BLUEMOMENT

For those sailing to the low countries, even Denmark, the possibility of the installer of this wind farm including a cafe to feed the workers and victualling North Sea sailors would provide something useful from such a huge expenditure because nothing else useful is likely.

The nine licences granted this week for offshore windfarms *may* have a total capacity of 32GW or 25% of UK electricity needs according to the BBC which is wrong. If it ever happens about 12GW might be generated. Coincidentally, 15GW of new gas plant has been approved this year and if you add the National Grid's 2014/15 estimate of gas generation, 41GW, to this figure then 56GW of the UK's electrical power will come from gas by 2015 and our recent maximum demand in the UK was about 60GW during the "worst winter for 20 (met orifice) /30 (BBC) /100 (Cumberland CC spokeswoman) years".

You would expect the winners of these licenses to be overjoyed at their good fortune. But, no, much like the plumber quoting to replace my boiler, there was a lot of sucking of air through gritted teeth (so that's where it all went?) and muttering about how it'll be 2016 before *construction* starts. That's about the same delivery for nuclear .. hmmm ... and which is less expensive per installed GW.

Anyway, there's a cheery bit in the FT by one Lord Turnbull, Blair's cabinet and treasury secretary, offering 6 steps to "salvage the Treasury in straitened times". No 6 of the good Lord's battle plans is for the Treasury to "[expose] the hidden costs for UK electricity consumers of the huge expansion plans for offshore wind and challenging the high cross-subsidies imposed by the renewables obligation". Norfolk chance of that happening, eh?

I work for a company who has joined the technical throng of wind worshippers, so I am scoring an own goal here. I quizzed the Technical Manager when he proudly showed me the map of scarred cruising areas, and he diddled around for 15 minutes like a Labour Politico, because he could only justify the build cost and through life on the basis of selling carbon offsets and EU grants and area licenses to market speculators. Hardly a standalone solution then, and one which pains my sore eyes every time I go sailing up the coast a bit.
The very pox on these politically motivated machines. The public are fed an illusion that its all green, but they haven't seen the maintenance bill yet, or the replacement costs in 20 years.

Full Circle stands for Nuclear energy, as proposed on the existing Bradwell site, which ran without incident for decades. Bit worried about taking a gas option as we are a bit hostage to Russian oligarchy holding us to ransom.
Somehow wish I was Norwegian at this point, as they husband their resources very nicely thank you.

Back to the point though. I wonder about the business case for an offshore greasy spoon, as I think the oil boys would have taped up the whole enterprise in the last 30 years if it had been vaguely worthwhile. After all, they had a lot of stuff going on just off Aberdeen.

FullCircle wrote:I think the oil boys would have taped up the whole enterprise

Their business model included a (very) large patio heater - they had lots of unwanted gas - which singed the eyebrows, hair (for those who had any) of their patrons so Passing Trade declined .. erm ..

Its a real worry

In the report on the granting of planning approval for the scaled down windfarm on Harris (or Lewis) it was stated that the output was sufficient to supply all the houses on the island three times over. Unfortunately there is no grid link to take all this extra energy to anywhere useful. I assume they intend that, as these things have too little or too much wind for 2/3 of the time, supplying three times the energy that can be used (when they do work) will balance out.

Another thought, I see in an energy sourse report from Scottish Power that about 48% of by electricity is generated using gas as the fuel, 44% using coal and the rest from "renewable" sources. It is specifically stated that the proportion from nuclear is 0% I wonder just what those big blocks of concrete and glass at Hunterston and Torness are actually for?

Now even though I was a physicist and spent most of my working life in trying to educate students in the curriculum area of environmental physics, I am not that keen on nuclear power, but I do hope our political leaders realise the stupidity of ruling out the nuclear option soon enough to build a few power stations before the lights go out.

"Now even though I was a physicist and spent most of my working life in trying to educate students in the curriculum area of environmental physics, I am not that keen on nuclear power, but I do hope our political leaders realise the stupidity of ruling out the nuclear option soon enough to build a few power stations before the lights go out"

That's a bit rich. Since when would real science get introduced into the public domain, let alone expect politicians (name one with a science/engineering degree) to understand their advisors?
They don't listen to their doctors, army/navy/airforce, policemen or any other professionals qualified and experienced in their areas of expertise, so why do so when it comes to energy supply?

.
It's all timescale.

Lights go out in 2017? Well, that's one and a half governments away if not more.

Its happened already.
I went down to Claymore yesterday and couldn't get the cabin lights to work
Eberspacher is fine though

The wee puff of wind we had on Saturday night had the BBH wind farm working hard, batteries showed 100% yesterday.

Wight Dawn wrote:I ... spent most of my working life in trying to educate students in the curriculum area of environmental physics

There's an article in Der Speigel about Areva's problems in Finland and France which remarks on how few nuclear graduates there are in Europe - 1 in the 5 years to 2007, I think. Areva have funded a nuclear faculty in Karlsruhe Uni ...