Chuck
But that is what's happening, at times at least, according to a File on 4
report (BBC Radio 4) some weeks ago (I catch up with old programmes while I’m
driving sometimes).
We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and wind energy is one of the
viable ways of doing it. But, as you note, we have to keep
conventionally-fuelled power stations going because wind/solar/tidal etc . . .
by themselves cannot take the load. But wind is the easiest to switch off, so
power providers are paying wind operators to do so when they don’t need the
energy at a particular time.
It’s all a bit haphazard – in some places. But then new ways of producing
energy are sited where they can be, not necessarily where they are most needed;
this has always been the case for any power station. A nuclear plant has to
have a ready water supply and be away from centres of population so the British
ones are near the coast or a large river. We need to think laterally . . . and
reduce the rate of increase of usage, whether or not anyone thinks that that is
going back to pre-industrial times.
Combined water and power plants look good, so that we use “waste" energy. Our
neighbours are removing a large conifer hedge (who in their right mind plants a
blasted conifer hedge) and that will be burned somewhere in the open away from
here. Wouldn’t it be great to have a local power generator that used waste
combustible material like that?
Chris
On 24 Mar 2014, at 10:19, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I can accept the first point but I don't see that it makes any sense to
> depend upon wind (which may or may not be blowing) to fill the gap for
> peak power. The dependency works the other way around.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 3/24/2014 2:39 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>> Because, as I wrote, the conventional power supply devices take
>> longer to power up than wind turbines. The wind turbines are
>> presumably used to plug the gaps in the supply at periods of higher
>> demand.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 24 Mar 14, at 02:23, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Care to explain why that is? Or why they have wind turbines in the
>>> first place if it was their intention not to use them.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>> On 3/23/2014 12:46 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>>> You can tell which companies have large coal plants because most
>>>> of their wind turbines sit idle.
>>> --
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|