Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Whither 'Energy Island' as 250 protest wind turbines (& other energy projects) outside Anglesey County Council

Over 250 Ynys Môn residents joined this afternoon's mass demonstration outside the Council offices to protest against the large number of planning applications which have been submitted on the Island for ‘monster’ wind turbines of up to 100 metres (330 ft) in height — the equivalent of almost four Marquis of Anglesey’s Columns stacked one on top of the other. The large turnout on a weekday furthermore proves that Ynys Môn residents are far more concerned about wind turbines than they are about Wylfa B.




The protesters sought to highlight Anglesey County Council’s lack of preparedness for dealing with these industrial-sized turbines and to encourage residents to participate in the council’s ongoing consultation on new planning guidelines for wind turbines. The demonstration was timed to coincide with the last meeting of the council’s Planning Committee before the end of the consultation on February 10th.

Peboc biomass protesters
Significantly, for the first time, members of all the major energy project protest groups on Anglesey joined forces. Wind Turbine protesters were joined by people from Bodffordd against the Anaerobic Digestion plant and also Llangefni residents protesting against the massive proposed Biomass plant at Peboc. This highlights the fact I have stressed before that Anglesey County Council has got itself into a real mess with its Energy Island strategy because the majority of energy projects actually coming to Ynys Môn:

  • are massively oversized — whether a 100m wind turbine or a 180,000 tonne biomass plant 
  • deliver no discernible green benefits considering the long distances the source materials need to travel (wood coming from Nova Scotia, Canada, in the case of the proposed Peboc plant; abattoir waste from Powys in the case of the Bodffordd AD plant)
  • ultimately provide relatively few low-skilled, manual jobs without a proper assessment of the overall net effect on jobs (wind turbines in particular will generate no jobs at all on Ynys Môn)
  • require the shipping into Anglesey of large amounts of unpleasant waste (the Peboc biomass plant alone estimates 78 daily deliveries of wood; 5 daily deliveries of tallow and vegetable oil, and 88 trips related to the shipping of pellets. Thats a helluva lot of HGVs everyday)
  • do not lead to Ynys Môn becoming a 'Centre of Excellence' in any of these technologies
  • potentially have a dubious effect on tourism and other businesses

A senior councillor candidly admitted to me today, "the council has been caught with its pants down with these turbines". I agree. Now, as today's joint protests prove, its time for a major rethink of both Anglesey's planning and Energy Island policies. Ynys Môn needs a coherent strategy which will both protect existing industries (such as tourism) whilst also leading to the Island becoming a Centre of Excellence for emerging renewables technologies (like the tidal schemes at the Skerries) — and not a dustbin for unwanted, over-large, under-employing and inappropriately sited energy projects.

UPDATE: Some remarkable photos of the protest have been posted by Glyn Davies, Ynys Môn's most celebrated landscape photographer. More on his blog here.

Photo: Glyn Davies

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

You should all be proud of yourselves for standing firm and standing together to show the true feelings of the people of Anglesey against an unorganised and UNDEMOCRATIC system.

Hopefully, the word will get through to the Assembly that there are a lot of disillusioned people living up here.......... disillusioned by bullying tactics and Planning Permissions being dished out on an ad hoc basis!

kp said...

'A review of the tax affairs of top civil servants has been ordered by the chief secretary to the Treasury' ..... see BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16709780

Isn't it time we started to investigate the payment arrangements of a certain Mr David Bowles.

Or would such an investigate bring this council into disrepute?

Anonymous said...

Payments to Bowles are part of the secret culture that has given this Council such a bad name for years. This Council exists for the pure economic greed and pleasure of those who we thought were there to do service for the people.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather wind energy than cancer- causing nuclear any day.

Anonymous said...

The best way to describe this protest is Action against an Immoral Council.

JohnJ said...

How sad when people object to Wind Turbines a safe renewable energy source.No doubt most of the people objecting are retired or have moved to the Island.
The ignorance to Nuclear Power is breathtaking and the consequences to future generations from this immoral energy sources legacy cannot ever be safely solved. Visit enenews.com for the reality of nuclear power.
Much better protest against Wylfa B at least that would be worth while.

Anonymous said...

"No doubt most of the people objecting are retired or have moved to the Island."

What proof do you have of that? I was there today and the majority were local Welsh people.

"Much better protest against Wylfa B at least that would be worth while."

Sounds like Plaid sour grapes as more people came out to protest against wind turbines on a wednesday than cymdeithas and PAWB could manage on a Saturday.

JennyKealArt said...

Anonymous says they would rather have wind turbines than cancer causing nuclear plants. That attitude shows ignorance of the facts of wind energy. It is not a green technology, it is a cash cow of subsidies for rich landowners and developers. The intermittent nature of wind energy means it needs full time back up. Probably from a nuclear power station. So what is the point of turbines? Making money for the rich -that's all. Jenny keal, Powys

njw02 said...

It is an indisputable fact that there has been an increase in consumer energy bills over the last 10 years. This is due to the volatility in fossil fuel costs and overall shortage of available sources of energy.

People are objecting to finding new ways of generating energy without offering any alternatives. There are only two long term options available (1) Reduce society' overall energy consumption, or (2) Find new ways of generating electricity.

People dont want Russian imported gas, dont want fracking, dont want shale gas, dont want nuclear. Whats left? The wind projects on Anglesey have a llifecycle of 20years before they're taken down. By which time we may have found something better.

Otherwise could the last tourist on Anglesey please turn off the lights . . . our elctricity bill is too big otherwise

JennyKealArt said...

njw02 said we need to find alternative technology and I wholeheartedly agree but wind is not the answer because it's intermittent nature means we need base load back up generation in the form of coal, gas or nuclear to shadow wind in case of periods, like today, when there is no wind due to the cold weather system over the whole of the UK. Just when we need wind power the most it is not there. So wind turbines do not displace any thermal generation. Even the boss of Eon said “It could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation in the UK to meet the EU target. But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push Britain’s installed thermal power base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts” . So paradoxically more wind energy means building more thermal generation than we need.

The future has to be in some form of hydro power, i.e. tidal, wave or tidal lagoons but virtually no funds for research into this are available. The Wind developers have gobbled up all the subsidies.

Jenny Keal, Powys

Anonymous said...

"Sounds like Plaid sour grapes..."

No - plenty of Plaid people I know where protesting yesterday.

JohnJ said...

JennyKealArt > You seem to have a problem with subsidies,dont you realise much of the UK agriculture has massive subsidies farming does not pay because people are not prepared to pay the real cost.The train company in Derby are going to be subsidized . Our whole society is based on subsidies inc child benefit pensions etc. Why pick on on wind subsidies? Nuclear power is subsidized and who pays for decommissioning, you and me in our taxes. End of life nukes need power into the plant for years to keep them cool! and from exploding! At the moment Wind is the best technology to vastly reduce CO2 output.

JohnJ said...

Here are some more facts
http://www.nuonrenewables.com/faq
Can wind meet all our electricity needs?
At the moment, wind meets less than 1% of the UK’s electricity needs, but the UK wind resource is enormous. The DTI calculates that onshore wind could theoretically meet 80% of our current electricity demand, and that the offshore wind resource could supply 10 times our needs.

JennyKealArt said...

JohnJ
If we follow the DTI calculations, and de-commission all our carbon emitting power plants and rely for 80% of our energy on wind power, where do you propose we get our power on days like today when there is no wind?
The DTI figures are pie in the sky and based on the wind industries own misleading capacity figures which do not take account of the fact that turbines are rarely more than 25% efficient.

Jac o' the North said...

JohnJ, I'm sure Jenny Keal has no problem with the principle of subsidies; it's a question of to whom they are paid, and why.

You mention subsidies to agriculture. These could no doubt be abolished and we could rely on cheaper foreign imports. But in addition to destroying a way of life there would also be the security angle, raised earlier by someone mentioning the issue of Russian gas imports.

You then argue that the DTI has calculated that the UK could have 80% of its electricity demand supplied by onshore wind . . . fine, and when the wind doesn't blow? Without nuclear and fossil fuel back-up we rely on the goodwill, or the current mood, level of sobriety, of Mr Putin and his sucessors.

Wind power has been exposed for what it is - a racket to enrich big companies while also providing politicians with a green fig leaf. The real attraction of wind turbines was always their visibility - 'See! we are saving the planet'. But as more and more turbines take over, and the whole doctrine of climate change becomes discredited, their time is up.

From a purely Welsh perspective, we are having to bear a disproportionate share of these useless and expensive follies, to save the scenic areas of England. So Powys is sacrificed for the benefit of the Cotswolds and the Chilterns.

This then exposes another expensive and unacceptable absurdity of wind power. Because the turbines are so far from the customers we have to further despoil my homeland with pylons and substations.

As Roy Orbison sang: It's Over. By which I mean, the wind turbine con. Get used to it.

County Councillor Barrie Durkin said...

For information please read the following.

The Authority is very aware of the concerns of many of the Island's residents in respect of wind turbine developments as well as the aspirations of individuals or developers to carry out wind energy schemes on Anglesey. we are sensitive to these concerns and aspirations.

We are presently out to consultation on Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled Onshore Wind Energy and this will end on 10th February. The Supplementary Planning guidance will, after due consideration by the Authority, supersede the previous guidance which dates back to 1994 and will have regard to the changes that have taken place over the past 18 years. The Guidance will not replace "Policy".

The Authority are taking measures to ensure that planning applications are only registered which contain ALL relevant information required at the offset and no applications will be presented to Committee until such time as Officers are in a position to make a recommendation. Therefor any applications currently on the Committee Agenda will not appear in future until all consultations have been completed.

Councillor Barrie Durkin.

Dave Hask said...

JohnJ states that onshore wind could theoretically meet 80% of our current electricity demand? But I guess the truth/answer lies in the meaning of the word theorectical, as no doubt, his theorectical equation demands that the wind blows at the correct speed all of the time for the necessary generation. Well, what utter nonsense and ignorance of weather patterns that occur over the UK. Regarding safety, just only last month an 82ft wind generator came crashing to the ground at Wattlesborough, near Shrewsbury. Additionally it beggars belief that wind farms are paid millions of pounds when they are shut down as a consequence of high winds: re Scotland recenty. Could it be that JohnJ needs to get out a bit more and try a little harder to absorb and understand the TRUTH as expounded by JennyKealArt and Jac o' the North.

Dave Hask

County Councillor Barrie Durkin said...

Calls are been made on Anglesey County Council to become exemplary, take a lead for other council's to follow and set robust and ridged guidance's on minimum distances between Wind Turbines and Residential Properties.

The Council has received, over the last few months, a large number of planning applications for the erection of Wind Turbines, ranging up to 115m in height, with blade lengths of up to 46m, to be erected right across the Island, with more to come.

Any Turbine that undermines the well-being of our people, devalues property and destroys any of our Island economy must not be tolerated.

As part of creating the new SPG on Wind Turbines, minimum distances need to be set between proposed turbines and residential dwellings ensuring none of our residents or visitors suffer the known effects and dangers when things go wrong.

It is with this in mind,I am calling on the County Council, when forming its new SPG on Wind Turbines to include minimum distances to be at least :-

15m to 25m in height 1000m distance
25m to 50m in height 1500m distance
50 to 100m in height 2000m distance
Over 100m in height 3000m distance
This leaves plenty of scope for those who wish to set up Micro- Generation for their own and community usage

It is imperative we create high standards in this matter to put our people first and not at the mercy of uneconomical developments which we already subsidies heavily through our energy bills without some form of protection for those who have to live in the shadow of such monsters.

Cllr Barrie Durkin..

Terry Breverton said...

Wales has FIVE times the density of turbines as England, despite producing over half the energy it needs already. The world population is growing by the population of Wales every week, but we are laughably covering our only asset - our touristic landscape - with ineffective , inefficient, massively subsidized technologically obsolescent monsters. Not one traditional source of power can be closed, even if the countryside was covered with this intermittent power source. It is freezing today, with no wind, and they stand idle across Wales. Thank heaven for one politician seeing the light at last. Plaid have lost massive support across Wales because of its idiotic 'green' (i.e. naive) policies.

rebyl39 said...

John J says the government subsidises farmers etc in some form or other but we do not pay them to foreign companies to exploit our landscape for profit and to put up prices so that most people cannot pay thir heating bills. I expect John J will not be living close to any of these monstrosities and does not care for our landscape either.

kp said...

Apologies to County Councillor Mr Barrie Durkin but I think he and his council colleagues have completely missed the point.

The Welsh government expected each council to draw up plans to ensure that planning applications for wind turbines would not be passed without satisfactory scrutiny. In other words, no ad-hoc planning permissions.

Why did IoACC not do this? Who is at fault, member or officer within the council, who is to resign and who is to pay the necessary compensatory amounts for permissions granted thus far?

These are the questions that need answering. The SPG can wait!

Alison Beverage. said...

As Cllr Durkin has taken a leading roll in-attempting to bring some sanity to this invasion of wind turbine lunacy at the doors of our Island, we should at least be grateful that someone with his guts and tenacity is prepared to take this plague of parasites on, and those who support his stance should stand up and say so and get behind him.

The future of Anglesey's Tourist economy and all those who rely on it is in jeopardy. Local residents and business are already suffering with worry.

The new SPG cannot wait we need to stamp on this rampant scourge now, before it's to late.

JohnJ said...

JennyKealArt
NOBODY is proposing for the the UK to get 100% of its energy from the wind, though it is theoretically possible.
You say there is no wind blowing today just because its not where you live. Take a look at the Met Office site today of the UK Thursday 02-02-12 @ 22.00 and you will find a 20mph symbol for the north west of Scotland.
You quote wind turbines work 25% or less of the time, that is not correct
depending on the wind resource available at a particular site, wind turbines produce electricity for about 80-85% of the year on average. Sometimes the "capacity factor" is talked about: this relates to the energy produced over a year. If a wind turbine has a capacity factor of 30% then it produces 30% of the amount of energy it could have produced if it was working flat out all through the year. The capacity factor is a function of variations in wind speed rather than the efficiency of the wind turbines.
http://www.nuonrenewables.com/faq
Its not impossible to store electric as you know as people who live off grid do in batteries produced from their own wind turbines.
Power from turbines can be stored by heating water its just we are so used to having tiny tanks that have to be heated every day.
Businesses use electric stored in batteries in forklift trucks they work all day.
If we all had electric cars they could be linked to the grid to balance it out. If there is a will there is a way.
Surplus power from nuclear is stored at night in hydro pumped dams as the nuclear plants go flat out or not at all!!

JohnJ said...

Jac o' the North
If that's what you want to believe that's fine by me.

As I said before I understand that the UK government does not intend to get One Hundred Percent of Electricity from Wind so why argue about backup.
You say the turbines are so far away from the area of use,does this also apply to Wylfa?
I'm Welsh born and bred and don't mind the "English" sharing our natural resources, after all we are only to glad to have their money! We are only here for a season like the flowers here today and gone tomorrow,(so we better prepare for tomorrow)
We also love to have the "English" Tourists for our seasonal employment opportunities. How sad we should be taking every opportunity with the new green incentive to produce/develop turbines etc and all the parts here, we have loads of people unemployed with various skills,we dont need to import the technology we should be doing it ourselves in the UK for the benefit of the people. Its does not need to be "over" it can just be beginning.

Anonymous said...

Good old NIMBY Anglesey folk .... we should just put a sign up at the Bridge ' Closed to Investment'

The Red Flag said...

Sounds like Plaid sour grapes as more people came out to protest against wind turbines on a wednesday than cymdeithas and PAWB could manage on a Saturday.

Is not strictly true. There were several groups present besides wnd turbines - such as bio-mass protesters.

The Red Flag said...

Plaid have lost massive support across Wales because of its idiotic 'green' (i.e. naive) policies.

All mainstream political parties support green policies - including wind turbines.

Surplus power from nuclear is stored at night in hydro pumped dams as the nuclear plants go flat out or not at all!!

Nuclear plants do not "go flat out or not at all". What do you think graphite moderator rods are for?

You quote wind turbines work 25% or less of the time, that is not correct depending on the wind resource available at a particular site, wind turbines produce electricity for about 80-85% of the year on average.

Latest figures for the period 2008-2010 show that wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.


I could pull out loads more grossly incorrect statements being made by both the pro and anti not just regarding turbines but also nuclear and even fossil. Jesus. The more you read this chain of comments the more surreal half of it gets.

Some of you will want to burn witches next.

Anonymous said...

Not in anyone back yard please.

mairede thomas said...

Defra’s figure for savings of CO2 Emissions by ALL methods of renewable power generation in 2010 is less than the emission from a medium sized coal fired power station.
It is less than four ten-thousandths (0.0004) of total global CO2 emissions in 2010.
In other words if we had back to back wind turbines throughout Wales it would make not a jot of difference to preventing Climate Change.
The following is a quote from ‘A Climate Change Risk Assessment for Wales- January 2012’,
“Power stations in Wales can generate about 9GW of energy, about 10% of the overall UK generation capacity.
Some of the projections related to energy supply are highly uncertain because of the current transition to a low carbon economy, both in terms of generation and demand. Currently about 25% of electricity generating capacity is from hydropower including the pumped storage schemes. About 3% of generating capacity is currently from wind.”

This report identifies the very real challenges that Wales will be facing over the next 20 to 50 years. Of particular concern are the projections for sea and river flooding, especially problematic in the valleys where good soil may get washed away, and coastal erosion.
It identifies the risk of summer droughts and wild fires; changes in soil conditions, threats to biodiversity, and declines in native species.
Building wind turbines isn’t going to help prevent any of that in fact it will simply make matters worse.
What we should be doing is protecting our best farmland, not building on it.
If in the future, Wales is to be self-sufficient in food production we must preserve the good soil that large parts of Anglesey is blessed with.
Much of Wales, being uplands, consists of poorer Grade 4 and 5 soils. Anglesey being flatter and lower lying has a substantial part of all Welsh Grade 3 soils, including arable land. This is a vital national asset and resource.
We cannot afford to waste this valuable resource on inefficient wind turbines or any other misguided environmental policy.
If Global warming is happening wind turbines will not help us but good soil will.

JohnJ said...

Red Flag
Here is a quote from Wikipedia "Reactors used in nuclear marine propulsion (especially nuclear submarines) often cannot be run at continuous power around the clock in the same way THAT LAND-BASED POWER REACTORS ARE NORMALLY RUN"

Lyn said...

When will wind turbine supporters realise that wind turbines do NOT REPLACE either fossil fuel or nuclear power stations ? Simple!! The wind does NOT BLOW all the time , or it blows too strongly , so they are switched off . Since electricity is needed 24/7 , it means that we NEED 60000 megawatts in the UK just to attain winter peak. 60000MW equals 120,000 MASSIVE 400 ft wind turbines , treble the height and width of the TIDDLERS in North Anglesey .
Where would you put 120,000 x 400 ft turbines when the WHOLE UK is only 94,500 square miles?
Furthermore, under a High Pressure weather zone, MOST of the 120,000 monsters would generate ZILCH !! WHAT A JOKE !!
It is now 2.30 AM and the temperature outside, next to the sea in Cardigan, is 25 Fahrenheit, with VERY LITTLE WIND ! So we have 7 degrees of frost and STATIC wind turbines !! Great !! When we need them most, they generate NOTHING ! If we relied on wind energy tonight, many UK citizens would freeze to death. Hypothermia would be widespread.
Not only that; thick ice forms on wind turbine blades in very cold weather. so chunks of thick ice are thrown off, up to 150 metres , when the wind turbines start up when it thaws. That can be deadly , with ice 2 metres long being thrown.
Wind turbines replace NOTHING...they merely DUPLICATE electricity supplies generated by fossil and nuclear power stations.

Anonymous said...

The voices and faces that turned up at the protest must had been a culture shock for those who usually rubber stamp planning without consulting the public. They must have been upset at having their authority questioned, as we all know they usually pass planning permissions on a your turn next policy, and the people turning up in force, must had been a shock to their secret behind closed doors system.

I wonder if those affected will be able to recover, they have had interest free loans off the council to apply and get these monster turbines or should we call them Cash Generators and now the public are against them what new methods will they use to make sure that they will still be built.

These monsters will not create jobs, nor will they create an income for the commmunity, only a nice steady income for the landowner and the person who got the planning, they won't be an electricity generator, but a steady Cash Generator, and on a windy day, the cash will flow into their bank accounts, while our electricity costs will still rise, we the people will not see any of the benefits.

Wind farms in Scotland MUST give some of the income into the local community where they are, Anglesey's wind turbines just make money for the owners, sod the community.

The Red Flag said...

JohnJ, - Your statement was the nuclear plants go flat out or not at all!! and that is not true.

Nuclear plants are variable in output. They are normally run at near capacity purely for economic reasons and not - as you are alluding, due to physical constraints.

Anonymous said...

These people who decide on these massive windturbines don't care about the impact that they have on the places and the people where they get built, all they are interested in is how many they can build, where they can build them and how much money they will make out of them.

I wonder now if the Council will decide on a typical statement as part of a policy to approve these monsters.

"To approve these massive turbines the Company or Councillor behind them must provide some gift out of the power generated into the local community"

Secret meeting behind closed doors.

We have got a problem, people are moaning we need to please them by, we will tell them that the windturbine owners will be providing funds for the local area where they are situated, agreed?

All those in favour hands up!

Councillor X "Will a creme egg do for each child every easter!

Planning spokesman " Great idea washi !All those in favour hands up! Motion passed, a cream egg for every child every easter is enough.

Councillor X " I want a turbine on my land to make me money, but my locals are moaning, what shall I do?
Planning Spokesman " Give them a cream egg, we've just fucking decided on that as our new windturbine green policy!

Councillor X " Oh yeah, sorry, will that be one each?"

Planning spokesman " You can get a grant to pay for the cream eggs"

Councillor X " Where are the forms?"

Planning spokesman " In my office, filed under fucking sweeteners"

Comissioner " God help me! What am I doing here!!

Anonymous said...

"Nuclear plants are variable in output. "

The ones in volume use for power generation around the world and proposed for the UK are in practical terms NOT variable output.

This is either by design or an inevitable consequence of the economic reality that following the daily demand cycle (UK minimum 20GW or so, maximum 50GW or so) decreases the reactor's lifetime operating revenue because the reactor is not always earning, and the thermal cycling also shortens the operating lifetime because of thermomechanical stress effects. Double lose.

The earlier comment about "graphite moderator rods" was either a mistake or an indication that you are out of your depth on this subject. Reactors may have graphite moderators, they may have control rods. Modern ones don't have "graphite moderator rods". Chernobyl did, and it was in part the mucking about with using them to flex the reactor output that led to the well known problems.

There was an interesting snippet on Radio 4's Today this morning about bulk energy storage using liquified air. You use energy incoming to liquify air (make it cold) using tried and tested technology, store it using tried and tested technology, and release the energy by allowing the liquified air to warm up and passing it through a turbine to drive an alternator. It's not massively more efficient than a decent battery (but the liquid air approach can use waste heat from a thermal station, industrial process, etc to increase the efficiency). In comparison with batteries it's easier to do larger scale (100MW per unit, so not huge yet), and its lifetime costs are MUCH better than batteries. Not sure who was on the radio (check iplayer later) but there's an example described at
http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Downloads/Data%20Sheets/laes-datasheet-356-10-001-us-feb11.ashx

@Anon 9:12
"To approve these massive turbines the Company or Councillor behind them must provide some gift out of the power generated into the local community"

That "bribe" is perfectly legal in any planning application and is called a Section 106 Agreement. Whether it's moral or fair is an entirely different question.

JohnJ said...

mairede thomas.
You have made the best case for wind on this blog yet.
1. Protecting the soil for future generations if any mishap occurs at Wylfa,Ynys Mon will be uninhabitable for generations to come like around Chernobyl and Fukshima.
2. The land around turbines can be farmed as before.
3. A sustainable future for generations to come.

The Red Flag said...

Anon, I put graphite in because that's what I thiought it was hthat said however nuclear plants can be moderated and are designed to be - they are not a simple choice of 100% or nothing. Economics dictates that nuclear plants are run as the base load and as a result up to near full capacity most of the time, however they are all designed to be variable otherwise such simple things as even routine maintenancde would not be able to be carried out.

People on here put such great faith in Wikipedia so here is what Wikipedia have to say on the matter:-

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

But apart from that, read this, in particular the fiorst paragraph:-

http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp/wp2/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf

JohnJ said...

Red Flag.
You implicate nuclear uses variable output (in some state a half truth) but you misrepresent the truth,please read the following.
The original design output was 1,190 MW but unexpected accelerated ("breakaway") corrosion of mild steel components of the gas circuit in hot CO2 was detected even before the first reactor began operating. The channel gas outlet temperature, the temperature at which the CO2 leaves the fuel channels in the reactor core, had to be reduced, initially dropping the power output to 840 MW, which was later raised to 980 MW as more experience accumulated. Again a quote from Wikipedia.
Note the 890MW figure. If anyone wants to be ignorant let them be ignorant ,that includes me as well.

Anonymous said...

This Island is derelict and has been abandoned for years, and no matter how much we protest, the ultimate decision comes from Cardiff and they will do as they always do, and that's to do as they are told by the Energy Secretary. That was painful, but POWER comes before the People.
And these quoters of Nuclear Power, I never knew we had so many Nuclear Scientist's in Anglesey, Westminster will laugh at you all, they decide what were having, so you had all better get used to the idea.

The Red Flag said...

I don't misrepresent the truth at all. I refuted your statement the nuclear plants go flat out or not at all!!. It is variable it's just not economically viable to do it and not responsive fast enough to make it a sensible option.

mairede thomas said...

John J. You did not read my most important point re wind turbines. "even if we have them back to back all over Wales it will not stop Climate Change".

And you obviously don't understand much about soil husbandry.

Nor do you appear to realise that large areas of ground around turbines have to be kept clear for reasons of safety.

JohnJ said...

mairede thomas>
I myself am not sure what the effect on this planet rising co2 levels will have .
My point is we have a vast natural resource of wind energy variable or not, why on earth don't the anti's want to use when it is available? Oh sorry I forgot those awful eyesores, (not in everyone's perception though)
And again why don't we as a Welsh nation encourage the engineering and design and production of Turbines instead of moaning about the benefit of the rewards going to other countries?
There must be loads of people in South Wales crying out for jobs they already have an industrial base. Oh sorry I forgot again its the tourists they will provide us with a living.

Nuclear power never pays and never will, its just Russian Roulette electricity production.

Regarding area around wind turbines the ones I have visited, the sheep graze up to the BASE of the turbines.
Of course you would not want to be near in a howling gale,neither on the sea either or a frozen pond its all relative.

One who want one. said...

Its all a load of wind (Hot air that is)

mairede thomas said...

For those of you who have a soul read Glyn Davies' blog. He puts it better than I.
We have to hope that sanity and spirituality will return to our elected politicians.

Anonymous said...

I did enjoy that sentence, sense and spirituality, it sounds like something from Lord of the Rings, unfortunately, we are talking about this Council and the two bored Politicians that we have, one in Cardiff the other in London.

None of them know what it means to have sense, and spirituality defies them, we are talking incompetence and indifference, the only time any of the elected took any notice was when they were told that there was a protest in Llangefni, and people were getting angry.

They realised that the scheme they were driving through in Llangefni was being driven down, by a bunch who should know better. The elected politicians DO NOT like to have their decisions questioned, they DO NOT like to be brought out of their shell to answer questions and demands by protesting people who in their opinion should know better.

We need to make more noise, to frighten the monkeys that run the zoo in Llangefni, and see if they have any sense, or is it just a game for them, a game of two sides, heads we win, tails you lose.

Let's keep the technical crap out of discussions, Llangefni will spend tax payers money to get your facts all wrong, best way forward is to make noise and visual protests, let's see a picture of this giant windturbine on some of our historical sites, Biwmaris castle, middle of Din Lligwy, etc.

JohnJ said...

mairede thomas
"And you obviously don't understand much about soil husbandry"

In fact quite the opposite is true. Have worked with the soil for 46 years,does that make me a farmer well not necessarily so.

Quite agree with you our nation has turned away from God, all over Wales Chapel's and Churches have been sold and every day has become the same.
People have turned from God to worship the creation rather than the creator. Yes we live in a beautiful country buts lets worship the ONE who made it.

Below is why I care about the soil.

Radioactive cesium blankets 8% of Japan's land area.
November 21, 2011
By HIROSHI ISHIZUKA / Staff Writer
Some 8 percent of Japan's land area, or more than 30,000 square kilometers, has been contaminated with radioactive cesium from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.Spanning 13 prefectures (or counties), the affected area has accumulated more than 10,000 becquerels of cesium 134 and 137 per square meter, according to the science ministry. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317805

Perhaps you say that does not affect me,well swathes of North America are contaminated, the Pacific Ocean is contaminated and still more radiation every day pumps out from Fukshima. So when you buy salmon from North America or fish from the Pacific or grain from North America, (this will eventually get into the Beef and so on) make sure you have a giga counter handy. Note, no mention of plutonium which was in reactor 3 this has a half life of 24,000 years.
As has been said before "nuclear power 50yrs of power half a million years of waste".

mairede thomas said...

John J -the problem is onshore wind power is still not the answer.

The last 20 years have been wasted, by not addressing the problem and then developing an answer. We will simply have to wait a bit longer while we put money into hydro/wave/tidal/solar, and a few other intermediate answers as well such as CCS etc. Just because the last 20 years have been wasted does not mean we should do the wrong thing now, that would just compound the problem.

We have to accept that China, the US and many other nations, including emerging mega-industrial nations like India, are going to create pollution like we have never seen before. They will not restrict their growth, jobs, living standards, economy and their nationstate power. China is hoarding all kinds of rare earths (including those used in the manufacture of wind turbines!).

If we are happy to accept the shackles of an inefficient, expensive and insecure power supply that won't bother them. But it will be a disaster for us.

The Red Flag said...

I'm not being funny, but countries like China, India etc have every right to have as many TVs, cars, gas fires, and what ever else per capita that we do.

The problem is not the Chinese, the problem is us in the west. We are trying like hell to continue the way we are while at the same time stopping the emerging nations from being the same. For instanc, for the Chinese and Indians to have the same car ownership to population ratio we have in the west, means more than another 500M cars than there are now - and that's not for them to be better, just equal.

Bottom line is we in the west are going to have to accept that we have got to lower our standard of living quite considerably whilst at the same time asking he emerging nations not to go beyond where we drop to.

Now we in Europe probably would. The emerging nations probably would as well, But the Americans? Absolutely no way. So the Chinese won't either - and why the hell should they.

Fokura Yamamoto said...

What seems to have been overlooked in all the above is the gradual shift in the world from high density to low density, more disbursed forms of energy.

This is crucial because the way of life to which we have become accustomed over the last 100+ years is based on high intensity energy, such as petroleum, coal and more recently nuclear.

The greater the shift to wind and other so-called renewables, the less growth we can expect to achieve in our economies.

Besides, the real energy crunch is not coming so much in heating and electricity generation, but rather in liquid fuels supply. This is a far more serious problem, as the easy to reach oil is falling off a cliff, and with projected demands still rising, meeting such demand is becoming ever more difficult.

While these exploration companies may find more oil and gas, that is not the key factor. What really matters is how much more energy they are having to put in (inputs) to get the needed output.

Basically it is a question of efficiency, and we are falling away on this key metric.

Anonymous said...

@various
"we in the west are going to have to accept that we have got to lower our standard of living quite considerably whilst at the same time asking he emerging nations not to go beyond where we drop to."

Unpopular words, but true nonetheless. We in the west have enjoyed a century or so of rapid growth on the back of cheap easily recovered fossil fuels. Those days are over, as Yamamoto-san (?) says.


"I don't misrepresent the truth at all."

Maybe not, but you apparently don't understand all of what you do represent.

Capacity factor. A 75% capacity factor for a nuclear station will generally represent a station running at 100% of capacity 75% of the time, and completely shut down (eg for maintenance) the other 25% of the time. Not 100% capacity some of the time, (say) 50% some of the time, and some bits in between. It doesn't generally work like that. Except in France. And that's actually relevant.

"Let's keep the technical crap out of discussions"

No, not completely, otherwise you end up with questionable stuff like the RF's 'capacity factor' claim and the 'flexible nuclear power' paper he references from two Business School people (not scientists, not engineers). A paper written by a lecturer and his [French] student. A paper which had a great many references to documents from Framatome, a [French] nuclear industry company. I couldn't quickly find out where the student has worked or works now, but if you have LinkedIn access, you can, and I'd be interested to know.

Basically the paper is insufficiently independent from a technical point of view. Arguably, it reads like a piece of Framatome-backed pseudo-science.

You may not have heard of Framatome. These days they're more likely to be known as Areva. That name should be familiar to anyone following Wylfa.

JohnJ said...

Anonymous posted a very relevent point on 03 Feb 2012 @09.27 This points to a way in which Wind Power can be stored and is available NOW.
To all those who say wind is no good because of its variability just copy and paste and visit this web site.

www.airproducts.com
Grid scale storage capacity

10MW – 100MW in a single system

Scalability
100 MWs with modular additions of 20MW
Future capacity additions can be gradually
deployed
Energy discharge time
Up to 12hr
.

To those of you who dont like turbines,it wont change you mind. Never theless it proves Wind Power can deliver a clean reliable source of energy for generations to come.
Thank you anonymous for bringing this storage form to attention.
Thank you Paul (Williams) for the opportunity to contribute.

The Red Flag said...

anon you don't actually realise you are saying the same thing as me over this do you. The original argument was that a poster said a nuclear station was 100% or nothing. I said wrong, they can be variable, it's just not practical.

Asd for pseudo-science and Areva, you better pray Areva isn't pseudo-science or not only are billions going to disdappear down a black hole for good, but the lights are going to go out as well and both Labour and the Tories are going to lose all credibility over things nuclear for decades.

JohnJ said...

Red Flag.
“both Labour and the Tories are going to lose all credibility over things nuclear for decades”

The birds will eventually come HOME to roost, when the taxpayer realises the cost for the safe storage for half a million years (? if that is ever possible?) of of the atom god's poo. Power today, highly cancer causing pollutants for ever! SO, SO, SAD and we are supposed to live in an enlightened society.
Germany are abandoning nuck, no doubt Japan will, loads of people in France don't want it (actually they are on a wind turbine building program). Its just that our media for some reason or other probably besause of vested interests, don't report on the current state in Japan or the true effect of Chernobyl on people's health over a vast area inc UK.
The World Health Authourity WHO are subject to the International Atomic Energy Authourity IAEA ,every comment WHO make has to sanctioned by IAEA. What a rotten setup is that. Fukshima Dairy is a source of rich imformation concerning the current state in Japan very eye opening. http://fukushima-diary.com/

Andrew said...

We should charge Magnox for allowing them to bury nuclear waste here and if they don't like it they can take it elsewhere, simple as that.

Wylfa A, B C ,D, etc. This is was is going to happen unless we get our act together with renewables over the next 20 years.

Britain can feed its power needs with tidal energy alone but we are too stupid to realise the answer is all around us.

Ignorant bastards.

mairede thomas said...

Before you get carried away with what wind power can do please remember that according to the latest Government statistics a mere 3% of generated power in Wales is from wind.

The USA has just completed research to determine what is the wave power capacity on the US coast.

It is self-evident that Wales has much more capacity per capita than the US, but our politicians seem to prefer the back-handers from the wind lobby. So no push for wind and wave power then.

It goes something like this:-
We pay more for our electricity, to meet the cost of subsidy for wind turbines, and then the wind energy lobby makes 'contributions' (directly or indirectly) to the politicians, who, surprise surprise, insist we need more wind power.

Just another example of how we are being robbed by the people we voted for. Robbed of our money, our health, and the places we love.

Andrew said...

Do the brains behind Energy Island realise there are vast gas fields below the Irish Sea and they can use this to fuel power stations and create jobs on the Island.

Production platforms have been in Liverpool Bay for year's and it's just a matter of time until the operation gradually moves South towards Anglesey and into St. George's Channel.

If Holyhead loses out to one of the South Wales ports as the operational base then we will not benefit from the fact we are literally floating on a sea of gas.

The Red Flag said...

Tories rebel against Cameron :-

http://tinyurl.com/89njmgb

Problem with that is what they can't build in their heartlands in England they will divert into areas that they don't really need. Such as Wales.

Anonymous said...

You won't see a lot of windturbines in the home counties.......or nice touristy parts like devon and cornwall.

Anonymous said...

What mugs you have all been, allowing this Council to do what it wants to anyone, all of the time, it's only now that you have woken up to realise that these turbines will be coming.

Prometheuswrites said...

I was interested to read this article on the BBC:

“Developers owe Welsh councils £2.3m under Section 106 agreements”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-16887974

The article says that more than half of Welsh councils are owed money (nearly £2.3m across Wales) from private developers which should be going towards community facilities. The money is due under what are known as section 106 agreements - clauses in planning permission documents designed to mitigate the impact of a development on the local area.

The table at the foot of the article says of Anglesey “Overall total not known”

Anglesey said officials do not keep the information in a central database, (which begs the question of where they do keep it and specifically how they keep track of it, especially as it should be part and parcel of planning applications).

Where this is relevant to this thread is the growing awareness and pressure (see Cllr Durkin’s post) that the construction of the larger wind-generators should include a community benefit/tariff.

Maybe planning permissions for large wind turbines could be held in abeyance until such a time that the council can provide this information, (whether from a central database or at the very least from the planning and finance departments).

Certainly IOACC could be proactive in ensuring that Section 106 requirements are publically available as part of the mooted ‘openness and transparency’ goals of the current mission statement and especially so as ... ‘new legislation will be adopted by the Welsh government in 2014, designed to create a more consistent system by introducing a set rate for developers to pay, based on the amount of land or number of units being built.

The level of the new levy, which will be decided by local authorities, would make the system more transparent.

"It will be much easier for someone to look up and see who has got to pay what - and when they have paid it," he said.’

mairede thomas said...

What this report told us is that any S106 agreement or community benefit infrastructure levy should be paid upfront.

Especially if it is being counted on to compensate a community; to mitigate a harm caused by development; or to provide a necessary requirement (eg infrastructure) of the overall development.

Unless this is done the Council and the community risk losing the money if the developer goes bust and/or it also wastes Officers time and council taxpayers money if developers have to be chased or even taken to Court.

JohnJ said...

WIND ENERGY.
The cost is just £10 per household per year, according to the independent regulator Ofgem. Gas hit a three-year high of 75p per therm in Britain on Friday [3 February] as a result of the cold snap across Europe. We have to get off the fossil fuel hook to stop our energy bills escalating."

Oh dear, is this the massive subsidy everyone is complaining about, including the 101 Tory Rebels .£10 PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR.

Anonymous said...

Wind energy, the Con.

I purchased a wind turbine, albeit a small one, cost 1300 of my hard earned folding stuff the amount of electric it generated wouldn't boil a kettle. I gave it back to the manufacturer's and they were annoyed with me, for being anti green energy.

As for me, I'm just a simple guy who wants an easy life, but what is the point of us being all green and carbon friendly when the Chinese don't give a shit about Carbon and are ignoring our efforts, mind you, the Chinese do make a nice take away and will soon be banging out windturbines as fast as we can erect them.

Anonymous said...

If you need a good laugh go to alibaba com they actually do flog out windmill generators and they do come from China.

The Red Flag said...

" when the Chinese don't give a shit about Carbon and are ignoring our efforts,"

The Chinese have the right to produce as much carbon per capita that we do. Currently - according to latest compiled figures, they produce around 5.3 metric tonnes. We in the UK produce around 8.5 per capita. The Americans produce around 17.9. Wjhat puts it even more out of kilter is approximately half of the Chinese caron is produced making things for us in the west - so if they stopped making our TVs and we made our own, they would drop by half and we would go up through the roof.

The problem is not the Chinese. The problem is us in the west - especially the Americans, refusing to lower our rates of consumerism and our standard of living.

JohnJ said...

Anonymous> we had a flyer through the post one day about having your own wind turbine seemed a good idea. Well we made an appointment for the rep to call, after some time everything seemed fine then came the all important question how much is it, the answer came back £31,000! Needless to say he left empty handed.
Some company needs to come up with a domestic wind turbine for a sensible price! that is reliable 3-5kw and has a realistic price tag. You can buy quite a car for £31,000 let alone 3 blades and a generator stuck on a pole.

Anonymous said...

Johnj
Who was the flyer from please

JohnJ said...

Anonymous>
The Turbine is this one http://www.evancewind.com/products

No doubt about the quality and performance as we have a neighbour that has one. There is hardly a day when it is not turning. The cost must come from the development of such an efficient design.Does not stop in gales has very good blade pitch control.

Anonymous said...

If we were really clever we could do more to stop these giant wind turbines, has anyone heard what our member for Wasteminster and Cardiff has to say on the matter or have they retreated into their shell(s)? The spelling for Wasteminster is correct, because they are a Waste of time and money as far as we the victims of this invasion are concernered.

228FPA said...

Just wondering what's happened to the Photon Blog in recent weeks - anyone know?

JohnJ said...

To those who mislead others regarding wind subsidies, the figures below make it more clear which type of energy is subsidised the most.

Below are some very interesting figures:
1 Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) = approx £45 in December 2011,the price varies.
1 ROC is given for every Megawatt generated by renewable sources. Megawatt = 1,000,000 watts.

So one ROC is costing 4.5p per kw/hr

Guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 September 2011 15.10 BST; Article history ... Renewable electricity contributed an all time high of 9.6% of the UK's grid mix

So for the total cost 4.5p kw/hr x 9.6% = 0.432p

Onshore Wind receives 1 ROC. Reducing to 0.9
Offshore Wind receives 2 ROCs.reducing to 1.9
Tidal and wave energy will receive 5 ROCs projects up to 30 MW from April 1, 2013.

So on Thursday 29 September 2011 it cost the British Electricity Consumer 0.432p per kw/hr (less than half a penny per kw/hr)

If we look to 2013 Tidal or wave electricity, the cost will be 0.432p x 5 = 2.16pence.

Rhosybol said...

What about the old Shell Tank Farm owned by the Council? Is that about to become a Wind Turbine Farm, 115m high?

Anonymous said...

The Daily Post credits Albert Owen for naming Anglesey Energy Island, True or False?

JohnJ said...

Dear Paul.
Just read this, maybe this is not the best place for this information,but since the majority of our news channels are not reporting it,someone needs to for the sake of our children.
Reuters: Contamination concerns growing… High radiation levels 270+ km from meltdowns — Gundersen: Over half of Japanese living in contaminated areas… Includes areas 400 km away from Fukushima.

http://enenews.com/reuters-

If everyone is happy to pay a 5 X more subsidy for Wave/Tidal Power than Wind Power then lets go for it.
To quote a well known saying"he who hesitates is lost"

When will we come to our senses and kick Nuclear Power as it is just an accident waiting to happen.

Anonymous said...

For the record, in case anyone is still reading.

RF and I (and others?) were having a 'discussion' about the flexibility of nuclear power. RF came up with France as an example of a country which uses nuclear power flexibly to meet flexible demand.

Well I just came across an interesting and seemingly trustworthy website which shows how misleading this claim is (URL below).

The site provides daily graphs of the French grid's input from various classes of generation (nuclear, hydro, wind, coal, gas, interconnect, etc).

The contribtion from nuclear is on a daily basis basically flat (53GW + or - 2GW on the days I picked).

The daily demand cycle is a little flatter than in the UK, but still varies by over 10GW or so, ie more than the variation which nuclear is delivering.

The difference between flat nuclear supply and variable daily demand is visible on the graphs.

The main contributor to matching the two is hydro, whose contribution varies between 0 and 10GW.

Interconnects also account for a couple of GW of flexibility (sometimes exporting a GW or so, sometimes importing a similar amount).

Fossil fuel stations also contribute, but unlike the UK they waste very little valuable gas on power generation.

Enjoy. And next time someone claims that France shows that nuclear power can be flexible, ask them for EVIDENCE.

http://www.rte-france.com/en/sustainable-development/managing-our-use-of-electricity/eco2mix-real-time-demand-production-and-co2-content-of-the-french-electricity

The Red Flag said...

The argument was whether nuclear power stations can be variable. JohnJ said they cannot. I said they could but weren't purely for reasons of economy:-

JohnJ, - Your statement was the nuclear plants go flat out or not at all!! and that is not true.

Nuclear plants are variable in output. They are normally run at near capacity purely for economic reasons and not - as you are alluding, due to physical constraints.

You are falling into the same trap. There is a huge difference between 'isn't done' and 'can't be done'. The only reason it isn't done (other than margianlly or for maintenance) is purely on economic grounds and the time it takes to warm and cool them.

JohnJ said...

Wylfa according to wikipedia.

2 Reactors they have a combined capacity of 980 MW.
The original design output was 1,190 MW but unexpected accelerated ("breakaway") corrosion of mild steel components of the gas circuit in hot CO2 was detected even before the first reactor began operating. The channel gas outlet temperature, the temperature at which the CO2 leaves the fuel channels in the reactor core, had to be reduced, initially dropping the power output to 840 MW, which was later raised to 980 MW as more experience accumulated.
LATER RAISED TO 980MW it speaks for itself.
Does not speak of it being varied from this point.
THANKS for the blog Paul,good to know you were not numbered with the 101.

If anyone is still reading this, here is a little interesting fact,I tried to write a comment on the Anti-Wind Telegraph blog but discovered you have to pay 6/7 pounds a week to subscribe for the privilege, no thanks. Must be some rich anti-wind scammers subscribing,perhaps thats why they cant afford the subsidies to wind farms.

Anonymous said...

"There is a huge difference between 'isn't done' and 'can't be done'. The only reason it isn't done (other than margianlly or for maintenance) is purely on economic grounds and the time it takes to warm and cool them."

Are you agreeing that the time it takes to heat and cool a nuclear power station makes it impractical to use nuclear power to follow the daily load variations found in the UK?

I'll assume you're not, in which case can you produce any actual evidence to support your claim that they can be used flexibly? The paper from a business school teacher and his (French) student doesn't really count.

I could claim that some of my information comes from a qualified physicist who has moved into control systems engineering, with decades of experience in various safety critical industries including the nuclear industry. It might even be true. But it wouldn't matter.

What matters is the availability of reliable independent sources to support claimed information.


The published data of French nuclear output consistently flatlining shows that whether or not nuclear power CAN be used flexibly, in general it is NOT used flexibly even in the country which allegedly has most expertise in the area.

That's the way science, and engineering, works. Based on facts supported by evidence. Faith and quasi-religious support for the nuclear industry shouldn't come into it.

Keeping the lights on might have been worth thinking about in the last few years. The UK has left 'keeping the lights on' to 'market forces' courtesy of Thatcher and her successors, which is why we will soon be in serious difficulty.

Anonymous said...

All of this debate about whether nuclear power stations can vary their output or not is missing the point. Nuclear power is there to provide a cheap and stable 'base load' of electricity which is always needed, with other forms of power generation used to boost demand when needed.

Anonymous said...

Nuclear power is indeed best suited (only suited?) to baseload.

The problem being discussed arises when the industry snakeoil dealers manage to convince the naive and ill-informed that there is also a 'flexible' role for nuclear.

Henry Black said...

Points too often overlooked in considering tidal lagoons:
1. The Irish Sea is one of the very best places in the world to use this technology
2. Investment is very long lived compared with other technologies - a lifetime of hundreds of years rather than tens of years.
3. It is hugely scalable, you build one, you build another and another - tidal barrages are not like that.
4. The larger the installation the cheaper the electricity. Even a second installation is cheaper if it can share boundaries with a first installation.
5. The is no need to import either materials or engineering, we have it all in the UK. For now.

Thus tidal lagoons are easily the best option for the very long term. Very long term meaning long enough for sea level rise to be a factor.

The Red Flag said...

Anon, the facts are that a nuclear power station can be varied they just aren't because of economic and time reasons. You can dress it up any way you want but that is the top and bottom of it and that is the facts of it.

It is an entirely false statement to say that they cannot be varied.

JohnJ said...

“FRESH OFF THE PRESS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO LOVE NUCLEAR YOU CAN HAVE IT WITH YOUR LAMB.

Published: February 21st, 2012 at 12:02 pm ET
By ENENews

Title: Chernobyl still affects Norway
Source: The Foreigner
Author: Michael Sandelson
Date: Feb 21, 2012

Today, reports have surfaced that some sheep in certain parts of Norway contain 4,000 Becquerel per kilo of meat, almost six times higher than recommended by Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) officials.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority's Magnar Grudt tells NRK, "It's way above the allowed limit for meat trading. 600 Becquerel per kilo is the maximum permitted for sheep." [...]

" [...] we never thought we would still be measuring radioactivity in sheep today. It's unthinkable."”

Anonymous said...

Oh dear RF. Stick to stuff you know about (there's lots of it, but this clearly isn't one of your strong points).

"the facts are that a nuclear power station can be varied "

So you say, but you have produced no worthwhile evidence so far. A fact without evidence is not really a fact. It's a fact that cold fusion is possible too, right? [Hint: Fleischmann and Pons were wrong, their "evidence" was mistaken, this was discovered after their evidence was independently reviewed and their experimental conclusions couldn't be repeated]

"they just aren't because of ... time reasons."

And the time reason, the length of time it takes to warm up or cool down a nuclear station, is one reason you will not see a nuclear station now or in the near future used to follow the daily demand cycle.

"It is an entirely false statement to say that they cannot be varied."

How many times... Feel free to show us some meaningful evidence that they are usefully flexible then. If you can't, and you haven't so far, readers can draw the obvious conclusion.

Nuclear lead times and the coming generation gap in the UK mean that nuclear is irrelevant in the UK anyway for the foreseeable future, but I'd rather people weren't misled about its medium term prospects.

JohnJ said...

Anonymous 22 February 2012 09.05

Thank you for saying it as it is. Some people just wont accept the facts even when they are clearly presented to them.

The Red Flag said...

anon and John J.

No matter how much you blather the facts are that nuclear power is variable and that it is just not economical money and time-wise to do it.

By saying they are not variable means that there can only be two settings - full power or shut down which is patently not true. All nuclear powerstations are variable - it's just that it's more economical to keep them running at near full capacity because they are not responsive enough quickly enough and there is little financial gain.

So, are yoiu claiming that a nuclear powerstation can only operate at 100% or at 0% and never at anything in between?

You are deliberately trying to cloud the issue by trying to link it to production - which is not the argument. The argument is over the claim made that a nuclear station cannot be varied. So I will make it deadly simple for you. Being as you say a nuclear powerstation cannot be varied, does that mean they cannot ever be run at 50%?

The Red Flag said...

And just as a point of interest would you care to rubbish this ( http://tinyurl.com/6uglrl3 ) and also explain what happens in Chicago with their BWRs?

Being as they aren't variable.

JohnJ said...

Don't MOAN about wind subsidies until you read this first
EACH UK HOUSEHOLD PAYS £266 FOR NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING EVERY YEAR.
Posted in News, Market by Peter Bennett Published on 06 December 2011

A recent study commissioned by Engensa has announced the results from a survey conducted by TNS that examines UK consumers’ knowledge and understanding of their energy bills.
The survey indicates a distinct lack of awareness of the true cost of energy subsidies to the UK consumer. 60 percent of respondents are unsure how much UK households pay for solar energy subsidies, with only 6 percent of those surveyed correctly answering “less than £2 per year”. Over 60 percent of those surveyed admitted that they did not know to what extent a household personally subsidises solar, with 6 percent believing that it costs “more than £100 per year” to subsidise solar technology.
To further compound the confusion over the cost of energy subsidies, 65 percent of respondents did not know the average contribution to the nuclear industry; only 4 percent correctly answered that the cost of nuclear decommissioning is “more than £250 per year.” The actual cost each UK household pays for nuclear decommissioning is £266.
Is not this chain around our children's neck shameful and immoral ?

The Red Flag said...

The Carbon Floor doesn't help. That artificially raises the price of non-nuclear generation in order to make nuclear generation look less costly.

JohnJ said...

Quite right RF

JohnJ said...

This tragedy is going to have far reaching consequences for us ALL in the Western World.
Is the food being monitored that is imported from America for radiation what about e.g Salmon from Alaska, Wheat from North America,is our government on the ball or passing the buck??? or is it to Hot to handle???


Study: All of Western US and most of East Coast, Midwest, Canada covered in airborne particles on March 20, Fukushima plume model shows — Based SOLELY on Reactor No. 1 explosion (PHOTO)

Published: March 2nd, 2012 at 1:37 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
19 comments

Another post from enenews.com

US Regulator: We’ve got to stop labs from testing for Fukushima radiation — “Tell them to back off” — Worried about them talking to press about ‘consequences’

Published: March 2nd, 2012 at 12:06 am ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
86 comments