Wind/Solar power through life benefits/impact
Discussion
Hear a lot of generalisations about the impact of wind turbines and solar panels - the 'hidden' CO2 if you worry about such things, the rare earth metals and associated pollution needed in their construction. Dead birds and blinded bats.
However, clearly they do produce power, even if this power is much lower than often claimed.
Now have a far left friend, who's usually open to debate, asking for proper research into how good/bad they are. Taking this to be a chance to challenge her generally idealistic views regarding all things property and environment related, as well as educate myself more fully.
Anyone able to oblige with some links?
However, clearly they do produce power, even if this power is much lower than often claimed.
Now have a far left friend, who's usually open to debate, asking for proper research into how good/bad they are. Taking this to be a chance to challenge her generally idealistic views regarding all things property and environment related, as well as educate myself more fully.
Anyone able to oblige with some links?
You need to look at Carbon Lifecycle Assessment studies and Environmental Payback Periods. Good summary here which suggests that offshore wind starts to achieve a 'net positive' impact within the first year of operation:
http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Rampion_Draft_ES_S...
You need to look at the planning process to understand the other impacts (e.g. flicker, noise, ecology, loss of visual amenity etc). These are considered qualitatively rather than as costs:
http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/3414/3578/2...
http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Rampion_Draft_ES_S...
You need to look at the planning process to understand the other impacts (e.g. flicker, noise, ecology, loss of visual amenity etc). These are considered qualitatively rather than as costs:
http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/3414/3578/2...
In terms of bat and bird mortality, for the USA the estimates are alarming
Ths studies in Spain and Germany mentioned at the above link gave 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per turbine per year. I'm not convinced that the UK will be far outside that range if at all. If we use the lower bound, 110 birds and 200 bats, the UK's approximately 6550 turbines will be killing rather a lot of birds and bats each year, the arithmetic is simple.
Official figures are designed to give a low number. Wind industry investigations into bird and bat fatalities typically use a 50m or 60m search radius whereas the larger turbines warrant a radius of over 100m.
As bit part players, wind and solar are an expensive act supported by taxpayer subsidies. The idea of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is a non-starter, looking at the intractable intermittency problem and EROEI considerations shows that renewables simply cannot work.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Ths studies in Spain and Germany mentioned at the above link gave 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per turbine per year. I'm not convinced that the UK will be far outside that range if at all. If we use the lower bound, 110 birds and 200 bats, the UK's approximately 6550 turbines will be killing rather a lot of birds and bats each year, the arithmetic is simple.
Official figures are designed to give a low number. Wind industry investigations into bird and bat fatalities typically use a 50m or 60m search radius whereas the larger turbines warrant a radius of over 100m.
As bit part players, wind and solar are an expensive act supported by taxpayer subsidies. The idea of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is a non-starter, looking at the intractable intermittency problem and EROEI considerations shows that renewables simply cannot work.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Simply cannot work in which context?
As a wholesale replacement for energy supply? Well I think most people get that and that's not really what's being done, proposed etc
As an adjunct to current energy supply? Well they do produce energy so in absolute terms they do work
It's about options, a mixed portfolio of energy generation technologies has to be better than relying on setting fire to stuff? Is solar the universal panacea in the UK? Maybe not, is it a viable technology in sub-Saharan Africa where their overall consumption is much less and they have plenty of sun? definitely and probably cheaper and preferable to building a fossil fuel or nuclear equivalent
It's getting very boring now the way that "alternatives" are rejected out of hand typically accompanied by some pithy remark about subsidies, the lack of sun in the UK and how wind turbines are a blight on our green and pleasant land.
Not all these technologies are appropriate for use in our little part of the world, we need to cast our gaze wider than our own back door and also accept there's nothing fundamentally wrong with (in fact it's probably a good thing) to have that mixed portfolio mentioned above.
I have no issue supporting both the concept of nuclear power (especially fusion which I'd gladly see some of my tax invested in) and alternatives like solar, wind, tidal etc
As a wholesale replacement for energy supply? Well I think most people get that and that's not really what's being done, proposed etc
As an adjunct to current energy supply? Well they do produce energy so in absolute terms they do work
It's about options, a mixed portfolio of energy generation technologies has to be better than relying on setting fire to stuff? Is solar the universal panacea in the UK? Maybe not, is it a viable technology in sub-Saharan Africa where their overall consumption is much less and they have plenty of sun? definitely and probably cheaper and preferable to building a fossil fuel or nuclear equivalent
It's getting very boring now the way that "alternatives" are rejected out of hand typically accompanied by some pithy remark about subsidies, the lack of sun in the UK and how wind turbines are a blight on our green and pleasant land.
Not all these technologies are appropriate for use in our little part of the world, we need to cast our gaze wider than our own back door and also accept there's nothing fundamentally wrong with (in fact it's probably a good thing) to have that mixed portfolio mentioned above.
I have no issue supporting both the concept of nuclear power (especially fusion which I'd gladly see some of my tax invested in) and alternatives like solar, wind, tidal etc
Watch one or all of the Zeitgeist movies, e.g. youtube.
It can easily be written off as hippy, tree hugging claptrap, but that doesn't mean that some of the issues aren't without merit.
Saying it won't work and doing nothing to achieve it guarantees that.
'We' accept things are the way they are and wring our hands... but do nothing to change it.
Rather than spending huge amounts on eeking the last ounce of efficiency from inherently inefficient, dirty, dwindling and finite sources wouldn't it be wiser to invest in technology and science to find sustainable replacements to existing methods?
It can easily be written off as hippy, tree hugging claptrap, but that doesn't mean that some of the issues aren't without merit.
Saying it won't work and doing nothing to achieve it guarantees that.
'We' accept things are the way they are and wring our hands... but do nothing to change it.
Rather than spending huge amounts on eeking the last ounce of efficiency from inherently inefficient, dirty, dwindling and finite sources wouldn't it be wiser to invest in technology and science to find sustainable replacements to existing methods?
turbobloke said:
In terms of bat and bird mortality, for the USA the estimates are alarming
Ths studies in Spain and Germany mentioned at the above link gave 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per turbine per year. I'm not convinced that the UK will be far outside that range if at all. If we use the lower bound, 110 birds and 200 bats, the UK's approximately 6550 turbines will be killing rather a lot of birds and bats each year, the arithmetic is simple.
Official figures are designed to give a low number. Wind industry investigations into bird and bat fatalities typically use a 50m or 60m search radius whereas the larger turbines warrant a radius of over 100m.
As bit part players, wind and solar are an expensive act supported by taxpayer subsidies. The idea of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is a non-starter, looking at the intractable intermittency problem and EROEI considerations shows that renewables simply cannot work.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
I really don't see how this is an issue. Don't put the turbine up where rare bats exist and you're fine, just take the same basic environmental concerns of any other structure. They don't typically inhabit the same area anyway, we've got thousands of the things around here and they won't be occupying the vast empty high ground near the turbines around the corner. They stay where the food is. The same is true of most birds, who obviously don't suffer the same way given their lack of lungs. So I'd be curious what the UK stats are and what the true impact was, i.e. I don't give a sThs studies in Spain and Germany mentioned at the above link gave 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per turbine per year. I'm not convinced that the UK will be far outside that range if at all. If we use the lower bound, 110 birds and 200 bats, the UK's approximately 6550 turbines will be killing rather a lot of birds and bats each year, the arithmetic is simple.
Official figures are designed to give a low number. Wind industry investigations into bird and bat fatalities typically use a 50m or 60m search radius whereas the larger turbines warrant a radius of over 100m.
As bit part players, wind and solar are an expensive act supported by taxpayer subsidies. The idea of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is a non-starter, looking at the intractable intermittency problem and EROEI considerations shows that renewables simply cannot work.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
t if they're killing wood pigeons neither should anyone. I'd be very curious what their figures are for the wildlife impact of the UK road network, or other manufacturing and industry for comparison. After all without specifying beyond pure numbers, you can sensationalise the argument very easily. I would argue there must be an acceptable threshold for environmental impact in any man made structure.
Also this is all very ironic posting from a website which has a marked distrust of all environmental concerns expressed to climate change, but apparently such concerns are dismissed when its a perceived chance to get one over on the renewables energy crowd.
Just to be clear, I hate the windfarms on land, and I'm deeply skeptical of their claims (but remain open to it), but I don't see this is a valid line of argument.
Elysium said:
You need to look at Carbon Lifecycle Assessment studies and Environmental Payback Periods. Good summary here which suggests that offshore wind starts to achieve a 'net positive' impact within the first year of operation:
http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Rampion_Draft_ES_S...
You need to look at the planning process to understand the other impacts (e.g. flicker, noise, ecology, loss of visual amenity etc). These are considered qualitatively rather than as costs:
http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/3414/3578/2...
Horrible documents to read so I'd be amazed if anyone actually takes the time. The first was is a draft as well. What sort of professional publishes a draft?http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Rampion_Draft_ES_S...
You need to look at the planning process to understand the other impacts (e.g. flicker, noise, ecology, loss of visual amenity etc). These are considered qualitatively rather than as costs:
http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/3414/3578/2...
Bloody half-arsed, eco-scientists.
Sway said:
Anyone able to oblige with some links?
Firstly I'm not actually that interested in the environmental side of renewable energy but I've been an investor for a few years in utilities.This last year has been fairly interesting because among some developed economies the cost competitiveness of solar and wind energy has improved to a point where, by some measures, it may be approaching the cheapest energy generation without subsidies. Even with the cost of fossil fuels so low it seems the global appetite for renewable projects is still very strong. However despite this very high growth rate for alternative energy it still only makes up only about a half a percent of global generating capacity but is by far the fastest growing sector of generation.
I mean I'm sure it stops polar bears from having to live in tree houses as well but basically it's the economics of generation that will influence future investment.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff