georgios100 wrote:The idea of paying twice for our electricity generated is simply not true.
The idea that it takes days to shut down a power plant or part of it is false.
The CO2 footprint for wind power is much smaller than conventional power plants footprints.
The idea that 50 developed countries are scammed into green energy is ridiculous.
Fossil fuel exploration/usage cannot be sustained forever.
Technically, power generation consists of:
1. Prime mover
2. Generator motor.
3. Transformers.
4. Associated controls.
Either we look at wind or diesel or coal or NG of nuclear the above items remain the same except item No. 1. The prime mover.
Items 2, 3 & 4 are the same. Item 2 is powered by item 1. It really does not matter what is item 1.
Furthermore, power plants always have many "sets" of the above items. These sets can be switched on/off at the flick of a switch which take a second or two, not days (as Grump thinks).
To explain this in plain English, let's assume we have 10 sets of wind turbines and 10 sets of diesel generators. The system is designed to give priority to wind as the first prime mover. All 10 turbines are on line while some of the diesel units are on, to satisfy demand. Idling a diesel unit... never happens. You either run it or don't run it.
So, more wind turbines mean less conventional generators. Plain and simple.
Wind power is expensive and ineffective at cutting CO2 say Civitas
Daily Telegraph wrote:Wind power could actually produce more CO2 than gas and increase domestic fuel bills because of the need for "back up" power stations, a think tank has warned.
A study in the Netherlands found that turning back-up gas power stations on and off to cover spells when there is little wind actually produces more carbon than a steady supply of energy from an efficient modern gas station.
The research is cited in a new report by the Civitas think tank which warns that Britain is in danger of producing more carbon dioxide (CO2) than necessary if the grid relies too much on wind.
Wind turbines only produce energy around 30 per cent of the time. When the wind is not blowing - or even blowing too fast as in the recent storms - other sources of electricity have to be used, mostly gas and coal.
However it takes a surge of electricity to power up the fossil fuel stations every time they are needed, meaning more carbon emissions are released.
“You keep having to switch these gas fired power stations on and off, whereas if you just have highly efficient modern gas turbines and let it run all the time, it will use less gas,” said Ruth Lea, an economic adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group and the author of the Civitas report.
georgios100 wrote:The idea of paying twice for our electricity generated is simply not true.
So, more wind turbines mean less conventional generators. Plain and simple.
It is clearly untrue that more wind turbines allow you to reduce the number of conventional generators - unless you accept blackouts when there is no wind!
You simply cannot replace conventional generating capacity with the equivalent amount of wind turbines.
