http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Blow-to-green-energy-plans.6776536.jp
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Will the wind go away??
(58 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
I wish it would have stopped this afternoon! 31mph gusting to goodness knows what! My son test riding his new (to him) bike (It has gears, Daddy!) was battling a fearsome headwind, poor wee chap.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Was unable to work due to being blown off the street, no wind forecast for tomorrow, hella lotta rain tho :(
Posted 13 years ago # -
It was terrible yesterday. But sooo nice today in contrast.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I was meant to be heading over to Polmont yesterday, but the wind was so strong and sent me sideways a few times that I turned around at Edinburgh Park and went home (no, you can't take a motorbike on the train). It's suspiciously unwindy today.
Posted 13 years ago # -
That Scotsman article was a bit vague on what the actual impact on wind generated electricity would be.
In my own experience (based on running repairs to the garden fence):
3 years ago : very windy
2 years ago : very windy
last year : not ver windy
This year : not very windy until a couple of weeks ago.How scientific is that?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"How scientific is that?"
I think that's what's known as anecdotal!
It's hard to know what to think about that Scotsman article. Is very long term weather forecasting likely to be reliable??
Less wind might be better - wind turbines are turned off when it's blowing too much.
Scotland used to be a world leader in tidal, but getting the R&D money wasn't easy.
"However, because of the 1980s oil glut, the perceived need for immediate alternative energy sources declined and, in 1982, the Wave Energy program was disbanded."
Posted 13 years ago # -
I shot out early yesterday for my bike ride when I saw how windy it was going to be, was very glad I had done so!
I don't really know why people are so against wind farms. Do they genuinely prefer the sight of power stations belching out black reek?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Probably becuase the mess is some where "not pretty" or more likely becuase that coal station "they've" received power from for the last 60 year is not in their back yard....
Posted 13 years ago # -
I like wind farms. They're restful things to see from a distance and close up I like the scale and the whoosh sound from the blades.
Perhaps if they did like Tower Bridge in England and covered a modern structure in Gothic cladding then nimbys would like them more.
Posted 13 years ago # -
'Germany to give up nuclear power in 10 years'
'Is it about energy or politics'
To be discussed on World at One - R4 1.00
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I don't really know why people are so against wind farms. Do they genuinely prefer the sight of power stations belching out black reek?"
I prefer the sight of a wind turbine to the site of, say, Cockenzie, although I don't think I ever recall much in the way of a black reek coming out from that particular power station (well, not very visibly anyway).
I'm sure it wouldn't take much thought to make a (new) coal or nuclear plant at least more visibly attractive (even if it still possessed all the usual negative attributes).If you were to ask me if I would prefer the sight of Cockenzie to the required number of turbines to equal its power output then I might have a different answer.
When Scotland's last unspoilt upland areas start to have wind farms eating into them, then I don't think that is a hppy day. In fact it is already happening.
There is still lots of space in the central belt. OK, the wind might not be as good but there is already plenty of unattractive forestry/roads/pylons/housing.
Windfarms aren't always built for the right reasons.
Posted 13 years ago # -
World at One story contained the phrase "demand side management".
Not something you tend to hear too much about.
We seem to live in a world predecated on 'more of the same - and then some more'...
So that's more people eating more food and more obesity. More cars, more congestion - so more 'demand' for more roads etc...
Posted 13 years ago # -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
The sidebar in the beeb story talks about what they might replace the nuclear power with. One of the things is stereotypically increasing efficiency. ;-) But one of the others is increasing wind power. I am not a fan of electricity pylons either but do wind turbines look worse than nuclear armageddon?
Posted 13 years ago # -
With out getting too involved in it, but surely the incident at Fukishima shows how safe Nuclear is after all when was the last 6 or 7 earthquake in NW Europe?
Posted 13 years ago # -
I am a fan of electricity pylons.
For me they are like red phoneboxes or something - ultimately functional but also an elegant, practical and classic piece of modernist industrial design.
The original design was by Milliken Brothers and was selected by the architect Sir Reginald Blomfield. I believe they were meant to evoke ancient Egyptian obelisks. Nearly all the towers since then have been based on the original classic design.
There's currently a consultation on developing a new design for areas of natural beauty or whatever... It will probably be dreadful and have glass and sandstone cladding all over it.
I also like the design of British nuclear power stations - the original Magnox ones are like the sort of mad designs children come up with if you give them lots of lego bricks or Mecanno. The later AGR ones are like gigantic retro washing machines or fridges. Torness is a bit of an anomally as it was one of the last pair to be designed and consequently is a functional late 1970s grey box with corrugated steel and glass cladding.
Posted 13 years ago # -
From Min's link -
"Germany is going to be ahead of the game on that and it is going to make a lot of money, so the message to Germany's industrial competitors is that you can base your energy policy not on nuclear, not on coal, but on renewables."
So Germany will become the "Saudi Arabia of renewables" rather than Scotland(?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/29/snp-hopes-new-wave-can-carry-scotland-to-independence
Posted 13 years ago # -
I wouldn't count coal out just yet tbh, it's reliable, dense and proven. If they can get sequestration down then then many of its down sides are negated.
Given renewables of the type Germany want to be involved in represent only 2.5% of the UK's production and that wind has been growing by about 0.5% per year for the last 4 years we're likely to run out of planet before we can match coal at nearly 30%
Posted 13 years ago # -
The other option for coal is sub-surface gassification. Has the attraction for energy companies of there being no more need for bolshy miners (or, to put it another way, no more nead for the expensive and dangerous practice of deep mining)
If you can turn the coal into gas underground, then rather like fracking or whatever it's called, you just need a pipe to get the gas out to a thermal powerstation on the surface. And if you can capture the exhaust gasses, even better.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes it's called fracking -
Posted 13 years ago # -
Posted 13 years ago #
-
The Solar and wind Germany has installed would generate over 10% of the UK's electricity. Although for reference Germany's demand is more than 60% greater than the UK's so total renewables is still a trifling amount.
edit: now I want some trifle....
Posted 13 years ago # -
"With out getting too involved in it, but surely the incident at Fukishima shows how safe Nuclear is after all when was the last 6 or 7 earthquake in NW Europe? "
Well not really since there can be problems other than earthquakes!
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Well not really since there can be problems other than earthquakes! "
Obviously spent fuel is a massive issue but for short term safety Nuclear is hard to beat. How many miners die each year extracting coal, how many died at Fukishima when the plant was hit by a tsunami and a massive earth quake which destroyed large parts of the country. If an older plant can stand that what disaster in NE Europe is going to be worse?Posted 13 years ago # -
Even George Monbiot thinks we need nukes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
And, for balance, an opposing view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/24/renewables-nuclear-fukushima-japan-environmentPosted 13 years ago # -
The thing about Fukushima that is interesting is despite it all going badly wrong, it didn't really go that badly wrong...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/
(Sure, I think the author is a bit too nonchelant about the psychological impact of being near a broken nuclear plant, if nothing else - but it makes for an interesting contrast with the tabloid hysteria.)
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Obviously spent fuel is a massive issue but for short term safety Nuclear is hard to beat. How many miners die each year extracting coal"
You don't have to go far out of Edinburgh to see memorials to dead miners.
I think spent fuel is one of the many issues that add up to nuclear being not 'economic' in most calculations for medium and long term.
But what about short term 'gap bridging'?
Even ardent environmentalists have changed their minds "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power". (EDIT - as mentioned above while I was writing this.)
For politicians short term is about 3 years. For energy gap/supply it's perhaps 30.
'Energy crisis' tends to be about 'when the oil runs out' and 'keeping the lights on' - which are not, necessarily, directly related.
The 'luxuries' of 30 years ago are now the 'necessities' of today. Some 'necessities' weren't even imaginable 30 years ago.
Living comfortably in the comfortable West with our lives influenced/controlled by well paid politicians, opinion formers, captains of industry etc. it's hard to know if decisions 'taken on our behalf' are rational, expedient or beneficial to 'us' - never mind people in the rest of the world who are, generally, not as well off (in conventional economic/consumerist terms) and probably want to be.
Before the energy supply falters (or becomes 'unaffordable') it may well be that useable water runs out for drinking, farming (with consequences for food prices) and industrial purposes.
Who knows??
What's this to do with 'cycling'?
Well it tends to be less energy intensive than other modes of transport and may be more connected with 'nature' and general 'humanity' than moving in a sealed box.
Whether any of that makes any difference is another question!
Posted 13 years ago # -
http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ this used to be available online for free but I cant find it any more, well worth a watch if you do you. All about the nuclear waste disposal program in Finland. even they admit its not a long term solution.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"What's this to do with 'cycling'?"
And of course that too much wind makes cycling unpleasant!
Posted 13 years ago # -
And of course that too much wind makes cycling unpleasant!
Depends which direction you're going...
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
