put forward.

[Gordon Pryra]

It doesent matter how many 3xn times the words output it costs

The moment its cheaper than the alternative they will do it, or similar with other options.

Its only expensive untill the opportunity cose changes from, "we do this and I cant afford my iPhone 7" to "we either do this or we die"

And the costs to the country are not actually as bad as they seem. Tre money being spent on people within the various countries, which is kind of the point of Governments having cash in the first place (outside of lineing their own pockets as it the case currently)

Anyway all the need to do is funnel the money they are currently giving the dirty pig bankers to the energy dudes and voila, jobs a good en

Even better in that we can then use the power we create to burn the bankers to little smidgens of dirty ash

[Tim Parker]

"extraction of massive amounts of energy from the atmosphere by huge numbers of wind turbines (as would be required if the human race were to be powered to any large degree by renewables)"

That doesn't follow. You could put the hyperbole in massive bold font, to make it look impressive I guess, but it still doesn't follow.

[Tom 13]

It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

I learned it as the First Law of Thermodynamics. And even "deniers" don't claim we don't use "massive amounts of energy."

The question is, "what effect if any does the extraction have on the environment."

[Tim Parker]

@Tom 13 Re: It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

The quote was "extraction of massive amounts of energy from the atmosphere by huge numbers of wind turbines (as would be required if the human race were to be powered to any large degree by renewables)"

i.e if there is to be a significant contribution from renewables then "huge numbers of wind turbines" must be involved. That doesn't follow, e.g. I could switch to 100% nuclear generation (at least for base load) and burn all the wind turbines.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: @Tom 13 It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

Nuclear power is not considered a "renewable".

Solar and wave power are, as is geothermal. But if we're talking "powered to any large degree by renewables" then I think wind has to be a significant part of that. I suppose a big shift in biofuels technology could change that if we ditch the current disastrous version because we crack some viable algae-based version, but with current technologies, the statement appears correct to me.

[Tim Parker]

Re: @Tom 13 It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

Nuclear power is not considered a "renewable".

Breeders can be considered 'renewable' for all practical purposes - conventional uranium fission is not, agreed.

Solar and wave power are, as is geothermal. But if we're talking "powered to any large degree by renewables" then I think wind has to be a significant part of that

You may think that, fair enough - however it doesn't necessarily follow.

[Tom 13]

Re: @Tom 13 It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

Nobody but you counts nuclear as renewable. "Renewable" has always meant something you manufacture once, after which it continues non-polluting (on ALL counts) energy. It's actually one of the problems I have with "renewable energy" as a concept - the definition has always been based on unicorn fart philosophy - as in, if I had a unicorn fart, I could harness it to produce clean energy.

Nuclear should be a part of our overall energy strategy, particularly breeder plants. That doesn't mean we get to pretend they are "renewable clean." There are problems with it that need to be addressed, just like there are problems with oil, gas, geothermal, and wind. Page was obviously working within the renewable unicorn fart dream reference.

[Tim Parker]

Re: @Tom 13 It DOES necessarily follow that massive amounts need to be extracted.

"Nobody but you counts nuclear as renewable."

Whilst strictly not renewable, hence my caveat for all practical purposes, there have been arguments that it some nuclear generation can be considered in with 'truly' renewables rather than more evidently finite resources such as coal and oil (e.g. See Bernard Cohen "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source", or the case for fusion). You may be right that the use of the word 'renewable' is not accurate - i'd not disagree in general - so perhaps we should discuss the effective lifetime of the energy source and not refer to anything as 'renewable' ?

I also have no idea what the unicorn fart example was meant to imply - perhaps you could elucidate ?

"Nuclear should be a part of our overall energy strategy, particularly breeder plants. That doesn't mean we get to pretend they are "renewable clean." There are problems with it that need to be addressed, just like there are problems with oil, gas, geothermal, and wind."

I agree, and I wasn't pretending they were "renewable clean", just can be considered as a effectively non-finite resource. I also didn't mention them being "clean" at all. I have issues with fission production, but i'm not sure that's particularly relevant to my original proposal that a significant use of renewable, or effectively non-finite, energy resource necessitates the use of "huge numbers of wind turbines" extracting extraction "massive amounts of energy from the atmosphere" as was originally suggested.

[Tim Parker]

erratum

Oops - should have read

"my original proposal that a significant use of renewable, or effectively non-finite, energy resource does not necessitate the use of "huge numbers of wind turbines" extracting extraction "massive amounts of energy from the atmosphere" as was originally suggested."

[Paul Read]

neodymium

efficient turbines require lightweight magnets requires Neodymium requires rare earth mining means a giant hole in Inner Mongolia, China results in all our monies are belong to them.

how green is the rare earth mine in Bāotóu? But that's OK, because it's over there, along with all our jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wind Power doesn't have to be expensive.

We should be seeing micro generation everywhere. Instead of a cihmney, you'd see a small turbine. Smaller generation everywhere. It's not a be all end all its a link in the chain of power generation. That much less power needs to be generated by conventional means.

It's not rocket science. There are just too many skeptics/haters. Shame that waste of energy couldn't be put to much better use.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except those small turbines are essentially a JOKE - they generate virtually no useable power. If a large turbine located in a particularly windy location can do no better than about 25% what do you think the micro turbine can do...?

[David Pollard]

"What do you think the micro turbine can do...?"

It can:

a) Waste a lot of money;

b) Annoy your neighbours;

c) Make Dave Cameron look a complete fool as he does a U-turn on fixing one on his chimney.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: "What do you think the micro turbine can do...?"

What if everyone had a small microturbine on their hat?

This should provide power to run their iPhone - thus making us locally self-sufficient and energy independent.

Then if we needed more power on a non-windy day people could just run around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "What do you think the micro turbine can do...?"

"What if everyone had a small microturbine on their hat?"

Priceless - straight out of Dilbert.

[Lord Voldemortgage]

"Except those small turbines are essentially a JOKE - they generate virtually no useable power."

I stayed in a lovely cottage in Cornwall that ran its lighting entirely from wind power.

Mind you it was very windy there - and reliably windy.

Of course it had to have a gas powered fridge and the kettle went on the coal burning stove.

But still, as long as you are all in the same room and don't stay up late and don't mind the scullery being full of car batteries and don't want to read at the same time as charging your phone it's got several advantages over candles.

[Richard Altmann]

Say good bye

Set up a 4 kW/h blade,Charge controller/Inverter,2x200Amp/hrs Batteries and say good bye to your local grid provider and daily load shedding.Buy the shirt,wash it,iron it and watch TV while your neighbourhood sits in the dark.

The only way to go in developing countries. Look out to India, they have some phantastic products to get you going at more then reasonable prices. I once installed a radio station off the grid on 50m² solar panels in Northern Uganda. It´s broadcasting until midnight with 150km range. Growing power demands in developing countries will be satisfied by self sufficient systems as long as they are not controlled by lobby driven laws that don´t allow one to disconnect from public grid (like Germany). Now it turns political: The gouvernment wants to stay in "Power". Example Uganda again: Wherever their are riots, the grid gets shut down. DVB-T: Gouvernment does not need to go the radio stations and clip their antennas anymore, they just flip the switch and offline you are if they don´t like what your are saying.

Hang all Lobbiests and corrupt politicians!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cant do right for doing wrong....

Climate, Is it changing? .......... yes

Is Human activity responsible for this change? ... Maybe, maybe not.

Can we do anything?..... if it is indeed human activity then not unless mankind as a whole changes the way we live our lives, but this is not likely to ever happen, so no.

Wind farms and solar arrays are not the answer for large scale power generation. The cost per KWH to supply the renewable power sources is too high. The only real advantage to wind farms I can see is that they can be made in our own country so we will not be relying on Australia, Indonesia and Russia for coal, Russia and the Arab league for gas/oil and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and some African nations for uranium to supply us with the fuels to generate power, The only real option is nuclear power.

That said, Living on the coast, with an un-obstructed south facing roof, we opted to get a large solar panel and a wind turbine fitted. Combined they produce about 15KWh on a sunny but windy day (like today). During the summer months it generates about 80% of our daily power requirements and about 35% of the winter requirement. With the payments from the feed in tariffs it has reduced our energy costs by a significant amount and will have covered the installation costs within about 4 years. less, with the rate energy has gone up and is likely to go up, this will be less, maybe, 3 years. I have even considered getting a diesel generator for the shortfall and go completely mains free....

We are situated in a near enough perfect position for solar and wind generation. Many places are not so well suited. I have seen some damn awful installations, one house not far from us has solar panels on its north facing roof, they will be lucky to make back what it cost to buy and install it in its serviceable lifetime.

My choices for renewable energy sources were not made on any preconception that I was saving the earth, but purely one of a long term economic saving, which with the rise in energy costs is going to mature sooner than anticipated. Do I wish I had gone"green" sooner, hell yes, If I had gone for it first time I considered it I would be on "free" energy by now....

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cant do right for doing wrong....

Yeah I'm alright jack - never mind the rest of us paying for it in our increased leccy bills. Install it without the FIT if you want but you are the anti Robin Hood.

[Anonymous Coward]

"With the payments from the feed in tariffs it has reduced our energy costs by a significant amount and will have covered the installation costs within about 4 years."

The FIT are a subsidy paid for by everyone else (who does not have solar).

Without the subsidy it would be a complete NON starter as the payback would be never.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually that’s not true. As stated, I live on the coast and we get above average levels of both sunshine and wind. It would have took a lot longer for it to pay for itself, but by my calculations it still would have covered its own cost.. it would have took a lot longer....

Also, because of the energy efficacy ratings that you have to get done these days to get done before you can sell a property, it has actually increased the value of the property.

[Anonymous Coward]

But have you factored in the cost of the money you have lost over those 25 years and the cost of maintenance or are you just hoping it won't need any (head in sand)?

[Anonymous Coward]

£10k for a typical solar installation - exclude FIT and you would 'earn' (save) perhaps £200-400 a year in electricity - so that's a 2-4% ROI. Multiply it by 25 years and you would get 50-100% of your money back buy that takes no account of the interest you have lost on that money or any insurance and maintenance costs.

Over 25 years I would expect you to need 2 (maybe 3+) new inverters (the ones I saw came with 5 year or less warranties) at a 'parts' cost of £1000-1500 - so fitting to add on to that. Then over 25 years perhaps you need to replace at least 1-2 panels. Put it this way how much do you think an insurance backed warranty covering all parts and labour would be on the 'system' per year - I would guess at least 2-5% of the system cost per year?

Plus have you read about the problems with mortgage companies and solar panels - some just do not like them and it could have a negative impact on the value / saleability of your house.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most estate agents agree solar does not increase the value of your home. It's usually pretty ugly and the maintenance / repair costs often outweigh the value of the electricity it generates. Also it can make getting a mortgage / re-mortgage more difficult or expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

'"Do I wish I had gone"green" sooner, hell yes, If I had gone for it first time I considered it I would be on "free" energy by now...."

Paid for by people with less money than you obviously. These solar installations are put in either by companies or richer individuals so essentially paid for by everyone else - i.e. typically poorer people (who could not afford the installation) or probably 50% of people who do not have a suitable (south facing) roof and people in flats, people who rent etc.

So before you get too smug that you are saying some cash remember it's other people that are paying for it and also the increased energy cost - well you are fuelling that rise - the more solar we install the more expensive electricity will become.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, paid for by myself actually.... although there are grants available to help with the cost of them, part of my home is used for business I am not eligible. I decided to hang on to my old car instead of getting a new one so I can pay for the panel and turbine....

and yes, I will be smug about saving some money, money that I would have had to pay to e-on,

and yes, I get payments from FIT's, The amount I have got from it is still less than the CCL that I have paid since 2001, so a far as I can see, I have just got back SOME of what I have paid in CCL's, No matter which way you want to try and twist it, I have not cost anyone anything, except a few e-on shareholders and got back a few quid that the government took off me in levies which I don’t agree with anyway.

if schemes like FIT's are set up they are there to be used. only a moron would not take money that has been made available to them.

And to make my position clear, I don’t agree with all this renewable energy nonsense as a national supply strategy. Most people are being conned by the installers who install inappropriate equipment in places where they will NEVER make the cost of the installation back. The way forward is nuclear power stations, and plenty of them. ut in my case, I am in a small % where when I did my sums, it works out well for me !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except no. The 'subsidy' you receive is not just paid for by 'e-on shareholders' - it is paid for by 'everyone else' in increased electricity charges. What is so unfair is that even if they could 'afford' it (which clearly many people do not have £10k kicking around) many do not have a suitable roof - yet they still have to subsidise you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You said "And to make my position clear, I don’t agree with all this renewable energy nonsense as a national supply strategy"

Yet you have it installed - what a hypocrite.

[Battsman]

Wind Power & Climate Change

Amongst all the "chatter" about 48% vs. 50% and today vs 2030 in this discussion board, what I didn't see was the observation that if we are indeed concerned about climate warming (anthropomorphic or not) and harnessing wind power has the potential for a cooling effect... well maybe we should actually be trying for wind power as an climate offset.

I have this vision of an oscilating control loop with nasty overshoot. We're getting too warm, crank of the wind power... crap it's getting too cold, crank of the fossil fuels... crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are very poor when calculating the cost for solar - they plan on having no equipment failures over the 25 year period (despite much of the equipment only having around 5 year warranties) and forget the cost of the money they have spent compared to sticking that money 'somewhere else'.

£10k put into a cash ISA today at 3% will be worth over £20k in 25 years time - imagine it was FTSE tracker and you averaged 5% and that money would be worth around £34k.

£10k put into a solar installation is 'gone' - take the money it earns (saves) you each year and put it into an investment at the same rates and you will have a LOT less at the end of 25 years. Add in the maintenance costs (likely to be around 3-4% per year?) and you could be losing money. These grid inverters can be £1500+ to replace and if a panel goes that scaffolding is costly - 25 years is a LONG time.

[Tom Reg]

Wind at 50% penetration will cost about $2 USD per kWh

Because all the storage systems are very very expensive, and to get to 50% penetration, (even just for electrical) you need to be able to store power to run a country for a week.

Raw wind clocks in at about $0.25 per kWh, (which looks expensive too, and is covered up by subsidies and tax breaks to current wind developers).

So what's the cost? 131 trillion per year at the $2 rate, and saying that someone makes storage cheaper, say 50 cents - then we are still at 30 trillion per year. About 1/2 the current GDP of the world. With the other half we need to make the rest of the power, eat and go to movies.

Wind does not work at any scale, but as soon as you pass 5 - 10% penetration, costs skyrocket past the raw wind cost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewables require 'storage' and then it's a joke - you generate electricity - pump water / compress gas / charge batteries etc. - then have to reverse that to generate electricity again. There must be huge inefficiencies and costs to generate it in the first place, then store it - then generate it again.

[Anonymous Coward]

As the author touched on - nuclear is the safest power source - more people die from wind and solar (yes 'falling off rooftops' etc.). Also hydro is relatively dangerous - a hydro dam in China killed an estimated 170k people - yes one hundred and seventy thousand people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deaths per terrawatt hour generated is very important - coal is unsurprisingly the worst and nuclear the lowest - so we should factor that 'human' cost as well.

[marturion]

So what would those turbines do to the bird population?

As well as noise pollution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody annoying to listen to them humming away though. Plus they kill birds.

[Anonymous Coward]

"how can I make wind look good and nuclear look bad?"

Ooh Lewis' alter ego! :D

[bill 36]

essential reading

If we don't react, our grandchildren will need to learn Mandarin........poor pun i know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with nuclear is most people are basing their views on these very old reactors that should be shut down (safely) and replaced with safer, newer ones. Fukoshima was a fukinold reactor badly located and yet if it had been a coal fired power station far more people would have died over it's lifetime.

[Alan Brown]

Much of that "high level nu-cle-ar waste" is potential fuel.

Older designs can't use it, but newer ones can - as is, without breaking open fuel rods - and if designed appropriately they can use Thorium cycle instead of energy-intensive uranium (the amount of oil burned in mining/extracting/processing/refining uranium is amazingly high) once the reactions are up and running.

There's way too much hysteria about nuke plants. If radiation standards were applied as tightly at coal pants they'd all be shut down immediately and the hysteria about death/injury rates is on par with Edison's frantic attempts to discredit Tesla's AC system by killing stray dogs whilst ignoring the fact that several linesmen were being killed by his "Safe" DC system each week.

regarding wind's deaths/MWh - Lewis has a point - kind of.

People keep falling off towers or driving off the road on the way to servicing a turbine, but that's an argument for improved safety practices and ignores the overall deaths/MWh attributable to mining/transporting coal/oil/uranium. (if someone died in a car crash on their drive into work in a coal plant, that's not factored into the equation, but it is if they died in a car crash on the way to service a wind turbine. Likewise, the mining industry stats aren't applied against generation using products of that mining process). You can twist numbers to say anything you want.

[Tom 7]

WInd power is expensive because nuclear is.

Something that you can make money at home with is always going to take about 10 to 15 years to pay for itself - cos that’s a good investment on your part. For companies that can basically get in between you and the tariff system there is no need to invest in research or mass production: A 1Kw generator to stick on a windmill - £400 - electronics extra, a 1Kw generator to stick in the vicious environment next to your car engine - £50 - output already regulated. Precision blades for the same - shitloads. Pressed steel blades that will generate 60% of the power the precision ones cost - well a £5 each in mass production.

The prices are kept high because there is no need for investment or research when you can claim huge tariffs - tariffs that were probably put at that level to encourage the oh so cheap nuclear that should be such a good investment if it does produce electricity at the prices people keep promising that there should be floods of applications to build them. If they really are such a good investment why do they need tariffs, and why is no-one stepping up to build one without the taxpayer taking all the risk?

[David Kelly 2]

Torque?

What about the torque of all those windmills (wind turbines) altering the rotation of the earth? Wouldn't this be significantly worse than CO2 was ever claimed to be?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Torque?

Yes if the other end of the windmill wasn't attached to the same Earth.

[John Smith 19]

Re: Torque?

"What about the torque of all those windmills (wind turbines) altering the rotation of the earth? Wouldn't this be significantly worse than CO2 was ever claimed to be?"

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

"we haven't got the intellectual ticket to get on the atmosphere-modelling bus"

Honesty at last.

[archaeopteryx]

Hooking up all the hamsters and rats on a treadmill might be a more economical idea that wind contraptions. Wind power as a candidate for electricity production has been around since the mid 70's (the energy crisis, remember?), and since then they have been unable to replace a single tiny conventional power plant, anywhere on this planet. And it has surfaced lately that while they turn and churn and collect taxpayers subsidies they DO NOT even replace significant conventional fuel consumption. VERY expensive hot air. Try running a hospital, or an elevator on wind power (might work if massive superconducting cables were free.

[arrbee]

Might I suggest...

a. build a large number of large wind turbines distributed evenly around the UK

b. use extensive fracking to provide the fuel needed to power the construction of a.

c. having hence weakened the geological foundations and attached significant lifting power, move the UK to wherever we can get a decent bloody summer

[Dave Bell]

That stuff about evenly-distributed wind turbines suggests to me that the model used by these researchers is still at the spherical cow level. It sounds like they have a standard solar-input model, which distinguishes between sea and land, and they've turned down the dial for the land, to represent the energy soaked up by wind turbines.

Do they even allow for the reality that a wind turbine essentially transfers energy from rural to urban areas? That's going to change the detail of what global warming does. It only changes the overall effect if fossil fuel consumption drops.

Lewis, you might have wasted time on criticising a mathematical simplification as though it were a real problem with the logistics.

[John Smith 19]

Wind turbines as the *sole* replacement for carbon based fuels

Just how *insane* does that sound to the average person in the street (or *on* the street given the cost that electricity prices will have reached).

And to deliver a generating capacity < 1/2 the *current* level.

The only "good" part of this study is the recognition that to make *any* unreliable renewable energy system viable you either need *huge* storage* or a *global* power grid, given that all of Europe can be becalmed for *days* with zero power generation.

Overall thumbs down. Bad and stupid.

[James 36]

title

Can anyone point me to a single global decision that has been successfully followed through to every country where humans live ?

thought not

on another note what about combined heat and power as a short term measure to increase the efficiency of the current fossil fuel generation sites ?

thermal efficiency increases from 40% to 80-90%, I read about a plant in Germany that was fuelled by animal waste, might buy us some more time ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: title

"Can anyone point me to a single global decision that has been successfully followed through to every country where humans live ?"

Drinking Coca-Cola.

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing people forget is expensive electricity / power COSTS lives - people (often old / vulnerable / poorer) will cut back on heating as a result and some will die / get sick.

Cheap(er), reliable (and ideaslly lower carbon) power generation is where we should be going.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and expensive power costs jobs - makes us less competitive and jobs move abroad. Guess some greenies would have some ideas for why expensive power is a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"A 1Kw generator to stick on a windmill - £400 - electronics extra, a 1Kw generator to stick in the vicious environment next to your car engine - £50 - output already regulated."

Suspect there are reasons for it otherwise people would just stick a car alternator in there. The wind power ones are probably designed to be much more efficient and operate at varying speeds more effectively.

The problem with your low-tech option is that it would be so much less efficient (with something that is already inefficient) it would probably not even turn most of the time. I have also heard some of the larger generators actually draw power to turn the turbines to keep them moving in low winds - ironic really.

[A J Stiles]

I can tell you what *will* destroy the economy .....

..... and that's fossil fuels running out.

A lot of businesses are built on subsidised energy (subsidised, not by government handouts, but by the fact that it isn't going to be replaced) and they are going to come crashing down when the true price of energy is revealed.