windmill frenzy over in UK

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith
I dunno maybe everyone else wants a monocrop landscape of oil-seed rape and windmills but not me thank you[:(!]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but that's a result of policy, not of the idea of 'windpower'. So there's no point in attacking 'wind turbines' in general because you object to the way in which they are being funded and sited, surely?

Did you not agree with the rest of my post?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More or less, yes. But from my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong-as if you would[;)][xx(])) For wind turbines to have any semblence of efficiency they need to be huge >100m the intermittancy of the wind means that at best energy is available only 25% of the time the other 75% of the time power has to be made in (largly) fossil fuel power stations...which presumably have to be kept idling in standby mode, not very efficient
RSE report 2004 stated that offshore wind power 3 x more expensive overall than nuclear or gas...true costs hidden from by public subsidies/market forces legislation...I think they are more of a highly visible symbol of the politics which nations gain brownie points in things like kyoto treaties than any serious solution to climate change
I think things like tidal and wave schemes are much more viable and things like reversible hydrogen fuel cells for cars that could be plugged into the national grid when idle......not forgeting of course the holy grail; a workable nuclear fusion powerplant- all these things might benefit from the subsidies/grants political push going into wind turbines at the moment

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

ransos · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith
I dunno maybe everyone else wants a monocrop landscape of oil-seed rape and windmills but not me thank you[:(!]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but that's a result of policy, not of the idea of 'windpower'. So there's no point in attacking 'wind turbines' in general because you object to the way in which they are being funded and sited, surely?

Did you not agree with the rest of my post?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More or less, yes. But from my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong-as if you would[;)][xx(])) For wind turbines to have any semblence of efficiency they need to be huge >100m the intermittancy of the wind means that at best energy is available only 25% of the time the other 75% of the time power has to be made in (largly) fossil fuel power stations...which presumably have to be kept idling in standby mode, not very efficient
RSE report 2004 stated that offshore wind power 3 x more expensive overall than nuclear or gas...true costs hidden from by public subsidies/market forces legislation...I think they are more of a highly visible symbol of the politics which nations gain brownie points in things like kyoto treaties than any serious solution to climate change
I think things like tidal and wave schemes are much more viable and things like reversible hydrogen fuel cells for cars that could be plugged into the national grid when idle......not forgeting of course the holy grail; a workable nuclear fusion powerplant- all these things might benefit from the subsidies/grants political push going into wind turbines at the moment

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Gary, my understanding is that we could approach 20% of our total electricity supply from wind before we would have to invest significantly in extra spinning reserve. And of course wind is relatively predictable a few days in advance so we can plan accordingly. Don't for get that we have to keep a large amount of power in reserve anyway, as power stations need maintenance, breakdown, and the cable from france goes down etc. Whilst power stations "idling" is not ideal, they only use a tiny fraction of the energy required to actually generate - think about the fuel a car uses idling in neutral compared to being driven at speed.

Denmark currently produce over 20% of their electricity from wind and don't seem to be suffering too much.

Unfortunately, the reports that look at the costs of fossil or nuclear sources don't take the full life-cycle or externalities into account. Nuclear decommissioning liability is currently around œ70 billion....

Jaded · May 2007

We could also reduce our requirements by 20%.

However, the vested interests do not wish to see reduction in demand, since this would reduce income.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

ransos · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

We could also reduce our requirements by 20%.

However, the vested interests do not wish to see reduction in demand, since this would reduce income.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Absolutely Jaded. You get a far bigger cut in CO2 for your œ through efficiency and reduction than generating renewably. But does this necessarily mean a cut in the standard of living? If you define your standard of living by numbers of electronic goods in your house, and the number of exotic destinations you fly to a year, then it probably would.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

We could also reduce our requirements by 20%.

However, the vested interests do not wish to see reduction in demand, since this would reduce income.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We could also do both. It's not an either/or situation and I wish people wouldn't portray it this way. There's also plenty of money to be made in energy efficiency - the Scandanavians seem to manage it...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Jaded · May 2007

I portray it in that way because we are doing nothing (other than some wishy washy adverts) to do anything about this. The average house uses twice as much power as it did 25 years ago.

I'd be happy to see wind factories as a solution if the power they produced wasn't wastefully splurged on wasteful domestic appliances, lighting up motorways 24/7, and the lights left on by Mrs Jaded.

To concentrate on publicity about wind farms and nimbys is dealing with the symptoms of our power crisis, not the causes. The real nimbys are those that are consuming the power, not the old codgers in the Exeter area.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded
To concentrate on publicity about wind farms and nimbys is dealing with the symptoms of our power crisis, not the causes. The real nimbys are those that are consuming the power, not the old codgers in the Exeter area.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree to an extent, but to argue the opposite is equally to justify the status quo in practice because when used alongside a 'why we shouldn't have windfarms at all' argument as you did.

A sensible approach surely aims at cutting or stabilizing demand, but doesn't pretend this is the only answer - it's just the start. We still have to look at what the future mix of energy generation will be, and it is likely to include wind, given that this is a resource Britain has in large quantity, just that it should be done in the context of a sensible national energy strategy, along the lines I previously suggested, not an ad-hoc rush-to-profit as now...

The big problem is that the debate has been polarized between hardcore opponents of wind farms (as they are now proposed) who have been heavily influenced by lobbyists for the nuclear industry (like Bernard Ingram), and the industrial wind industry. I absolutely refuse to take some position just because it fits into an easy right-wrong debate: it's hardly mature or sensible...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

alexjrice · May 2007

Arrgh, so many idiotic misconceptions. It makes my brain hurt.

The energy consumed in building and erecting a modern 2MW class wind turbine (including the concrete footing) is recouped by 6-9months of normal operation. This is as evaluated to externally verified ISO standard procedures by Vestas. The energy consumed to build a modern fossil fuel power station also takes around 9 months to recoup, for nuclear it's around 1 year due to the energy cost of decommissioning; difference is neither of the latter use a carbon neutral, renewable source of energy.

Yes, wind turbines result in some bird deaths. They mostly die by trying to land on the towers and accidentally crashing into them, it's nothing to do with the blades. Crashing into something you're trying to land on is quite a common way to die if you're a bird, apparently. On average a large wind turbine has 6-10 bird strikes a year. Compare this to a short section of road and you will realize this is simply a non-issue. The exception was the case of a badly sited wind farm in the US (Altamont Pass) which was built on a migration route for large birds of prey and resulted in many bird deaths; it was built in the 70s when wind farms were still young and received a lot of publicity and founded the 'wind turbines chop up birds' myth.

"Wind turbines only operate 'efficiently' for some (small percentage) of the time". The idea you are struggling with is 'capacity factor'. In average UK wind conditions a wind turbine, when average over a year, will produce 30% of the MAXIMUM power it is capable of outputting, offshore this rises to around 35%. This is referred to as 'capacity factor'. Saying that this makes a turbine inefficient is equivalent to saying that your car engine is inefficient because you don't drive everywhere using it's maximum power output. In actual fact modern turbines extract around 70% of the maximum power it is possible to remove from the wind and do so under a wide range of wind conditions. I would also point out that most coal fired power stations only have a capacity factor of 50% - 70% or so as they require periodic maintenance so operate in tandem with another similar station, and 'topping' gas fired stations are lower still. UK installed generating capacity is 79GW, UK average consumption is about 39GW or 74% of capacity.

"What if there's no wind". Er, when was the last time you turned on the weather forecast and they told you that they're sorry, there wasn't going to be any wind? It is true that renewable energy does not typically replace base load capacity, and that there is a seasonal variation in output from wind power (much more output in winter) but until you reach installed wind generation of around 20% it really has no impact on the control of the grid because it's variations are small compared to load variation.

I would also point out that esterified rape seed oil aka. 'Biodiesel' has an 'energy return on energy investment' or EROI of 7. This means it emits only 15% (1/7) as much carbon as an equivalent amount of petrodiesel. When blended with petrodiesel it produces a cleaner burning fuel that reduces particulate emissions and engine wear. It's _is_ worth subsidising.

Bioethanol on the other hand, is a bit rubbish. EROI of only about 1.2 and a total waste of time, only thing in it's favour is that it replaces some particularly poisonous octane enhancers, and makes for a cleaner burning fuel that releases less carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide.

---
http://www.ajjrice.plus.com

BigWomble · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by alexjrice

Arrgh, so many idiotic misconceptions. It makes my brain hurt.

The energy consumed in building and erecting a modern 2MW class wind turbine (including the concrete footing) is recouped by 6-9months of normal operation. This is as evaluated to externally verified ISO standard procedures by Vestas. The energy consumed to build a modern fossil fuel power station also takes around 9 months to recoup, for nuclear it's around 1 year due to the energy cost of decommissioning; difference is neither of the latter use a carbon neutral, renewable source of energy.

Yes, wind turbines result in some bird deaths. They mostly die by trying to land on the towers and accidentally crashing into them, it's nothing to do with the blades. Crashing into something you're trying to land on is quite a common way to die if you're a bird, apparently. On average a large wind turbine has 6-10 bird strikes a year. Compare this to a short section of road and you will realize this is simply a non-issue. The exception was the case of a badly sited wind farm in the US (Altamont Pass) which was built on a migration route for large birds of prey and resulted in many bird deaths; it was built in the 70s when wind farms were still young and received a lot of publicity and founded the 'wind turbines chop up birds' myth.

"Wind turbines only operate 'efficiently' for some (small percentage) of the time". The idea you are struggling with is 'capacity factor'. In average UK wind conditions a wind turbine, when average over a year, will produce 30% of the MAXIMUM power it is capable of outputting, offshore this rises to around 35%. This is referred to as 'capacity factor'. Saying that this makes a turbine inefficient is equivalent to saying that your car engine is inefficient because you don't drive everywhere using it's maximum power output. In actual fact modern turbines extract around 70% of the maximum power it is possible to remove from the wind and do so under a wide range of wind conditions. I would also point out that most coal fired power stations only have a capacity factor of 50% - 70% or so as they require periodic maintenance so operate in tandem with another similar station, and 'topping' gas fired stations are lower still. UK installed generating capacity is 79GW, UK average consumption is about 39GW or 74% of capacity.

"What if there's no wind". Er, when was the last time you turned on the weather forecast and they told you that they're sorry, there wasn't going to be any wind? It is true that renewable energy does not typically replace base load capacity, and that there is a seasonal variation in output from wind power (much more output in winter) but until you reach installed wind generation of around 20% it really has no impact on the control of the grid because it's variations are small compared to load variation.

I would also point out that esterified rape seed oil aka. 'Biodiesel' has an 'energy return on energy investment' or EROI of 7. This means it emits only 15% (1/7) as much carbon as an equivalent amount of petrodiesel. When blended with petrodiesel it produces a cleaner burning fuel that reduces particulate emissions and engine wear. It's _is_ worth subsidising.

Bioethanol on the other hand, is a bit rubbish. EROI of only about 1.2 and a total waste of time, only thing in it's favour is that it replaces some particularly poisonous octane enhancers, and makes for a cleaner burning fuel that releases less carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide.

---
http://www.ajjrice.plus.com
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The problem with wind turbines goes back to the physics. The power produced by a wind turbine is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter (i.e. the swept area) - and also proportional to the cube of the wind speed.

If the wind speed falls, then the power falls over very quickly. If the wind speed rises, then the power goes up and dumps all over the grid. These are problems that Germany and Denmark have had to wrestle with.

I think the mistake made so often is to confuse the kinds of power generation. Nuclear power isn't a replacement for wind turbines or coal power stations - it's completely different. Nuclear power generates electricity all of the time. Coal power stations can be switched off and on more easily (although the turbines have to keep spinning otherwise they bend under their own weight). Wind power is, I think, best used to charge battery powered things locally. For example, electric cars/bicycles or to generate hydrogen for same.

The strangest thing about wind power is how much those wind turbines cost.

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav/nav.j ... ts&x=0&y=0

œ1500 for that????!!!!???

What have we got - rotor (too small) made of thermoplastic
- pole, metal
- gearbox
- dynamo

I can't see how that is œ1500. œ200 at most. I'm afraid I haven't got œ1500 lying around to spend on what amounts to a green virility symbol.

If the rotor was larger, and the device significantly cheaper, then it might just work. The purchaser would be able to get their money back quickly, and it would make sense.

What we need desperately is someone who can take a new and expensive technology and sell it cheaply to the masses. We need Sir Clive Sinclair! [:D]

What's he doing right now? Oh - trying to break his neck on a bicycle with silly wheels.[V]

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by alexjrice

Arrgh, so many idiotic misconceptions. It makes my brain hurt.
...

I would also point out that esterified rape seed oil aka. 'Biodiesel' has an 'energy return on energy investment' or EROI of 7. This means it emits only 15% (1/7) as much carbon as an equivalent amount of petrodiesel. When blended with petrodiesel it produces a cleaner burning fuel that reduces particulate emissions and engine wear. It's _is_ worth subsidising.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No. It is NOT worth subsidising! Even if the carbon benefits are real, and the CO2 savings vary considerably in published figures, you are conveniently ignoring the land-take with all the implications for food supply and loss of biodiversity. Edit- oh it isn't necessarily cleaner in emissions either: many studies have found increased NOx emissions compared to mineral diesel; at best it can be considered to be similar to diesel in this respect.

Furthermore, fuel subsidies, by definition, offer the greatest benefit to those who use the most fuel. So those with the most gas guzzling vehicles and longest commutes stand to recieve most of the subsidy. Let's not forget that fuel subsidies come from the taxpayer. Even setting aside all the environmental problems, can you really claim that spending taxpayers' money on fuel subsidies is better value for money in CO2 savings than anything else that the same money could be spent on? You could insulate a lot of homes for the price of the money wasted on LPG subsidies for example.

Oh- you've missed a point with windpower, which is its short term variability. To make the most of the available energy it really needs something like a battery (or electrolysis, or a flywheel etc) that can respond to rapid variations in power output, expensive technology that isn't quite ready yet. I'd add that I do still think windpower has a role, but please don't be so dismissive of the justifiable criticisms of a technology whose current introduction is heavily influenced by politics and subsidy.

alexjrice · May 2007

Well, there's a couple of things there.

NOx problem can be solved by slightly retarding the timing on the engine - it's just that that the engine isn't optimized for that fuel, not a property of the fuel itself.

The UK has enough land as set-aside to produce roughly 10% of the UK's diesel requirements. Of course you come up against the tricky problem of biodiversity VS climate change. Some (I don't know how much) could be produced from re-cycled oil, this would clearly be a good thing. It has a positive effect on farming, creates jobs etc. bioethanol is being heavily backed in th US because it helps farmers, nothing to do with the environment.

In mainland Europe virtually all diesel since about 1990 has had 5% biodeisel in it.

The subsidy doesn't make the fuel cheaper than petrodiesel, merely allows it to compete, currently in the UK it gets a 20p/l tax rebate (which is not _quite_ the same as a subsidy) which makes it just barely viable.

LPG I agree is stupid, it's no different carbon wise to any other fossil fuel. the only reason it's cheap is because the oil industry has tons of the stuff and they wanted a new market so put pressure on the govt. It currently enjoys a huge tax rebate compared to biodiesel. Only advantage is that it's cleaner burning.

Short term variability is not a big problem. For a start modern wind turbines employ various techniques such as varying the pitch of the blades and using the inertia of the turbine itself (there's your flywheel) with schemes such as 'slip recovery' which allow the rotor to speed up during gusts. As a result they inject far lower levels of short term (1- 10s) power fluctuations into the grid than older machines. Secondly, the load is highly variable. Wind turbines are generally viewed as 'negative load', attached to the grid and largely ignored by the DNO from a grid management perspective. This works fine until you reach some critical level of embedded generation where grid stability becomes a problem, this is generally reckoned to be 20%+ wind energy. This is not a hard limit as there are moves toward making the wind turbines take an active role in managing the network, actually improving stability by using their capability to control how they inject power into the grid.

Wind turbines are mature technology, and are financially viable even without government intervention. I would add that again, wind power is not subsidised per se. all power companies have a renewable obligation, currently set at 5%. They prove that they have met this obligation by purchasing renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) from companies that generate renewable energy. The companies are essentially fined if they don't by enough reneable energy by OFGEM who then gives the resulting cash to the companies that did meet their targets. In this way legislation has been used to tip the market towards renewables.

Even without subsidy however a large, well sited wind turbine is a profitable device. According to the government's energy white paper the cost per kw/h of offshore wind and nuclear are similar at about 4.5p, onshore is cheaper at about 2.2p, coal is about 2.5p. The value of the electricity from renewables on the wholesale market is about 11p. Payback on large wind turbines is to the order of 9 months.

---
http://www.ajjrice.plus.com

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by alexjrice

Well, there's a couple of things there.

NOx problem can be solved by slightly retarding the timing on the engine - it's just that that the engine isn't optimized for that fuel, not a property of the fuel itself.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed- however, the best that can be achieved is equivalence with mineral diesel, so it isn't true to claim (as is often done by the biodiesel lobby) that biodiesel is inherently cleaner than diesel. Given that most places with air quality problems are failing to acheive the NO2 targets, biodiesel isn't going to do any good.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The UK has enough land as set-aside to produce roughly 10% of the UK's diesel requirements. Of course you come up against the tricky problem of biodiversity VS climate change. Some (I don't know how much) could be produced from re-cycled oil, this would clearly be a good thing. It has a positive effect on farming, creates jobs etc. bioethanol is being heavily backed in th US because it helps farmers, nothing to do with the environment.

In mainland Europe virtually all diesel since about 1990 has had 5% biodeisel in it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well clearly recycled oil from chip shops is never going to make a significant contribution to our fuel supply. And the 'set aside' land has become an important contribution to biodiversity, which will be lost if it is all ploughed up for oil-seed rape. In any case, set aside is merely a consequence of the absurdities of the CAP, which isn't exactly a good model for basing an energy policy on.

I don't see the relevance of the 'helping farmers' argument either- is this merely to be another government funded job creation scheme? Farmers already receive vast subsidies from the taxpayer for activities that cause severe environmental problems, such as loss of habitat, over-grazing, nutrient run-off in water courses etc, so why should it be assumed that encouraging another form of intensive agriculture is automatically a good thing?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

The subsidy doesn't make the fuel cheaper than petrodiesel, merely allows it to compete, currently in the UK it gets a 20p/l tax rebate (which is not _quite_ the same as a subsidy) which makes it just barely viable.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The subsidy is still a significant expense to the taxpayer and so needs to be justified as good value against all the other things that money could be spent on. Even if biodiesel were shown to have significant environmental benefits you would still have to show that subsidising its sale offers greater benefits than all the other things that might be done to reduce emissions.

There is a wider point about biofuels, which is why assume they should be used in transport rather than in other energy consuming sectors? For example, there may be merit in using coppiced woodland as a source of biomass, but in that case it is far more energy efficient to use it in CHP than to produce a fuel of sufficient quality to use in a motor vehicle. The same argument applies to waste oil and other energy from waste sources. It is far easier to deal with emissions in stationery plant than in a car. From a CO2 point of view it makes no difference where the saving is made, so let's focus on the making the most cost-effective savings in the sectors where they can be most efficiently made.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Short term variability is not a big problem. For a start modern wind turbines employ various techniques such as varying the pitch of the blades and using the inertia of the turbine itself (there's your flywheel) with schemes such as 'slip recovery' which allow the rotor to speed up during gusts. As a result they inject far lower levels of short term (1- 10s) power fluctuations into the grid than older machines. Secondly, the load is highly variable. Wind turbines are generally viewed as 'negative load', attached to the grid and largely ignored by the DNO from a grid management perspective. This works fine until you reach some critical level of embedded generation where grid stability becomes a problem, this is generally reckoned to be 20%+ wind energy. This is not a hard limit as there are moves toward making the wind turbines take an active role in managing the network, actually improving stability by using their capability to control how they inject power into the grid.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hmmm. Short term variability is a massive problem! You admit yourself it limits the amount of energy that can be produced by wind to 20%; I've seen lower figures quoted elsewhere. Although Denmark is supposed to produce 20% of its power from wind, several of the articles I've seen on the web about it suggest that this is achieved through using interconnectors to neighboring countries to manage the variation in supply. This suggests that it would struggle if Germany also pushed up its wind power output to a similar level. (I must admit I've struggled in a quick trawl of Google to find sources that were not obviously biased one way or the other- with similar figures presented with a wholly different slant depending on whether the website was pro- or anti- windpower.)

I don't doubt there is a lot that can be done to improve this situation, including on the demand side (e.g. automatically switching on heat stores, water heating etc when the output is high) but surely you must admit that it will be much easier to link a wind-farm into the grid once efficient local storage becomes available to smooth out the output to a constant level?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Wind turbines are mature technology, and are financially viable even without government intervention. I would add that again, wind power is not subsidised per se. all power companies have a renewable obligation, currently set at 5%. They prove that they have met this obligation by purchasing renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) from companies that generate renewable energy. The companies are essentially fined if they don't by enough reneable energy by OFGEM who then gives the resulting cash to the companies that did meet their targets. In this way legislation has been used to tip the market towards renewables.

Even without subsidy however a large, well sited wind turbine is a profitable device. According to the government's energy white paper the cost per kw/h of offshore wind and nuclear are similar at about 4.5p, onshore is cheaper at about 2.2p, coal is about 2.5p. The value of the electricity from renewables on the wholesale market is about 11p. Payback on large wind turbines is to the order of 9 months.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is no getting round the fact that a renewable energy obligation is a form of cross subsidy. It provides a guaranteed market for a more expensive, and difficult to manage, energy supply. It is effectively requiring the power companies to subsidise renewables instead of the taxpayer doing it directly. If you think wind-power is financially viable without subsidy, then do you think it would still attract investment if the renewables obligation were dropped? The fact that cross-subsidy is still needed suggests that the simple cost per kw/h figures you quote don't tell the whole story about the true costs of large-scale wind-generation.

Again, I repeat that I do still believe that windpower has a role in future energy supply, however we can only make that case if we are objective in our arguments for it, and that involves being realistic about its limitations.

alexjrice · May 2007

EDIT: Sorry, this is rather badly written and punctuated, but I have engineering finals exams to revise for...

The difficulty of saving carbon is that the cheapest ways of saving energy require changes in people's behaviour which something the govt. has a relatively weak ability to change. I'd love it if the government went round forcing people to insulate their homes and cycle more, but it ain't going to happen. There are some things like energy efficient appliances and light bulbs where the govt. has direct legislative control, but at point of sale these devices are more expensive (even if their total cost of ownership is less).

I would say variability of wind power isn't a problem simply because 20% still represents an awful lot of wind power. If we reach 20% in the next 50 years I'd be surprised given the time it's taken us to manage a paltry 0.6% of supply, I don't believe that we'll manage the government target of 8% in 2010. I believe that Denmark is already over 20%, but that's the special case of having a strong interconnector to Europe as you mention, although as far as I know development of wind power in Germany shouldn't affect the situation in Denmark. I believe the 20% figure is based on an 'average' mix of generation from renewable and conventional sources without recourse to interconnecters to other countries. I also read a study that suggested that with turbines that were more intelligent in their use of the grid this could be pushed to 40% albeit at the expense of discarding some energy at peak times.

A much more important concern is the strength of the UK distribution network, the area covered and the attitude of the distribution network operators (DNOs). Many wind developments are scuppered by a good, windy location that's too far from the nearest grid to make connection viable (power lines are very expensive) or where the DNO will not allow connection because the grid is too weak and the power injected will cause voltage rise in the line that may put it out of spec (+/- 10%) causing them to get fined and the DNO doesn't want to foot the bill for devices such as automatic voltage regulators or tap changers that will solve this problem. Additionally the UK transmission network from Scotland to 'the south' will need upgrading in order to permit large amounts of wind energy in Scotland.

Wind power could from an important part of the energy mix and the main hurdle to uptake is mostly political and social (archaic planning legislation, DNOs allowing connection to the grid) rather than technical.

Storing electricity is a tricky problem. It always involves conversion from one form of energy to another so is inherently inefficient (1st Law of Thermodynamics). There is some energy stored in the rotating mass of all the electric motors and generators on the system but that's only a few seconds worth but it's rather important for stabilising the grid. The only large scale, long term energy store currently in use is pumped hydro (pump the water back up the dam during times of low demand) of which we have four stations, two in Wales, two in Scotland, they're 70-85% efficient which is pretty good. Although the overall cost of the energy recovered is rather high they make money by waiting until there is a shortfall in supply and then selling onto the grid at prices well above the normal rate, often by 20x or so.

Electrolysis of water to make hydrogen is 50-70% efficient,and the reverse process in a fuel cell is around 50% efficient giving a total efficiency of 30-50% which is not that great, and of course you have to store the resulting hydrogen. Perhaps if we had an excess of energy and the ability to use hydrogen for road fuel this might work, but only if the electricity came from low carbon sources in the first place otherwise we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

If renewables obligation were dropped without adjusting the cost of climate change levy (CCL) ie. the cost of carbon then power companies would immediately start running their coal stations flat out because despite horrendous inefficiency, particularly of old plant (22% ish), coal is still the cheapest (and most carbon intensive) way of generating electricity.

I think that even in this scenario there would still be installation of new wind developments for two reasons. The subsidy has allowed the technology to emerge and mature to the point where large wind turbines are now competitive with other forms of generation, cost of generation has fallen steadily over the last 20 years or so, however it is likely that we'd see fewer, larger developments to reduce payback periods and minimise cost of connecting to the grid. The second is that we are heading for an energy crisis. We are set to loose some 20% of our generating capacity over the next three years as our ageing fleet of nuclear stations reaches the end of it's life, along with some of our oldest coal stations. It takes around three years to build a conventional power station and 10 years for nuclear. Wind turbines take 6-9 months from conception to commissioning. We need capacity and we need it fast and as energy prices rise due to falling supply and rising cost of fuel, wind energy is going to look awfully attractive.

I'm personally very interested in the results of the trials of Pelamis, a novel wave energy capture system being trialled off the cost of Spain (because our idiot government didn't have to foresight to fund it). So far things are going well and it looks like the first wave power device that can survive storms. It promises fairly high energy density per unit of sea area, and wave energy is a much more consistent source of power than wind.

---
http://www.ajjrice.plus.com

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by alexjrice

EDIT: Sorry, this is rather badly written and punctuated, but I have engineering finals exams to revise for...

The difficulty of saving carbon is that the cheapest ways of saving energy require changes in people's behaviour which something the govt. has a relatively weak ability to change. I'd love it if the government went round forcing people to insulate their homes and cycle more, but it ain't going to happen. There are some things like energy efficient appliances and light bulbs where the govt. has direct legislative control, but at point of sale these devices are more expensive (even if their total cost of ownership is less).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The above still does not make a case for subsidising biofuel... to do this you will need to show all of the following:
a)that replacing mineral diesel with biodiesel offers worthwhile reductions in CO2 when all energy imputs, water, fertiliser etc are taken into account;
b) that this can be achieved in worthwhile quantities without causing wider environmental, land-use, biodiversity or food-supply problems;
c) that subsidising the cost of fuel is necessary to ensure its uptake;
d) that the cost of this subsidy is less than the cost of other measures that could deliver equivalent environmental benefits; and finally
e) that the environmental benefits so achieved are worthwhile in comparison with other things the money might be used for elsewhere in the economy, e.g. health, education, scientific research etc.

Of the above, you have so far only really dealt with a), and that is still highly dependent on the source of the biodiesel. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest sticking point is b). See for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6650743.stm

and

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007 ... -10-03.asp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I would say variability of wind power isn't a problem simply because 20% still represents an awful lot of wind power. If we reach 20% in the next 50 years I'd be surprised given the time it's taken us to manage a paltry 0.6% of supply, I don't believe that we'll manage the government target of 8% in 2010. I believe that Denmark is already over 20%, but that's the special case of having a strong interconnector to Europe as you mention, although as far as I know development of wind power in Germany shouldn't affect the situation in Denmark. I believe the 20% figure is based on an 'average' mix of generation from renewable and conventional sources without recourse to interconnecters to other countries.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The problem surely is that if Denmark is using the grids of other countries to manage the variable output of its windpower, then if those countries also expand their own windpower significantly then there is a limit to the total amount that the system can cope with?

In my search for an article on the web that wasn't from an obviously biased source I found this from Proceedings of ICE Civil Engineering 158 May 2005 Pages 66-72 Paper 13663

Why wind power works for Denmark

Summary:
Denmark generates more wind power per head of population
than any other country in the world. Its 5500 wind turbines,
including the world's two largest offshore wind farms,generate
16% of national demand. ...However,as this paper
reveals,Denmark is exporting most of its wildly fluctuating
wind power to larger neighbours while finding other solutions
for supply and demand at home. As an 'island' grid based on
slow-reacting thermal power stations, Britain may find its
comparable wind-power aspirations more difficult to achieve.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
...
A much more important concern is the strength of the UK distribution network, the area covered and the attitude of the distribution network operators (DNOs). Many wind developments are scuppered by a good, windy location that's too far from the nearest grid to make connection viable (power lines are very expensive) or where the DNO will not allow connection because the grid is too weak and the power injected will cause voltage rise in the line that may put it out of spec .... Additionally the UK transmission network from Scotland to 'the south' will need upgrading in order to permit large amounts of wind energy in Scotland.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed, and this is also a problem that potentially constrains CHP and other micro-generation isn't it? Nonetheless, surely this is also another cost of windpower that makes it less economically attractive than your earlier figures might suggest.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

...

Storing electricity is a tricky problem.
...
Electrolysis of water to make hydrogen is 50-70% efficient,and the reverse process in a fuel cell is around 50% efficient giving a total efficiency of 30-50% which is not that great, and of course you have to store the resulting hydrogen. Perhaps if we had an excess of energy and the ability to use hydrogen for road fuel this might work, but only if the electricity came from low carbon sources in the first place otherwise we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed, but we were specifically discussing storage in the context of windpower. Storing energy at a total efficiency of 30% is better than letting excess energy go to waste at an efficiency of 0%.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

If renewables obligation were dropped without adjusting the cost of climate change levy (CCL) ...

I think that even in this scenario there would still be installation of new wind developments for two reasons. The subsidy has allowed the technology to emerge and mature to the point where large wind turbines are now competitive with other forms of generation, cost of generation has fallen steadily over the last 20 years or so, however it is likely that we'd see fewer, larger developments to reduce payback periods and minimise cost of connecting to the grid.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Which shows: a) that the cost of connecting windpower to the grid can't be ignored just because it is currently hidden by cross subsidy and b) that the availability of subsidy may well be encouraging windpower to be placed in locations where it isn't actually economically sensible. We must always be careful of the distorting effects of subsidy.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

The second is that we are heading for an energy crisis. We are set to loose some 20% of our generating capacity over the next three years as our ageing fleet of nuclear stations reaches the end of it's life, along with some of our oldest coal stations. It takes around three years to build a conventional power station and 10 years for nuclear. Wind turbines take 6-9 months from conception to commissioning. We need capacity and we need it fast and as energy prices rise due to falling supply and rising cost of fuel, wind energy is going to look awfully attractive.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed, though the Danish experience doesn't suggest that increasing windpower to 20% can directly replace the 20% baseload power from nuclear...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I'm personally very interested in the results of the trials of Pelamis, a novel wave energy capture system being trialled off the cost of Spain (because our idiot government didn't have to foresight to fund it). So far things are going well and it looks like the first wave power device that can survive storms. It promises fairly high energy density per unit of sea area, and wave energy is a much more consistent source of power than wind.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I hope it does succeed- we will need a range of new energy sources (which may still include nuclear energy...) as well as significant improvements in energy efficiency.

ransos · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by alexjrice

Well, there's a couple of things there.
LPG I agree is stupid, it's no different carbon wise to any other fossil fuel. the only reason it's cheap is because the oil industry has tons of the stuff and they wanted a new market so put pressure on the govt. It currently enjoys a huge tax rebate compared to biodiesel. Only advantage is that it's cleaner burning.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not at all sure about this. If there was no demand for LPG, it would be flared off as it is a by-product of extraction and refinery. So utilising it as a fuel seems a very sensible use of what would otherwise be a waste product.

Mosschops2 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BigWomble
The strangest thing about wind power is how much those wind turbines cost.

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav/nav.j ... ts&x=0&y=0

œ1500 for that????!!!!???

What have we got - rotor (too small) made of thermoplastic
- pole, metal
- gearbox
- dynamo

I can't see how that is œ1500. œ200 at most. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not saying you're wrong - but B&Q's pricing set up (for all products) is based on what they believe they can sell for. From that basis, they take 65% markup, and the supplier pays through the nose for 1) carriage to centralised warehouse 2) charges per meter of product-shelf on display 3) all responsibility for returns etc etc.
Therefore, the product would be sold to B&Q for œ500 ish, and the supplier will have to hack œ100 costs, whilst then making œ200 gross profit over an item which costs œ200 at the factory gates in China....

For the first time.... my bike!!!

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Not at all sure about this. If there was no demand for LPG, it would be flared off as it is a by-product of extraction and refinery. So utilising it as a fuel seems a very sensible use of what would otherwise be a waste product.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It isn't so much a waste product as a low-value by-product. As a clean burning source of energy it is fine, so is great for domestic heating, CHP etc. But as Alex points out, the industry were keen to find a higher value market, and lobbied for tax subsidies to encourage its use in transport. Unfortunately however, these days its environmental benefits over petrol or diesel are not as great as they were; indeed in terms of CO2 diesel is better. There are also lots of practical problems that make it less useful as a transport fuel- e.g the size and weight of the tank, refuelling, maintenance etc.

LPG's main air quality benefits would have been from replacing diesel in urban areas, especially on buses and taxis, however take-up in these sectors was very limited because of the practical constraints already mentioned, so the main demand was from high-mileage low-mpg company car fleets. In other words, instead of public subsidy being used to help improve urban air quality, it was used to reduce the travel costs of gas-guzzlers. The government appears to have wised-up to this, and appears to be letting LPG wither away; still wasting millions of pounds each year subsidising the remaining LPG vehicles, many of which have higher CO2 emissions than their diesel equivalent.

As an illustration of the dubious marketing being used to promote LPG, a few years ago Calor gas issued a press release that was supposed to be a league table of the most polluted cities in the country. This was used to stir up hysterical media coverage in the places concerned, with the intention of trying to create public pressure for the use of LPG instead of diesel in buses. Unfortunately the league table was highly misleading, as it compared air pollution measurements taken at the kerbside in some locations with 'urban background' measurements in other cities. They also used a bogus comparison with cigarette smoke based on NO2 exposure, which is meaningless because the health threat from cigarettes isn't from NO2 at all. It was quite blatant scaremongering for commercial gain, yet even more unfortunately the Green party fell for it and stirred up plenty of misleading air quality scares of their own. See this worrying uncritical Guardian story for an example.

Moral of the story: be very sceptical of techno-fixes and green claims from those with a vested commercial interest... Having seen the LPG farce come and go I fear biodiesel is going to follow the same pattern. Second moral of the story- sadly this shows that you also have to be sceptical of groups like the Green party where environmental scare stories are concerned. As with climate change- if you want to know about the science, go to a scientific source.

ransos · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Not at all sure about this. If there was no demand for LPG, it would be flared off as it is a by-product of extraction and refinery. So utilising it as a fuel seems a very sensible use of what would otherwise be a waste product.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It isn't so much a waste product as a low-value by-product. As a clean burning source of energy it is fine, so is great for domestic heating, CHP etc. But as Alex points out, the industry were keen to find a higher value market, and lobbied for tax subsidies to encourage its use in transport. Unfortunately however, these days its environmental benefits over petrol or diesel are not as great as they were; indeed in terms of CO2 diesel is better. There are also lots of practical problems that make it less useful as a transport fuel- e.g the size and weight of the tank, refuelling, maintenance etc.

LPG's main air quality benefits would have been from replacing diesel in urban areas, especially on buses and taxis, however take-up in these sectors was very limited because of the practical constraints already mentioned, so the main demand was from high-mileage low-mpg company car fleets. In other words, instead of public subsidy being used to help improve urban air quality, it was used to reduce the travel costs of gas-guzzlers. The government appears to have wised-up to this, and appears to be letting LPG wither away; still wasting millions of pounds each year subsidising the remaining LPG vehicles, many of which have higher CO2 emissions than their diesel equivalent.

As an illustration of the dubious marketing being used to promote LPG, a few years ago Calor gas issued a press release that was supposed to be a league table of the most polluted cities in the country. This was used to stir up hysterical media coverage in the places concerned, with the intention of trying to create public pressure for the use of LPG instead of diesel in buses. Unfortunately the league table was highly misleading, as it compared air pollution measurements taken at the kerbside in some locations with 'urban background' measurements in other cities. They also used a bogus comparison with cigarette smoke based on NO2 exposure, which is meaningless because the health threat from cigarettes isn't from NO2 at all. It was quite blatant scaremongering for commercial gain, yet even more unfortunately the Green party fell for it and stirred up plenty of misleading air quality scares of their own. See this worrying uncritical Guardian story for an example.

Moral of the story: be very sceptical of techno-fixes and green claims from those with a vested commercial interest... Having seen the LPG farce come and go I fear biodiesel is going to follow the same pattern. Second moral of the story- sadly this shows that you also have to be sceptical of groups like the Green party where environmental scare stories are concerned. As with climate change- if you want to know about the science, go to a scientific source.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So are you saying that there would be a use for all of the LPG produced as by-product of extraction and refining if none were used as road fuel? That's not my understanding but I'm happy to stand corrected. My point is that if, as I understand, LPG would be flared off if there were no demand for use as road fuel, then in effect it becomes carbon neutral.

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos
...So are you saying that there would be a use for all of the LPG produced as by-product of extraction and refining if none were used as road fuel? That's not my understanding but I'm happy to stand corrected. My point is that if, as I understand, LPG would be flared off if there were no demand for use as road fuel, then in effect it becomes carbon neutral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Flaring would be a great waste. I don't see how it could be justifiable to do that when it could easily be used to generate electricity in gas turbines.

It would seem bizarre to subsidise the difficult production of electricity from the wind while allowing a rather more practicable source of energy to be flared off.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mosschops2

From that basis, they take 65% markup, and the supplier pays through the nose for 1) carriage to centralised warehouse 2) charges per meter of product-shelf on display 3) all responsibility for returns etc etc.
Therefore, the product would be sold to B&Q for œ500 ish, and the supplier will have to hack œ100 costs, whilst then making œ200 gross profit over an item which costs œ200 at the factory gates in China....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Surely if B&Q buy for œ500 and sell for œ1,500 their mark up is 200%, not 65%?

ransos · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos
...So are you saying that there would be a use for all of the LPG produced as by-product of extraction and refining if none were used as road fuel? That's not my understanding but I'm happy to stand corrected. My point is that if, as I understand, LPG would be flared off if there were no demand for use as road fuel, then in effect it becomes carbon neutral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Flaring would be a great waste. I don't see how it could be justifiable to do that when it could easily be used to generate electricity in gas turbines.

It would seem bizarre to subsidise the difficult production of electricity from the wind while allowing a rather more practicable source of energy to be flared off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, they certainly used to flare off in the UK, and I believe that they still do so in other parts of the world. A great waste as you say. But I think my point still stands - if what was a waste by-product is now being used as fuel, in whatever form, then there is a significant carbon saving.

Mosschops2 · May 2007

Mr Stevens - fraid not - gross margin is (normally) worked out as (price - cost)/ price.

Therefore you can never actually get 100% gross margin (unless you can sell something (at no cost) that you bought for nothing!!) [;)]

For the first time.... my bike!!!

Jaded · May 2007

You are confusing Mark-up and Margin. [;)]

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mosschops2

Mr Stevens - fraid not - gross margin is (normally) worked out as (price - cost)/ price.

Therefore you can never actually get 100% gross margin (unless you can sell something (at no cost) that you bought for nothing!!) [;)]

For the first time.... my bike!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought margin was the percentage of the turnover that is profit.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Moral of the story: be very sceptical of techno-fixes and green claims from those with a vested commercial interest... sadly this shows that you also have to be sceptical of groups like the Green party where environmental scare stories are concerned. As with climate change- if you want to know about the science, go to a scientific source.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed mjones....we should start a thread 'The trouble with the Greens....'maybe FM could enlighten us why, like me, he seemingly lost faith in them somewhat....?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

BigWomble · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Not at all sure about this. If there was no demand for LPG, it would be flared off as it is a by-product of extraction and refinery. So utilising it as a fuel seems a very sensible use of what would otherwise be a waste product.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It isn't so much a waste product as a low-value by-product. As a clean burning source of energy it is fine, so is great for domestic heating, CHP etc. But as Alex points out, the industry were keen to find a higher value market, and lobbied for tax subsidies to encourage its use in transport. Unfortunately however, these days its environmental benefits over petrol or diesel are not as great as they were; indeed in terms of CO2 diesel is better. There are also lots of practical problems that make it less useful as a transport fuel- e.g the size and weight of the tank, refuelling, maintenance etc.

LPG's main air quality benefits would have been from replacing diesel in urban areas, especially on buses and taxis, however take-up in these sectors was very limited because of the practical constraints already mentioned, so the main demand was from high-mileage low-mpg company car fleets. In other words, instead of public subsidy being used to help improve urban air quality, it was used to reduce the travel costs of gas-guzzlers. The government appears to have wised-up to this, and appears to be letting LPG wither away; still wasting millions of pounds each year subsidising the remaining LPG vehicles, many of which have higher CO2 emissions than their diesel equivalent.

As an illustration of the dubious marketing being used to promote LPG, a few years ago Calor gas issued a press release that was supposed to be a league table of the most polluted cities in the country. This was used to stir up hysterical media coverage in the places concerned, with the intention of trying to create public pressure for the use of LPG instead of diesel in buses. Unfortunately the league table was highly misleading, as it compared air pollution measurements taken at the kerbside in some locations with 'urban background' measurements in other cities. They also used a bogus comparison with cigarette smoke based on NO2 exposure, which is meaningless because the health threat from cigarettes isn't from NO2 at all. It was quite blatant scaremongering for commercial gain, yet even more unfortunately the Green party fell for it and stirred up plenty of misleading air quality scares of their own. See this worrying uncritical Guardian story for an example.

Moral of the story: be very sceptical of techno-fixes and green claims from those with a vested commercial interest... Having seen the LPG farce come and go I fear biodiesel is going to follow the same pattern. Second moral of the story- sadly this shows that you also have to be sceptical of groups like the Green party where environmental scare stories are concerned. As with climate change- if you want to know about the science, go to a scientific source.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

First Bus tried using LPG buses, but gave up, as it was impractical. They found that diesel buses kept going and going, without causing a fuss, but LPG fuelled buses repeatedly slipped out of alignment. At the depot in Southampton they had one of these things, and they really didn't want it anymore.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos
...So are you saying that there would be a use for all of the LPG produced as by-product of extraction and refining if none were used as road fuel? That's not my understanding but I'm happy to stand corrected. My point is that if, as I understand, LPG would be flared off if there were no demand for use as road fuel, then in effect it becomes carbon neutral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Flaring would be a great waste. I don't see how it could be justifiable to do that when it could easily be used to generate electricity in gas turbines.

It would seem bizarre to subsidise the difficult production of electricity from the wind while allowing a rather more practicable source of energy to be flared off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, they certainly used to flare off in the UK, and I believe that they still do so in other parts of the world. A great waste as you say. But I think my point still stands - if what was a waste by-product is now being used as fuel, in whatever form, then there is a significant carbon saving.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ransos- yes, sorry, my earlier hasty response didn't fully answer your question. Waste gas is indeed still flared off, though I don't know how much nor at what stage in the refining process this mostly occurs.

I'd agree that it is better to use LPG as an energy source of any kind than to flare it, however this doesn't mean that the choice should be restricted to either flaring or using it as (heavily subsidised) transport fuel. Regulation and/or heavy carbon taxes can be used to discourage flaring, while using the gas in CHP or gas turbine generation plant is going to be more efficient than trying to use it in transport with all the problems of converting enough vehicles, providing a refuelling infrastructure etc not to mention the waste of public money on subsidies to rig the market in its favour.

ransos · May 2007

Yes, I agree with your position, but I still believe that LPG as a road fuel has some significant benefits, particulalrly for fleet use in cities. The problem as I see it is that the value of carbon at present simply isn't high enough to drive significant changes in behaviour without other market interventions. Solution would seem obvious, but that would require the EU and wider world to agree on quotas restrictive enough to push the price up.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Apologies for resurrecting this thread but perhaps some of you might be interested in the latest news:

George Monbiot: No more wind turbines on land

Date: 29/05/2007 Author:News
Leading environmental campaigner and author George Monbiot has said that he believes land-based wind farms in the UK 'have reached saturation point', and that any future farms should be built at sea.

Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival, Monbiot said:
'Beyond having a few more windfarms, it'll generate so much antagonism it'll turn people off dealing with climate change.'

Advising a move to offshore windfarms, which are more expensive but cause far less visual intrusion or local controversy, Monbiot noted that Wales in particular was rich in sources of renewable energy:
'Cardigan Bay has great advantages. It's shallow water and it's very windy, meaning you could build on a wide scale producing huge amounts of energy,' he said.

Wind farms developers are finding it increasingly hard to obtain planning permission for new developments, and trade body the British

Wind Energy Association (BWEA) doubts that last week's Planning White Paper will make matters easier. Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of the BWEA, said that the association was 'deeply disappointed' by the government's lack of ambition in its approach to wind energy.

There are currently some 8,000 megawatts of potential wind energy held up in the planning system, a figure that represents 6 per cent of the UK's electricity needs.


Seems eminently sensible to me [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Yes, I agree with your position, but I still believe that LPG as a road fuel has some significant benefits, particulalrly for fleet use in cities. The problem as I see it is that the value of carbon at present simply isn't high enough to drive significant changes in behaviour without other market interventions. Solution would seem obvious, but that would require the EU and wider world to agree on quotas restrictive enough to push the price up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, just spotted this now that Gary has bumped the thread!

The air quality benefits of LPG in cities are only signficant for NOx and PM in comparison with diesel. But the practical problems make it unnattractive for buses and lorries, which is where the greatest benefits would be. The value of carbon isn't relevant here because LPG is worse than diesel on CO2 and only a bit better than petrol.

See discussion in this TfL guide on fleet management

windmill frenzy over in UK

Comments

Categories