Wind power

[chainsaw cat]

I don't think anyone believes we in UK can meet our current needs from current wind technology. There will be a convergence, to a degree, as the turbines improve and the consumer goods get more efficient.

A far future possibility is underwater turbines in tidal/current areas. Now there's a real good lookin' green technology.

Another thing to throw in to the mix is this: deaths, ill health, exploitation of workers, exploitation of environment, corruption of politics in the two industry sets

a) fossil fuel extraction
b) wind turbine/general new alternatives


...... Discuss.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

To optimise energy efficiency we need radical changes to our way of life. A very large chunk of energy is eaten by our horribly inefficient food systems. What would be optimal in food energy terms is communities of say 500 with their own agriculture and local nutrient recycling. You don't have to provide 100% of your local needs, but you can easily do say 80% if you adopt that sort of settlement pattern.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Planning in the UK is the biggest problem. Virtually every energy lawyer I interviewed when I was an infrastructure reporter agreed on this. It adds years and millions to the cost of a typical wind farm. What's needed is a wholesale change to the law allowing companies to railroad through renewables projects so we can cut out the nimbyism..

And despite the sums not adding up now, investing heavily in renewables makes a lot of sense. As other people have mentioned, we have the ideal mix of coast and wind resources, and could become a world leader in exporting expertise (much as the French are in nuclear power). This is even before economies of scale from large production cycles are considered.

 

[lewislewis]

Wind should be used as one of many sources of renewable energy. It does work to an extent, some of us have probably used some electricity along the way that's come from a wind turbine. Offshore wind costs more than onshore but I think has more potential for the future. If it wasn't a good method of creating energy (although it's obviously not the best), it wouldn't be pursued by private companies. As long as there are other sources of energy for back-up wind can play a role.

Factories and businesses should use CHP from biomass on a small-scale basis (like the Shotton paper-mill in North-East Wales), and decentralised energy on the superb model of Woking Borough Council should be promoted. At local level there is huge potential. We need to eventually forget the National Grid and convert totally to decentralised energy production that is accountable to local communities.

I also believe Wales should be the first country in the world to operate a tidal lagoon, as part of the Severn Estuary feasibility study! The Minister has said that lagoons haven't been ruled out as an alternative to the disastrous proposed Severn Barrage.

 

[xenon]

We need a mix. Including wind where appropriate. Also big ideas like the Sola Thermal desert farm idea, that in theory could provide much of Europe's electricity needs from North Africa, using wind and tidal as backup. Expensive, complex upgrades needed to infrastructure, politics, vested interests.

Note recently Portugal have built the largest tidal power system in the world. But It's heavily subsidised. The electricity produced is bought at a rate greatly above average market price per unit.

We should be treating this stuff with the level of planning, commitment and multinational cooperation a world war demands.

I'm crossing everything for nuclear fusion. That is the holy grail and a long, long way off.

 

[chainsaw cat]

To optimise energy efficiency we need radical changes to our way of life. A very large chunk of energy is eaten by our horribly inefficient food systems. What would be optimal in food energy terms is communities of say 500 with their own agriculture and local nutrient recycling. You don't have to provide 100% of your local needs, but you can easily do say 80% if you adopt that sort of settlement pattern.

Well the benefits of small scale community are manifest but I don't think the Western world is going to take a Great Leap Backwards any time soon. We sort of go forwards, in technology terms, and a couple of generations from now this late 20thC/millenial energy problem will be studied by schoolkids as current ones study the suppression of Galileo's heresy... quaintly archaic but horrible at the time.

I hope.

 

[Dr Jon]

I remember reading somewhere about the percentage of income spent on energy. historically, it's never been as low as it has until very recently. 10% is very low in comparison.

I guess that's because we've become used to oil, which has been described as so energy dense, it's effectively free energy.

When it's gone it's gone...

 

[gentlegreen]

Unfortunately, with current energy useage levels, wind power can only provide a tiny fraction of our energy - and you aren't going to be space heating with wind-generated electricity. Cars use tens of kilowatts each - you would need one turbine for every 10 cars.

http://www.nordex-online.com/en/products-services/wind-turbines.html


... seeing as I start work for a wind turbine firm next month I thought i'd bang the drum for them a bit....

OK then one 1.5MW turbine for every thirty, 50BHP cars ... (on a windy day)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well the benefits of small scale community are manifest but I don't think the Western world is going to take a Great Leap Backwards any time soon. We sort of go forwards, in technology terms, and a couple of generations from now this late 20thC/millenial energy problem will be studied by schoolkids as current ones study the suppression of Galileo's heresy... quaintly archaic but horrible at the time.

I hope.

Depends who gets to define 'forwards' and 'backwards' To my way of looking at it, pouring most of our readily recyclable nutrients, including rather hard to replace phosphorus, down the toilet and into the ocean is kind of a backward thing to do.

 

[soam]

i saw this last night:

http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/

I am deepressed, anxious and at the minute feel that there is no way out of the current converging crises of Peak Oil, climate change and over population

having said that i would recomend seeing the film if oyu get chance cause it is an excellent overview of the challenges ahead, just hoping my mood lifts soon

 

[Kaka Tim]

What people dont get is that we have been living in an age of abundant piss cheap energy - from oil and other hydro carbons - for the past 200 years.

Tragically that bounty has been converted into an economic system based on perpetual growth which has allowed a tiny minority to accumulate obsecene amounts of wealth. Yes they're are alternative energy sources but all of them together - even in the best possible scenarios - dont come close to matching oil in terms of abundance or energy efficiency.

The only way out of this is for a significnet reduction in our energy use - whcih means pretty much overhauling our entire economic system away from one based on ever growing consumption to one of ensuring basic needs are met. They're is no magic energy bullet that can allow sustianable business as usual.

We can either manage this transition to a low consumption/ low energy society or carry on with our heads in the sand until it all crashes and burns. The present financial meltdown may well be the start of this process.

A windturbine in your garden won't do it.

You need a windturbine in your garden, a sustainable localsied system of food production and the dismantling of the free market in favour of some form of (genuniuly)democratic green socialism -- on a global scale.

 

[lewislewis]

Plus we'll have to stop using computers all day, I suppose.

 

[Dr Jon]

A windturbine in your garden won't do it

Quite.

Fossil fuels have averted the Malthusian Catastrophe so far, but there's no way we can support the present population with alternatives, even if we had as much as we wanted. We're so dependent on petrochemicals for pesticides, fertilisers, medicines, etc, etc. We can't downshift without dieoff.

I used to think this website was completely nutty, but as time goes by I think they may be right.

 

[steve0223]

sorry that website is totally as nutty as fck. I used to feel the same about peak oil - 'arghh we are all going to die' but there is more to it than simple numbers.

We must be really careful equating rises in population with rises in consumption of hydrocarbons. Population in europe for example is steady - but oil use is rising. population in developing countries is rising but some countries they can't afford oil. There's more to it. Organic agriculture can replace fossil fuels - but it will need labout rather than fertilisers. And the terms of this labour are to be contested. A free public transport network would cut down drastically on fossil fuel use for private transport. An economy that ships vast amounts of unecessary and design to break products, over vast distances just to make profits is what's under threat from peak oil - not humanity itself.

Loads of products like fertilisers and medicines came about as capitalism shifted up a gear and switched from wood hydrocarbon to fossil fuel hyrdocarbon. It's entirely possible that our medicines can come from plants again. As far as plastics - you can make plastic from plants, and also coal (although again the terms of this are something to fight over).

It could be argued that the majority of fossil fuels arn't actually used for our needs, they are used for accelerating profit - and without this commodity production then there may even be a possibility to burn a bit for our needs.

What we could be contesting is the ownership of these resources, as a democratic ownership would more likely mean a crash course in building renewables rather than shipping plastic toys around the planet

It's worth checking out iain boals text called 'Feast and Famine' http://www.metamute.org/en/Feast-and-Famine

 

[brasicritique]

imo the whole issue of renewables and energy policy lacks any matching social policy

why should people turn of lights to save 5p when for example you walk around london say and you see entire office blocks and buildings that are empty with loads of lights on - surely if the greens or enviromentalists turned there attention to this example they would help cut carbon emmisions - but then that would mean taking on big buissness and imo the greens do vear towards the neo con

imo until the greens and environtalists tackle the the related social issues instead of the recent example in the freinds of the earth who 'think its great enrgy prices are going up as it means people will use less' then people and green intellectuals can talk technology all they want it will not make the slightest bit of difference

 

[gentlegreen]

imo the whole issue of renewables and energy policy lacks any matching social policy

why should people turn of lights to save 5p when for example you walk around london say and you see entire office blocks and buildings that are empty with loads of lights on - surely if the greens or enviromentalists turned there attention to this example they would help cut carbon emmisions - but then that would mean taking on big buissness and imo the greens do vear towards the neo con

I think you'll find that companies are steadily being forced to fit occupancy sensors to switch the lights off...

 

[Kaka Tim]

It could be argued that the majority of fossil fuels arn't actually used for our needs, they are used for accelerating profit - and without this commodity production then there may even be a possibility to burn a bit for our needs.

What we could be contesting is the ownership of these resources, as a democratic ownership would more likely mean a crash course in building renewables rather than shipping plastic toys around the planet

[/url]

well yes. but under the present setup what you will get is a global depression accompanied by the rich and powerful useing all means at their disposall to mantain their share of the pie.
The only sustainable future that doesn;t involve some sort of malthusain/judge dread dystopia is where the planets resources and wealth are controlled by the whole of humanity for the common good. That will take some work to bring about so we best get busy. Getting more folks to recycle their cans and put in a low energy light bulb is pissing in the wind.

 

[brasicritique]

I think you'll find that companies are steadily being forced to fit occupancy sensors to switch the lights off...

how long is that going to take? and what about shops with lights on and window displays? my main point still stands imo until the greens take up the related issue orf energy use/access/afforablity with that of social justice they wil continue to be seen as hippys which imo is rather sad as they mean well

at times is does make me wonder wetehr when the greens say 'the planet' what they actually mean is 'there planet'

 

[gentlegreen]

Getting more folks to recycle their cans and put in a low energy light bulb is pissing in the wind.

Do you do this yourself ?

I'm amazed to see my neighbours religiously sort their rubbish.
I've waited 30 years for concern for the environment to become mainstream.

It's taken 300 years to get us into this mess, it won't get fixed overnight.

Every little helps ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

It could be argued that the majority of fossil fuels arn't actually used for our needs, they are used for accelerating profit - and without this commodity production then there may even be a possibility to burn a bit for our needs.

What we could be contesting is the ownership of these resources, as a democratic ownership would more likely mean a crash course in building renewables rather than shipping plastic toys around the planet

It's worth checking out iain boals text called 'Feast and Famine' http://www.metamute.org/en/Feast-and-Famine

I think you have a rather good point there. Certainly in agriculture the impact of fossil fuel inputs is primarily on labour cost rather than yield.

 

[Dr Jon]

Organic agriculture can replace fossil fuels

What? You mean biofuels?
Sorry, but there's simply no way they can replace fossil fuels in sufficient volume. Their EROEI is also pretty crap.
Academic Study Discredits Ethanol, Biodiesel

 

[steve0223]

i don't mean biofuels, i meant pesticides and fertilsers - and am well aware of how shite they are. What I am saying is there is no way that capitalist use of biofuels can replace capitalist use of fossil fuel. But an organic agriculture CAN replace fossil fuel based agriculture.

EROEI is an interesting concept, really helpful - but the only value of interest to capitalists and states is exchange value (cash) not how useful,ethical or sustainable something might be.

Which is why something potentially ecological like biofuels turns into a attack on subsistance farmers and communities in developing countries for yet more land theft and profiteering.

If we stop thinking about trying to replace stupid and capitalistic fossil fuel usuage, and start thinking about what we need to do to satisfy our basic needs then the situation is less terrifying. Obviously how we get there is potentially terrifying but there you go.

Simon F from The Land magazine has been researching the amount of land UK would need to feed itself - and it is entirely possible , but would require some sort of fundamental change in land ownership.

Here's the article if you're interested

The problem with organising around peak oil is that on it's own, with the associated panic of 'running out' etc it can actually give some sort of cover for those who would use these rhetoric to justify all sorts of dodgyness.

George caffentzis writes a lot about this: http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=49

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That 'Land' mag article looks very interesting. Horrible format for a monitor though, you pretty much have to print it out to make any sense of it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That is interesting. His livestock/permaculture scenario can be pushed a bit further in terms of integration I think, but it's very much along the lines of what I'd advocate. He also doesn't consider the potential for integrating various alternative energy systems (with much reduced energy needs due to nutrient and food system localisation they start to look a lot more feasible than nuclear advocates claim)

 

[steve0223]

I'm sure if you had suggestions then they'd be well interested. I have the paper at home - i think there are some updates the latest issue, where he answered some criticisms, i can have a look if you like?

 

[scawenb]

Most of on-shore wind farm are not environmentally friendly and the big gainer are landowners with useless hillside and developers who claim massive handouts from energy companies and from the levy on you electric bill - even when they are not connected to the grid!

There is the construction cost, the transportation, the road widening, the production of concrete (50 lorry loads per turbine), the destruction of tree and the removal of earth such as peat which is a carbon sink, the infrastructure to get it to the grid, the decommissioning after 20 years and the recreation of the habitat and for most of the time is is too windy or not windy enough and instead of the electricity shortfall being made-up from the least polluting source it is the cheapest (i.e. coal). This is not true of off-shore wind farms.

Scandinavia and Germany are reversing their pro-wind policies in favour of other renewables.

I think that Labour are backing it so strongly all of a sudden because it is photogenic and that its failure will be used as an excuse to go nuclear to make-up the difference as there won't be any alternatives.

 

[durruti02]

Most of on-shore wind farm are not environmentally friendly and the big gainer are landowners with useless hillside and developers who claim massive handouts from energy companies and from the levy on you electric bill - even when they are not connected to the grid!

There is the construction cost, the transportation, the road widening, the production of concrete (50 lorry loads per turbine), the destruction of tree and the removal of earth such as peat which is a carbon sink, the infrastructure to get it to the grid, the decommissioning after 20 years and the recreation of the habitat and for most of the time is is too windy or not windy enough and instead of the electricity shortfall being made-up from the least polluting source it is the cheapest (i.e. coal). This is not true of off-shore wind farms.

Scandinavia and Germany are reversing their pro-wind policies in favour of other renewables.

I think that Labour are backing it so strongly all of a sudden because it is photogenic and that its failure will be used as an excuse to go nuclear to make-up the difference as there won't be any alternatives.

yes i agree with this .. lots of problems with wind farms .. for the urban elite it is an easy way for them to keep driving their big cars and heating their oversized homes to put energy generation in poor places .. wales e fpr example has been ****ed by energy extraction for too long

solution .. massive investment in energy conservation, domestic and particularly induistrial .. The Holyhead Aluminium factory consumed 10% of the total welsh energy production .. nuclear power stations and all .. and yes a chnage in life style .. commuting is simply nuts

 

[durruti02]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/mar/25/wind-climate-change

 

[Stoat Boy]

Its all about solar.

The oil aint going to run out anytime soon and if it does, well we are sitting on hundreds of years worth of coal supplies but within 10 years, maybe 15 at most, then solar energy will have offered us the chance to tell nations such as Saudi Arabia to go and fuck themselves.

 

[jonajuna]

infrared voltaic "cells"

10 years and itll be all over

cheaper that pv and works day and night