Windpower

[probe10]

If Britain were to rely entirely on wind power for its energy resources,how many windmills would be required

[jake-the-peg]

The biggest turbines are currently capable of about 5MW

2006 figures we had about 5,300MW of generation capability. So naively 1,100.

But the wind doesn't blow all the time at full power so you have to decide how much over capacity you need.

the capacity factor is the actual generated over the maximum theoretical. In the UK this is about 25%

So that gives us say 4,500.

Of course you couldn't actually run the country entirely on renewables because you can't control the wind.

You can't whistle up a storm when you need the electricity and there are no efficient ways of storing the electricity you generate.

Thats's not to say that you shouldn't use it. It's a major contributer to low carbon generation methods. But you need nuclear too

[vulcan]

i understand there is a system whereby when there is sufficient electricity and the wind is still blowing,the power generated is used to pump stored water to another higher holding tank.when the wind drops and power is needed the water is released back to the lower tank and at the same time powers generators to produce electricity.It sounds an interesting solution.

[rov1200]

This article gives an insight in to how many need depending on certain factors

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energie s/2008/02/How-Many-Windmills-Does-It-Take-to-P ower-the-World/

[jake-the-peg]

There is Vulcan, Dinorwig and Ffestiniog. It involves two lakes in Wales.

Alas there is a limitation to the number of lakes that you can devote to such schemes.

Ffestiniog can produce 360MW and Dinorwig is larger at 1728MW

Dinorwig can run for 5 hours.

Plus Energy losses from distribution means that this is not a solution for the whole country

[heathfield]

The government has approved plans for three 1000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Any one of these power stations will provide more electrical output than the combined average power from all of the 2400 wind turbines presently operating in the UK

[vulcan]

Thanks Jake, most interesting.Unfortunately not the solution I hoped it might have been.

[chakka35]

These windmills can never contribute seriously to our base requirement. The only (and inevitable) solution, if we are to cut down on fossil fuels, is nuclear power.

Alas, because of scaremongering we are way behind in this field. France, on the other hand, produces 85% of her electricity from 59 nuclear power stations Some of this energy she sells to Germany, Britain and Italy and it's among the cheapest electricity produced in Europe.

If we stick to fossils (the only large-scale alternative) then we're going to find ourselves held to ransom by Russia for our gas and unstable middle-eastern countries for our oil.

[jake-the-peg]

On the other hand we are still lead players in nuclear fusion.

The first sustained nuclear fusion was achieved in this country at Jet and we are are involved in the next generation machine Iter in Cardache in France.

This is the long term solution. It's been a long time coming but after Cardache the first generator DEMO will be built probably in Japan.

Be 30- 40 years for Cardache to complete and Demo to be built but we've probably enough alternatives until then.

[New Judge]

Just a quick point of pedantry, chakka.

The electricity produced in France from nuclear sources may well be among the cheapest produced in Europe, but it is not sold in the UK at a knock down price. All electricity, regardless of its origin, is sold at the same price (with very minor variations in price between suppliers to create an allegedly �competitive� market). These prices are among the most expensive in Europe.

As you rightly say, nuclear fuel is the only sensible, viable and sustainable method to produce electricity. Unfortunately the anti-nuclear lobby has held so much sway in the UK that, at least as far as current fission technology is concerned, our capability to build new plant has all but ceased. The fact that on average more people are killed in coal mining accidents every year than have ever been killed in nuclear accidents seems to cut no ice.

With earlier nuclear power stations now in need of replacement the government is still �considering� its options and the country faces a major electricity shortfall in the not too distant future because of this prevarication.

Only 15% of wind farms in England achieve their paltry target of 30% efficiency, with many of them being built where mean wind speeds are so low that they have no chance of achieving that target. Any power they do produce has to have full back up because this country is prone to long periods of insufficient wind (just look at the last two weeks). Nonetheless the wind industry continues to despoil the countryside in pursuit of huge profits by building all but useless plant, encouraged by a naive government and funded by taxpayers and consumers.

[chakka35]

Thanks, New Judge. I actually meant the cost of production, thereby answering one of the objections of the anti-nuclear lobby that nuclear power is expensive.

Yes, when we eventually wake up we will probably have to buy nuclear plants, or the skills and technology to build them, from abroad. How humiliating.

To coal-mining acidents you can add, sadly, oil-platform accidents.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you miss an important point about safety in the nuclear industry.

Coal mining accidents kill miners, oil platform accidents kill riggers.

Nuclear accidents kill civillians.

You can play the numbers game as long as you like on this and point out the figures. I can point out the small number of knife crime fatalities compared with road accidents.

Neither of us will change public opinion with numbers because these are emotional opinions not formed on data.

The long term solution is fusion - but we have to be very careful not to let it get tarred with the same brush in peoples minds.

In the mean time we will need a whole basket of soulions - next generation wind is much more efficient and off-shore, nuclear and there may even be some milage in carbon capture (but I'm not convinced).

Thing is Cameron is very anti-nuclear and if he does get in next time around I think you'll see many more wind farms and probably no nuclear power plants - there's not enough time now for Brown to set those wheels in motion before an election.

Funny to find you on the left of the house on this NJ!

[jake-the-peg]

Oh by the way the main reason we've not built nuclear power stations for 20years is financial.

They are horrendously expensive.

The ones we built were underwritten with the Government agreeing to pick up the decomissioning costs.

That's no longer the deal.

No commercial organisation so far wants to expose itself to that sort of cost.

And frankly can you blame them?

[chakka35]

Jake, the point is that nuclear accidents (apart from Chernobyl which was a freak case) are rare and that safety is therefore not a factor.
I agree that public opinion rules the roost at the moment but the facts will overtake it and nuclear power will become the inevitable source of our basic electricity needs.
There is nothing else, apart from fossils - and public opinion is against that source as well!

[probe10]

Thanks folks.When I posted this question I thought it would create some debate.I reckon that for now we will see more wind turbines appearing simply because it is politically advantageous for the government to promote them,but we must surely have to have more nuclear capacity in the future,but New Judge is correct in that it may be already too late to ensure our long term energy requirements.Incidentally I have heard that research is happening regarding the possibility of obtaining energy from sea bed thermal vents, but this surely is long term and extremely expesive,at least initially