Wind Turbines

JohnD said:
"...with the site able to meet just 1 per cent of demand on a cold day"


What a pity UK decided it didn't need a big gas storage capacity.
Click to expand...
really just 1% would you like to put the maths behind that statement
 
"Nathan Piper, head of oil and gas research at Investec, told the BBC that the Rough storage site would act in a similar way to the way reservoirs do in ensuring water supply.
He said the move would allow the UK to "take advantage" of current lower gas prices before temperatures drop and demand rises which will make gas more expensive.
"It is not a solution to higher prices but provides incremental security of supply," he said. "Even with Rough we still only store 2% of our annual gas demand, compared to over 25% on average in Europe."
UK natural gas was trading at around 50p a therm on Friday after steadily declining from peak of 550p a therm over the summer." BBC

1% is about right then, when only partly full. Unless gasbag pretends to know better, but he gets everything else wrong.
Too little, too late.
 
Justin Passing said:
UK natural gas was trading at around 50p a therm on Friday after steadily declining from peak of 550p a therm over the summer." BBC
Click to expand...
There has been a steady decline in gas prices. Makes me wonder why the went up so much - ;) a little anyway.

Some think this is one reason Sunak has delayed his budget announcement. Interest rate drop more too? They seem to have stabilised.

Oh Uk insolvency rates are looking similar to banking crisis levels.
 
gant said:
Minds work like parachutes Denso, they operate best when open
Click to expand...
It was a quote from Centrica. Maybe they were told to say it, but say it they did. Maybe you wish they hadn't said it, but...
 
denso13 said:
It was a quote from Centrica. Maybe they were told to say it, but say it they did. Maybe you wish they hadn't said it, but...
Click to expand...
But you lapped it up. Your searching for confirmation bias is on display to the state of embarrassment, do you possess an original thought?
 
Justin Passing said:
Totting up big (non polar) deserts you get to 20m sq km
a 1 x 1.6m panel can produce up to 335 Watts at the mo. Bad old ones were only 5.
At say 100 W per sq m from solar panels, that could be 20 00 000 000 000 000 watts, that's 2000 TW
Say you get 100TW due to darkth, dirtth etc

1 Watt = 1 J/sec

so.....

In 2007 the werld used 523,350 TJ of primary energy (WikiP)

523350 /( 3600 x 100) = an hour and a half.

So for one sunny morning or so per year you could harvest the sun, split water and pipe liquid hydrogen around the werld.
It would also reflect a bit of heat away.
Sorted.

Perhaps that nice Mr Xi or Mr Musk could knock out coils of PV material 12m wide (so they fit a 40ft container), 100m or whatever long, to unroll in the deserts.

SOmeone please check I'm not out by a factor of a million or gaxillion or something ...
Click to expand...
Deserts:
Sand storms, so you would need to regularly clean them, and they would get damaged from abrasiveness of the sand.
Solar PV isn't as efficient in hot climates (assuming we are in hot deserts), so you'd be lookig at solar CSP. Many deserts are problematic generally for solar power this and other reasons.

But lets fly in the face of real world problems.
Now lets assume the world's economy stays as it is in terms of growth on average, and we have about 2.3% per year. We would have to cover the entire Earth with solar panels, owing to the increase in energy demand in about 275 years (assuming solar PV for now), and we'd be using 7000TW.

In reality of course this won't happen, as we can't just keep growing the economy, but it shows how easy it is to screw things up when we have such a huge energy demand.

According to here:
We consumer an average of 18.2TW in 2016. It also points out that we are lifting ,millions out of extreme poverty (hurrah!). Of course, this will mean that they will be adding to the demand for energy, which explains the maths above in part).

Between now and 2297, we need to stop growing the economy. In fact we need to start that sooner rather than later for many developed countries, but of course in a way that doesn't screw us over.

We can only really use more nuclear power at this scale, whether fission or fusion/fission. There really is no other alternative. Yes you can build a few more wind turbines, (and I'd like to see more), but the idea that we have enough desert to last us long term is misplaced. We only have so much room for solar/wind when looking at this scale, and our demand for energy will only go up in the foreseeable.

of course, the above ignores thigs like losses, night time, variations in wind and the need for huge battery back up.
 
Where your argument breaks down as a personal perspective which is steeped in worldliness, is who are our ' idols' we have to pray too to achieve such aims.
 
Last edited:
denso13 said:
No they aren't.

No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Wind turbines are frighteningly expensive, they are responsible for a large part of the increases in our bills. The free power from them is a myth - if we are to keep them we must accept permanently expensive power.

How long does it take for one to "pay for itself" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top