A recent report by The respected invironmental economist Professor Gordon Hughes of Edingbrugh University he has cast real doubts over the efficasy of wind power as a viable alternative to gas and nuclear energy.
The study entitled “WHY IS WIND POWER SO EXPENSIVE?” published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation is the first thorough analysis of the true cost of wind power.
He states that meeting the Government's renewables target for 2020 will require wind power capacity of 36G'Watts backed up by a further 13G'Watts of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission costs in the order of £120 billion.
The same demand could be met from 21.5 G'Watts of existing combined cycle gas plants at a cost of just £13 billion.
Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Government's wind policy will reduce emissions of CO2 at an average cost of £270 per metric ton(at 2009 prices) which means that meeting the UK's renewable energy target would cost a staggering £78 billion per year in 2020.
In his synopsis Professor Hughes stated; The key problem with current polcies for wind power are simple, they require a huge commitment of investment resources to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but is certainly very expensive and inflexible,
Unless the current Government sczles back it's commitment to wind power substantially, it's policy will be more than a mhstake\ it will be a blunder”.
Well said Peter,I saw it on television a few months ago,were they tested for tidal energy,which they carried out on a Scottish island,with great success.It was stated that if this was placed round the British Isles,it would produce electricity for this Country five times over.It as been proven time without number that Nuclear power,as got a bad track record.When something goes wrong with Nuclear,millions suffer.I would rather sit in the dark than have Nuclear power.
what i cannot understand about wind turbines is firstly why they have to be stopped at high wind speeds and secondly why the blade could not be made to turn which ever way the wind blows so then there would be constant production of power and probably dave the reason wavepower is not usedas much is there cannot be an incentive for companies to do so no money in it so they just ignore it plus there would would be no arguments about spoiling the countryside
They could use a constant source of wind & hot air like the House of Commons but then, knowing MP's, they would ask for an allowance for all the constant power being supplied by the elected wind bags thus costing us even more...... LOL
Yes I totall agree peter, if tidal energy generation was used instead of wind then we be able to enjoy virtally limitless cheap electricity.
If strategically sited along the golf stream which is the strongest constant flow of water movement in northern hemisphere it would produce much more our current needs for at least the next century.
Additional sites could be placed in all the main tidal estuaries to provide back up at times of peak demand.
However as much as this option appears to be a common sense approach to our energy needs, it will not happen because our politicians are firmly embedded in the back pockets of those faceless crooks who run the green invironment industries.
Those same crooks who would have us believe that by reducing our CO2 emissions we can reduce global warming and prevent climate change, it just go's to show the level of contempt they hold us in, after all we are just the uneducated masses are we not, we never studied phyisics at school did we?
I dont think it is a case of picking one system over another i.e. tidal instead of wind. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of a tidal system is that it would have a huge effect on the ecosystem in the area. I think every alternative should be given a chance, including solar.
John kelly said "However as much as this option appears to be a common sense approach to our energy needs, it will not happen because our politicians are firmly embedded in the back pockets of those faceless crooks who run the green invironment industries."(DO they - what evidence do you have of this?)
John goes on "Those same crooks who would have us believe that by reducing our CO2 emissions we can reduce global warming and prevent climate change, it just go's to show the level of contempt they hold us in, after all we are just the uneducated masses are we not, we never studied phyisics at school did we?"
I take it John (like George Bush) does not believe CO2 emissions have anything to do with global warming ? Again, before he calls anyone else "crooks" he might explain that as one "of the uneducated masses" he knows all this.
In answer to your first point; since wind power operates at variable efficiency rates it is recognised that it's maximum output must be backed up by gas generated energy with a capacity 5:1 in excess of that provided by wind alone making it the most expensive energy source per kwh in history.
Tidal and deep current generated energy which uses technology that has been around for 120 years has a high one off initial installation cost but a very low maintenance cost, also whereas wind power still produces CO2 emissions, tidal and deep current energy produces 0 CO2 emissions, tidal energy is proven to have minimal ecological lmpact, deep current energy has no impact on the invironment at all except during the initial installation.
In answer to point two;
I invite you to research for youself whether lobbyists from the "Green renewables industries" such as Vattenfall approached Peter Cruddas to purchase a audience with Mr Cameron prior to being given the go ahead to commence filling the UK with 150ft propellors that turn every now and then.
In answer to point three;
I'm not sure what if anything provokes the thought process in the brain of George W Bush as I find it difficult to imagine that "w" could find his own arse in the dark, as for the role of CO2 in global warming, well the alarmists would have us believe that mankind has accellerated the growth of CO2 in the atmostphere to a level where it traps solar radiation that has reflected off the earth thus increasing global temperatures.
That is nonsence, based on imperical scientific evidence every physics student knows that CO2 which is normally present in the oceans will remain there untill the ambient temperature of the water reaches a critical level where upon it is released into the atmostphere as a passanger on particles os H2O vapour, whereby having risen to hige altitudes it acts as a cooling agent insulating the earth from the effects of solar overheating without which life as we know it would very soon come to an end.
John Kelly - thank y ou for your very detailed reply. However as Peter C has pointed out scientists the world over are still debating whether CO2 emissions contribute to global warming or not. You say:
"tidal energy is proven to have minimal ecological lmpact, deep current energy has no impact on the invironment at all except during the initial installation". Again no one really knows and many people say it WILL have an impact on the eco system.
Dont get me wrong I am not against any particular type of energy. There are pros and cons for wind, tidal, bio, etc And I think we must bear in mind they are all in their infancy. It might be proved that certain locations are better for one type than another. Whatever, we must press on with this technology.
PS I do find it extraordinary that the Government is pressing forward on wind turbines, which I believe are being manufactured abroad, yet only a year ago they allowed a turbine manufacturer in the Isle of Wight to close down, making their workforce redundant with very little chance of future employment.
First and foremost we must establish if Global warming is actually happening, secondly we must prove if "Anthropogenic global warming is possible at all and lastly carry out comparative studies to determine whether or not the weather variations we are experiencing now in 2012, differ markedly from those experienced in the year 12 A.D. or the year 1012 A.D.!
As for the collective opinion of scientist around the world, many of these are in the pay of their respective Governments many of whom have sponsored the work of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change whose original findings were based on bad science and now been debunked.
Green science would have us believe that the disappearance of the Greenland ice glaciers heralds the approach of armageddon. Yet they not explained why humanity survived and prospered the last time this event occurred in the post Roman period when Greenland was given it's name by the Viking who settled there and established a farming community as a means of supporting their survival and did so for over 700 years until the advent of the mini ice age forced them out.