George Osborne demands massive cuts to windfarm subsidies

[ahinton]

I still return to the notion that burning fossil fuels is depleting energy reserves to all intents and purposes permanently, and that we shouldn't deliberately burn up non renewable resources without good reasons.

Well, I don't know about permanently, but otherwise I do agree with you. I also agree about burning (when it has to be done) close at hand; this is also the virtue of heat pumps, solar PV and thermal, &c., in that the fuel production and its use are almost adjacent to one anothe,r which has an obvious virtue akin to that of locally produced food as opposed to that which has undergone many food miles in transportation.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't know what you mean by 'regulated within 0.1 %'. The voltage regulation is - 6%, +10 %; the frequency regulation is +/- 1 %. And you overlook my mention of the reliability of our grid.

I agree that fuel burning should be done where it is most efficient provided that assessment is made rigorously and not on whim.

I totally agree we should move away from fossil fuel burning on the basis that it depletes what must be a finite resource (albeit, the limits of that resource do seem to stretch ever further into the future). However, it is economic folly to expand on a large scale into an unproven renewable resource that is showing no sign of economic viability after many decades of developemnt and research. It is insanity to attempt to move a mechanically unreliable technology offshore on the assumption that we can maintain it. And I have no concerns about the threat of global warming. I see no convincing data that suggests any strong response of world temperatures to CO2 emissions, nor do I see any theory which convinces me that the warming we're seeing purports some catastrophy.

I am so complacent because I believe we do have a renewable resource that is viable: nuclear power. And it is renewable, in my view, on the basis that the known uranium resource (to say nothing of thorium) is sufficient to provide the energy needs of western society (~125 kWh/per day) to the population of the world for the likely lifetime of the earth.

[ahinton]

I agree that fuel burning should be done where it is most efficient provided that assessment is made rigorously and not on whim.

Agreed also.

I totally agree we should move away from fossil fuel burning on the basis that it depletes what must be a finite resource (albeit, the limits of that resource do seem to stretch ever further into the future).

Also agreed.

However, it is economic folly to expand on a large scale into an unproven renewable resource that is showing no sign of economic viability after many decades of developemnt and research.

If you're referring to wind here, then I'd be inclined broadly to agree, but solar energy is hardly "unproven" as a resource - it's just woefully under-researched and under-produced to date.

It is insanity to attempt to move a mechanically unreliable technology offshore on the assumption that we can maintain it.

It is indeed and, since you're obviously talking wind here (energy, I mean - not your own hot air!), I agree; it;s also incredibly expensive, especialy given its relatively short anticipated useful lifespan.

And I have no concerns about the threat of global warming. I see no convincing data that suggests any strong response of world temperatures to CO2 emissions, nor do I see any theory which convinces me that the warming we're seeing purports some catastrophy.

I wouldn't go that far; I agree that there's no shortage of agenda-driven scaremongers and alarmists, but not only is there climate change there is also sufficient reliable evidence that at least some of it is aggravated - or at least not helped - by certain human activities.

I am so complacent because I believe we do have a renewable resource that is viable: nuclear power. And it is renewable, in my view, on the basis that the known uranium resource (to say nothing of thorium) is sufficient to provide the energy needs of western society (~125 kWh/per day) to the population of the world for the likely lifetime of the earth.

I'm with you on this except for the fact that the amounts of time and money required to build and commission reactors and to decommission them when they've come to the ends of their useful lives remain immense; nuclear fusion will, I think, have an increasingly important rôle to play in the future and it may be that research will find ways of cutting those time and cost factors eventually but, until such time as that has become established practical fact, I think that it's vital for as many people as possible to try to secure and use small- and medium-scale sustainable energy resources as far as possible, as this reduces enforced involvement in political and multinational corporate strategy and slashes energy distribution costs by cutting out most of the need for distribution. There are also major areas of desert with large amounts of available sunlight that could be harnessed for the construction of massive solar farms if only multinational agreements could be reached and storage and distribution facilities developed.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Actually, you're not qualifying to any degree what I said about the effects of our CO2 emissions and global warming. We do so affect global warming but to no significant amount.

And perhaps I shouldn't have given the impression (I didn't intend to) that we should embark forthwith on a massive nuclear build. We have plenty of time. We can run on gas quite economically. A nuclear programme to match our retired magnox fleet, and our aging AGRs will suffice. Switching to gas, replacing coal, will cut emissions sufficiently to meet our EU targets (if we're still in the EU) and save a huge amount of money compared to building wind. Anyone concerned about possible gas price inflation should note that it will have to inflate nearly 400 % to bring gas generation costs equal to that of wind. Any concerns about the UK running out of uranium should note that our stockpile of unrefined ore and spent (once through a magnox/submarine reactor) is maasive - enough for 300 years generation at total grid replacement level!

[Dave2002]

... nuclear fusion will, I think, have an increasingly important rôle to play in the future ...

To the best of my knowledge nuclear fusion has been struggling to get to the point where ENERGY OUT = ENERGY IN.

It has seemed like a good idea, but it may be one which won't take off in my lifetime.

[Dave2002]

To the best of my knowledge nuclear fusion has been struggling to get to the point where ENERGY OUT = ENERGY IN.

It has seemed like a good idea, but it may be one which won't take off in my lifetime.

Re msg 80, I should of course clarify that by nuclear fusion I meant terrestrial nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion is currently very important to us as it drives stars such as the sun, on which, one way or another, we still rely for virtually all of our energy.

[ahinton]

Re msg 80, I should of course clarify that by nuclear fusion I meant terrestrial nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion is currently very important to us as it drives stars such as the sun, on which, one way or another, we still rely for virtually all of our energy.

I thhink that most if not all of us would have understood your meaning there! 35 years was a conservative estimate that I read for terrestrial nuclear fusion to become a practical reality as a means of energy supply and, although that was at least 6 years ago, it's certainly not something that can be taken into consideration as a solution to a problem that needs far more urgent attention.

[Dave2002]

I went to Scotland recently, and noticed several wind farms along the M74/A74(M). Turbines in some farms seemed resolutely inactive, yet others in nearby farms were whirling as expected. Is this because the brakes are kept on if there's not enough demand, or can there really be a big difference in wind from one hill to the next?

Also, a Trivia point, do some turbines rotate in different dirctions? I think most rotate anti-clockwise looked at from the front.

[Resurrection Man]

....
Also, a Trivia point, do some turbines rotate in different dirctions? I think most rotate anti-clockwise looked at from the front.

When they are rotating clockwise, they are consuming electricity to stop the gearboxes seizing in the absence of any wind.

[mangerton]

I went to Scotland recently, and noticed several wind farms along the M74/A74(M). Turbines in some farms seemed resolutely inactive, yet others in nearby farms were whirling as expected. Is this because the brakes are kept on if there's not enough demand, or can there really be a big difference in wind from one hill to the next?

Also, a Trivia point, do some turbines rotate in different dirctions? I think most rotate anti-clockwise looked at from the front.

No brakes, they just hadn't been switched on. I jest, of course, but apparently some people think this.

There's some information about rotation here.

[LeMartinPecheur]

No brakes, they just hadn't been switched on. I jest, of course, but apparently some people think this.

There's some information about rotation here.

Direction of rotation may have got a bit confused by what seems to be a recent change down here in Cornwall - wind turbines where the blades are at the back (downwind end) of the nacelle. When they first appeared I was a bit baffled as the why there seemed to be a 180 degree difference in wind direction within a few miles

Then I twigged...