Monday, 23 May 2016

Offshore Wind - Guess What ! - THE BIGGER THE TURBINES, THE MORE IT ALL COSTS !!!

Hot off the press:  23/05/2016 9:38 am

Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm is rated at 588 MW and will cost £2.6 billion.

That's a costs £4.42 Billion/GW installed.

Beatrice will supply 450,000 homes which works through to a Capacity Factor of 35.9%

It's 'Operational Phase' is 25 years. So over its working life it will deliver 46.2 TW hours of intermittent, low-carbon electricity.

By contrast, Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant will deliver 1513.7 TWh of 24/7, on demand, low-carbon electricity.

33 offshore wind farms, the size of Beatrice, would have to be constructed to deliver the same units of electricity as Hinkley.

33 x £2.6 billion = £85.8 billion.

Hinkley's cost ranges between £18 and £24.5 billion, so:

 For this money, nuclear power would supply about 4X more low-carbon electricity (24/7, on demand). 

From that website slide, the area of Beatrice 'eyeballs' at about 18 km x 8 km = 144 sq km

33 such windfarms would occupy an area of 4752 sq km, which is near enough 70 km x 70 km.
That's about the area of the sea's surface shown on the inset map.
Hinkley sits on a site 870 m x 870 m.


Thursday, 26 November 2015

UK WINDFARM SCAM - Nuclear Gives 78% More And Costs 25% Less !



Using data available from the Hinkley Point C, Pen y Cymoedd Wind Farm, Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park and 'renewableUK' websites, this is the 
Simple Arithmetic:















Monday, 14 September 2015

Offshore Wind Farm Stretches From Lands End and Past Orkney !

The simple question is:

What area of Offshore Site would be needed to generate as much electricity every year as the 0.82 km x 0.82 km site of:     Hinkley Point C ?
At 0.82 km wide, it would need to be 
1600 km Long !
The Seagulls Can't Believe It ?





Sunday, 25 January 2015

UKIPenergysense

They've only been there 10 minutes and they've kicked Wind Farms in the Crotch!



59 votes to 57 votes to Outlaw Public Subsidies for Wind Farms!

And 'It's The UKIP Votes wot won it'

It means less of your and my money disappearing down the black-hole of renewables.

Well done you guys: Douglas Carswell's Blog

Sunday, 23 November 2014

It's Googlicide - Renewables Murdered - And It's Google In The Dock!

Ross Koningstein - PhD Aerospace Engineering. 
David Fork - PhD Applied Physics.

Now here's two guys who should know a thing or two about energy systems. On different trajectories they'll have learned all that needs to be known about the Laws of Thermodynamics and the efficiency of heat engines.

So, talking about Climate Change - what do they conclude?
"...Today's renewable energy technologies won't save us..."

What Else?

"...Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known as RE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do.....Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades..."

What Happened?

In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative.

So what now for these two?

Ultimately, the two of us were given a new challenge. Alfred Spector, Google’s vice president of research, asked us to reflect on the project, examine its underlying assumptions, and learn from its failures.

And What's Been Learned From The Failure?

NOT MUCH! 

The title of their article: What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

But apparently neither highly educated individual has ever heard of Gen IV Breeder Reactors (be they IFRs or MSRs).

They have no problem in acknowledging James Hansen as "...one of the world's foremost experts on climate change..." and using Hansen's climate model.

Maybe they should follow Hansen's thinking on "what it would really take" - and get themselves involved with Hansen in the activities of:
Science Council for Global Initiatives 



Sunday, 2 November 2014

Plonk 1000 tons in the Countryside - Power under 2 tons in the City

Just What Goes Into A Wind Turbine?
Here's an Interesting Little Fact Sheet.
"What Mineral Products & Metals Are Needed To Make Wind Turbines"

---------------------------//-------------------------

Just What Comes Out Of A Wind Turbine
In the UK, for the whole of 2014, on average, each one of the 5,635 Wind Turbine generated just 569 kW each.
That's just enough to power 1 decent size of industrial electric motor:  

That's over 1,000 tons Steel and Concrete plonked in pristine countryside, destroying ecosystems and wildlife, to power under 2 tons of industrial electric motor in the city.

We need thousands of these prime movers to power all of our industrial and commercial activities, to perpetuate our way of life - standard of living ! 

The purveyors of this technology, based on such an obscene imbalance in the use of precious resources, have succeeded in getting it past the specialist advisers to our Prime Ministers and Presidents.

Their wicked success has stalled the progress of Gen IV Breeder Reactor programmes, taking us to the edge of the several precipices - a sick race between water wars, energy security wars and/or climate change!

It's time to get angry - really angry - with these morons.



Certainly, these 2 contrasting images should be plonked in front of every politician we come across, up to ministerial level and beyond!