Interesting BBC article about running the UK off wind

Phil · 01-07-2009, 08:49 AM

I thought this may interest a few of you: BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Wind 'can revolutionise UK power'

Mike · 01-07-2009, 10:51 AM

Interesting post Phil!

I have always thought that

Quote:

switching on back-up fossil fuel power stations for a very short time, charging extremely high prices, it predicts.

is one of the harder points. Is it easy to simply "switch on" a backup powerstation in the time?

Seems like a promising development though :)

Phil · 01-07-2009, 11:10 AM

In Scotland and Wales, a viable backup solution could be Hydroelectric - just turn on the taps at a few dams and instant hydro-electricity. Naturally though, that probably wouldn't last long as the water drains, but it is a good form of near instant power-up for when the wind drops.

What about the merits of importing electricity? I'm sure France who has already invested greatly in Nuclear power would be willing to sell some of their surplus, and the likes of Spain, Italy could sell some of their sunshine, and Iceland their geothermal. That saves having to go down the route of a 'dirty' fossil fueled backup, and reduces the reliance on less stable nations to supply gas and oil.

Then when the wind picks up, export it to our neighbours to lower their reliance on whatever systems they have in place there.

I think some sort of renewable-energy trade system should be put in place throughout Europe, or even the world. There are so many countries that have near guaranteed weather/environment conditions, that it would be possible to run all countries off 100% renewable; i.e.

UK - good wind and water
Portugal/Spain/France/Italy - good sunshine
Northern Africa - permanent sunshine
Iceland - permanent geothermal

If transmission of electricity over distances is a problem, why not convert the electricity into a more useful fuel like hydrogen, then transport that? It may be quite a wasteful process of conversion, but then again, it's produced by energy which we are already wasting by not harnessing it.

Andy · 01-07-2009, 02:59 PM

hmm, this is something I seem to have a debate on with friends each week.

I think power sharing like that is wishful thinking. Looking at how the Russians and Czechs bickered over such things politics will always be in the way.

Im in favour of the principle of wind power, I just want to see more research into what happens on these windy days...

barleyandben · 01-07-2009, 05:46 PM

I think power sharing like that is wishful thinking. Looking at how the Russians and Czechs bickered over such things politics will always be in the way.

I agree, it would be a very happy day if sharing energy resources ever came around.

b-baby · 02-07-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil

Northern Africa - permanent sunshine

Imagine how the world would change if Europe paid Africa for electricity produced by their sunshine, the US paid central/south American countries for theirs?

As you say, the energy is there waiting to be used - it seems so ridiculous that it's not being used and helping everybody...

OfOneEarth · 14-07-2009, 10:47 AM

The amount of land that will be required for wind power is immense. I doubt such a move will ever gain ground politically. I don't like the sight of windmills and I think they have a small and niche role only in UK power generation.

With energy, the first and foremost step must always be to curtail and reduce our energy usage, thus avoiding the need for its generation in the first place. Powerstations cost a fortune and are not without substantial environmental drawbacks.

In a social sense, a nuclear reactor will prove more popular and easier to site than hundreds of wind turbines. Even a modest 1000 MW reactor will need about 4 hectares of land to contain it. Now work out how much land you would need to get the same amount of power from wind. If anything, I would say that hydroelectric power and tidal power offer the greenest alternative for the UK, perhaps with a sizeable biomass fraction, too.

Phil · 14-07-2009, 11:04 AM

I can imagine though that hydroelectric, tidal, and biomass are more damaging to the environment than wind turbine erection. I.e. damming a river, blocking tidal waters, and growing forests to later cut them down can have serious consequences on habitats; whereas sticking some windmills on top of bare hills isn't affecting too much of the local biosphere (except the odd bird collision, but they'll learn ;-)).

I do agree with nuclear as the best option though. Of all the "nasty" fuels, it does prove to be relatively clean, and you do get a whopping output in terms of fuel input.

OfOneEarth · 14-07-2009, 11:18 AM

I personally think biomass offers the best solution, large scale afforestation, done carefully, can protect the environment in a myriad of ways.

It would also take more land out of the housing developers eyes....

Phil · 14-07-2009, 11:26 AM

But you wouldn't really be afforesting proper forests, more just planting huge fields of willow seedlings, then chopping them down a few years later.

The 'trees' wouldn't get a chance to mature, and therefore they would never really form a typical forest that can be used by animals as permanent/semi-permanent habitats.

01-07-2009, 08:49 AM	#1 (permalink)
Phil Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Camden, London Posts: 44 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Interesting BBC article about running the UK off wind I thought this may interest a few of you: BBC NEWS \| Science & Environment \| Wind 'can revolutionise UK power'

01-07-2009, 05:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
barleyandben Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Leeds Posts: 80 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts	I think power sharing like that is wishful thinking. Looking at how the Russians and Czechs bickered over such things politics will always be in the way. I agree, it would be a very happy day if sharing energy resources ever came around. __________________ Angela www.barleyandben.com

14-07-2009, 10:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
OfOneEarth Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: South of the M4 Posts: 65 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	The amount of land that will be required for wind power is immense. I doubt such a move will ever gain ground politically. I don't like the sight of windmills and I think they have a small and niche role only in UK power generation. With energy, the first and foremost step must always be to curtail and reduce our energy usage, thus avoiding the need for its generation in the first place. Powerstations cost a fortune and are not without substantial environmental drawbacks. In a social sense, a nuclear reactor will prove more popular and easier to site than hundreds of wind turbines. Even a modest 1000 MW reactor will need about 4 hectares of land to contain it. Now work out how much land you would need to get the same amount of power from wind. If anything, I would say that hydroelectric power and tidal power offer the greenest alternative for the UK, perhaps with a sizeable biomass fraction, too. __________________ 'The act of putting into your mouth what the earth has grown is perhaps your most direct interaction with the earth'

14-07-2009, 11:18 AM	#9 (permalink)
OfOneEarth Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: South of the M4 Posts: 65 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	I personally think biomass offers the best solution, large scale afforestation, done carefully, can protect the environment in a myriad of ways. It would also take more land out of the housing developers eyes.... __________________ 'The act of putting into your mouth what the earth has grown is perhaps your most direct interaction with the earth'

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-07-2009, 11:10 AM	#3 (permalink)
Phil Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Camden, London Posts: 44 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	In Scotland and Wales, a viable backup solution could be Hydroelectric - just turn on the taps at a few dams and instant hydro-electricity. Naturally though, that probably wouldn't last long as the water drains, but it is a good form of near instant power-up for when the wind drops. What about the merits of importing electricity? I'm sure France who has already invested greatly in Nuclear power would be willing to sell some of their surplus, and the likes of Spain, Italy could sell some of their sunshine, and Iceland their geothermal. That saves having to go down the route of a 'dirty' fossil fueled backup, and reduces the reliance on less stable nations to supply gas and oil. Then when the wind picks up, export it to our neighbours to lower their reliance on whatever systems they have in place there. I think some sort of renewable-energy trade system should be put in place throughout Europe, or even the world. There are so many countries that have near guaranteed weather/environment conditions, that it would be possible to run all countries off 100% renewable; i.e. UK - good wind and water Portugal/Spain/France/Italy - good sunshine Northern Africa - permanent sunshine Iceland - permanent geothermal If transmission of electricity over distances is a problem, why not convert the electricity into a more useful fuel like hydrogen, then transport that? It may be quite a wasteful process of conversion, but then again, it's produced by energy which we are already wasting by not harnessing it.

01-07-2009, 02:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Andy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 235 Thanks: 23 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	hmm, this is something I seem to have a debate on with friends each week. I think power sharing like that is wishful thinking. Looking at how the Russians and Czechs bickered over such things politics will always be in the way. Im in favour of the principle of wind power, I just want to see more research into what happens on these windy days...

14-07-2009, 11:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
Phil Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Camden, London Posts: 44 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	I can imagine though that hydroelectric, tidal, and biomass are more damaging to the environment than wind turbine erection. I.e. damming a river, blocking tidal waters, and growing forests to later cut them down can have serious consequences on habitats; whereas sticking some windmills on top of bare hills isn't affecting too much of the local biosphere (except the odd bird collision, but they'll learn ;-)). I do agree with nuclear as the best option though. Of all the "nasty" fuels, it does prove to be relatively clean, and you do get a whopping output in terms of fuel input.

14-07-2009, 11:26 AM	#10 (permalink)
Phil Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Camden, London Posts: 44 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	But you wouldn't really be afforesting proper forests, more just planting huge fields of willow seedlings, then chopping them down a few years later. The 'trees' wouldn't get a chance to mature, and therefore they would never really form a typical forest that can be used by animals as permanent/semi-permanent habitats.