Not wishing to de-rail a thread, I noticed that a poster had written something along the lines of useless turbines on a photo thread.
Are wind turbines efficient? That's the question in hand. Nick quoted the Economist but I guess the real question would be could the UK's power supply be covered by ALL renewable energy types, water, solar etc?
*UK electricity consumption has grown steadily since 1990 and by 2020 is expected to increase by another 15 to 20%. Worldwide, demand is expected to double by 2050. Wind power cannot satisfy this growth let alone reduce overall usage.
*The only way to reduce CO2 emissions significantly is to burn less fossil fuel. That means using less electricity through greater incentives to reduce consumption and more investment in energy saving technology. A recent EU study shows that we could easily reduce energy consumption by 18% by 2020, if the will existed.
*The Government invests far more in wind power than in energy saving. Between 1982 and 2000 wind power was the only renewable energy source receiving Government investment.
*If every home in the UK were given one more low energy light bulb, one conventional power station could be decommissioned.
*Solar energy is already perceived as the best renewable source for the future. The power generated is used locally and any excess can be fed into to the national grid, reducing both bills and demand on the grid.
Facts About Wind Farms
Last edited by Lucian; 17th May 2009 at 18:57. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Interesting article pointed out by Nick earlier:
Fiscal stimulus and the environment | Greenstanding | The Economist
From The Economist:
Has the Economist got a vested interest in nuclear power, stocks and shares for energy companies/ backhander from some branch of the government? or would they be right in thinking this as it could be a more realistic attitude.Nuclear-power stations take many years to build, so new ones will not help Britain meet its 2020 targets for curbing emissions. But the technology is well understood. Politicians may have calculated that a few nuclear-power stations will be easier to sell the public than thousands of wind turbines. And energy does not have to be renewable to be low-carbon.
Last edited by Lucian; 17th May 2009 at 19:08. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
I wouldn't say they are useless at all. From what I've read its unlikely that we could get all of our electricity from them so we'd need other sources, nuclear being one. So its a case of all of the above I guess. But what to do with the nuclear waste I wonder. Still might be better than global warming.
In a responsible application combined with many other alternative sources; wind power is an excellent source of electric power. Wind, sea, thermal (volcanic), and solar could get us off of the oil tit that makes us the whores of war for oil dominance.
Frederick Douglass: Find out just what any people will quietly submit to
and you have found out the exact measure of injustice
and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they are resisted with either
words or blows, or with both.
ďDonít believe them, donít fear them, donít ask
anything of them.Ē
like mi a go maas
Europe's biggest wind farm, the size of Glasgow city centre, has just come on stream in Scotland.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | Largest wind farm comes on stream
I'd like us to develop tidal and wave power more in the UK.
Sur votre bicyclette, mate.