Energy alternatives for the UK.
Matt
be a great help if you complete this questionaire, preferably posting
your answers onto this newsgroup. I'm asking my friends and family, but
we come from similiar backgrounds, so I wanted to tap into the wider
Internet community.
Your help would be greatly appreciated.
1) This country (the UK) will face an energy crisis over the next 100
years. Do you:
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
2) The UK should make more use of alternative (i.e. renewable) energy
sources like wind, wave power, solar power.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
3) The UK could meet all its energy needs through alternative (i.e.
renewable) sources if the government really cared about alternative
energy
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
4) The UK should not invest in more nuclear power stations
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
5) The UK government will eventually build more nuclear power stations
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
6) Nuclear power is dangerous
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
7) Wind turbines (modern windmills) should not be sited in areas of
great natural beauty like the Lake District
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
8) Wind turbines (modern windmills) are a threat to birdlife
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) Not sure
9) What form of energy do you most favour?
Examples: gas, coal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric (dams)
Why?
Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
David Hansen
<matt_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote this:-
>I'm doing a school project on energy alternatives for the UK.
I hope it goes well.
>1) This country (the UK) will face an energy crisis over the next 100
>years. Do you:
>a) Agree
There will be a crisis far sooner than that if government doesn't
get a move on.
>2) The UK should make more use of alternative (i.e. renewable) energy
>sources like wind, wave power, solar power.
>
>a) Agree
>3) The UK could meet all its energy needs through alternative (i.e.
>renewable) sources if the government really cared about alternative
>energy
>
>a) Agree
Probably. It depends what you mean by renewable and over what
timescale. At least as important is energy conservation.
>4) The UK should not invest in more nuclear power stations
>
>a) Agree
>5) The UK government will eventually build more nuclear power stations
>
>c) Not sure
>
>6) Nuclear power is dangerous
>
>a) Agree
Mining the ore has some dangers, but this could be reduced by better
controls, particularly in the "third world".
Turning the ore into fuel has killed an unknown number of people.
The western nuclear lobby says that is in the past and things will
be different in the future. They may be right, but society may not
wish to trust them given their record.
Burning the fuel in a British designed gas cooled reactor is very
safe. Pressurised water reactors are less safe, whether they are
acceptably safe is another matter.
Reprocessing the fuel greatly increases the volume of radioactive
materials that need to be stored. That is the greatest danger. The
tanks at Windscale are a great target for terrorists and would
produce a disaster of Soviet proportions if destroyed (look for
Mayak in a search engine to see about these. The plan is to turn
this into glass blocks, but the production lines to do this have
constantly broken down and never run at full capacity. As I
understand it radioactive materials are still being produced faster
then they are being turned into glass blocks and there is almost no
chance that the 50 odd years of past materials can be turned into
glass blocks.
>7) Wind turbines (modern windmills) should not be sited in areas of
>great natural beauty like the Lake District
>
>a) Agree
They do need to be sited with thought. The Lake District is not
uniformly beautiful and there are lots of places where they could be
sited, including the ones currently in a planning enquiry.
>8) Wind turbines (modern windmills) are a threat to birdlife
>
>b) Disagree
They are not a great threat to birds, provided they are sited
properly. Far more birds are killed on the roads or by electricity
cables than wind farms will kill.
>9) What form of energy do you most favour?
Reducing energy use.
>Why?
Because it makes everything else easier.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
John Beardmore
<matt_...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>I'm doing a school project on energy alternatives for the UK. It would
>be a great help if you complete this questionaire, preferably posting
>your answers onto this newsgroup. I'm asking my friends and family, but
>we come from similiar backgrounds, so I wanted to tap into the wider
>Internet community.
>
>Your help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>1) This country (the UK) will face an energy crisis over the next 100
>years. Do you:
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Probably in the next 10 to 15.
>2) The UK should make more use of alternative (i.e. renewable) energy
>sources like wind, wave power, solar power.
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Agree
>3) The UK could meet all its energy needs through alternative (i.e.
>renewable) sources if the government really cared about alternative
>energy
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Agree. But it's not up to the government but the people that vote for
them.
How much would you be willing to pay ?
>4) The UK should not invest in more nuclear power stations
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Personally I'm not keen on the idea but it might be OK.
If people don't want to invest in renewables and want to keep the lights
on, what are the other options ?
>5) The UK government will eventually build more nuclear power stations
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Probably.
>6) Nuclear power is dangerous
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Agree.
>7) Wind turbines (modern windmills) should not be sited in areas of
>great natural beauty like the Lake District
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Trouble is, there isn't much point in putting them in places that don't
get much wind. They have to in places that are high and exposed.
>8) Wind turbines (modern windmills) are a threat to birdlife
>
>a) Agree
>b) Disagree
>c) Not sure
Not a significant threat, and less of a threat than climate change, and
possibly nuclear power.
>9) What form of energy do you most favour?
>
>Examples: gas, coal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric (dams)
This is a STUPID question.
>Why?
No one energy source will ever meet the entire need.
You need a basket of energy sources for resilience and fault tolerance.
Wind is good with the reservation above about location, but can't
provide more than about 20% of the UKs needs without a decent electrical
energy storage technology.
PV is idiotically expensive at the moment but might be important in the
future.
Hydro is great but how many potential sites are there ? Hard to see
this meeting more than a percent or two of UK needs unless we go for
some very high impact projects.
Solar thermal is good and we should do it on a big scale.
Ground source heat pump can be good, competing with gas in terms of
delivered kWh per kWh of primary fuel.
Tide stream seems to be worthy of investment.
Biofuels seem to be worthy, but the EU don't even seem to be able to get
it together to avoid classifying used chip oil as waste, and if we are
to grow fuel crops, just how much land will it take ?
And what of nuclear fusion as opposed to fission ?
And more to the point, what of energy conservation ?
What ever goes in the basket, there's no gain without pain. Investment
is required and in the end it will have to be massive, be it solar and
renewables, fusion, fission or whatever.
One of the nice things about renewables is that they can be installed on
a domestic scale, so called 'distributed micro generation'. This will
probably never be the case of any of the 'big science' nuclear
solutions.
What would I put in the basket ? Most of the above.
At a personal level I'm happy to invest in renewables in my own home,
(solar thermal and a little PV), and I buy electricity from Good Energy.
(Yes, I'm aware that the legal framework in which they operate makes a
nonsense of some aspects of ethical energy purchase.)
To me, it seems to be an error to loose the skills of the nuclear
fission industry, but on the other hand, the waste problems aren't fully
addressed yet, and much of the criticism made of the plant is really
criticism of more or less post war design. There are better option
under development.
Fusion hasn't even got started yet, and if it ever does, we don't know
how much it will cost.
In the mean time, INSULATE !!
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
David Hansen
<woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Hydro is great but how many potential sites are there ?
Opinions vary. Claims for Scotland vary from most possible sites
have been built to about half have been built. Partly it depends on
one's views on the landscape lobby. Stations are currently being
refitted, which is increasing efficiency.
As well as "traditional" hydro stations there is potential for
small-scale "run of river" schemes. The civil works for some of
these already exist, in the form of disused water mills. Some of
these might be organised by community groups, as well as individual
owners.
John Beardmore
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:58:23 +0100 someone who may be John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>Hydro is great but how many potential sites are there ?
>
>Opinions vary. Claims for Scotland vary from most possible sites
>have been built to about half have been built. Partly it depends on
>one's views on the landscape lobby.
Hydro can be a lot easier to hide than most RE systems !
> Stations are currently being
>refitted, which is increasing efficiency.
Yes.
>As well as "traditional" hydro stations there is potential for
>small-scale "run of river" schemes. The civil works for some of
>these already exist, in the form of disused water mills. Some of
>these might be organised by community groups, as well as individual
>owners.
Yes - I'm involved with one such project in the Peak District. Don't
get me wrong - I'm all in favour of community schemes and small / micro
hydro, but I doubt it can account for more than a percent or two of UK
electricity needs.
RJW
"Matt" <matt_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118599575.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm doing a school project on energy alternatives for the UK. It would
> be a great help if you complete this questionaire, preferably posting
> your answers onto this newsgroup. I'm asking my friends and family, but
> we come from similiar backgrounds, so I wanted to tap into the wider
> Internet community.
>
> Your help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> 1) This country (the UK) will face an energy crisis over the next 100
> years. Do you:
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree and its happening now.
> 2) The UK should make more use of alternative (i.e. renewable) energy
> sources like wind, wave power, solar power.
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree the problem is where to put them and what size they should be. We
should be looking at smaller scale windfarms not the big ones being
proposed.
>
> 3) The UK could meet all its energy needs through alternative (i.e.
> renewable) sources if the government really cared about alternative
> energy
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Disagree for the foreseeable future we will need nuclear and coal fired
stations.
>
> 4) The UK should not invest in more nuclear power stations
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
I would like to disagree because all the waste problems havent been solved
but we will need more nuclear capacity shortly.
> 5) The UK government will eventually build more nuclear power stations
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree.
>
> 6) Nuclear power is dangerous
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
In this country no its not any more dangerous than driving to work. I cant
recall any life threatening accidents at a UK power station for some time.
>
> 7) Wind turbines (modern windmills) should not be sited in areas of
> great natural beauty like the Lake District
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree. The turbines shouldnt be sited in such areas.
> 8) Wind turbines (modern windmills) are a threat to birdlife
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
The debate is open on that one. RSPB would say yes in areas where rare birds
are present.
> 9) What form of energy do you most favour?
>
> Examples: gas, coal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric (dams)
All of them.
David Hansen
<woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Hydro can be a lot easier to hide than most RE systems !
Yes and no. The landscape lobby largely halted hydro schemes in
Scotland some time ago. I have challenged a few of them to explain
how the landscape setting of Pitlochry is devastated by the dam,
artificial loch and power station. So far none has responded. I now
ask them whether they would prefer another Torness, at which point
they become rather silent.
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/pftg/index.asp is the on-line
version of a paper that pays tribute to the activities of the North
of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (and their predecessors). Their
activities need to start again and I hope
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/pftg/popups/HydroStationPlan.htm
is the start of a second large scale programme. However, there would
be many objections. For example, building a power station or two on
the other side of Loch Lomond would bring howls of protest from
those who are of the "out of sight" mentality.
>I'm all in favour of community schemes and small / micro
>hydro, but I doubt it can account for more than a percent or two of UK
>electricity needs.
Agreed, but every little helps. If 10% of houses had a wind turbine
from http://www.windsave.com/ or
http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/index.htm and many old mills
were converted like http://www.cyclecityguides.co.uk/waterpower.html
then that would be a measurable contribution, but other forms of
generation would still be necessary.
In my view the main problem is that (outside Northern Scotland) the
electricity industry is still not really attuned to relatively small
scale generation with current flows in two directions along the 11
and 33kV systems, let alone house scale generation. Rather it is
attuned to large scale generation, transmission and distribution, a
one way system.
John Beardmore
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:55:44 +0100 someone who may be John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>I'm all in favour of community schemes and small / micro
>>hydro, but I doubt it can account for more than a percent or two of UK
>>electricity needs.
>
>Agreed, but every little helps. If 10% of houses had a wind turbine
>from http://www.windsave.com/ or
>http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/index.htm
Hmmm... I wonder how wise it is to mount these things on brick
structures.
> and many old mills
>were converted like http://www.cyclecityguides.co.uk/waterpower.html
>then that would be a measurable contribution, but other forms of
>generation would still be necessary.
>
>In my view the main problem is that (outside Northern Scotland) the
>electricity industry is still not really attuned to relatively small
>scale generation with current flows in two directions along the 11
>and 33kV systems, let alone house scale generation. Rather it is
>attuned to large scale generation, transmission and distribution, a
>one way system.
Yes - I think we basically agree on all this stuff, and the objections
to 'distributed micro generation' from the power industry are on the
whole pretty pathetic.
sarah
> I'm doing a school project on energy alternatives for the UK. It would
> be a great help if you complete this questionaire, preferably posting
> your answers onto this newsgroup. I'm asking my friends and family, but
> we come from similiar backgrounds, so I wanted to tap into the wider
> Internet community.
>
> Your help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> 1) This country (the UK) will face an energy crisis over the next 100
> years. Do you:
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree, and within the next 15-20 years at best. Probably sooner.
>
> 2) The UK should make more use of alternative (i.e. renewable) energy
> sources like wind, wave power, solar power.
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree. Note that we should also do MUCH more to conserve energy.
> 3) The UK could meet all its energy needs through alternative (i.e.
> renewable) sources if the government really cared about alternative
> energy
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Not sure, but I'd like to see the attempt made!
>
> 4) The UK should not invest in more nuclear power stations
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
What Lovelock said. It's not a good option, but it's one of the best
available given what global warming will do to the world, and the
timescale. Given the UK govt's attitude to renewables and conservation,
that's an agree. A really, really sad agree. Given my sadness, can I
move if they build one in my back yard?
> 5) The UK government will eventually build more nuclear power stations
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Agree.
>
> 6) Nuclear power is dangerous
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Well, the *power* isn't dangerous, but the process can be and the waste
certainly is.
>
> 7) Wind turbines (modern windmills) should not be sited in areas of
> great natural beauty like the Lake District
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Disagree. Put them where they will be most efficient, especially if they
are noticeable. We need the reminder that our energy use is a bad habit.
Besides which, global warming will do more damage to those habitats and
wildlife than the wind turbines.
>
> 8) Wind turbines (modern windmills) are a threat to birdlife
>
> a) Agree
> b) Disagree
> c) Not sure
Not a significant threat, especially when compared with us or global
warming. Having spent some time investigating this online, there's an
awful lot of campaigning going on both for and against windpower using
this argument. Quite a lot of the birds killed have died on windfarms
developed before anyone knew the risk existed.
>
> 9) What form of energy do you most favour?
>
> Examples: gas, coal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric (dams)
>
Don't forget wood :-) As John said: no one form of energy production is
going to be enough to support us in the foreseeable future. We need to
use all of them, each where most appropriate.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
My pleasure.
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.
David Hansen
use...@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-
>Having spent some time investigating this online, there's an
>awful lot of campaigning going on both for and against windpower using
>this argument. Quite a lot of the birds killed have died on windfarms
>developed before anyone knew the risk existed.
Opponents tend to concentrate on one wind farm in the USA. This has
relatively small turbines, so there are a lot of them. It also has a
lot of lattice masts, which birds tend to perch on.
Quite a few bird deaths occur when the turbine is stationary, birds
seem better able to avoid moving blades.
Far more birds are killed by the (stationary) poles, pylons and
cables of the electricity distribution system. Even if all the UK
and Scottish targets for renewable electricity were met by wind
farms that would remain the case. Then there are all the birds
killed by other things, like transport and farming.
sarah
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:45:46 +0100 someone who may be
> use...@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-
>
> >Having spent some time investigating this online, there's an
> >awful lot of campaigning going on both for and against windpower using
> >this argument. Quite a lot of the birds killed have died on windfarms
> >developed before anyone knew the risk existed.
>
> Opponents tend to concentrate on one wind farm in the USA. This has
> relatively small turbines, so there are a lot of them. It also has a
> lot of lattice masts, which birds tend to perch on.
That's the one at Altamont?
>
> Quite a few bird deaths occur when the turbine is stationary, birds
> seem better able to avoid moving blades.
>
> Far more birds are killed by the (stationary) poles, pylons and
> cables of the electricity distribution system. Even if all the UK
> and Scottish targets for renewable electricity were met by wind
> farms that would remain the case. Then there are all the birds
> killed by other things, like transport and farming.
Absolutely. Most of the people I've heard use the 'windfarms kill birds'
argument are desperately seeking ammunition to stop a windfarm, not
objectively assessing the risks. Me, I confess that I *like* wind
turbines. I don't find them ugly and I like what they signify.
David Hansen
use...@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-
>> Opponents tend to concentrate on one wind farm in the USA. This has
>> relatively small turbines, so there are a lot of them. It also has a
>> lot of lattice masts, which birds tend to perch on.
>
>That's the one at Altamont?
Yes. There is a court case that I assume is going on at the moment.
It was going on a few months ago when I last checked.
>Most of the people I've heard use the 'windfarms kill birds'
>argument are desperately seeking ammunition to stop a windfarm, not
>objectively assessing the risks.
One of the reassuring things about NIMBYs is that their arguments
are hollow when studied.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>Quite a few bird deaths occur when the turbine is stationary, birds
>>seem better able to avoid moving blades.
>>
>I've heard this before but not seen good evidence that it is true. Can
>you point me at some?
Not instantly. If I remember I will try and point you to it
sometime.
>But then almost every windfarm means yet more poles, pylons and cables
>to distribute the electricity.
Wind farms are generally connected to 11kV or 33kV lines. The new
work tends to be relatively short and such lines are low down. It
tends to be the taller 132kV, 275kV and 400kV lines that cause
problems for birds.
>However, the species of birds at risk
>varies and the larger, and often rarer, raptors maybe particularly
>vulnerable to turbines, coupled with the fact that many upland sites in
>Scotland are home to these species so they become more at risk.
I don't think that anyone has suggested wind farms should be
situated where they would cause particular problems for birds.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>I suppose I was
>hoping that you might be able to help. It seems not.
I am not able to help instantly. Had you got me at a different time
I might have been able to.
sarah
> In article <5ff3b1pql8j70ma34...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
> <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
[-]
> >I don't think that anyone has suggested wind farms should be
> >situated where they would cause particular problems for birds.
> >
> Well, developers certainly have! Sometimes they have seen sense in time.
> Sometimes it has taken a public inquiry to make them see sense.
> Sometimes they have gone ahead and the birds have paid the penalty.
The developers are almost certainly saying 'That's a nice empty windy
spot' rather than 'That's a good place to kill birds' :-)
I think we're between a rock and a hard place.
Malcolm Hayes
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GyVUs8Bn...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> The word "opponents" is too strong, in my view. Altamont is also used as
> an example by those who approve of wind farms but want them sited in the
> right places avoiding areas where birds might be particularly at risk. And
> there are wind farms in, e.g., Spain, which are large turbines and not on
> lattice masts, and which kill birds.
>
> Malcolm
The problem is that objector groups latch onto results from places like
Tarifa and argue that this will occur at all wind farms. If that were the
case then why do I still see so many Red Kites at Rheidol and they follow me
up onto another wind farm site as they think I might have some food in my
landrover (well, the odd dead lamb?)
I don't think anyone in the UK would defend the placing of the wind turbines
at Tarifa and, if my memory is correct, I think some of the developers of
those sites might even have been warned that it wasn't a very good idea. And
now we know it wasn't. But, after 12 years of testing turbines I have only
ever seen one bird being hit by a turbine blade (Sky Lark in 40 mph winds in
Cornwall). If it were as common as some say, I think I should have seen more
by now. Compare this with the regular 3 - 4 birds I hit driving along
country lanes every year.
MalcolmX
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <a_Bse.25435$cN2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Malcolm Hayes
><Mal...@hayesmckenzie.dimspam.co.uk> writes
>Sensible objectors (and, yes, there are some) have known from the
>earliest days of windfarms that you cannot use the results from one
>windfarm to predict what might happen at another. Every windfarm is
>different, with some (?probably the majority) killing nil
>birds/turbine/year and others killing several birds/turbine/year, though
>there seem to be very few where "several" exceeds, say, 6 or 7.
>However, there are circumstances where even a single bird killed, say
>one of a breeding pair of Golden Eagles, would be very serious, though
>others where less vulnerable species would not have their populations
>affected if there was some mortality.
>
>I'm depressed to note that you have repeated the same "justification"
>as David Hansen that, apparently, some mortality at windfarms doesn't
>matter because of other man-made mortality elsewhere, e.g., in your
>case, on roads, and in David's, by overhead lines. This, if you would
>care to think about it properly, is no "justification" at all. The mere
>fact that man causes bird mortality by one means does not in any way
>justify causing further mortality by another. Fortunately, bird
>conservation law does not take into account such a false concept.
Bird hits by vehicles is ignored by the RSPB most probably because it
doesn't want to ailenate a huge section of the population. Instead, it
harps on about reduced hedgerows not taling into account that hedges
at the side of roads encourage birds into a dange zone.
More fake conservation based on keeping the donating public sweet :-(
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
David Hansen
amacm...@aol.com wrote this:-
>Bird hits by vehicles is ignored by the RSPB most probably because it
>doesn't want to ailenate a huge section of the population. Instead, it
>harps on about reduced hedgerows not taling into account that hedges
>at the side of roads encourage birds into a dange zone.
And I presume that the number of birds killed by motorists has gone
up dramatically over the past five decades.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Well, it depends what you mean by relatively short. Several miles of
>overhead cabling are used to connect some wind farms to the grid.
Compare that to the lines to Dounreay and Peterhead. I suspect that
these kill far more birds than wind farms, even if they provided the
20% of electricity that they can do without major changes to the
system.
Birds are also killed by other forms of electricity generation.
>And as
>for the taller lines causing more problems, this is not necessarily the
>case, otherwise you wouldn't see so many low voltage lines with markers
>on where they cross, for example, wetlands.
I did not say that 11kV or 33kV lines don't kill birds. However, it
is unlikely that the much smaller poles kill as many birds as the
larger steel towers, with more cables.
Now, sustainable electricity may involve building some large
transmission lines, for example from Beauly to Denny. However, much
of it is connected to the local 11kV and 33kV systems. If the wind
farm is too far away from the existing system then it becomes
expensive to connect.
David Hansen
<Mal...@hayesmckenzie.dimspam.co.uk> wrote this:-
>But, after 12 years of testing turbines I have only
>ever seen one bird being hit by a turbine blade (Sky Lark in 40 mph winds in
>Cornwall). If it were as common as some say, I think I should have seen more
>by now.
The bottom of the turbines would be littered with dead birds if some
are to be believed.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <i5i6b1929u2fvv8sg...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>Bird hits by vehicles is ignored by the RSPB most probably because it
>>doesn't want to ailenate a huge section of the population. Instead, it
>>harps on about reduced hedgerows not taling into account that hedges
>>at the side of roads encourage birds into a dange zone.
>>
>And what you are ignoring is that the more hedges there are the lower
>the proportion of them will border roads.
Gosh really? So how is it after the RSPB long campaign to increase
hedges they are presiding over the biggest decline in birds ever
recorded?
>
>I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show which vehicles hit the
>most birds and where your Range Rover would come in such a table.
More to the point, I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show the
decline in birds relative to the increase in traffic. There's a good
exercise for the RSPB to spend a bit of its £1m a week income.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <cqv7b1drl09o5l69a...@4ax.com>,
>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:52:39 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <i5i6b1929u2fvv8sg...@4ax.com>,
>>>amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>>Bird hits by vehicles is ignored by the RSPB most probably because it
>>>>doesn't want to ailenate a huge section of the population. Instead, it
>>>>harps on about reduced hedgerows not taling into account that hedges
>>>>at the side of roads encourage birds into a dange zone.
>>>>
>>>And what you are ignoring is that the more hedges there are the lower
>>>the proportion of them will border roads.
>>
>>Gosh really? So how is it after the RSPB long campaign to increase
>>hedges they are presiding over the biggest decline in birds ever
>>recorded?
>>
>Because without the long campaign to increase hedges, there would have
>been an even larger decline in some farmland species. The same applies
>to many other campaigns by the RSPB and other conservation groups, which
>you decry and criticise. Without their efforts, the situation would be
>far worse.
Have you evidence of this? Or is this just another of your
assumptions :-(
>
>>>
>>>I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show which vehicles hit the
>>>most birds and where your Range Rover would come in such a table.
>>
>>More to the point, I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show the
>>decline in birds relative to the increase in traffic.
>
>Which would be completely meaningless unless it could be shown that the
>two were linked.
Not if the decline in birds matched the increase in traffic.
>
>> There's a good
>>exercise for the RSPB to spend a bit of its £1m a week income.
>>
>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
You mean the one about Dr Avery condemning the cooking of the planet
and then accepting paying adverts in their Birds magazine for world
wide travel?
Fakes, that's what they are.
If you want I'll show you the correspondence.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <rnc8b11gv0u88v506...@4ax.com>,
>The fact that you ask these questions shows the depths of your ignorance
>not to mention the degree of your prejudice against conservation.
The fact you can't answer the question shows your ignorance.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show which vehicles hit the
>>>>>most birds and where your Range Rover would come in such a table.
>>>>
>>>>More to the point, I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show the
>>>>decline in birds relative to the increase in traffic.
>>>
>>>Which would be completely meaningless unless it could be shown that the
>>>two were linked.
>>
>>Not if the decline in birds matched the increase in traffic.
>>
>ROFL!!!
>
>You do make some wonderfully silly remarks sometimes, Angus, and this is
>another one to treasure.
Are you saying that an increase in traffic will not affect bird
populations?
>
>>>
>>>> There's a good
>>>>exercise for the RSPB to spend a bit of its £1m a week income.
>>>>
>>>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
>>
>>You mean the one about Dr Avery condemning the cooking of the planet
>>and then accepting paying adverts in their Birds magazine for world
>>wide travel?
>
>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
It wasn't about that . It was about their fake conservation.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Do you suppose the lines to Dounreay will be removed after 2010?
No idea.
>>Birds are also killed by other forms of electricity generation.
>>
>True, but none of this is a justification for killing more.
I suspect that a switch to more sustainable generation will kill
less birds overall.
>Which claim has to be dependent on the relative lengths of the different
>types of lines, there surely being a great many times the length of the
>lower voltage lines than the higher.
What matters is how much new is introduced by any new policy and how
much old is removed.
>The larger towers and their cables
>are, of course, much more visible to the birds than the smaller ones.
The towers may be more visible, the cables probably not.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>And I presume that the number of birds killed by motorists has gone
>>up dramatically over the past five decades.
>>
>The overall increase in traffic speed and density (except where the
>latter has got so great as to reduce overall speed!) is certainly
>believed to have increased road casualties over time. On the other hand,
>the aerodynamic qualities of cars has also increased over the same
>period which will presumably have had some ameliorating effect.
I doubt it very much. Air is rather less dense than a bird and while
air might pass smoothly over a car a bird will not.
amacm...@aol.com
>>
>>> There's a good
>>>exercise for the RSPB to spend a bit of its £1m a week income.
>>>
>>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
>
>You mean the one about Dr Avery condemning the cooking of the planet
>and then accepting paying adverts in their Birds magazine for world
>wide travel?
>
>Fakes, that's what they are.
>
>If you want I'll show you the correspondence.
>
>
>
>Angus Macmillan
>www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
>www.killhunting.org
>www.con-servation.org.uk
Malcolm,
I notice in your response to my posting you snipped the bit about the
correspondence. Seems you don't want others to see it :-(
So here it is:
From; Angus Macmillan. www.con-servation.org.uk
On 3 February 2005, Dr Mark Avery, Director of Conservation, of the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, circulated this media
release:
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Media Release
3 February 2005
Sir
Scientists at this week's climate change conference have issued a
succession of warnings about the dire consequences of climate change
for mankind and wildlife.
Plants, mammals and birds are heading for extinction; rising seas are
eroding coasts and swallowing up coastal homes; coral reefs are losing
their capacity to soak up carbon dioxide - the gas most responsible
for climate change - while storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves are
all set to increase in number. And all this, we have been told, could
happen far more quickly than we originally thought. We are calling it
'global warming' but more accurately, we are cooking our planet.
There are more than four million references to global warming on the
internet search engine Google but 'global overheating' merits just 123
mentions, 'global scorching', 175; 'global frying', 68; and even
'global heating' only 6,000! Yet none of these phrases is adequate
for the devastation we are facing.
Cooking our planet will disrupt and devastate all life and giving this
process the cosy name global warming only makes it easier for all of
us, especially politicians, to ignore the consequences.
Yours faithfully
Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL
As a result of this release I wrote the following letter to Dr Avery:
Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL
24 March 2005
An Open Letter
Dear Dr Avery
I was very interested to read your media release of 3 February 2005 in
which you refer to carbon dioxide as the gas most responsible for
climate change and that "cooking" our planet will disrupt and
devastate all life. I think most people would agree with you.
However, in the light of your comments, I wonder how you can justify
accepting the pages of adverts in your Birds magazine for extensive
travel, holiday accommodation and activities that are directly and
indirectly contributing to the cooking of our planet. Indeed, the
magazine itself, which I understand is mailed to most of your one
million members contributes to environmental damage by its production,
distribution and disposal.
The activities of your organisation in this respect smacks of double
standards at the very least, to dishonesty at worst.
Yours sincerely
A Macmillan.
PS. I hope you don't mind me copying your media release below for
information purposes.
A copy of the above media release was inserted here
Dr Avery replied by letter on 26 April 2005
Dear Mr Macmillan
Thank you for your letter dated 24th March, in connection with our
press release and your observations about the holiday advertising in
Birds Magazine.
I do agree that there is a dilemma here. On the one hand, overseas
holidays do, clearly, entail the emission of CO2. On the other, we
think that people will be more likely to remain enthusiastic about
wildlife and support its conservation if they have opportunities to
experience it first hand. We also firmly believe that many host
countries that are still rich in wildlife will only be prepared to
conserve that resource if they can see a demonstrable economic benefit
in doing so. Perhaps the World should not be so self centred and
fixated on material progress, but this is the challenge we are faced
with.
Under these circumstances, our policy is to press Government to
introduce measures such as aviation fuel tax, to help ensure that the
environmental cost of air travel is better reflected in the price; to
manage the growth in demand; and to abandon plans to develop new
airports on Greenfield sites, let alone important wildlife sites. If
accompanied by improvements to the rail infrastructure, to provide a
better alternative to domestic flights, we believe people can be
'encouraged' to ration their travel. The environmental damage caused
by air travel has been aired in Birds magazine, particularly in our
communications about the 'No Airport at Cliffe' campaign.
At the same time, we think it makes little sense not to recognise that
eco-tourism delivers tangible benefits that encourage habitat and
species conservation. We therefore believe it would be a bit odd if
the Society refused to carry adverts in Birds magazine for such tours.
We have discussed this at length internally, and have also taken into
account the views and advice of our partner organisations worldwide.
However, we will continue to keep our policy under regular review.
Having read some of your letters on the internet, it is clear that you
care passionately about the natural environment. Although there are
areas upon which we would clearly disagree, I do hope that you have
noticed that the conservation subjects mentioned in Birds magazine are
based on sound science. As a result of our scientific approach,
evidence suggests that governments listen to us and our members and we
do make a difference.
I have noticed you are not a member of the RSPB. Under the
circumstances, I hope you do not mind but I have taken the liberty of
including a membership form. I would also draw your attention to our
excellent 'Green Energy' product: RSPB Energy. This can be found at
www.rspbenergy.co.uk Signing up to this green energy package will
help to encourage the development of renewal energy sources in the UK
Underneath Dr Avery's signature, he wrote,
"PS. I really would encourage
you to sign up to RSPB Energy
I responded by letter on 1 May 2005.
Dr Mark Avery
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL
Dear Dr Avery
Thank you for your letter of 26 April 2005.
I am pleased you agree the RSPB does have a dilemma, but I remain
unconvinced it is one that is being addressed honestly.
It is all very well to say "people will be more likely to remain
enthusiastic about wildlife and support its conservation if they have
opportunities to experience it first hand", but if you believe what
you wrote in your media release of 3 February 2005 you will appreciate
that your income generating travel advertisements, publications and
junk mail are contributing to the cooking of our planet, which will
"disrupt and devastate all life". It seems extremely odd that you
should encourage people to contribute to their own demise and to that
of wildlife.
This also applies to RSPB's reserves, which are marketed as tourist
attractions and visited by hundreds of thousands of motorists. Again,
this is exploiting nature for income, with the full knowledge that
operating visitor centres is environmentally damaging and contributing
to cooking the planet.
These double standards are morally reprehensible and downright
dishonest.
I also believe that the RSPB should not advocate or be involved in
killing members of some species to protect others. Indeed, in an
article in the BBC Wildlife Magazine in 2003 this practice was
condemned as fascism. This is also what some gamekeepers are doing to
raptors, which the RSPB rightly condemns. Seems you want your cake
and eat it.
Recently, RSPB Energy was censured by the Advertising Standards
Authority for misleading the public as to the environmental value of
its green energy scheme. It seems to me that this and other similar
schemes are little more than marketing ploys where questionable
conservationist organisations receive income from power generating
companies in return for access to an increased customer base.
If, as you say, your conservation subjects are based on sound science,
you should be able to justify the RSPB's current policies in terms of
conserving natural resources and reducing emissions by its own
activities, and by the activities it encourages in others. Otherwise,
the RSPB's very existence is based on a fake conservation platform and
contributing to the demise of all species on the planet.
For the record, I do not claim to be a conservationist or
environmentalist. I merely take the view that those who do should be
honest about it.
Yours sincerely
Angus Macmillan.
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <c9k8b1ti2l578teb1...@4ax.com>,
>The answer to the question is self-evident.
The fact you can't answer the questionis self-evident.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show which vehicles hit the
>>>>>>>most birds and where your Range Rover would come in such a table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>More to the point, I wonder if anyone has compiled a table to show the
>>>>>>decline in birds relative to the increase in traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which would be completely meaningless unless it could be shown that the
>>>>>two were linked.
>>>>
>>>>Not if the decline in birds matched the increase in traffic.
>>>>
>>>ROFL!!!
>>>
>>>You do make some wonderfully silly remarks sometimes, Angus, and this is
>>>another one to treasure.
>>
>>Are you saying that an increase in traffic will not affect bird
>>populations?
>>
>You have suggested that if a decline in birds matched an increase in
>traffic this would be a meaningful relationship. That is a wonderfully
>silly remark.
Why?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a good
>>>>>>exercise for the RSPB to spend a bit of its £1m a week income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
>>>>
>>>>You mean the one about Dr Avery condemning the cooking of the planet
>>>>and then accepting paying adverts in their Birds magazine for world
>>>>wide travel?
>>>
>>>Why didn't you include this suggestion in your last letter to them?
>>
>>It wasn't about that . It was about their fake conservation.
>>
>But as that doesn't exist, why didn't you include your suggestion in
>your last letter to them?
Of course it exists. The newspapers know what it means.
Malcolm Kane
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:38:37 +0100 someone who may be Malcolm
><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>>And I presume that the number of birds killed by motorists has gone
>>>up dramatically over the past five decades.
>>>
>>The overall increase in traffic speed and density (except where the
>>latter has got so great as to reduce overall speed!) is certainly
>>believed to have increased road casualties over time. On the other hand,
>>the aerodynamic qualities of cars has also increased over the same
>>period which will presumably have had some ameliorating effect.
>
>I doubt it very much. Air is rather less dense than a bird and while
>air might pass smoothly over a car a bird will not.
>
>
number thrown over my car by slip stream - probably more than I *know* I
have hit.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
amacm...@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>The fact you can't answer the question shows your ignorance.
>>>
>>The answer to the question is self-evident.
>
>The fact you can't answer the questionis self-evident.
>
question asked of you your reply of it is self-evident means you can't
answer the question?
You have used self evident a lot during the threads in the past.
Nice of you to confirm my suspicions AND t5o show that you don't like
people treating you as you treat them>
--
Malcolm Kane
amacm...@aol.com
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ams8b15bm1arh6hbl...@4ax.com>,
>You're oh so conveniently forgetting that "it is self-evident" is one of
>your favourite answers :-))
Only when something is self-evident like the fake conservation below.
From; Angus Macmillan. www.con-servation.org.uk
Media Release
3 February 2005
Sir
Yours faithfully
24 March 2005
An Open Letter
Dear Dr Avery
Yours sincerely
A Macmillan.
Dear Mr Macmillan
Dear Dr Avery
Yours sincerely
John Beardmore
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'm depressed to note that you have repeated the same "justification"
>as David Hansen that, apparently, some mortality at windfarms doesn't
>matter because of other man-made mortality elsewhere, e.g., in your
>case, on roads, and in David's, by overhead lines. This, if you would
>care to think about it properly, is no "justification" at all.
None the less, it has to be recognised that every method of energy
production has environmental impacts of which birds are just one of
many.
Birds seem to be supported by a very active lobby who frequently seem to
see issues in more or less exclusively in terms of the protection of
individual birds, even where bird populations are not at a level where
the protection of individual animals makes much difference.
> The mere fact that man causes bird mortality by one means does not in
>any way justify causing further mortality by another.
True. But nor does it mean that some bird mortality is the only issue
that needs be taken into account !
> Fortunately, bird conservation law does not take into account such a
>false concept.
None the less, it is important to keep a sense of perspective, and part
of that involves knowing if the building of wind turbines is going to
cause a radical change in the number and range of bird species killed.
Regardless of the legal position and the view of wind developers and
bird activists, the thing that would depress me would be a failure of
people to think this through for themselves in a quantitative way.
Asking the entirely reasonable questions like
'how much worse does this make things for birds ?'
and
'how much will this mitigate climate change ?'
seem like quite a reasonable starting point to me.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Malcolm Hayes
>
> In article <5vh7b11t6u0hr1mpn...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
> <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:36:38 +0100 someone who may be Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>Compare that to the lines to Dounreay and Peterhead. I suspect that
>>these kill far more birds than wind farms, even if they provided the
>>20% of electricity that they can do without major changes to the
>>system.
>>
> Do you suppose the lines to Dounreay will be removed after 2010?
>
> --
> Malcolm
Not on the basis of the number of wind farm applications in the area of
Dounreay and where the line goes. Shutting down Dounreay made quite a bit
of free capacity available.
MalcolmX
John Beardmore
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <uT6SV2SD...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>I'm depressed to note that you have repeated the same
>>>"justification" as David Hansen that, apparently, some mortality at
>>>windfarms doesn't matter because of other man-made mortality
>>>elsewhere, e.g., in your case, on roads, and in David's, by overhead
>>>lines. This, if you would care to think about it properly, is no
>>>"justification" at all.
>>
>>None the less, it has to be recognised that every method of energy
>>production has environmental impacts of which birds are just one of
>>many.
>>
>Agreed. I'm just drawing attention to what I think is an empty
>justification that just because birds are killed by other means, a
>little more mortality from wind turbines doesn't matter.
Well, setting aside welfare issues, that depends what populations are
threatened by if they are threatened at all.
>>Birds seem to be supported by a very active lobby who frequently seem
>>to see issues in more or less exclusively in terms of the protection
>>of individual birds, even where bird populations are not at a level
>>where the protection of individual animals makes much difference.
>>
>Overall bird population levels are not the only criterion. The adverse
>effect on designated sites has also to be taken into account. The
>criterion here is that if dealing with a site that has, for example, a
>Special Protection Area designation for a particular bird species, or a
>number of bird species, then potential mortality, or disturbance,
>mustn't adversely affect the integrity of that particular site, rather
>than the national, or world, populations of the birds concerned.
Hmmm... You may be right here, but I'd want to judge for myself on a
site by site basis.
Clearly any wind installation might affect a particular bird species,
but if that species isn't threatened, why should that stop development,
given the ubiquity of birds and the lack of evidence that the number
killed by WTs is significant ?
I can see that putting WTs in the path of a threatened migrating species
might be a problem, but given that birds are found more or less
everywhere somebody might develop a wind installation, I think there has
to be a good reason to designate an SPA if the SPA is to be allowed to
stop development. The fact that a particular [globally unthreatened]
species just might be adversely affected doesn't do it for me.
>>> The mere fact that man causes bird mortality by one means does not
>>>in any way justify causing further mortality by another.
>>
>>True. But nor does it mean that some bird mortality is the only issue
>>that needs be taken into account !
>>
>Nor is it for many windfarms, but there have been some where it has
>been the most important issue.
:) To who ?
>>> Fortunately, bird conservation law does not take into account such a
>>>false concept.
>>
>>None the less, it is important to keep a sense of perspective, and
>>part of that involves knowing if the building of wind turbines is
>>going to cause a radical change in the number and range of bird
>>species killed.
>>
>Indeed. Some of the opposition to a particular windfarm has failed to
>keep that important sense of perspective.
The why are you objecting to people trying to assess the damage WTs
might cause relative to the damage done by other human activities ?
It's not that one excuses the other, but it seems to me that to have
perspective you need to understand the existing impacts and the
consequences of change, and not just to birds, but to climate and the
things that depend on it.
Essentially, the question is, 'should the sustainability of the whole
ecosystem be the core issue, or the conservation of birds ?'.
>>Regardless of the legal position and the view of wind developers and
>>bird activists, the thing that would depress me would be a failure of
>>people to think this through for themselves in a quantitative way.
>>Asking the entirely reasonable questions like
>>
>> 'how much worse does this make things for birds ?'
>>
>>and
>>
>> 'how much will this mitigate climate change ?'
>>
>>seem like quite a reasonable starting point to me.
>>
>I agree. I also think that a little care in the siting of the windfarms
>can mitigate damage to birds, not to mention to habitats.
Possibly, though more or less everywhere is a habitat for something
rare, and the more we learn about the environment, the more aware of
this we will become.
None of this reduces the need to use energy from sustainable sources
however.
>I saw a recent estimate that the UK could, through wind turbines alone,
>generate five times the world's energy needs! As that presumably meant
>rather a high density of turbines over most of the country (!), there
>would seem to be room for the careful siting of the considerably fewer
>turbines needed to produce the 20%, or even 40%, of the UK's energy
>needs that has been mentioned as a possible target.
Which is fine so long as you don't plan to rule out all the places where
WTs can profitably be deployed, i.e. the windy places.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Hmmm... You may be right here, but I'd want to judge for myself on a
>>site by site basis.
>>
>Well, if the site is a designated one, the judging has already been
>done, using internationally agreed criteria.
When I want the opinion of an international panel of experts I'll ask
for it.
>>Clearly any wind installation might affect a particular bird species,
>>but if that species isn't threatened, why should that stop
>>development, given the ubiquity of birds and the lack of evidence that
>>the number killed by WTs is significant ?
>>
>As I thought I had explained above, it isn't just the potential effect
>on the species that has to be considered, but, if the reason why a site
>has been designated is likely to be adversely affected, then this has
>to be considered, too.
So you say. Indeed you did. You said it. I don't necessarily agree
however. Hence my comment. This may be in part because I know little
of this SPA stuff so can't criticise the details of your case. Equally,
I'd be stupid to say I agree when I don't know if I do.
>>I can see that putting WTs in the path of a threatened migrating
>>species might be a problem, but given that birds are found more or
>>less everywhere somebody might develop a wind installation, I think
>>there has to be a good reason to designate an SPA if the SPA is to be
>>allowed to stop development. The fact that a particular [globally
>>unthreatened] species just might be adversely affected doesn't do it for me.
>>
>An SPA is designated under the EU birds directive.
OK, but plenty of EU directives seem to be barking so if it's OK, I'll
judge on merit rather than origin.
> Developments adversely affecting SPAs are only permitted if there is
>an over-riding national interest in doing so. And one of the criterion
>for that is that there is absolutely no alternative site available.
>This would hardly be the case for a wind farm.
Quite possibly. So how many SPAs are there ? Which UK land areas are
affected ?
>>>>> The mere fact that man causes bird mortality by one means does not
>>>>>in any way justify causing further mortality by another.
>>>>
>>>>True. But nor does it mean that some bird mortality is the only
>>>>issue that needs be taken into account !
>>>>
>>>Nor is it for many windfarms, but there have been some where it has
>>>been the most important issue.
>>
>>:) To who ?
>>
>Those charged with protecting the UK's birds, which actually starts
>with the government.
They are charged with many things and have to resolve an enormous number
of competing stakeholder interests. It just isn't good enough to write
as if 'those charged with protecting the UK's birds' are the only
arbiters, and that this 'starts with the government'. For a start which
government ? EU or UK ? With a mandate from who ?
>>>>> Fortunately, bird conservation law does not take into account such
>>>>>a false concept.
>>>>
>>>>None the less, it is important to keep a sense of perspective, and
>>>>part of that involves knowing if the building of wind turbines is
>>>>going to cause a radical change in the number and range of bird
>>>>species killed.
>>>>
>>>Indeed. Some of the opposition to a particular windfarm has failed to
>>>keep that important sense of perspective.
>>
>>The why are you objecting to people trying to assess the damage WTs
>>might cause relative to the damage done by other human activities ?
>>
>Because I don't happen to think that just because lots of birds die on
>the roads, for example, that this means that a few more being killed by
>wind turbines doesn't matter.
No, but it would be interesting to assess bird death due to climate
change with bird death due to sustainable energy generation. It seems
to me that this is the most important question.
As to the question of how many birds do WTs kill as opposed to card,
power line and buildings, I can see no problem with its being asked,
indeed it seems inevitable that it will be as people start to address
the issue.
>>It's not that one excuses the other, but it seems to me that to have
>>perspective you need to understand the existing impacts and the
>>consequences of change, and not just to birds, but to climate and the
>>things that depend on it.
>>
>True, but one has to take into account cumulative effects.
Yes Sir Humphry, but of all factors...
>>Essentially, the question is, 'should the sustainability of the whole
>>ecosystem be the core issue, or the conservation of birds ?'.
>>
>Both, of course. There's little point in having a sustainable ecosystem
>if there is no wildlife left to live in it!
Well, that's up for debate. I don't plan to grieve for extinct species.
I can't say I value them much for their own sake, none the less, our
ecosystem may not be sustainable at all if we kill off too much wild
life. Complex issue...
Question is, which path has least impact over all, and how do you assess
impact ? Personally I don't necessarily start with birds.
>>>>Regardless of the legal position and the view of wind developers and
>>>>bird activists, the thing that would depress me would be a failure
>>>>of people to think this through for themselves in a quantitative
>>>>way. Asking the entirely reasonable questions like
>>>>
>>>> 'how much worse does this make things for birds ?'
>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>> 'how much will this mitigate climate change ?'
>>>>
>>>>seem like quite a reasonable starting point to me.
>>>>
>>>I agree. I also think that a little care in the siting of the
>>>windfarms can mitigate damage to birds, not to mention to habitats.
>>
>>Possibly, though more or less everywhere is a habitat for something
>>rare, and the more we learn about the environment, the more aware of
>>this we will become.
>>
>A good point.
Being played out all over the UK.
>>None of this reduces the need to use energy from sustainable sources
>>however.
>>
>No, indeed. But equally, the need to use energy from sustainable
>sources must include the sustainability of the habitats and fauna and
>flora.
Possibly, though this seems to me to be a massively complex area both
ethically and technically. Which species do we depend on, and which
should we regard as having intrinsic value or merit (and why) ?
Even if they have intrinsic merit, how should we assess that relative to
the threat of climate change ?
>>>I saw a recent estimate that the UK could, through wind turbines
>>>alone, generate five times the world's energy needs! As that
>>>presumably meant rather a high density of turbines over most of the
>>>country (!), there would seem to be room for the careful siting of
>>>the considerably fewer turbines needed to produce the 20%, or even
>>>40%, of the UK's energy needs that has been mentioned as a possible target.
>>
>>Which is fine so long as you don't plan to rule out all the places
>>where WTs can profitably be deployed, i.e. the windy places.
>>
>I'm not ruling out anywhere.
Designated SPAs ?
> Besides, virtually the whole of the UK is a "windy place"!
No. Not really. For commercial power production you really want a
minimum round the year wind speed of about 7 m/s. Most places don't
come close. Oddly enough, the ones that do are usually 'high and wild'.
> Turbines now being developed can be economic in far less windy places
>than a few years ago.
This is true up to a point. Urban microgeneration may become
significant, but I don't see a big rush to snap up sights with 5 m/s
mean wind speeds, Do you ? As far as I can see, most WTs won't even
cut in until 4 m/s, and then there's the cube law thing... I'm sure you
know the theory.
> Although the UK industry has been somewhat fixated on hill tops,
Well, fixated on windy places anyhow.
> the countries that pioneered large scale wind energy, Netherlands and
>Denmark, as well as northern Germany, are not noted for their hills.
> A few years ago, turbines in East Anglia wouldn't have been
>considered. Now they are.
Yes, there's the odd E66 in East Anglia and I gather it makes a fair
income, but I guess that's because flat areas can have good wind speeds.
They can also have bird life.
While EA may have considerable wind potential, higher places have more.
Where do you think engineers will want to stick the turbines ?
If you do have hills, there may well be a strong case for using them
(subject to trade off with transmission losses).
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>I suspect that a switch to more sustainable generation will kill
>>less birds overall.
>>
>But only if the sustainable generation is carefully sited.
We are back to the question of careful sighting. In my view the
industry are careful, others disagree.
>>>Which claim has to be dependent on the relative lengths of the different
>>>types of lines, there surely being a great many times the length of the
>>>lower voltage lines than the higher.
>>
>>What matters is how much new is introduced by any new policy and how
>>much old is removed.
>>
>No, what matters is what length of each exists.
Much of the electricity system exists already and whatever forms of
generation are used that part of the electricity system will remain.
It is extremely unlikely that the number of birds killed by this
will vary depending on how the electricity it carries is generated.
To compare the number of birds killed by a particular generation
policy one must only consider the lines added and removed in each
policy.
>>The towers may be more visible, the cables probably not.
>>
>As they are many times greater in diameter, surely they are.
They are not many more times the diameter. The diameter roughly
depends on the current being passed and the span. The latter is not
particularly important compared to the former on typical lines.
Because of the higher voltage a 275kV line can pass much greater
power for similar current than a 33kV line, roughly eight times the
power for the same current.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Agreed. I'm just drawing attention to what I think is an empty
>justification that just because birds are killed by other means, a
>little more mortality from wind turbines doesn't matter.
You also need to subtract the birds that are not killed because
other forms of generation are being phased out. Has the bird lobby
studied bird deaths at other forms of power station?
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>Quite a few bird deaths occur when the turbine is stationary, birds
>>seem better able to avoid moving blades.
>>
>I've heard this before but not seen good evidence that it is true. Can
>you point me at some?
Now that my weekend visitors have left I have had a chance to look
into this more thoroughly.
I cannot rapidly find good evidence for this claim, other than an
article to do with bats which is not freely available and which I
can only see the author's description of in a search engine.
However, from what I remember the claim was made by the operators of
turbines at one site.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>What other forms are you thinking of that might kill birds?
Do you think that no birds are killed by coal fired power stations?
Gas turbine stations? Hydro-electric stations? Nuclear stations?
I can think of many mechanisms whereby birds would be killed at such
power stations. I repeat my question, has the bird lobby studied
these?
John Beardmore
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>In article <t51eb19q6ktpih4fv...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
><SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:57:23 +0100 someone who may be Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>>Agreed. I'm just drawing attention to what I think is an empty
>>>justification that just because birds are killed by other means, a
>>>little more mortality from wind turbines doesn't matter.
>>
>>You also need to subtract the birds that are not killed because
>>other forms of generation are being phased out. Has the bird lobby
>>studied bird deaths at other forms of power station?
>>
The ones that pollute, the ones that cause climate change, the ones that
release radiation (coal included)...
J/.
--
John Beardmore
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>To compare the number of birds killed by a particular generation
>>policy one must only consider the lines added and removed in each
>>policy.
>>
>Really? I'm not sure I see how you arrive at that statement.
Most of the electricity system will not change, no matter how
electricity is generated. Therefore it is irrelevant in the
comparison between generating policies.
That just leaves the lines that are added and removed in each
policy.
>>They are not many more times the diameter.
>
>Are they not? Admittedly I haven't taken measurements, but having
>examined cables for a 33kV supply passing my house, and also a 400kV
>line which was being strung from pylons a few years back, I would have
>said the latter was considerably larger in diameter than the former. Do
>you have any actual measurements?
The diameter of cables is related to the load. It is thus entirely
possible for a lightly loaded 33kV circuit to have smaller diameter
cables than an adjacent 400kV circuit that is transmitting bulk
electricity from A to B. The reverse is also possible. There is also
the question of how the cable is constructed.
Comparing heavily loaded cables (which may or may not be a
particularly useful comparison) the higher voltage cable may be up
to 50% greater in diameter, note they are carrying very different
loads. That is about 25mm in diameter, compared to the 37mm of the
proposed conductors for the proposed Beauly - Denny 400kV line.
David Hansen
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Interestingly, power stations of different types have become the nesting
>place of a rare bird, the Black Redstart.
And birds also nest on wind turbines.
>>I can think of many mechanisms whereby birds would be killed at such
>>power stations.
>
>Such as?
To add to what John said. Chimneys can roast birds. Mesh screens can
shred birds. Birds can fly into the side of buildings as easily as
into wind turbines. Birds can drown.
If the bird lobby have failed to study such things then they have
not been doing a good job.
nich...@mailandnews.com
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1118599575.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Matt
> <matt_...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> No one energy source will ever meet the entire need.
>
> You need a basket of energy sources for resilience and fault tolerance.
>
> Wind is good with the reservation above about location, but can't
> provide more than about 20% of the UKs needs without a decent electrical
> energy storage technology.
>
> PV is idiotically expensive at the moment but might be important in the
> future.
>
Micro-scale PV could be installed onto new housing for quite modest
cost. Given the way the restricted-supply market works in new housing
the likely overall effect of requiring all new build to have PV
installed would be a slight decrease in the market value uplift of land
when planning permission is granted.
Of course you would want to combine this with some more thought given
to insulation and passive solar heating.
>
> Solar thermal is good and we should do it on a big scale.
>
Agreed, although I tend to think in terms of lots of small
installations rather than a few large ones. Each new building could
incorporate elements of design to enhance solar thermal properties.
>
> Biofuels seem to be worthy, but the EU don't even seem to be able to get
> it together to avoid classifying used chip oil as waste, and if we are
> to grow fuel crops, just how much land will it take ?
>
How much land is currently being subsidised to do nothing, on
set-aside? IIRTW* I would be scrapping agricultural subsidies and
their associated trade barriers to phase in biofuel subsidies for
farmers, manufacturers and distributors. Which would have the
side-benefit of removing one of the main causes of absolute poverty,
the skewed world markets in agriculture. The costs to consumers are
surprisingly small (c.f. the small premium paid for variable-fuel cars
in Brazil) and probably balanced out by the cheaper food.
> And what of nuclear fusion as opposed to fission ?
>
I think we will need some interim solutions - this one is for the long
term.
On the list I would add wave generation and tidal generation, both of
which have decent potential in the British Isles.
> And more to the point, what of energy conservation ?
>
Quite.
>
> In the mean time, INSULATE !!
>
Agreed.
Also look to reduce demand in other areas. Telecommuting could reduce
traffic levels substantially and would be MUCH cheaper to subsidise
than a roadbuilding alternative as the infrastructure is largely in
place.
--
Nic
*If I Ruled The World
John Beardmore
nich...@mailandnews.com writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1118599575.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Matt
>> <matt_...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> No one energy source will ever meet the entire need.
>>
>> You need a basket of energy sources for resilience and fault tolerance.
>>
>> Wind is good with the reservation above about location, but can't
>> provide more than about 20% of the UKs needs without a decent electrical
>> energy storage technology.
>>
>> PV is idiotically expensive at the moment but might be important in the
>> future.
>
>Micro-scale PV could be installed onto new housing for quite modest
>cost.
Really ? Last time I looked the equipment cost the same to buy
regardless of the age of the property.
> Given the way the restricted-supply market works in new housing
>the likely overall effect of requiring all new build to have PV
>installed would be a slight decrease in the market value uplift of land
>when planning permission is granted.
Your financial instrument speak is loosing me here.
You mean building land would be worth less if new houses had to have PVs
on ?
I don't really see that since land availability seems to be the rate
determining step rather than build price ?
>Of course you would want to combine this with some more thought given
>to insulation and passive solar heating.
And even active solar thermal which seems more cost effective than PV.
>> Solar thermal is good and we should do it on a big scale.
>
>Agreed, although I tend to think in terms of lots of small
>installations rather than a few large ones.
Quite. 'Big scale' as in 'big proportion of properties'.
> Each new building could
>incorporate elements of design to enhance solar thermal properties.
Indeed.
But why focus so much on new build ? Last time I talked to our city
council, we figured that given the rate of housing renewal, the life
expectancy of a typical house is about 150 years. Thus in a very real
sense, retrofit is the dominant game in town.
>> Biofuels seem to be worthy, but the EU don't even seem to be able to get
>> it together to avoid classifying used chip oil as waste, and if we are
>> to grow fuel crops, just how much land will it take ?
>
>How much land is currently being subsidised to do nothing, on
>set-aside? IIRTW* I would be scrapping agricultural subsidies and
>their associated trade barriers to phase in biofuel subsidies for
>farmers, manufacturers and distributors.
Yes. The subsidy and agricultural land use systems trash any notion of
joined up thinking and food / fuel crossover. Total balls up !
> Which would have the
>side-benefit of removing one of the main causes of absolute poverty,
>the skewed world markets in agriculture. The costs to consumers are
>surprisingly small (c.f. the small premium paid for variable-fuel cars
>in Brazil) and probably balanced out by the cheaper food.
Possibly, though a look at the effect on farming communities might no go
amiss while we are at it.
>> And what of nuclear fusion as opposed to fission ?
>
>I think we will need some interim solutions - this one is for the long
>term.
If ever.
>On the list I would add wave generation and tidal generation, both of
>which have decent potential in the British Isles.
Agreed.
>Also look to reduce demand in other areas. Telecommuting could reduce
>traffic levels substantially and would be MUCH cheaper to subsidise
>than a roadbuilding alternative as the infrastructure is largely in
>place.
So I keep telling our local authority, but if it ain't funded by LTP2 et
al, I can go boil my head apparently...
Actually - I was very impressed to see that telecommuting did get a
mention last time the LA presented the LTP to the City Partnership.
It's only taken them 15 years to notice though !
nich...@mailandnews.com
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1120487471.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> nich...@mailandnews.com writes
>
> Really ? Last time I looked the equipment cost the same to buy
> regardless of the age of the property.
>
Installation is cheaper if you are building the roof anyway and you can
save on some materials such as roof tiles. The increase in construction
costs would be modest as a part of the whole construction cost.
>
> > Given the way the restricted-supply market works in new housing
> >the likely overall effect of requiring all new build to have PV
> >installed would be a slight decrease in the market value uplift of land
> >when planning permission is granted.
>
> Your financial instrument speak is loosing me here.
>
> You mean building land would be worth less if new houses had to have PVs
> on ?
>
> I don't really see that since land availability seems to be the rate
> determining step rather than build price ?
>
The way the market currently works is that the price of a new house is
set as high as they think the market can bear. The constuction costs
vary with the costs of labour and materials and the amount of profit
the construction company can negotiate. The basic cost of the land
without planning permission is largely inconsequential unless you want
acres of gardens. What takes the cost up to the limit of affordability
is the amount by which the land increases in value when it gains
planning permission, around our way this "uplift" can be up to (or
exceed) £100,000 per dwelling for which permission is granted.
A relatively modest increase in the construction costs would not affect
the sale price because this is already set at the highest level the
market will bear. In practice I believe the part of the "costs" that
would be hit would be the uplift in land value because the right to
build would simply be a few thousand pounds less valuable if
legislation forced up construction costs by a few thousand. As the
uplift is typically far greater than this amount at present the market
could absorb this without any noticable impact on the consumer.
--
Nic
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 01:16:33 +0100, John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The other problem with unscheduled supply is the cost of maintaining
>the spinning reserve which I read, on usenet, but cannot attribute, is
>costing some fractions of a pence per kWhr(e) wind generated.
Agreed, though they have their costs too...
>>Really ? Last time I looked the equipment cost the same to buy
>>regardless of the age of the property.
>
>Any ball park figures to hand per installed kW(e) and average power
>out?
What's your average wind speed ?
>I would still welcome similar figures for a small (say 1kW(e)
>installed capacity) wind turbine of the roof mounted variety.
Hmmm... Can't say I'd be keen to have one mounted on my roof...
>>And even active solar thermal which seems more cost effective than PV.
>
>Again what are the ball park figures here for a small home?
:) How much hot water do you use and what temperature ?
> I ask
>because I have just "rescued" 5 professionally built panels from a
>swimming pool "demolition"
How big and what type ?
> and am looking at a diy way to install them
>on a S facing flat roof on my home.
Go for it !
>>>On the list I would add wave generation and tidal generation, both of
>>>which have decent potential in the British Isles.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>I think there must be most potential there but it's a big business
>business and even the massive incentive of ROCs doesn't seem to be
>attracting the investment.
There is some research and testing going on however, and I gather one or
two French sites have been a success.
> How different is the technology from big
>ship building? I can see life in a marine environment being relatively
>short.
Like oil rigs you mean ? At least we've had some practice with this
sort of off shore technology.
John Beardmore
nich...@mailandnews.com writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1120487471.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> nich...@mailandnews.com writes
>> Really ? Last time I looked the equipment cost the same to buy
>> regardless of the age of the property.
>
>Installation is cheaper if you are building the roof anyway and you can
>save on some materials such as roof tiles.
Small beers compared to a 10 grand pv installlation though.
> The increase in construction
>costs would be modest as a part of the whole construction cost.
Ten pound more is ten pounds more if it's retrofit or new.
Same goes for ten grand.
The fact that you are spending a lot of money on new build is neither
here or there. It may mean you are flush with borrowed cash. Or it may
mean you are heavily in debt. It's just a matter of perspective.
Either way, the onus is to spend where spending will bring the best
benefit, an insulation, heating controls, cogen, and solar thermal
(passive and active) are all likely to trump PV for the forseeable !
>> > Given the way the restricted-supply market works in new housing
>> >the likely overall effect of requiring all new build to have PV
>> >installed would be a slight decrease in the market value uplift of land
>> >when planning permission is granted.
>>
>> Your financial instrument speak is loosing me here.
>>
>> You mean building land would be worth less if new houses had to have PVs
>> on ?
>>
>> I don't really see that since land availability seems to be the rate
>> determining step rather than build price ?
>
>The way the market currently works is that the price of a new house is
>set as high as they think the market can bear. The constuction costs
>vary with the costs of labour and materials and the amount of profit
>the construction company can negotiate. The basic cost of the land
>without planning permission is largely inconsequential unless you want
>acres of gardens. What takes the cost up to the limit of affordability
>is the amount by which the land increases in value when it gains
>planning permission, around our way this "uplift" can be up to (or
>exceed) £100,000 per dwelling for which permission is granted.
>
>A relatively modest increase in the construction costs would not affect
>the sale price because this is already set at the highest level the
>market will bear. In practice I believe the part of the "costs" that
>would be hit would be the uplift in land value because the right to
>build would simply be a few thousand pounds less valuable if
>legislation forced up construction costs by a few thousand.
Well maybe, but why legislate for PV if insulation, heating controls,
cogen, and solar thermal are all more cost effective ?
> As the
>uplift is typically far greater than this amount at present the market
>could absorb this without any noticable impact on the consumer.
I think I'd notice 10 grand, and whatever you obliged me to spend, I'd
want to see the best possible return on that investment. Are you really
trying to tell me that PV would offer better ROI than insulation, better
heating controls, cogen, and solar thermal ? If so, I'd be pleased to
see your figures !
nich...@mailandnews.com
nich...@mailandnews.com wrote:
>
> A relatively modest increase in the construction costs would not affect
> the sale price because this is already set at the highest level the
> market will bear. In practice I believe the part of the "costs" that
> would be hit would be the uplift in land value because the right to
> build would simply be a few thousand pounds less valuable if
> legislation forced up construction costs by a few thousand. As the
> uplift is typically far greater than this amount at present the market
> could absorb this without any noticable impact on the consumer.
>
I forgot to post the sources.
Land prices with planning permission:
http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-2005/residential.htm
Similarly without planning permission:
http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-2005/agricultural.htm#value_equipped_land_vacant
The differences represent the windfall profits of gaining planning
permission. In almost all regions its over £2 million per hectare,
against which the costs of of thermal solar, PV (or frankly any
reasonable option) pale into insignificance.
> --
> Nic
John Beardmore
nich...@mailandnews.com writes
Fine, but I don't see that
a) this necessarily makes new build the best place to put PV, (and some
people seem to favour PV over other RE technologies)
or
b) that PV is most cost effective choice of technology to introduce or
enhance.
As far as I can see, about the only place PV can be justified is off
grid.
As far as I can see, the argument re new build amounts to
'if there is that much money flying about, nobody will notice it
being spent on PV even if this is ill considered, sub optimal
and inappropriate'.
I suggest taking a holistic view, looking at which technologies work
well on which sites and best meet users and environmental needs.
nich...@mailandnews.com
Well its certainly cheaper than retrofitting so if micro-PV is to be in
the mix at all this is where I would start. At this scale[1] you would
probably find the unit costs beginning to drop, only at which point do
I think retrofitting to the existing stock is likely to make any
economic sense.
In pure monetary terms it has a higher installation cost that - say -
wind turbines but it has minimal impact on landscape or wildlife and so
is more easily socially accepted. My point about the economic realities
of housebuilding is that it would also have minimal economic impact.
Micro-PV also tends to be generated at or close to the point of use so
there are hidden gains in transmission losses that will not occur (and
ultimately transmission capacity that does not have to be built).
> or
>
> b) that PV is most cost effective choice of technology to introduce or
> enhance.
>
Nothing beats enhanced efficiency or demand reduction measures (such as
insulation or active thermal solar) but in a discussion about
generation its worth a mention.
[1] Circa 200,000 units per year.
--
Nic
nich...@mailandnews.com
The current costings for California (where they have a major
installation program) are in the $3.50 to $5.00/Wp range for the cells
and an additional $3.50/Wp (and up) for retrofit installation.
Even at these cost rates the economic payback period is about the same
as the expected lifetime before you need to start servicing/repairing
and incurring further costs. Its not like the UK is blessed with
sunlight.
However its still worth bearing in mind that in terms of land use,
landscape and other conservation factors this is pretty much the lowest
impact renewable generation you can get - and it tends to generate in
weather conditions when other renewables such as wind or wave would
not. Nor will any amount of thermal effeciency measures offset the CO2
emissions due to lighting and domestic appliances. Legislate for
thermal efficiency of new houses first by all means - we are in
agreement on that - but when looking at electricity production micro-PV
should not be discounted just because the existing "market" in the UK
is uneconomic.
--
Nic
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>>>Any ball park figures to hand per installed kW(e) and average power
>>>out?
>>
>>What's your average wind speed ?
>
>I thought the above was about PV,
Well, the thread title is "Energy alternatives for the UK".
> I was wanting to see how PV might
>compare with micro wind turbine.
Quite. So what's your average wind speed ?
>I am told commercial wind farms will only look at average speed of
>7m/sec and above.
Might go down to 6.5, though it depends who you believe and talk to.
> The site I had an enquiry about was on the coast
>west of Fort William, at Inchree.
OK.
>>>I would still welcome similar figures for a small (say 1kW(e)
>>>installed capacity) wind turbine of the roof mounted variety.
>>
>>Hmmm... Can't say I'd be keen to have one mounted on my roof...
>
>Any special reason?
I suspect that quite a few will fall through roofs once they get common.
> it seems an obvious place to have one and the
>tower is less of a problem, boats seem to manage with them just above
>the cabin when moored, to charge the battery.
Yes. I'm quite happy about them on wood or metal structures, though
noise can be an issue. But brittle old brick and mortar... Rather you
than me I guess.
> In this instance there
>are 10 A framed holiday chalets on site, so they are already in an
>array, 1 kW(e) installed capacity on each with a 30% availability
>factor would reduce the electric bill somewhat. Demand in summer is
>only lighting but in winter there is a substantial need for heating,
>so with excess capacity heating water alongside a woodchip boiler to
>save worrying about negotiating a grid inter tie looks worth
>considering.
Yes.
>>>Again what are the ball park figures here for a small home?
A bit too much cropping here ! Which figures are you asking for ?
And what fuel would you be displacing ?
>>:) How much hot water do you use and what temperature ?
>
>I like a 40C bath but otherwise I mostly use cold water. I assumed
>these things usually were plumbed to the return side of a boiler?
No.
>Or do you use a thermal store and have a heat exchanger in this?
Normally just a water cylinder with a second coil.
>>> I ask
>>>because I have just "rescued" 5 professionally built panels from a
>>>swimming pool "demolition"
>>
>>How big and what type ?
>
>I'll try and link a picture in a day or so, there are 5 or 6 of them
>and they measure about 1.8m by 1.2m. They seem to have clear
>polycarbonate covers, aluminium frame and back.
Are the covers flat ?
>>> and am looking at a diy way to install them
>>>on a S facing flat roof on my home.
>>
>>Go for it !
>
>Maybe, still thinking about it.
Just do it !
>>> How different is the technology from big
>>>ship building? I can see life in a marine environment being relatively
>>>short.
>>
>>Like oil rigs you mean ? At least we've had some practice with this
>>sort of off shore technology.
>
>I was more thinking of shaft seals and such, like a ships propeller,
>or maybe a submarine one.
Plenty of experience of these among UK industry too.
>I like the look of the single point mooring oscillating wing
>generators for putting in tidal flows and wonder if the problem with
>them is sealing. From talking to a retired Shell employee he claimed
>that it is possible to lay an umbilical with hydraulic and electrical
>services 7 miles without any joints. So a hydraulic pump on each wing
>may now be feasible, unlike in Salter's day when getting the power out
>of the floating ducks seemed to be a stumbling block. Mind I don't
>think hydrostatic transmissions are more than 70% efficient.
Then again, how efficient is a coal fired power station ?
>I also wonder if a similar fluttering wing with a magnet attached
>inside a coil (like in the actuator arm for a hard disk drive) would
>work as a low profile wind device.
Maybe. A lot of things are now possible with the availability of cheap
NIB magnets.
John Beardmore
nich...@mailandnews.com writes
Not much IME, though admittedly ME is mostly with solar thermal.
> At this scale[1] you would
>probably find the unit costs beginning to drop, only at which point do
>I think retrofitting to the existing stock is likely to make any
>economic sense.
Bootstrap it anyway you like. The retrofit market is so much bigger.
>In pure monetary terms it has a higher installation cost that - say -
>wind turbines but it has minimal impact on landscape or wildlife and so
>is more easily socially accepted. My point about the economic realities
>of housebuilding is that it would also have minimal economic impact.
My point as somebody who owns 300W of PV and has contemplated a bigger
rig is that new build or retrofit, it is bloody expensive and has a long
pay back time.
Further, we don't advise our on-grid clients to use it because
a) the reasons above
and
b) much better PV technologies may well emerge well within the
pay back time of existing PV technologies.
>Micro-PV also tends to be generated at or close to the point of use so
>there are hidden gains in transmission losses that will not occur (and
>ultimately transmission capacity that does not have to be built).
Same is true of micro wind, hydro, cogen, chp et al. Why single out PV
for special favour ?
>> or
>>
>> b) that PV is most cost effective choice of technology to introduce or
>> enhance.
>>
>
>Nothing beats enhanced efficiency or demand reduction measures (such as
>insulation or active thermal solar) but in a discussion about
>generation its worth a mention.
Yes - don't get me wrong ! I'm a great fan of PV and I'm sure it will
become hugely important in the future, so I got some to play with and it
does exactly what it says on the box. None the less I can't really
justify it for grid tied systems at the moment except as an educational
/ experimental / awareness raising thing.
I am recommending it for some of our off grid clients though, along with
micro wind, (pvo ?) chp and solar thermal.
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 00:30:26 +0100, John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <r71mc1healabatglt...@4ax.com>,
>>sy...@despammed.com writes
>>>On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:37:33 +0100, John Beardmore
>>><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>Any ball park figures to hand per installed kW(e) and average power
>>>>>out?
>>>>
>>>>What's your average wind speed ?
>>>
>>>I thought the above was about PV,
>>
>>Well, the thread title is "Energy alternatives for the UK".
>
>Non sequitur,
?
> what's that got to do with my question in regard to the
>cost of photovoltaic cells installed on a building. As I said I was
>interested in a comparison of costs between PV and wind turbine on the
>micro scale.
I've never thought the issue under discussion was just about PV, and if
you are comparing PV to wind as it still seems you are, it's meaningless
to do that without knowing your average wind speed.
As to the comparison, it's as important to know what's generated as what
the install costs.
While a 1kW peak output solar system might end up costing you £6,000 and
a wind system with the same peak output power might be substantially
less, if your mean wind speed is only 5m/s, the wind system will
scarcely cut in most of the time, and the PV might offer a better ROI.
Basically, think in terms of 'life cycle costs'.
>>> I was wanting to see how PV might
>>>compare with micro wind turbine.
>>
>>Quite. So what's your average wind speed ?
>
>Looks like 5m/s at ground level.
So pretty poor, but then again, how high could you get it off the ground
?
>>Yes. I'm quite happy about them on wood or metal structures, though
>>noise can be an issue. But brittle old brick and mortar... Rather you
>>than me I guess.
>
>OK so a pole up the gable end may be necessary.
Yes - I suppose that if the manufacturers underwrite attachment to
bricks and mortar it may be OK to try that too, but as I say, it worries
me, and I wouldn't do it on my own house even though the brickwork is in
fair condition.
>>>>>Again what are the ball park figures here for a small home?
>>
>>A bit too much cropping here ! Which figures are you asking for ?
>
>Ball park figures for a 1kW(e) installation on a building of both a
>micro wind turbine and PV panel.
>>
>>And what fuel would you be displacing ?
>
>Grid electricity
OK.
>>>I'll try and link a picture in a day or so, there are 5 or 6 of them
>>>and they measure about 1.8m by 1.2m. They seem to have clear
>>>polycarbonate covers, aluminium frame and back.
>>
>>Are the covers flat ?
>
>Yes
OK. Not Filsol then...
>>>>> and am looking at a diy way to install them
>>>>>on a S facing flat roof on my home.
>>>>
>>>>Go for it !
>>>
>>>Maybe, still thinking about it.
>>
>>Just do it !
>
>My worry is that the pool would only need heating to 70C
? 30C ?
> and the delta
>T across the panels would be low, this is also indicated by the
>inlet/outlet pipe sizes.
I wouldn't read too much into the pipe sizes. Manufacturers seem to
think that 22mm is more macho than 10mm, but it doesn't take much pipe
diameter to harvest the available energy...
> To heat domestic water would require a slower
>flow and a higher temperature differential wouldn't it?
Normal domestic practice is one litre per minute per square meter of
panel. Buy a flow meter and adjust with domestic circulating pump on
the lowest setting.
Alternatively, buy a controller that varies the pump speed
electronically to maintain an optimum delta T.
>Also what would I lose by mounting them flat?
60% in winter, 15% in summer very roughly ? If you seriously want to
know I can work it out or look it up, but keep in mind that unless you
make them track the sun, they will almost never face an optimal
direction.
That said, I'd sooner put them on stands in the garden than flat on a
roof, and flat roof mounting is a bit of a dark art.
>>>I like the look of the single point mooring oscillating wing
>>>generators for putting in tidal flows and wonder if the problem with
>>>them is sealing. From talking to a retired Shell employee he claimed
>>>that it is possible to lay an umbilical with hydraulic and electrical
>>>services 7 miles without any joints. So a hydraulic pump on each wing
>>>may now be feasible, unlike in Salter's day when getting the power out
>>>of the floating ducks seemed to be a stumbling block. Mind I don't
>>>think hydrostatic transmissions are more than 70% efficient.
>>
>>Then again, how efficient is a coal fired power station ?
>
>In terms of delivering the electrical power produced to the grid it is
>high, say 10% losses between generator and user. In terms of
>thermodynamic performance I imagine ranging from 30% thermal in to
>about 60% with integrated direct fired gas turbine and boiler. There's
>scope to better this with solid oxide fuel cell integrated gas turbine
>but it's a long time a coming.
OK, but wave, coal etc all have transmission grid losses. I suppose my
point is that 40% efficiency in coal burning is a poor use of a finite
resource, and 70% efficiency in a duck is pretty good use of a renewable
resource.
nich...@mailandnews.com
John Beardmore wrote:
>
> Same is true of micro wind, hydro, cogen, chp et al. Why single out PV
> for special favour ?
>
I didn't intend to, just to add it into a discussion that seemed to
already cover wind, hydro etc.
--
Nic
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 00:02:54 +0100, John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Non sequitur,
>>
>>?
>
>Your earlier reply did not relate to my question, no matter, let's
>start afresh.
>
>>I've never thought the issue under discussion was just about PV, and if
>>you are comparing PV to wind as it still seems you are, it's meaningless
>>to do that without knowing your average wind speed.
>
>Yes, I guess you need to know both insolation and average windspeed at
>a location. I think these are available for most of UK. What seems a
>bit difficult to find is the cumulative performance or performance
>under less than ideal conditions.
True. Most manufacturers do publish performance graphs, but some of
them have to be poked before they yield them up.
>Perhaps there is an opportunity for someone to market a weather
>station with an aerometer and a solar pv array and data logger for
>people to trial in their particular location before committing the
>expense of a bigger system.
Maybe. To be honest, I'd be fairly happy to take published data for
insolation unless I was interested a particularly quirky area, but wind
is another matter. The national database is a very blunt instrument,
and extrapolation between publish data up to 45 meters and gradient wind
conditions is a bit of a black art, especially in a turbulent urban
environment.
For big schemes, test masts are a natural part of evolving the projects.
For small schemes, testing costs more than the proposed scheme so you
look at the database, poke your fingers in the air and take your punt.
>So anybody keen on going renewable to displace a proportion of their
>grid electricity depends on manufacturers claims.
Which are increasingly subject to scrutiny according to established
international standards.
>As I said earlier the cafe at Pembroke had a panel showing electricity
>generated to date, proportion of the demand displaced from grid and
>cumulative power to date.
>
>In my case at home I think it unlikely to be worth attempting this as
>I live in an urban area and my electricity bill is small. The holiday
>village I was talking about in W Highlands may be different but their
>wind speed is also surprisingly low at 5m/s. Of course their
>electricity is likely to be renewable hydro already, so cost saving
>will be the driver here.
Yes, though any renewable contribution to the grid still helps. Think
of it as pushing the influence of hydro south.
>As their self catering chalets (occupied by tourists most of the year)
>are all electric the first thing would seem to be moving to other
>means of heating and cooking.
Maybe, though if their electricity comes from 100% renewable sources,
would that help ??
(OK, I know my previous two thoughts are to some extent in conflict -
I'm just illustrating that perspective and what you think you are paying
for matter here.)
>I would like to think a central thermal store heated by woodchip and
>distributed by insulated pipe to underfloor heating would be
>worthwhile for this.
Yes.
> The cookers then being lpg powered.
Yuk ! Maybe.
>This would remove much of the electrical load. As this is a commercial
>venture I am guessing there is less access to grants for renewable
>electricity and unless the electricity is traded there is none of the
>incentive of ROCs.
So aggregate and trade.
> As the electricity demand will not be met by the
>renewable much of the time I wonder if a grid intertie is worthwhile,
>rather than just making use of the renewable when it is available and
>diverting excess to a resistance heater in the thermal store.
So sell it all into the grid and trade the ROCs, while buying back cheap
fossil power.
(But while the accountants and the algebra go one way, the electrons
follow the suggestions of ohms law, so you still get the benefits to
distribution of local micro-generation.)
>>As to the comparison, it's as important to know what's generated as what
>>the install costs.
>>
>>While a 1kW peak output solar system might end up costing you £6,000 and
>>a wind system with the same peak output power might be substantially
>>less, if your mean wind speed is only 5m/s, the wind system will
>>scarcely cut in most of the time, and the PV might offer a better ROI.
>>
>>Basically, think in terms of 'life cycle costs'.
>
>That's what I am trying to do and so far it looks to me that the idea
>of an array of small wind turbines is not worthwhile because average
>wind speed is too low
Where does this figure of 5m/s come form ?
If that's ground level, how high can you get them ?
> and solar PV not worthwhile because the site is
>too far north with few clear days.
Presumably quite cool though, which helps the PV case ?
>>>>>I'll try and link a picture in a day or so, there are 5 or 6 of them
>>>>>and they measure about 1.8m by 1.2m. They seem to have clear
>>>>>polycarbonate covers, aluminium frame and back.
>>>>
>>>>Are the covers flat ?
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>>OK. Not Filsol then...
>
>Pictured at http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/Dscn0290.jpg
>
>As you can see they have taken a beating.
Probably still work OK though.
>>>My worry is that the pool would only need heating to 70C
>>
>>? 30C ?
>
>I realised my mistake in mixing 70F with 21C, cancelled and resent the
>message but you picked up the earlier one.
:) No matter.
>>> and the delta
>>>T across the panels would be low, this is also indicated by the
>>>inlet/outlet pipe sizes.
>>
>>I wouldn't read too much into the pipe sizes. Manufacturers seem to
>>think that 22mm is more macho than 10mm, but it doesn't take much pipe
>>diameter to harvest the available energy...
>
>Yes but big pipe diameters imply a high flow with small delta T.
I know, but thinks like the Nippon Electric Glass DP-6 evacuated tube
collectors come with 22mm pipes and it's quite unnecessary. I think the
manufacturers just do it to tease.
Some pool heaters are actually unglazed, though these generally have
unspectacular performance. In this instance you have a glazed flat
plate collector, and while you may not have the niceties of selective
absorber surfaces and a few other bells and whistles, it's probably not
substantially worse than any other flat plate collector.
>>Alternatively, buy a controller that varies the pump speed
>>electronically to maintain an optimum delta T.
>
>Yes and I'll put them in series once I figure out why they have 4
>inlet/outlet connections.
Probably so they can be plumbed in series. Link a row of collectors
together with pairs of pipes, then blank off top left and bottom right.
Cold in bottom left, warmer out top right. Voila ! Instant big
connector.
What are the connectors made of ? Looks like stainless in the picture ?
>>>Also what would I lose by mounting them flat?
>>
>>60% in winter, 15% in summer very roughly ? If you seriously want to
>>know I can work it out or look it up, but keep in mind that unless you
>>make them track the sun, they will almost never face an optimal
>>direction.
>
>As my available flat roof is about 3m by 2.5 I think they will have to
>stand on their narrow edge and tilt back to optimise for winter and
>spring. I also think I would be best optimised for afternoon (i.e west
>of south to give maximum yield for evening use.
Makes sense, but watch out for wind loading. Aim to cater for 100 year
gust etc. Can be a very significant stress.
>>That said, I'd sooner put them on stands in the garden than flat on a
>>roof, and flat roof mounting is a bit of a dark art.
>
>Garden is too overshadowed.
OK.
>>>In terms of delivering the electrical power produced to the grid it is
>>>high, say 10% losses between generator and user. In terms of
>>>thermodynamic performance I imagine ranging from 30% thermal in to
>>>about 60% with integrated direct fired gas turbine and boiler. There's
>>>scope to better this with solid oxide fuel cell integrated gas turbine
>>>but it's a long time a coming.
>>
>>OK, but wave, coal etc all have transmission grid losses. I suppose my
>>point is that 40% efficiency in coal burning is a poor use of a finite
>>resource, and 70% efficiency in a duck is pretty good use of a renewable
>>resource.
>
>I agree, overall it's the cost delivered to the consumer that counts.
And the environmental footprint of that consumer...
>If we break the costs down to capital charges, operation and
>maintenance and fuel costs per kWhr(e) delivered to consumer then even
>with zero fuel costs the renewable options tend to have high capital
>costs.
Agreed.
> The offshore option adds the capital cost of an umbilical and
>decreases the generator's production reaching the consumer.
Yes, though wave at least tends to deliver power near the shore. It's
not as if you need a forty million quid cable to get to Orkney or
anything.
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>>For big schemes, test masts are a natural part of evolving the projects.
>>For small schemes, testing costs more than the proposed scheme so you
>>look at the database, poke your fingers in the air and take your punt.
>
>If it's a punt with GBP6k then it must be worth data logging an
>anemometer for a year??
Maybe, but you have to see it from the householders point of view. An
anemometer worth spit costs what ? Order of 600 quid ? Then there's
the data logger ? Going to leave your PC on for 9 months ? And how are
you going to interface it and write the code ?
I know there are some mickey mouse anemometers that are cheaper, but the
one well known brand I've tried three of was scarily inconsistent.
Of course, you can always pay somebody else to sort all this out for
you, for say £250 to 600 per day...
In my experience, even 5kW machines costing 10 to 15 thousand pounds get
no real measurement prior to installation.
Proper test masts for commercial sites can cost a significant amount -
say 10 to 20 thousand for 6 to 12 months ?
>>>As their self catering chalets (occupied by tourists most of the year)
>>>are all electric the first thing would seem to be moving to other
>>>means of heating and cooking.
>>
>>Maybe, though if their electricity comes from 100% renewable sources,
>>would that help ??
>>
>>(OK, I know my previous two thoughts are to some extent in conflict -
>>I'm just illustrating that perspective and what you think you are paying
>>for matter here.)
>
>It's interesting, how far could we export the influence of hydro
>south? What strikes me is that they have re equipped the industrial
>dams with bigger alternators and now run them flat out when the price
>is right, depleting dam reserves faster than was the case under 24hr
>use.
Good for the Scottish balance of payments !
>This part of the system looks an ideal candidate for fitting in with
>unscheduled supplies from micro wind turbines and intermittent micro
>hydro.
Yes.
>>>I would like to think a central thermal store heated by woodchip and
>>>distributed by insulated pipe to underfloor heating would be
>>>worthwhile for this.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>> The cookers then being lpg powered.
>>
>>Yuk ! Maybe.
>
>Well a kettle can pull 3kW(e) and 3 hobs similar. So for instant
>demand there is little likelihood of having sufficient renewable
>electricity other than from a grid connection.
Yes. But where available, grid connection is generally a Good
Think(TM).
Eliminates all those nasty batteries with their elephantine
environmental footprint. Or did I miss that the site you're thinking of
off grid ?
> Mind with delivery
>costs in the highlands it may well be better to maintain a dedicated
>grid circuit for cookers and instantaneous water heaters.
I'd guess.
>>>This would remove much of the electrical load. As this is a commercial
>>>venture I am guessing there is less access to grants for renewable
>>>electricity and unless the electricity is traded there is none of the
>>>incentive of ROCs.
>>
>>So aggregate and trade.
>
>At what scale is this worthwhile? I was not advocating more than 15kW
>installed capacity over a site of 10 chalets, reception/restaurant/bar
>plus hostel and bunkhouse.
I'd guess that would be worth while. We're hoping to get a 5kW from a
Derbyshire school traded.
The deals seem to be getting better as time goes by. Five years ago it
was hard enough to give power to the grid !
>>> As the electricity demand will not be met by the
>>>renewable much of the time I wonder if a grid intertie is worthwhile,
>>>rather than just making use of the renewable when it is available and
>>>diverting excess to a resistance heater in the thermal store.
>>
>>So sell it all into the grid and trade the ROCs, while buying back cheap
>>fossil power.
>
>On the numbers I am guessing at the tariff from the grid is ~7p/kWhr,
>the wholesale price wandering around 2.5p/kWhr in 30min time slots and
>the ROC about 4.5p/kWhr (mind I still cannot quite understand why the
>ROC trades above the 3.5p/kWhr "fine!)
If you're that small, you probably don't have to sell in half hour slots
these days. You really need to check the latest deals. We're not even
starting to look into this until all the funding and planning consent
come through.
>>>That's what I am trying to do and so far it looks to me that the idea
>>>of an array of small wind turbines is not worthwhile because average
>>>wind speed is too low
>>
>>Where does this figure of 5m/s come form ?
>
>the 1km OS tiles published by BWEA.
OK.
>>If that's ground level, how high can you get them ?
>
>About 10m without undue comment I suspect.
OK.
>>> and solar PV not worthwhile because the site is
>>>too far north with few clear days.
>>
>>Presumably quite cool though, which helps the PV case ?
>
>Not at this level I think, I know the early arrays in California had
>their life shortened by the overheating and that is why PV in the
>lower part of UK should be better but I think this was in the
>temperature regions of 50C+ which I have not experience in the sun
>that far north .
To quote a recent message in alt.solar.photovoltaic,
"on sunny summer days (>30°C) , I get 3 kW, but on cloudy
days (20-25°C), the peaks go up to 3.5 kW"
and
"Temperature will degrade the output, about 0.08 volts per C
increase in temperature for a nominal 12 volt panel".
Guess that means it can matter even in the UK summer. Must admit my BP
75 watt panels seem to prefer flat out blazing sin shine though. Maybe I
should take better measurements.
>>Some pool heaters are actually unglazed, though these generally have
>>unspectacular performance. In this instance you have a glazed flat
>>plate collector, and while you may not have the niceties of selective
>>absorber surfaces and a few other bells and whistles, it's probably not
>>substantially worse than any other flat plate collector.
>
>Yes, though the glazing looks like poly carbonate single skin.
OK. Triple skin might be better, but the problem with making the
glazing better insulated, is that it also makes it more opaque. That's
why so few panels are double glazed.
>>What are the connectors made of ? Looks like stainless in the picture ?
>
>Yes, thin stainless tube
Probably to withstand the chlorine which really is a pig from a
corrosion point of view.
>>Makes sense, but watch out for wind loading. Aim to cater for 100 year
>>gust etc. Can be a very significant stress.
>
>I'll trial them in the field where they are stored first with just
>thermo syphon and a barrel. I'm not sure what the flat roof will
>stand, though they only weigh about 25kg without water.
Yes, though when we asked AES how to mount some 2.75 sq meter panels on
a flat roof we were told to either bolt them down (try finding where the
woodwork runs though) which penetrates the roof in multiple locations,
OR, (and this is a bit frightening if there are a lot of them), weight
down the stands with 600kg per 2.75 sq meter panels.
>>>I agree, overall it's the cost delivered to the consumer that counts.
>>
>>And the environmental footprint of that consumer...
>
>On the large scale, from the point of view of the power provider
>feeding the grid I think the costs net of grants are all you can work
>on.
> Indeed it is this fact that has led to wind power being taken up
>over the more logical course of conservation,
Yes. People will do what makes money - indeed up to a point, can only
do what makes money.
> insulation
To be fair, most changes to building regs of late have focused on energy
conservation.
Microgeneration will come though, because it will be increasingly
economically justified.
> and use of
>biomass for heat (my hobby horse).
Yes - a very virtuous hobby horse if you burn it cleanly enough. It
always pisses me off that environmentalists carp mightily about dioxin
from Evil Wicked Municipal Incinerators, the wax all lyrical about the
pleasant aroma of wood smoke in the evening breeze. The reality is that
both may contain dioxins and other pollutants, and both can be
significantly mitigated.
>>> The offshore option adds the capital cost of an umbilical and
>>>decreases the generator's production reaching the consumer.
>>
>>Yes, though wave at least tends to deliver power near the shore. It's
>>not as if you need a forty million quid cable to get to Orkney or
>>anything.
>
>I have no idea of the costs but I like the idea of offshore, undersea
>generation. If the 7 mile hydraulic umbilical is feasible then it
>gives an large area around the coast to harness a vast amount of
>energy from.
Yes, though tide stream turbines might make more sense from the point of
view of hazards to shipping.
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>>Yes, though when we asked AES how to mount some 2.75 sq meter panels on
>>a flat roof we were told to either bolt them down (try finding where the
>>woodwork runs though) which penetrates the roof in multiple locations,
>>OR, (and this is a bit frightening if there are a lot of them), weight
>>down the stands with 600kg per 2.75 sq meter panels.
>
>I don't think my roof will stand either of these options, though there
>is a 9" brick wall behind and a 11" brick wall in front which may take
>a few rawlbolts.
Can you sling and RSJ or two between the walls ?
>>> insulation
>>
>>To be fair, most changes to building regs of late have focused on energy
>>conservation.
>
>But what is the rate of change of buildings?
:) See previous post about 150 years. I think it was this thread ?
> This 1862 house leaks
>heat, though heat is cheap for me.
>
>I recently did the snagging of a wood pellet boiler in a new build
>block of flats in Brixton which had 300mm of insulation in the walls!
Well done Brixton ! Wish I could get architects up here to think this
way !
>>> and use of
>>>biomass for heat (my hobby horse).
>>
>>Yes - a very virtuous hobby horse if you burn it cleanly enough. It
>>always pisses me off that environmentalists carp mightily about dioxin
>>from Evil Wicked Municipal Incinerators, the wax all lyrical about the
>>pleasant aroma of wood smoke in the evening breeze. The reality is that
>>both may contain dioxins and other pollutants, and both can be
>>significantly mitigated.
>
>Well i am no fan of mass burn incineration but I take your point.
'Bonfire in box' as it is less charitably know....
>A 8MW(e) waste to energy scheme has just been announced for 800m from
>where I sit. The opposition includes a demolition contractor operating
>from an adjacent garden centre who regularly regails the area with
>fumes from open burning of tyres and pvc windows secreted amongst tree
>surgery waste, yet the waste plant will have to be monitored and
>comply with tight environmental legislation.
Sounds as if your contractor is not an !SO14001 company, and may well
not be complying with legislation. If you can prove PVC burning, can't
environmental health hang him out to dry ?
>>>I have no idea of the costs but I like the idea of offshore, undersea
>>>generation. If the 7 mile hydraulic umbilical is feasible then it
>>>gives an large area around the coast to harness a vast amount of
>>>energy from.
>>
>>Yes, though tide stream turbines might make more sense from the point of
>>view of hazards to shipping.
>
>I was meaning tidal stream generation with oscillating wings as
>opposed to wave power.
OK.
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>>>I recently did the snagging of a wood pellet boiler in a new build
>>>block of flats in Brixton which had 300mm of insulation in the walls!
>>
>>Well done Brixton ! Wish I could get architects up here to think this
>>way !
>
>This one was a housing association block of 12, keyworker, flats.
>There are a number of similar BEDzed type schemes being planned but
>this one was a more pragmatic approach with less of the high tech
>dependency.
:) We have a planning application going through in a National Park at
the moment, but word from the planners is that they want
"...evolution, not revolution..."
>>>A 8MW(e) waste to energy scheme has just been announced for 800m from
>>>where I sit. The opposition includes a demolition contractor operating
>>>from an adjacent garden centre who regularly regails the area with
>>>fumes from open burning of tyres and pvc windows secreted amongst tree
>>>surgery waste, yet the waste plant will have to be monitored and
>>>comply with tight environmental legislation.
>>
>>Sounds as if your contractor is not an !SO14001 company, and may well
>>not be complying with legislation. If you can prove PVC burning, can't
>>environmental health hang him out to dry ?
>
>They got him for wrongly dumping asbestos concrete sheets, pretty
>harmless but illegal, in an inert landfill but that was EA
:)
> not the
>local council where he seems to have an understanding ;-).
Hmmm... Local jobs ?
>My point was the locals are up in arms about the "dangers" of the
>proposed, very sophisticated, scheme to thermally reduce the residual
>waste after sorting to producer gas for CHP and relatively inert char
>for landfill,
Interesting. I've come across schemes that treated char with
superheated steam to make hydrocarbons, but landfilling it is basically
carbon sequestration. I suggested that, but they weren't interested...
> yet will turn a blind eye to un controlled burning by
>local business which will have far more polluting impact.
Yes.
>AFAIK all open burning of waste is illegal with certain specific
>exceptions for biomass, that is once the concessions for agriculture
>are finally closed, if no already.
Maybe. Not sure of the legal position. Anybody ? Phil ?
Phil Bradshaw
<snip>
>
>> AFAIK all open burning of waste is illegal with certain specific
>> exceptions for biomass, that is once the concessions for agriculture
>> are finally closed, if no already.
>
>
> Maybe. Not sure of the legal position. Anybody ? Phil ?
>
Environment Agency for a complete list of Acts and SIs, IIRC up-to-date
on all the Amendments <yawn>, but I think the basis for action would
still be 'statutory nuisance'.
Waste burning mentioned previously appears to come within the relevant
local authority's _duty_ to prevent statutory nuisance, i.e. smoke.
Perhaps the relevant LA just needs, er, reminding?
Hi John. How are you keeping?
John Beardmore
<philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>> AFAIK all open burning of waste is illegal with certain specific
>>> exceptions for biomass, that is once the concessions for agriculture
>>> are finally closed, if no already.
>> Maybe. Not sure of the legal position. Anybody ? Phil ?
>
>Environment Agency for a complete list of Acts and SIs, IIRC up-to-date
>on all the Amendments <yawn>, but I think the basis for action would
>still be 'statutory nuisance'.
Yes. NetRegs might give some clues.
>Waste burning mentioned previously appears to come within the relevant
>local authority's _duty_ to prevent statutory nuisance, i.e. smoke.
Yes - that sounds consistent with stuff I've read in the past. All
sounded pretty woolly in terms of what constitutes nuisance though as I
recall.
>Perhaps the relevant LA just needs, er, reminding?
:) Maybe. But do funny handshakes cause memory loss ?
>Hi John. How are you keeping?
:) Long story as ever. Will resort to email...
Phil Bradshaw
> In message <LradnWfyXvJ...@pipex.net>, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>
>> John Beardmore wrote:
>>
>>> In message <q6u1d1pup1aqd21mt...@4ax.com>,
>>> sy...@despammed.com writes
>
>
>>>> AFAIK all open burning of waste is illegal with certain specific
>>>> exceptions for biomass, that is once the concessions for agriculture
>>>> are finally closed, if no already.
>>>
>>> Maybe. Not sure of the legal position. Anybody ? Phil ?
>>
>>
>> Environment Agency for a complete list of Acts and SIs, IIRC
>> up-to-date on all the Amendments <yawn>, but I think the basis for
>> action would still be 'statutory nuisance'.
>
>
> Yes. NetRegs might give some clues.
Dat de one :-)
EPA Part 111 now I look.
>
>
>> Waste burning mentioned previously appears to come within the relevant
>> local authority's _duty_ to prevent statutory nuisance, i.e. smoke.
>
>
> Yes - that sounds consistent with stuff I've read in the past. All
> sounded pretty woolly in terms of what constitutes nuisance though as I
> recall.
Used to be so - statutory nuisance was only defined in generality
(Public Health etc.) but 'injurious to health' got redefined and refined
since. We know a bit more now of the extent of what is injurious but
there's ever so much of the EPA, related Acts (e.g., Noise), regs. and
so on to wade through for a particular naughtiness. <sigh>
Such is progress.
>
>
>> Perhaps the relevant LA just needs, er, reminding?
>
>
> :) Maybe. But do funny handshakes cause memory loss ?
Cash will do nicely.
>
>
>> Hi John. How are you keeping?
>
>
> :) Long story as ever. Will resort to email...
>
ok :-)
John Beardmore
>John Beardmore wrote:
>>> Waste burning mentioned previously appears to come within the
>>>relevant local authority's _duty_ to prevent statutory nuisance,
>>>i.e. smoke.
>> Yes - that sounds consistent with stuff I've read in the past.
>>All sounded pretty woolly in terms of what constitutes nuisance though
>>as I recall.
>
>Used to be so - statutory nuisance was only defined in generality
>(Public Health etc.) but 'injurious to health' got redefined and
>refined since. We know a bit more now of the extent of what is
>injurious but there's ever so much of the EPA, related Acts (e.g.,
>Noise), regs. and so on to wade through for a particular naughtiness.
><sigh>
And in large part, the problem perhaps remains proving the naughtiness.
Who burned what when etc...
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>>Interesting. I've come across schemes that treated char with
>>superheated steam to make hydrocarbons, but landfilling it is basically
>>carbon sequestration. I suggested that, but they weren't interested...
>
>Whilst the char still has potential energy some nasties are bound
>within it, I suspect a big coal power station could handle it but the
>effect would largely be a dilution one.
Possibly.
> So maybe best stuck in the
>ground bound to the char matrix.
Maybe, though the plant I've seen details of claimed to be able to leave
the metal residue behind for reclamation while reacting the carbon.
Then again, they blew up their experimental char reformer and cancelled
the project, at least locally. A shame. It had quite a few good points
by the look of it.
>I could do with further education in this subject but my basic
>understanding runs along the lines that:
>
>1) initial sorting removes glass, non ferrous and steel items.
And ideally halogenated organics, PVC, materials likely to contain heavy
metals, car batteries and all the other crap that turns up in the
municipal green waste stream...
>1) simple sugars and other "easy" compounds are the "volatile solids"
>and their contribution to pollution is their biological oxygen demand.
Depends what happens to them really. Nature has a way of dealing with
them in the wild, but I assume you are talking about municipal green or
residual waste ?
Either way, you wouldn't want to leave 100,000 tons to fester
unattended.
>This same affinity for oxygen makes them interesting to methanogenic
>bacteria, thus an anaerobic process will render them fit to discharge
>to a water system and yield biogas, for use in an engine. This part of
>the process is sensitive to "poisoning".
Yes, though most plants to anaerobic digestion or pyrolysis rather than
both.
>2) the remainder, after the above is squeezed or pressure cooked out,
>is largely simple plastics and biomass.
Most biomass can go to AD, though the woody stuff may take forever to
digest.
> This is associated with
>"contraries" that have not been picked up in the initial recycling or
>sorting. It's these contraries that worry me BUT as the high
>temperature thermal process (currently not specified) will be far
>lower temperature than the 1600C we would expect from incineration
>then many compounds, especially metallic ones, will not be volatilised
>and will remain in the char.
Maybe. Then again, some heavy metals are surprisingly volatile. Don't
throw away any old thermometers.
> This char will still be a fraction of the
>original mass and suitable for an inert landfill. Whether it is worth
>carbon credits is debatable.
:) Indeed.
>So apart from converting some 80k tonne/annum active waste to with a
>gate fee of GBP40/tonne to ~8k tonne inert waste with an unknown
>disposal cost within 10km of it's point of production, rather than
>trucking it 80km to a landfill with the same gate fee, there is a net
>contribution to the local electrical system.
Yes. What generating equipment will they use ? (And what's the name of
the company ?)
Quite a lot of plant seems to use reciprocating engines when baby gas
turbines might be twice as efficient, and methane fuel cells are just
around the corner.
>My worries are to do with certain things that should not get into the
>process at all. So far I identify certain halogenated compounds
>(neoprene,
Don't think this is halogenated ?
> pvc, ptfe) of which only a very few have breakdown species
>that I do not want to undergo anaerobic high temperatures
PVC and PTFE will certainly decompose to great nastiness.
Question is how will the plant deal with that ? I expect this may be
commercially sensitive, but I'd object unless they are willing to
disclose.
Happy to talk about this, but maybe take it to a phone call at some
point ?
> and heavy
>metals, which I think are likely to come from discarded batteries,
>metal finishes and solder.
Yes - amongst others.
sarah
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:43:31 +0100, John Beardmore
> <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[-]
> >Happy to talk about this, but maybe take it to a phone call at some
> >point ?
>
> Yes we have deviated a bit from the original thread.
FWIW I'm finding it absolutely fascinating. Really. I don't know enough
to comment, but boy, am I learning stuff :-) I'd vote for you to
continue in public if you're willing to do so.
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.
John Beardmore
sy...@despammed.com writes
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:43:31 +0100, John Beardmore
><woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In this case the theory is that much of this will not enter the "black
>bag" having been sorted for recycling. I think car batteries will get
>spotted but need reassurance.
Our concern re the proposed Derby plant too.
>There is an entirely separate green waste composting operation for
>garden rubbish.
OK. (What do they use the compost for by the way ?)
>>>1) simple sugars and other "easy" compounds are the "volatile solids"
>>>and their contribution to pollution is their biological oxygen demand.
>>
>>Depends what happens to them really. Nature has a way of dealing with
>>them in the wild, but I assume you are talking about municipal green or
>>residual waste ?
>
>This is only residual municipal waste after sorting (perhaps only by
>the householders :-( ) to recycle cans, paper, card and bottles.
OK, but you can't depend on them sorting it ?
>>Either way, you wouldn't want to leave 100,000 tons to fester
>>unattended.
>
>From the little I have been able to find out this is a continuous
>process with the "juice" being digested and the pressed residue then
>being dried and pelleted, then held in a buffer store.
OK.
>>>This same affinity for oxygen makes them interesting to methanogenic
>>>bacteria, thus an anaerobic process will render them fit to discharge
>>>to a water system and yield biogas, for use in an engine. This part of
>>>the process is sensitive to "poisoning".
>>
>>Yes, though most plants to anaerobic digestion or pyrolysis rather than
>>both.
>
>I think this is the novelty of this process.
OK.
>>>2) the remainder, after the above is squeezed or pressure cooked out,
>>>is largely simple plastics and biomass.
>>
>>Most biomass can go to AD, though the woody stuff may take forever to
>>digest.
>
>Which is why this idea has a faster throughput, only soluble volatile
>solids will get into the digester, the lignified material will be in
>the RDF pellet.
OK.
>>> This is associated with
>>>"contraries" that have not been picked up in the initial recycling or
>>>sorting. It's these contraries that worry me BUT as the high
>>>temperature thermal process (currently not specified) will be far
>>>lower temperature than the 1600C we would expect from incineration
>>>then many compounds, especially metallic ones, will not be volatilised
>>>and will remain in the char.
>>
>>Maybe. Then again, some heavy metals are surprisingly volatile. Don't
>>throw away any old thermometers.
>
>And it's just this sort of thing that worries me.
>
>It's not only the metals themselves that might volatise it's breakdown
>or oxidation species which may be more volatile.
OK.
>>Yes. What generating equipment will they use ?
>
>5 by 1.5MW converted diesel engines.
Spark ignition or still compression ?
Doesn't sound very efficient, but it's what most plant seems to go for.
>> (And what's the name of
>>the company ?)
>
>No names, no pack drill ;-)
:) Indeed !
If this is on a planning application it can't be a secret can in ?
Or is the new open government we've heard so much about ?
>>Quite a lot of plant seems to use reciprocating engines when baby gas
>>turbines might be twice as efficient,
>
>I'd like to see your figures on this. The ic engines will be able to
>knock on 40% conversion of the cold gas, though I suspect their prime
>fuel will be ng.
I'd have thought that 40% was optimistic ?
> A similar sized gt will struggle at 30% and then it
>will need to run at aero engine pressure ratios.
Even combined cycle ? I'm no expert on this stuff, but I thought they
got up to 60% ?
> I think the turn down
>will be a problem too as it takes a lot of thermal input to keep a gt
>spooled up.
Possibly.
>Our gt running at 3 atm on woodgas was only about 11% efficient at
>50kW.
OK.
>> and methane fuel cells are just
>>around the corner.
>
>They all are whether you mean molten carbonate, solid oxide or polymer
>membrane types, but how long before we get to the corner?
I'll know more after the 22nd as Rolls Royce are speaking at a
conference Energy 21 are organising then.
>>>My worries are to do with certain things that should not get into the
>>>process at all. So far I identify certain halogenated compounds
>>>(neoprene,
>>
>>Don't think this is halogenated ?
>
>synonym polychloroprene I think.
Oops !
>>> pvc, ptfe) of which only a very few have breakdown species
>>>that I do not want to undergo anaerobic high temperatures
>>
>>PVC and PTFE will certainly decompose to great nastiness.
>
>Even at 700C we can expect dioxin from PVC, this may then be reformed
>to HCL in the IC engine as long as the residence time and temperature
>are reached, then rapid quenching should fix the HCL. HCL has a great
>affinity for water and I imagine it will then have a low dew point.
But the knack of good design is to keep heavy and potentially
halogenated molecules out of the fuel stream altogether no ?
>The familiar product from high temperature anaerobic decomposition of
>PTFE is Hydrofluoric acid, this is the chemical fire fighters fear
>from car fires because of it's ability to pass through skin and then
>progressively catalyses the break down of bone in situ. The likelihood
>of elastomers from seals containing this is low but PTFE is used in
>lubricants now.
>
>I think these chemicals should be dealt with outwith this facility.
If you can identify them to exclude them.
>>Question is how will the plant deal with that ? I expect this may be
>>commercially sensitive, but I'd object unless they are willing to
>>disclose.
>
>I'm already a bit unpopular with flagging some of these issues up, I
>accept that EA will set the limits but keen to see that they set all
>the right ones.
Hmm... Presumably they have to go through SEA and IPPC processes with
published details ?
>>Happy to talk about this, but maybe take it to a phone call at some
>>point ?
>
>Yes we have deviated a bit from the original thread.
As ever.
sarah
> In message <dns4d1d28spc8tahf...@4ax.com>,
> sy...@despammed.com writes
[-]
> >This is only residual municipal waste after sorting (perhaps only by
> >the householders :-( ) to recycle cans, paper, card and bottles.
>
> OK, but you can't depend on them sorting it ?
Not householders, at least not properly. In most households in this
village the green bins get garden refuse, cardboard, anything that might
be mistaken for cardboard (especially if there's not much space left in
the black bin) and all the plastic tape, etc attached to the cardboard.
Bottles and tins usually do go in the recycling bin, but I know a couple
of people who refuse to recycle cat food tins because they can't stand
the smell, so they don't wash them. Because they're unwashed they
attract flies and such, so the unwashed tins end up in the general waste
bin. Battery recycling is not well-publicised, so most (bar car
batteries, perhaps) end up in general waste. People in general are just
too lazy to think and far too accustomed to their rubbish magically
disappearing.