paulr

5 years to repay the outlay, then up to 20 years free energy.

paulr

21% today.........hamering it at multiple 3.6 output figures.

jonc

Taxpayers continue to not only to subsidise wind farms to produce energy, they also pay the wind farms to turn off their turbines when they're producing too much.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...lew-uk-4509812

hodgy0_2

What form of energy production does not require subsidy?

hodgy0_2

because people have trouble visualising numbers, because a million and a billion are big numbers, it can be difficult to comprehend - especially for the thickorati

so Johnc quotes a figure for the wind subsidy - presumably for the entire wind energy sector of 5 million

Ok - but Hinckley Point a nuclear plant has received 17 billion alone, (and potentially billions more) both big numbers (and that is just one plant not the whole nuclear industry)

so lets convert 5 milliom into time, 5 million seconds = 11.5 days

1 billion seconds = 31.5 years (that is 31 x 365)

5 million = 60 odd days (less than a third of a year)

17 billion = 527 years (that is 527 years against 60 days)

paulr

True, if we have 100% output, we have to turn some off. However, that only happens when we are hammering the output, so surely that's a good thing. The time to complain is when they are all online, yet output is low.
Looking at the figures today, we beat nuclear at 13%, yet are still lagging coal and gas.
Can't wait for the new 6mw turbines to come online.

paulr

The Sellafield clean up costs are at 70 billion as we talk.

hodgy0_2

Over two thousand years

^Qwerty^

Wind farms were being subsidised to the tune of £1.2b a year back in March - no idea what the sum is today.

boomer

According to NETA, over the last 24 hours windmills have only been contributing 15.7% to the national grid (and currently only 14.7%).

Where did the impossible 21% come from?

mb

paulr

Work today. We get real time ouput figures.

paulr

Really?

jonc

You can of course continue to blind us with your fantastic mathematical skills, but they are completely meaningless and you are missing the point. The cost to turn off wind mills is added to consumers bills.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Sellafield is, even by its operator's own admission....is a mess. Remember its been involved with nuclear materials since the 1940's a time when everything to do with it was experimental.

For example there are radioactive storage pools of which they don't fully know what's in there or its condition!

Mostly down to management and regime changes through successive governments and the disorganisation and mismanagement that follows with it. Accompanied with MOD involvement with developing nuclear weapons...of which was the plant's main purpose, the fact it also generated electricity was originally not of any concern to the MOD.

So really you can't use Sellafield as a gauge of the financial costs of using nuclear to generate electricity, but more so a lesson of how not to do things.

warrenm2

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...for-Wind-Power

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Care to give us some proof that wasn't a momentary peak that last all of 10 minutes?

paulr

Erm..........no.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

this fantastic wind energy day the op speak's of im'e wondering now, was it a secret plan by the green party ? did they all secretly eat a tin of beans each the day before, then all hold *** rallies at the wind farm's around the country

^Qwerty^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ons-close.html

The softening up begins. It's one of the lead stories on the local BBC station this morning. Let's get people used to the idea.

With successive idiots from all parties signing us up to cut CO2 emissions, and thus closing down generating plants without replacing them with anything, it was inevitable.

Lets just hope we have a mild winter, but then maybe not. I believe that plunging swathes of the UK in to darkness might put a halt to this madness and force a re-think.

warrenm2

Exactly. +1

paulr

A rethink as in what?

jonc

That we should fire up all those old coal fired power stations, thereby increasing CO2 to create more adverse weather conditions leading to more hurricanes and windy conditions and therefore make the windfarms more productive and more cost effective.

Infected by sti

iTrader: (6)

It's a funny old world ain't it

^Qwerty^

As in, don't close something down until you've got a replacement in place and working.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

It really is as simple as that isn't it? Why successive governments cannot understand that is because they don't want to as it would mean a tough decision for them and may harm their political careers.

neil-h

You're slipping, you've missed a good EU rant there. Considering that the whole reasoning behind closing the coal plants is primarily to comply with EU environmental legislation.

Though you're very right on the tough decision bit. The obvious decision would have been to invest heavily in nuclear, decomisisoning the coal plants and replacing them with nuclear. Problem is the hard of thinking instantly run around screaming about Chernobyl/Fukushima/Hiroshima (i know...) as soon as you mention nuclear.

warrenm2

And 1.89% now.... http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

This sums it up though, after spending billions on renewables, the lights could go off, rolling blackouts and businesses bribed not to work. Well done morons

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...aces-Blackouts

paulr

Great link.

0.75% from pumped hydro-electric. ie pump water to the top of the hill, then release it to create energy.

paulr

Too late, its done.
So what is your solution looking forward.

neil-h

Hardly surprising given there is only 2 (maybe 3) pumped storage plants in the entire country and they tend to be saved for very specific circumstances. Useful things to have though and a couple more would certainly come in handy.