Wind turbines get bigger and bigger

I think its far more likely that worn out turbines will be removed for recycling and a new one put in its place - rather easier to do than with a reactor. Otherwise the concrete bases are not huge, comparable to the footprint of an agricultural building, or intrusive, being at ground level

Lack of profitability is unlikely - the subsidies have been taken away because wind power now shows such a good ROI.

I must confess I am a fan of windpower in the right places, and reluctantly concede that nuclear has its place in reducing carbon emissions in the short/medium term.

Neil

The decommissioning of a Nuclear reactor has significant costs. Not only do spent fuel rods have to be kept in secure cooling pools but security also. Even the thought of an accident such as the one in Japan or in Russia is of significance. Who would place a Nuclear reactor on the sea shore subject to Tsunami's?

The ongoing research into cold fusion is possibly an answer but even then basic costs are prohibitive and they seem to be going nowhere.

Solar power has a possibility, but sunshine and hours of daylight for the UK are a bit low. So, the answer is a barrage where turbines power up while filling and also while emptying. All feasible and there are several suitable bays and areas for such enterprises. Wave power, this sufferes from sea/wave action and seems to also have died down now.

Clive

More research and money is needed before the world writes off Fusion power [and it's not likely to be cold IMHO]... **LINK**

...but £86M, really? I ask you. Just over 0.01% of UK Government Expenditure. At that rate it's no wonder the research seems to be going nowhere.

China and India are both building Thorium reactors.

**LINK**

From what I read some time back they are cheaper to build, safer to operate and produce less waste.

Gas Plasma Waste Recycling is the way to go. Solves two problems at once, gets rid of garbage and generates electricity. I don't think they have all the bugs out of the system yet but definitely looks promising.

John

That's just about the capacity of my local power station in London when I was a kid. Even the Luftwaffe wouldn't bomb it because it was more use as a landmark on their way out.

Some one there mentioned Sellafield ! no need to ask about that kip.That place has been leaking since the day it was built by "Experts",who knew it all [or so they liked to pretend ] How many of those same "Experts" or their families live anywhere near that dump,and that,s all it is. It,s still leaking like a sieve.

It is no coincidence that the area of Irish coast directly opposite Sellifield has the highest cancer rate in all Ireland.

I hate to even think what is in the sea. I no longer swim in the Irish Sea,as I did years ago,nor do I eat anything from it. The sad fact is that these "Experts" know as much about what they are messing with as my dogs know about the Internet. Where are all these "Experts" now,the same ones who were telling us how "safe" Sellifield was [when it was known by another name ] ?

Who was it who said "What,s in a name ? S---t by any other name smells just a s bad "

Tim S has hit the real problem for our beautiful blue planet. too many feet on the rock, then I am sure the solution will surely follow. War, pestilance and starvation will seal its fate.

Bear in mind that not one single commercial reactor has yet been decommissioned yet in the UK. Rather helpfully (to the nuclear industry), the UK government removed the obligation to clean up later in a futile attempt to try to make nuclear power vaguely viable as a pretend business. There is nowhere to bury the stuff, so when the existing reactors ARE finally decommissioned, it will involve them remaining where they are, entombed in concrete with their guts stored nearby like some macabre but deadly modern day Egyptian mummy.

Murray

The UK is actually leading the field in Fusion reactor technology.

Neil

Vestas turbine blade leaving Cowes

Edited By Bob Brown 1 on 03/04/2018 19:49:58

Generating energy from turbines relies on our carbon based industries, can anyone point to any turbine that has been planted around or on the British Isles that hasn't relied on the massive amounts of carbon based energy from planning to commissioning?

Then comes decommissioning, who pays the consumer and taxpayer.

"So, the answer is a barrage where turbines power up while filling and also while emptying. All feasible and there are several suitable bays and areas for such enterprises. Wave power, this sufferes from sea/wave action and seems to also have died down now.

Clive"

There is a great danger of an environmental catastrophe with sea barrages, if they can be constructed so that the generating does not impede the flow in either direction then they would be fine. But if not the damage to bird life would be a disaster -- Morecambe bay has several times been suggested for this type of system but fortunately has been quashed ! There are some 40K waders who rely on the time between tides to feed, if this time was curtailed by storing the water then releasing it when WE need energy they would perish. It was said they would just move - really - where to ? there is no replacement for their food source. That's not to say we cannot use this type of system but it is essential that it does not impact on our companions on this planet, in this case the wading birds together with the migratory fish.

Kwil, I agree there are far too many of us and our species is expanding at an alarming rate, I too have said for a long time that Mother Nature will come along and sort us out !

Easy to work out.

mgh is the potential energy of the water before its fall.

Better to use internationally accepted SI units rather than old, mostly out of date units.

m = mass, g = gravitational field strength and h = vertical height of fall.

Rate of flow, not simple volume, is required to provide a result as power (kW is a rate of doing work)

The efficiency of the energy conversion must also be taken into account, but should be above 50% for most installations - even the smaller ones, but will depend on the turbine and generator type/design.

There are ‘run of river’ installations as well as extraction and return. Every installation requires individual assessment, really.

The biggest impdiment to installation of these systems is the beuocracy and licensing to actually use the water - they want paying to use the water!

My bet is for methane releases from Siberian permafrost and associated GW impacts.

Process have already started and nothing on Earth including abandoning FF from tommorow can stop it.

Mind you, if the concrete and steel used in construction of windmills, road network, buildings etc is to be made only with aid of renewables, eg electric heating of raw materials for concrete and electrolysis and electric furnaces for steel - civilization would end within few decades - time necessary for existing infrastructure to crumble.

Costs of "green" concrete and steel would be prohibitive.

Btw I also expect to either die or be very old before significant peak resources and habitabilty issues became a prominent concern. This is a cup of tea for our grandchildren to drink.

Martin

There are legitimate concerns for river wildlife. Fish migration is for example affected between many other issues like formation of anoxic zones (and, no, passages for fish around water PP are not enough to address it).

Regarding payments for using water - water mill drinking water out of river and sending it to abyss would be rather exotic entity.

Martin

It will do so for next 40 years before projects are finally abandoned due to a lack of materials capable to withstand 14 MeV neutrons for worthwhile periods of time.

Martin

A recent study in Scotland showed a 'carbon payback' time for wind turbines of 5 to 12 months, calculated as how long it has to operate to offset the carbon cost of construction and operation.

As the amount of oil/coal/gas in the energy mix reduces this period will increase up to 2030, but still be less than the life of a turbine.

Naturally if we ever get rid of carbon-based fuels, wind turbines will then effectively have a net carbon cost, but it will be much smaller than alternative modes of generation.

John Gibbs’ link has some useful figures. The capital cost for offshore wind is around £3000/kw. If we would like to install an equivalent to Hinkley Point C power station with an output of 3.2Gw the capital cost would be £9.6 Billion. Looks better than ~£30 Billion for Hinkley point but the load factor for offshore wind is around 1/3 so we need 3 times as many turbines which puts the cost up to £28.8 Billion. Still not bad but the wind turbines have an anticipated life span of 20 years and Hinkley Point C has an anticipated life of 60 years. To produce 3.2Gw for 60 years using offshore wind would require a capital investment of £86 Billion rather than around £30 Billion for nuclear. This does not take into account the cost of alternative generation or storage systems for when the wind doesn’t blow. Where would I put my money?

The second problem here is the anticipated service lives. Nuclear power plants have easily exceeded 40 years service life and continue to be granted life extensions. Wind power and especially offshore wind has a poor track record.

**LINK**

**LINK**

Best regards

Roger

So why they are not around?

Martin