Cost of Wind Power

I live between Bristol and Bath so the topic of the new Hinckley Nuclear power station is on the local news a far bit.

Taking up on Mike-B his thoughts on the disribution policy this should be a major factor when these plans are put into place, it looks as if we are going to have pylons very close to the Mendips which is an aera of outstanding beauty and pylons should not be allowed to spoil that.

This cost of underground cables should be factored into the intial costing, the National grid are currently spending in excess of 500 million to replace pylons with underground cabling in three area's of outstanding beauty spots two in the Lake district one in Dorset they should have done the job properly in the first place.

Hinckley power station has an estimated cost of 18 billion I bet anybody a Naim Power-Line this will exceed 20 billion with ease so if you look at the cost of burying ALL the cables at 500 million by the time the costs have escalated well past 18 billion this will look like loose change.

By the way if the do build plylons I am located 30 miles away so I shan't see them but I feel very strongly about spoiling our lovely countryside.

Pcd posted:

I live between Bristol and Bath so the topic of the new Hinckley Nuclear power station is on the local news a far bit.   Taking up on Mike-B his thoughts on the distribution policy this should be a major factor when these plans are put into place, it looks as if we are going to have pylons very close to the Mendips which is an area of outstanding beauty and pylons should not be allowed to spoil that.

This cost of underground cables should be factored into the initial costing,

Interestingly going back to the East Anglia Offshore Wind project we posted about at the beginning of this thread.   The 66kV undersea lines come ashore & will all be going underground to the Bramford Substation.

Pcd posted:

I live between Bristol and Bath so the topic of the new Hinckley Nuclear power station is on the local news a far bit.

Taking up on Mike-B his thoughts on the disribution policy this should be a major factor when these plans are put into place, it looks as if we are going to have pylons very close to the Mendips which is an aera of outstanding beauty and pylons should not be allowed to spoil that.

This cost of underground cables should be factored into the intial costing, the National grid are currently spending in excess of 500 million to replace pylons with underground cabling in three area's of outstanding beauty spots two in the Lake district one in Dorset they should have done the job properly in the first place.

Hinckley power station has an estimated cost of 18 billion I bet anybody a Naim Power-Line this will exceed 20 billion with ease so if you look at the cost of burying ALL the cables at 500 million by the time the costs have escalated well past 18 billion this will look like loose change.

By the way if the do build plylons I am located 30 miles away so I shan't see them but I feel very strongly about spoiling our lovely countryside.

 

I agree whole-heartedly that visual intrusion in the landscape should be taken into account in any "change-of-use" scheme, whether this be highways, transmission lines, solar panels, wind turbines etc.

But your reference to "they" should have done the job properly in the first place raises some very interesting questions.

Firstly, who are "they". The UK national grid and power generation system generally was organised by either government or quasi-government organisations. "They" were charged by "us" the electorate, via MPs, Parliament and government to produce electricity and distribute it. It is up to "us" to persuade each other, whether to minimise cost or minimise impact or adopt some compromise. This is not easy, (as those of us in the UK know all too well at the moment)

Fortunately IMHO, society is beginning to consider the environment more carefully, but big-business still has a lot of clout when it comes to funding and running infrastructure projects.

joerand posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

By all means let us harvest wind power. And hydro-electricity. Both use free fuel and are sustainable in that sense.

Speaking from a (US) Pacific Northwest perspective, hydro is viewed as 'clean' but not 'green'. Clean in that there are no emissions, but not green in that there are significant environmental costs, most notably to salmon runs, wildlife, and the overall riparian health of the affected ecosystem. Restricted streambed movement and alteration of daily, seasonal, and annual flows are also big detriments. Fortunately, folks in the Pacific Northwest have shown a willingness to pay increased electric bills to help try to mitigate these factors - foremost to sustain salmon, important to our cultural identity. It's also fortunate that increased cost promotes conservation. I can't see that there will ever be a free fuel for energy production but solar seems the closest at present. Even there, regional restrictions apply.

Hi Joe, as Mike says, nothing is "free". hence all change has a cost.

In the context of my post, i thought that the term "Cost" and "Free" were obvious in relation to fuel.  However, I accept that even coal, gas and uranium are "free" as well as river water, sunlight and wind. The "cost" of using these resources includes separating them from their natural environment, transport, refining for use and the compromises we make, such as visual intrusion, subsidence, disruption to wildlife and food resources, in order to use them. Plus, in some cases, trades that we have to make if we wish to use resources located in someones else's territory.

I think we are getting a bit better at making informed choices with respect to electricity generation and that we are also beginning to make better choices. But not always.

I don't think wind power can be considered environmentally friendly until someone comes up with a means of disposal for cured CFRP used in the manufacture of the blades. The same argument applies to aircraft which are using higher proportions on CFRP in their manufactue.

Extending the life of the AGRs in the UK is none too easy. Major components that are life limiting are not exactly easy to replace.

Pcd posted:

Same could be said of Nuclear Fuel Rods and Electric Car Batteries.

Regards

Pete

yickes !!!!

How much more electricity will we need to generate and distribute if electric cars take off ?

Will the fact we’re leaving the EU, effect the cost/security of supply of imported gas from/though Europe.

Will we pay a tariff on the gas?

Will we pay a surcharge for importing gas through the EU gas transportation infrastructure?

If there’s a shortage of gas available to Europe, for some reason, will we be at the end of the queue. We are at the end of the pipeline.

I believe  around 45% of UK gas comes from our own gas fields & 10+% from LPG (ship transport from USA & ME)   The rest is from various sources,  mostly Russia & Norway.  Although the gas is drawn from the combined European supply system, the contract is with Russia & Norway as I understand it. 

The other answers ............. I guess its wait & see what the next 2 years working on Article 50 will bring

You might ask when we can get fracking for our own gas & become a net supplier to EU Europe

Aren't those the questions that your polititians answered before UK went to a referendum?

After all only a decision based on facts is an informed one...

If the UK does leave the EU the negotiations on the trading status with the EU can only start AFTER the country has left. Not before. So it will take another 5-10 years after leaving that the UK may have some sort of agreement in place...

Adam Zielinski posted:

Aren't those the questions that your polititians answered before UK went to a referendum?

After all only a decision based on facts is an informed one...

If the UK does leave the EU the negotiations on the trading status with the EU can only start AFTER the country has left. Not before. So it will take another 5-10 years after leaving that the UK may have some sort of agreement in place...

Politicians thinking ahead (about anything other than themselves) ? I've a mind to ask Richard to transfer this post to the "Best Jokes" thread.

An electorate that asks meaningful questions before making up its mind ? Ha ha ha............

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Pcd posted:

No good producing all this energy then letting it escape from our buildings we need to up the requirement for far better insulation properties and the way energy is used and stored in all types of new construction.

It can be done and long term is very cost effective.

Agreed. One of the things that goes with renewables and their relatively high cost is the incentive to use less energy. This is at it most obvious where people go "off grid". Their local solar panels can only supply a fraction of what an average household uses, so they end up being ultra-efficient in their energy use (by necessity). Insulation is part of this, as are simpler lifestyle choices.

winky,

Mike (and others, including myself) have been talking about the production of electricity. Now i'm not entirely certain but I guess that most UK homes are heated by gas or oil. Electricity is an expensive option and certainly is used in some domestic places for space heating and water heating, but I suspect not many.

So, whilst insulation and frugility have their part to play, I don't think it will significantly reduce the UK's electricity demand.

Now in BC (the Okanagan), our house is better insulated than here in the UK and we are much more careful in both summer to keep it cool (saves on A/C costs) and winter to keep it warm by keeping doors and windows open/shut etc. Of course our heating/cooling/humidifier is powered by BC Hydro and I guess most of their electricity comes from the Columbia River Basin where the "fuel" is free.

Then again, perhaps some of their electricity comes from the Pincher Creek area where one day I wondered lonely as cloud, that floats on high o'er vales and hills when all at once I saw a crowd, a host of off-white windy mills.............now that is a landscape  environmentalist's nightmare, and mine too. Just wait until some bright spark builds an offshore wind farm alongside the West Coast Trail! Now these sorts of eyesores are certainly an incentive to use less electricity

I'm really thinking in terms of overall energy efficiency. It matters not whether you reduce your gas usage directly, or reduce the use of electricity generated by burning gas. Also, if one goes "off grid" it includes not buying gas for heating. The only energy one can generate is electricity, unless you own a forest and can burn the wood.

I personally don't find wind turbines to be an eyesore. To me, they look like the future.

Landscapes are almost all shaped by human interference; at least wind turbines look better than power stations and coal mines.

winkyincanada posted:

I personally don't find wind turbines to be an eyesore. To me, they look like the future.

Landscapes are almost all shaped by human interference; at least wind turbines look better than power stations and coal mines.

We obviously disagree on this one winky.

I can cope with a few power stations on the Yorkshire coal fields and a few on remote coast lines such as Dungeness, but wind turbines on every hill in southern England and the Borders in southern Scotland, plus that mass between the Prairies and the Rocky Mountains - no thank you.

I can also cope with Abbot's Hut even though it "intrudes" in the landscape both from the Lake Louise side and the Lake O'Hara/Oessa side of Mt Victoria. man's footprint between Banff and Siccamous and from the 49th to the Arctic between those longitudes is pretty insignificant in terms of visual intrusion. Put a few wind farms in there and I bet you wouldn't be the most popular environmentalist in BC !

Nice picture BTW

Winky,  I've give you that they have a certain elegance within a well posed photo,  but I might reverse that opinion when viewed from another angle and/or at a distance.   My attached pic is what (IMO) gives wind farms a bad name;  its an area just outside Palm Springs & its located in a desert/mountain wind tunnel valley so in some respects its not horizon view polution.   But the pic is just a small snapshot of a minute fraction of the whole farm,  its the view from a main road as you drive in/out of Palm Springs.   The farm has more than 4000 turbines compressed into a 70sq mile area & provides enough electricity to power Palm Springs.   Its fascinating, its eye catching but the unacceptable face of renewable energy. 

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I personally don't find wind turbines to be an eyesore. To me, they look like the future.

Landscapes are almost all shaped by human interference; at least wind turbines look better than power stations and coal mines.

We obviously disagree on this one winky.

I can cope with a few power stations on the Yorkshire coal fields and a few on remote coast lines such as Dungeness, but wind turbines on every hill in southern England and the Borders in southern Scotland, plus that mass between the Prairies and the Rocky Mountains - no thank you.

I can also cope with Abbot's Hut even though it "intrudes" in the landscape both from the Lake Louise side and the Lake O'Hara/Oessa side of Mt Victoria. man's footprint between Banff and Siccamous and from the 49th to the Arctic between those longitudes is pretty insignificant in terms of visual intrusion. Put a few wind farms in there and I bet you wouldn't be the most popular environmentalist in BC !

Nice picture BTW

I prefer the look of wind farms to strip malls, freeways and housing estates. These are far, far greater in impact than wind farms will ever be.

I think that wind turbines look beautiful. I detest the visual appearance of solar farms though. 

A big problem for wind, is prediction of when it's going to occur.  

But when it is going, how long is it going to keep going and at what rate ?  As pointed out, there is no 'short term' storage, electricity is 'on demand' use. So if you are using wind power, you have to ramp down the coal/nuclear depending on time of day - current usage et al.  It's a real balancing act.

In addition to the other issues of 'eye soar', noise of the turbines, space needed and the killing of birds.

I personally see in our province, more use of solar occurring. Currently wind provides 4% of power need in Alberta http://canwea.ca/wind-energy/alberta/

Guy007 posted:

A big problem for wind, is prediction of when it's going to occur. 

........ true of offshore & high altitude onshore,   but going back to the post I added on the Palm Springs farm; this is a low altitude mountain/desert solar wind valley.  It blows a hoolie each & every day, it might be less so when the sun don't shine but it still blows enough to power Palm Springs. 

Just think of how much money and power we would save by just turning these wind generators off.    Britain is windy enough without them anyway.

Mike-B posted:

salmon runs can be a built in as part of the construction - OK they take a few years with active fish mngt to become established

Mike,

I trust you forgot the winking emoticon  with that statement, otherwise it comes off as a naïve and gross oversimplification of a very complex problem. In the Columbia River Basin alone federal expenditures on salmon and steelhead population restoration, habitat improvement, and research totals more that $120 million annually and there are currently 13 salmon populations listed as threatened or endangered. Besides the more direct riverine issues dams and reservoirs present to fish populations, land use management and agricultural practices related to irrigation drawn from the hydroelectric reservoirs have indirect adverse effects on fish. Add to that the fact that dams present barriers to downstream movement of the streambed and woody debris, increase sedimentation, increase water temperatures, can supersaturate dissolved gasses, reduce Spring flows, and inject artificial large-scale pools in a river environment, and you begin to get a sense of just a few of the complexities. This without even addressing upstream access by spawners above dams or downstream migration of juveniles below dams. Then there's wildlife, vegetation, recreation, and flood management concerns to be incorporated as well. And there are literally hundreds of hydroelectric dams on salmon accessible rivers in the western US. These having existing, indigenous populations.

Joerand,  I was not trying to over simplify this ( & concede my post does that)  I've no experience of anything in North America & am not disagreeing with your post in anyway.  I also concede that the Pacific salmon fisheries are huge in comparison to Atlantic & that the Pacific includes more than one species & not forgetting the many topography variables.  But I have been involved in a few areas in Europe & Africa that involved fish mngt & its more or less as I posted.   Whilst hydro dams do affect the fish populations quite severely they do recover to some extent provided fish mngt is part of the hydro scheme.  Also according to various studies,  North Atlantic fish stock decline in most European areas is caused more by other factors (mostly offshore) over the long term than is caused by hydro schemes.

Mike-B posted:

........ true of offshore & high altitude onshore,   but going back to the post I added on the Palm Springs farm; this is a low altitude mountain/desert solar wind valley.  It blows a hoolie each & every day, it might be less so when the sun don't shine but it still blows enough to power Palm Springs. 

Mike if the wind is 'all bran' regular that's half the battle, and I'm sure it's a lot of A/C it's powering.  I use to work for the electrical operator here and even with the best 'prediction algorithm' company's software it gave the grid operators a headache...

And Joe you are spot on with the issues of Hydro, which BC seem to gloss over in the touting of it being a friendly electrical source...

I think with all renewables nothing is 'perfect', some are better, but there is a lot of downsides too. Everything has to be weighed up.