EV are they worth it?

[Avocet]

They ( wind mills ) were generally welcomed as they were pumping water to drain land that was needed for production of food

As opposed to windmills that are generating electricity to do all that and a lot more besides?

 

[Avocet]

Have you checked the carbon cost of the windmill manufacture, build, and regular maintenance?

Yes...

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

They ( wind mills ) were generally welcomed as they were pumping water to drain land that was needed for production of food

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 One job I did on the fens, had the old wind pump, which had been replaced by a diesel pump, and I was there to install and commission the new electric drainage pumps.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.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Yes...

View attachment 359525

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?

 

[Avocet]

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?

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

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

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.N

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.

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.

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.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

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.

 

[Avocet]

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!

 

[Avocet]

Duplicate

 

[Avocet]

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.

OK... so, you don't have any better figures but you somehow "know" that the ones being presented are wrong... I see...

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.

Still far from sorted though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683921000183

The UK originally led the field in nuclear, now we take very much a back seat, because of the concerns, and import.

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...

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

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.

 

[flameport]

Being first, involves massive early adopter costs, and few benefits.

Wind provided 30% of UK electricity during the last year - more than any other source.
That's a pretty substantial benefit.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

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.

 

[morqthana]

I think V2L (Vehicle to Load) is the term they use?

Not having an EV or an inverter on a changeover switch, or any power-exporting apparatus I'm not familiar with the terminology.

Absolutely and completely feasible! At present, vehicles thus equipped, can only supply limited power - around 2-4 kW, I think, but that could increase with time. Ford are making a big thing about you being able to use power tools from the eTransit. You wouldn't be able to run (say) an electric shower from your EV, but you could certainly keep the lights on, fridge and freezer, etc.

What about a rail gun?