Giant offshore wind farms to supply half of UK power

[Atomic_Piggy]

Britain plans to launch a huge expansion of offshore wind-power, with enough turbines to generate nearly half of Britain's current electricity consumption, energy secretary John Hutton announced.

Hutton wants to see this target raised to 33GW-worth of wind turbines installed in the seas around Britain by 2020. If energy consumption remains stable, this would mean wind power could supply the electricity needs of every home in Britain, supplemented by fossil-fuelled power stations for windless days.

If this actually happens then I will be impressed, not to mention overjoyed. Even excluding global warming from this discussion, this would severly decrease the need for fossil fuels for Britain. So

EDIT: Original Link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3022277.ece

 

[Stigmata]

It would be funny if global warming caused by fossil fuel consumption and pollution changed the wind patterns and made the wind farms useless within a year.

 

[Cheomesh]

Cool stuff.

Britain being a smaller nation would be ideal to try this out on.

 

[Pesmerga]

I guess this is part of your PM's plans to reduce emissions by 60%?

 

[NeptuneUK]

It would be funny if the ridiculously large amount of fossil fuels burned to produce such an amount of wind turbines was actually more damaging in the short term.

gah.. I wouldn't actually complain if they did this, once they have been built the power supplied by them would be free, however we will probably get charged even more for electricity despite the power costing much less. These wind farms wont actually pay for themselves.
I'm just glad that the government is actually taking ideas like this seriously. **** global warming anyway, reduced need for imported fossil fuels increases international independence from other dodgey backwards nations. Yeah I said it, I'd rather Britian doesn't have to start struggling for fossil fuels when they start running low, the Arabs will enjoy ripping the world off to fund jihad.
Britian pioneered the industrial revolution, Britian should and can lead the way to the next era.

 

[Dan]

Have you seen those wind turbines? They are ginormous and expensive. And they mangle any birds that fly through them. I think wave and tidal power has much more potential.

 

[[Matt]]

Nuclear power is the way to go for cheap zero emission electricity...

 

[Bad^Hat]

Vote yes on proposition 213. Midget power by 2017!

 

[Eejit]

People living on the coast are gonna be pissed. I know where I live there was a huge fuss over a proposed windfarm because it'll look like a piece of crap. Spoiling everyone's view (and therefore property values )

 

[Cheomesh]

Nuclear power is the way to go for cheap zero emission electricity...

I'd like to see more of these, actually.

 

[Druckles]

Old. *yawns*

 

[SimonomiS]

Cool stuff.

Britain being a smaller nation would be ideal to try this out on.

Hang on, did you just call Britain a guinea pig?

 

[Cheomesh]

Hang on, did you just call Britain a guinea pig?

Yep

But nah, with it being a relatively small place with...a lot... of water space, seems idea.

 

[knut]

Man, the wind was 'kin wild last night. I dunno about the other West Midlanders here but it was pretty scary stuff over here in Wolverhampton.

 

[Druckles]

*makes note on clipboard*

Wolvehampton eh?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

People living on the coast are gonna be pissed. I know where I live there was a huge fuss over a proposed windfarm because it'll look like a piece of crap. Spoiling everyone's view (and therefore property values )

View of what? The Sea?

TBH, I don't think nature gives a shit about people's precious views.

 

[jverne]

this is just incredible! how stupid can you be? wind power...hahah...yeah right, at least when we run out of power we can all fart in one direction to make a super energized fart wave...but then again...all the methane released...well...forget it


oh...and guess what kind of "global" energy is the most weak?

a)geothermal
b)tidal
c)fissile (material)
d)wind

yep...you're right its d)

 

[Druckles]

Blah blah biased crap, no evidence, totally ignorant statements. No scientific proof. Some more ignorant statements.
Blah blah blah.

And you put your image in the wrong place. Should've come after what you put.

Because of course, they're actually putting a little toy windmill in the middle of the ocean, hoping it'll produce the same power as a nuclear plant.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I still support the idea of sending solar panels into space and beaming the power back down. Who cares if it incinerates everything in its path?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Druckles]

I still support the idea of sending solar panels into space and beaming the power back down. Who cares if it incinerates everything in its path?

-Angry Lawyer

You mean similar to the solar technology in The Man With the Golden Gun?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I've not really watched much James Bond.

It was in New Scientist the other week - it's the same thing you get in SimCity 2000.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Druckles]

You think I ever got that far to be able to afford one of them?

I'll ask my flatmate, he gets New Scientist.

The thing in James Bond is basically solar power, but there's a device that focusses it. Really crap, and barely scientific. Only remember because it was on on Saturday.

 

[Baserape>]

Wind farms are useful but we should not pin our hopes on one technology that is not a reliable form of energy such as nuclear power or incineration.

Governments need to stop pissing about and replant, restock the natural resources we have been pillaging centuries! Obviously some natural resources will be next to impossible to replace. But replanting forests and keeping our water clean will help matters in the long run imo.

 

[jverne]

And you put your image in the wrong place. Should've come after what you put.

Because of course, they're actually putting a little toy windmill in the middle of the ocean, hoping it'll produce the same power as a nuclear plant.

?Wind Energy Will Never Provide More Than a Little Electricity?
Fact: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates America?s wind energy potential to be much larger than total U.S. electricity consumption today. Tapping only a fraction of that potential would provide a significant part of America?s electricity supply. In the United States, wind energy currently produces approximately 17 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, equivalent to powering about 1.6 million average American homes year-round. A typical one-megawatt turbine generates enough electricity for 300 homes. With policies to remove barriers to wind energy development, by 2020, 100,000 MW of wind energy could be installed, providing at least 6% of electricity generated in the U.S., or about the same amount as hydropower today. Wind energy is poised to be a significant part of America?s diverse energy portfolio.

http://www.invenergyllc.com/forms/MythsVsFacts-April2005.pdf


i agree...wind turbines are getting better and better...but man powering 25mil homes by 2020, also what area would be needed,price, materials, maintainability,...


a nuclear plant is one concentrated spot highly, maintained, safe,...
thing is we are still using relative old technology, because investment and research is small. radioactive waste...buried 100m down in a solid concrete bunker, away from groundwater.

oh and for wind power you need backup generation...seriously...advanced nuclear power plants far outperform wind power.

let's not even talk about fusion, which is sadly lacking funding

 

[Druckles]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Of course nuclear power is far more efficient, but Wind Power is so much cleaner and renewable (both dramatic understatements) then any other technology so far efficient enough to produce more power than it.

 

[The Monkey]

Solar panels on the moon would actually be a good idea, as they have no atmosphere that stops the light like the earth does.

Then they would send the loaded batteries back to earth and shuttles and send back empty ones.

 

[Druckles]

Solar panels on the moon would actually be a good idea, as they have no atmosphere that stops the light like the earth does.

Then they would send the loaded batteries back to earth and shuttles and send back empty ones.

That sounds incredibly efficient...

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Solar panels on the moon would actually be a good idea, as they have no atmosphere that stops the light like the earth does.

Then they would send the loaded batteries back to earth and shuttles and send back empty ones.

Except launch costs make that prohibitively expensive.

Just float the panels in space, and beam it back down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_solar_power

Bam.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Cheomesh]

I think, as an American, we should put solar farms and windfarms in our desert.

It's not like we're using much of it.

 

[Druckles]

They're for the next-generation-mutant-tests

 

[lePobz]

Nuclear power = zero emission till someone f*cks up.

 

[Eejit]

View of what? The Sea?

TBH, I don't think nature gives a shit about people's precious views.

Right clearly the fact that I said people will be pissed means I was talking about how it would affect nature...

 

[Kula Meenur]

lol, chernobyl... we could all be stalkers

that would be awesome

<dreams>

 

[Phobie]

Hooray! Wind farms ftw.

 

[jverne]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Of course nuclear power is far more efficient, but Wind Power is so much cleaner and renewable (both dramatic understatements) then any other technology so far efficient enough to produce more power than it.

i think not


renewable...that is so relative...everything goes out sometimes. but there is "enough" fissile material, (or hydrogen-fusion) to power nuclear plants.
if something is more efficient it's usually also cleaner.

thing is that we should be working more on conserving technologies (insulation, water treatment, heat pumps) for households to cut energy usage.

in general i'm willing to bet that wind farms have a bigger impact on the environment than nuclear power plants.

but i suggest lets wait for the real results when Britain builds them.

 

[Druckles]

renewable...that is so relative...everything goes out sometimes. but there is "enough" fissile material, (or hydrogen-fusion) to power nuclear plants.
if something is more efficient it's usually also cleaner.

No. Just no. Wind power is literally renewable. The wind will never die (unless some global disaster happens). Nuclear material, while extensive and not going to die out in anyone's lifetime or many generations after, is still non-renewable.

And if something's more efficient, it doesn't make it cleaner. Wind isn't "used up" and it has no product. Fission does.

thing is that we should be working more on conserving technologies (insulation, water treatment, heat pumps) for households to cut energy usage.

People dislike this because it costs them directly out of pocket.

in general i'm willing to bet that wind farms have a bigger impact on the environment than nuclear power plants.

Of course. Because they placed a wind farm in Chernobyl.

but i suggest lets wait for the real results when Britain builds them.

Fair doos.

 

[jverne]

No. Just no. Wind power is literally renewable. The wind will never die (unless some global disaster happens). Nuclear material, while extensive and not going to die out in anyone's lifetime or many generations after, is still non-renewable.

And if something's more efficient, it doesn't make it cleaner. Wind isn't "used up" and it has no product. Fission does.



People dislike this because it costs them directly out of pocket.



Of course. Because they placed a wind farm in Chernobyl.



Fair doos.

1. what if due to global climate, the wind cases to blow in that area...we need to move all the turbines, to another. but yes i agree that unless solar wind blows our atmosphere away there will always be some wind.

2. if something is more efficient then it's cleaner, since less energy is being wasted. maybe wind isn't used up but our materials and energy to maintain it is...we need to compare efficiency of them both per kWh.


3. they can freeze for all i care

4. mentioning Chernobyl shows you don't know much about nuclear plants.




personally i'm not too keen for fission power plants, since they are "more" dirty...but fusion is not that far away.
the experimental reactor ITER will cost 6billon EU, seriously...6 billion is a tiny speck if it would be a truly desired joint effort.

now i think fusion beats all other near future power sources hands down.
all it would need is some more serious funding, but nobody's really interested since you can make big bucks out of oil.

 

[Druckles]

2. if something is more efficient then it's cleaner, since less energy is being wasted. maybe wind isn't used up but our materials and energy to maintain it is...we need to compare efficiency of them both per kWh.

No. If something is more efficient, it produces more energy per time span. If something is cleaner, it produces less negative output per time span.
They are not proportional.

4. mentioning Chernobyl shows you don't know much about nuclear plants.

No it doesn't. It shows I know how stupid humans can be. It's not impossible to happen again.

now i think fusion beats all other near future power sources hands down.
all it would need is some more serious funding, but nobody's really interested since you can make big bucks out of oil.

We all do.

 

[Cheomesh]

I always figured the best approach was to go about with multiple different methods of generation. We already do it in the US with nuclear power (short drive from my house actually, Calvert Cliffs), wind, solar, coal(?), etc.

 

[Druckles]

Everyone has multiple methods. The problem is everyone's main sources are the ones that are going to run out. And there are still way too many hippies around to bung Nucleoid Plants everywhere.