The true cost of renewable energy?
Discussion
"uSwitch blamed increases on ongoing volatility in the energy market and huge spending on Britain's energy infrastructure.
A total of £233.5bn is being invested in energy supplies, according to professional services giant Ernst & Young.
Almost half the investment will go towards renewable energy and the rest on power plants, upgrading pipes, reducing carbon emissions and the roll-out of smart metering, which removes the need for meter reading.
"
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Energy-B...
Cost for 140 turbines and infrastructure up near sizewell £1.3 billion. Electricary produce 500MW at peak!!!
Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Edited by elster on Tuesday 23 June 11:09
elster said:
Cost for 140 turbines and infrastructure up near sizewell £1.3 billion. Electricary produce 500MW at peak!!!
Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Exactly.Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Edited by elster on Tuesday 23 June 11:09
They are very costly, unsightly, and just don't produce enough power. They are not a viable solution, and we are currently just throwing the money away by continuing to invest in windmills.
'Green' energy on the whole just is not cost effective, aand it's being forced upon us based on lies!!!
I don't understand why people are soo against Nuclear power. It's about time we embraced the technology for what it is; the only viable solution to our power problems!!!
People will talk about the waste, but that can be stored whilst research is done on how to make the waste non-hazardrous. There is just no denying that if we want to become more self sufficient when it comes to power, Nuclear is currently the only solution.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
elster said:
Cost for 140 turbines and infrastructure up near sizewell £1.3 billion. Electricary produce 500MW at peak!!!
Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Exactly.Drax turbines average output I would say is 600MW per turbine and there are 6 of them.
Rough cost of installig another one would be £5-10 million.
You wonder why electric bills will be going through the roof shortly!
Also by the time they pay for themselves, they will of already outlived their life. So will never earn enough to pay for themselves.
Edited by elster on Tuesday 23 June 11:09
They are very costly, unsightly, and just don't produce enough power. They are not a viable solution, and we are currently just throwing the money away by continuing to invest in windmills.
'Green' energy on the whole just is not cost effective, aand it's being forced upon us based on lies!!!
I don't understand why people are soo against Nuclear power. It's about time we embraced the technology for what it is; the only viable solution to our power problems!!!
People will talk about the waste, but that can be stored whilst research is done on how to make the waste non-hazardrous. There is just no denying that if we want to become more self sufficient when it comes to power, Nuclear is currently the only solution.
elster said:
It is not just wind that is hugely inefficient.
Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
I vote that we nuke Slough, turn it into a massive canyon and use hydro-electric power Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
Bing o said:
elster said:
It is not just wind that is hugely inefficient.
Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
I vote that we nuke Slough, turn it into a massive canyon and use hydro-electric power Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
bobbylondonuk said:
isnt wave and tidal a better alternative to wind?
PS: I have no idea about any green alternative...IMO hydro power is the only green, cost efficient technology we have as of date.
Wave and tidal would be consistent, however you would need to cover such a large area to generate enough energy for the masses.PS: I have no idea about any green alternative...IMO hydro power is the only green, cost efficient technology we have as of date.
There is no renewable energy source out there that is working to proved for mass energy production.
The billions spent on wind and solar would be better invested into research, oh and a couple of nuclear to keep us going until that day.
Bing o said:
elster said:
It is not just wind that is hugely inefficient.
Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
I vote that we nuke Slough, turn it into a massive canyon and use hydro-electric power Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
Solar thermal energy for places where the sun usually shines CSP
Trouble with a lot of schemes at a domestic level is the payback time. For example on face value air source heat pumps are increasingly regarded as a good solution. However replacing a gas fired system, for example, will have a 25 year payback, assuming the kit lasts that long.
Trouble with a lot of schemes at a domestic level is the payback time. For example on face value air source heat pumps are increasingly regarded as a good solution. However replacing a gas fired system, for example, will have a 25 year payback, assuming the kit lasts that long.
F i F said:
Solar thermal energy for places where the sun usually shines CSP
Trouble with a lot of schemes at a domestic level is the payback time. For example on face value air source heat pumps are increasingly regarded as a good solution. However replacing a gas fired system, for example, will have a 25 year payback, assuming the kit lasts that long.
Well, you do get air-con as well. That must be worth something.Trouble with a lot of schemes at a domestic level is the payback time. For example on face value air source heat pumps are increasingly regarded as a good solution. However replacing a gas fired system, for example, will have a 25 year payback, assuming the kit lasts that long.
Wind's ok as far as renewables go. As long as you're talking about big windmills in areas with consistent strong winds. All this 'stick a tiny turbine on the side of your house' stuff that greenpeace et al push is b
ks.
I think it's only a matter of time before the general public accept nuclear. It's the only really sensible long term option.
For an interesting read on future energy generation check out 'Sustainable energy without the hot air'. Either the print version or the pdf at http://www.withouthotair.com/
ks.I think it's only a matter of time before the general public accept nuclear. It's the only really sensible long term option.
For an interesting read on future energy generation check out 'Sustainable energy without the hot air'. Either the print version or the pdf at http://www.withouthotair.com/
Renewable energy is only one side of the equation: saving energy is also important.
In 1995, when I lived in the Netherlands, my energy supplier offered its customers a bonus if they reduced their energy consumption over the year (believe it or not they were serious about AGW even back then). I don't remember the precise figures, but I made a killing just by doing the simple things that we're told about, such as turning things off, shutting doors to reduce draughts etc.
Sadly they didn't do it again the next year.
In 1995, when I lived in the Netherlands, my energy supplier offered its customers a bonus if they reduced their energy consumption over the year (believe it or not they were serious about AGW even back then). I don't remember the precise figures, but I made a killing just by doing the simple things that we're told about, such as turning things off, shutting doors to reduce draughts etc.
Sadly they didn't do it again the next year.
elster said:
It is not just wind that is hugely inefficient.
Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
Yes, you are so right.Wave and Tidal power. I look at the current projects and think, my god someone must have a government grant to do this.
A series of river water wheels would be a far greater proposition.
Where I live a lot of the mines were powered with water wheels. The equivalent pumps were very very large efficient steam engines. This particular wheel ran 1/2 mile of "flat rods" which operated some massive reciprocating rods, which in turn worked lift pumps and lifted water 600ft to the drain level.
Some valleys had cascades of wheels and the torque they produced was incredible. It is all very well talking of Pelton Turbines, but they need a big head. Big flow and low drop are ideally suited to wheels, which are more reliable than wind power and are capable or producing massive power.
Modern materials would see them very good propositions.
I know the place/people involved in the "wave hub" project and those as well as others are surfing the wave of funding.
Cornish mines were pumped by either steam or water. In 1830, they attempted to pump Kit Hill Consols with a windmill and it blew down in a storm. Back to the waterwheel and flat rods....
Some of these wheels operated almost a mile of rods which ran on rollers to shafts. The friction must have been huge but then again, when you have torque measured in ft/tons, you can.
nigelfr said:
Renewable energy is only one side of the equation: saving energy is also important.
In 1995, when I lived in the Netherlands, my energy supplier offered its customers a bonus if they reduced their energy consumption over the year (believe it or not they were serious about AGW even back then). I don't remember the precise figures, but I made a killing just by doing the simple things that we're told about, such as turning things off, shutting doors to reduce draughts etc.
Sadly they didn't do it again the next year.
Completely agree, although I disagree with saving the planet. Maybe enhancing air quality and reducing all pollutants.In 1995, when I lived in the Netherlands, my energy supplier offered its customers a bonus if they reduced their energy consumption over the year (believe it or not they were serious about AGW even back then). I don't remember the precise figures, but I made a killing just by doing the simple things that we're told about, such as turning things off, shutting doors to reduce draughts etc.
Sadly they didn't do it again the next year.
So how about a bit of investment into local research into the markets?
Instead of buying Vestas and Siemens windy mills. Who will caryy on doing what they have been doing cycling models with a shelf life of 20 years. So if you need a new part, sorry we no longer make parts for your model. However we have a new model for you to buy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff