As opposed to windmills that are generating electricity to do all that and a lot more besides?
EV are they worth it?
- Thread starter ericmark
- Start date
As opposed to windmills that are generating electricity to do all that and a lot more besides?
Sponsored Links
Yep! Back in the 70's I worked putting in lots of pumping schemes, for drainage, fresh water etc.. One job I did on the fens, had the old wind pump, which had been replaced by a diesel pump, and I was there to install and commission the new electric drainage pumps. The then current diesels were attended by a old guy, living alongside the station, who was quite put out by the move to electric, and the end of his job. Nice old guy - He sadly passed away, whilst I was still on site, just as the electric ones came into operation.
Sorry - I just do not believe it! Does the 12, include all of the cost involved in manufacture, building and maintenance? Does it include any of the duplicity of systems, to provide backup, for when there is no wind?
Sponsored Links
I don't know? Do you have some figures you'd prefer to use? I'm assuming it does, because the "fuel" costs for a wind turbine won't be a right lot! There isn't much to a wind turbine really. A concrete base - big by DIY standards, small by civil engineering standards; a big (and very recyclable) steel "stick"; a (pretty small, by power generation standards) generator and gearbox; and three big composite blades.
Here's another one, that switches wind and nuclear around, but they're still practically identical. I struggle to believe the figures for nuclear, because they're effectively a "blank cheque". Until someone finds a way to deal with the waste permanently, it' just an ongoing expense "forever", in practical terms.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn268.pdf
No I don't have any better figures, but you do have to keep in mind that they are trying extremely hard, to justify the wind generators. They tried equally hard to justify waste incinerator generators, now suddenly it has been exposed, that they are even filthier than the coal they replaced.
Nuclear, got itself a bad name from the beginning, it was those concerns which have hampered it's development ever since. The risks of exposure, it has been suggested, are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be, and the waste storage problems likewise. They predicted major problems when Japans reactors were hit by the tsunami, yet it turned into a bit of a damp squib.
The UK originally led the field in nuclear, now we take very much a back seat, because of the concerns, and import.
You effectively posted an example of each, I told you that cherry-picked examples taken from either extreme weren't typical, and now you appear to be telling e the same?
No I showed how many smokers sucumb early to their habits with minimal costs and massive pension savings. Also how non smokers are often a massive drain on resources and finances as they live into advanced old age. I'm sure Brigadier or Carmen can explain it to you. Nice try though, trying to split hairs when your argument doesn't hold water.
No I showed how many smokers sucumb early to their habits with minimal costs and massive pension savings. Also how non smokers are often a massive drain on resources and finances as they live into advanced old age. I'm sure Brigadier or Carmen can explain it to you. Nice try though, trying to split hairs when your argument doesn't hold water.
You did?! Your "Example A" seemed to relate to roughly...about...1 person and your "Example B", a similar number. And even then, you didn't attach any costs or savings figures!
OK... so, you don't have any better figures but you somehow "know" that the ones being presented are wrong... I see...
Still far from sorted though.
Could say the same about our bike industry and our car industry. Right now, we're right up there with the front runners on offshore wind, but I can see folk trying to drag us back...
Being first, involves massive early adopter costs, and few benefits. Then soon, something better comes along which is better, more efficient, and cheaper.
Wind provided 30% of UK electricity during the last year - more than any other source.
That's a pretty substantial benefit.
Agreed, but what did they have to make use of, when the wind didn't blow? If the wind always blew, and wind generation always generated at 100% of its maximum design capacity, then I would call it viable.
Not having an EV or an inverter on a changeover switch, or any power-exporting apparatus I'm not familiar with the terminology.
What about a rail gun?
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2022
- Messages
- 2,912
- Reaction score
- 764
- Country
Same as with anything you need that comes intermittently that has a variable burn rate (fossil fuels, your wages, the latest episode of game of thrones) - you learn to budget, to lower your burn rate, acquire more from another source etc
The wind will probably always blow and the sun always shine; if people insist on burning huge amounts of energy with inefficient uses of it, their behaviour will be controlled financially.
Backup as in battery storage? There are alternatives we're exploring. Let's use the surplus energy to pump water up the mountain to the other side of the hydro dam. Let's winch this enormous concrete block into the air and generate from it as it descends when the wind stops etc; we're trying all sorts because we have to smooth out the peaks and troughs of time of demand versus time of generation if we want to use that energy. It causes us huge problems to bend the world to our will, to have the physics of the universe deliver our wants when we want them, but it always has and it gives us an output for our creative energies.
The point I was making is fossil is really no different; the time of generation is useless to us because it is incredibly slow and we weren't around to see it, but it was stored in this massive chemical battery that we're now taking out of at an alarming rate millions of times faster than the generation rate. We started off using it very inefficiently, then we refined it (eg a 1 litre turbo 3 cyl euro 6 fi rather than a 5 litre v8 carb) but there are ever more users so that's a dead duck.. So we're really onto changing habits and looking to use something else. Electricity has a much higher gen rate, but still that mismatch of gen vs use; some of that can be solved with changing habits and some with technology
Nuclear would be great is we could solve the waste problem more effectively, but again that's the same story in every aspect of human life - short on places to landfill domestic rubbish, islands of plastic in the oceans, vast dumps of fast fashion clothes on fire in some third world desert. All a result of humans confusing needs with wants and not caring enough because it's easy out of mind when it's out of sight
I worry a little when fusion is cracked and cheap energy is plentiful without major downsides to keep it in check - we might not be enlightened enough by the time to see the sense in living in more sympathy with the environment all around and well drown in our own waste, poisoned as yeast is by the alcohol it produces
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
