Soapbox

Coffee is more popular I thought down there. Although as you get further round into Mid east and then N Africa you get back inot their kind of tea. At least that is whzt I thought. I mean you get Italian coffee over here and espresso, macchiato, capuccino, Americano, etc. etc. Although perhaps that is more after meal thing. But other countries that are into tea drink it all day. Perhaps we are less of an outdoor kinda country (weather) so TV is the first resort thing for people to do rather than other things like reading or whatever. If people are doing the TV then no wonder there are tea break based demands.

I think people reject wind energy because it is not a reliable replacement for base load stations with peaker stations for sudden large demand spikes. How can you have wind power as either of them? Wid does not blow in time to peaks in demand and it is not a steady base load supply even if you covered the country in the beautiful turbines. They are and were a visible representation of the political party in power's attempt to look green when the last lot were in power. It was easier to pump money into that and subsidise it then have your photo shoot beside a nice white turbine to show how green your party is/was. I think they call it greenwash?? Not too cynical for you? Hope not but I trust anything that needs the subsidies to make it viable about as far as I can throw a French or Italian farmer making his living out of CAP subsidies!! Which is not very far.

Sorry for being negative and cynical.

I am keen on alternative energy just dislike the over dependance on windpower as the only alternative energy for the UK. We are too small a country as it is to allow for wide spread windfarms. We have them dotted around the place and have no real integrated policy about them. At the moment it is all about the cash that people can get from them and not about what is right for our country. Is it right to not consider other things, other ideas? IIRC decades ago there was spending on all forms of alternative energy. One such project developed a method of generating electrickery with wave power. That was so cloes to being a pilot scale project I believe but was scrapped. AFAIK it was to divert into wind power development as that was seen as being further to viability. If funding was continued it is quite possible that these snake like generators could have been circling our country right now taking the pressure off the land to take more and more windfarms. It was developed in the 60s or 70s I think. I only heard about them in the recent past when there was a documentary (possibly the BBC's science strand).

Anyway in this modern world where we use comparison sites to find the cheapest deal with everything do you really think windpower would have even got as far as it has without subsidies and the greenwash it has. Forget about the short lifetime, the pollution in its construction and just think of how much energy it produces. Then look again at it when it never reaches the predictions, when the turbines were 5 metres too short to achieve the efficiency claimed due to some error or over optimism in the calculations. How many times do you drive past a turbine to see it isn't moving because the wind is too weak so it would actually draw electricity from the grid not add to it or because it is too strong for its oiperational parameters? There are a few at the Sedbergh / Shap turnoff that seems to me to be stopped more than they are turning!

I just wonder if we should not be spending R&D and subsidies onthis technology but on other options. Wave power or tidal power perhaps. How about a lot of small scale hydro schemes. There was a planning application sign up at the head of the Kentmere valley last year. It was for a local small scale hydro scheme that would have powered a lot of the houses and buildings at that end of the valley. Could that not be a better place to put the government subsidies towards?? Afterall less transmission loss if the generator is just about next door to you.

I personally think we should think global, act local. That means we look to our own communities and find an answer nearer to us. I feel that is the answer not wind turbines on the Orkneys and a transmission line down south to ship the power to where its needed.

The snake wave generator thingy is actually still alive and kicking by the way, and is definitely one of the more promising non-nuclear options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_Wave_Energy_Converter

Down here we are looking into tidal energy (10m, 6 knot tides help)  It is not consistent, IE at slack water it is doing nothing, but at least it is predictable, we know when high tide (peak production) will be every day.

Wind power is over rated, contrary to some opinions there are  plenty of occasions when there is no or little wind across the whole of the UK.  I can think of several times last winter when High pressure meant no wind and very low temperatures - not a good combination if you are dependant on wind for a significant percentage of your generation.

Steve D

LiL,

All of the technologies you mention are still being developed and are I believe eligible for grants as part of the Feed in Tariffs scheme, although I'll admit i'm a bit out of touch on where that stands at the mo.

However, these other methods are often even more expensive ways of producung electricity than wind.  So on the one hand you have your "greenwash" and on the other you would like even more spent to subsidise other green technologies?

Then enter the planning process.  Look at tidal - very predictable, maybe not at the right time.  On a large scale expensive and unpopular, just look at the years of hot air spent on the Severn Barrier scheme.  Do large barriers work and how effective are they?  Search for the Rance Barrier.

Fortunately we don't need a barrier here, the Little Russell does that on its own, a natural bottleneck increasing tide flow.  As you say not always producing at the right time but we have links to France so maybe a deal could be done.

Steve D