Wind energy

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:04 pm

Regarding Intermittency - I would possibly suggest a combination of wind & sea power? For example, the London Array / Kentish Fields. Could we look into combining Tidal Turbines into the same unit?

Mon, 4 Jul 2011 1:12 pm

Sorry, I should have been more specific - tidal is what I meant.

I live on the kent coast and there is a very strong ebb and flow on most tides,
I couldn't see why someone wasn't looking at fitting a tidal turbine at the
base - to use the regular movement as well as the wind.

Let's hope someone gets on it soon!

Fri, 9 Mar 2012 4:43 pm

Renewables draining the economy?!? and the Banks have nothing to do with it... I suggest a glass of orange juice to get those Neurons moving tomorow morning and perhaps the realisation that our children are doomed if we keep thinking (and doing) what the politicians what us to. An 'Engineer' in denial is nothing but a mere caretaker with fancy toys..

Mon, 14 May 2012 6:35 pm

I am more than a little surprised at the attitude taken by so many of your contributors and correspondents on the subject of renewable energy, an attitude verging on the quasi religious, which has been adopted by the popular media, but one which I would not have thought would have found favour with your readership.
The engineering challenges presented by renewable energy are clearly very exciting, but this excitement should not overshadow the undeniable fact that renewable energy will be, for the foreseeable future, very much more expensive than generation by conventional means.
It is therefore prudent to step back a little from the engineering aspects of this to look at the broader picture. If we accept, for the moment, that mans carbon dioxide emissions will cause significant climate change, reducing the output from the United Kingdom, which contributes some 5% of global emissions, will have no perceptible effect whatsoever on climate change, but will have a very significant effect on the nation's economy, and seriously reduce the ability of this nation to compete in world markets.
It would seem logical that since we, as a nation, have no prospect of influencing climate change nor of persuading the rest of the world's nations to take appropriate action, it would best serve our interests to use whatever spare resources we have to mitigate against the effects of climate change if and when it happens.

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 4:34 pm

The arguement that our contribution is insignificant, therefore we shouldn't concern ourselves is a fallacy. By denying our industry any chance to compete against other countries that are developing the technology is to throw away the opportunity badly need jobs and income.

Even without subsidies wind and solar PV are starting to become economic against fossil fuels, despite the major subsidies and hidden expenses associated with fossil fuels. Coal burning power stations release more radioactive dust than the nuclear industry (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste), they cause breathing problems (http://www.ersnet.org/eu-affairs/item/4636-43-billion-the-health-cost-of-coal-fired-power-stations.html), and receive higher tax subsidies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels).

The main issues with renewables are intermittancy, and immature technology. Both will be improved by using a diversity of sources and development of more powerful and reliable wave, and tidal generators, storage technologies, and a modern HVDC spine for the grid. Some of these developments are going to have to be made anyway as parts of the grid become outdated and require re-furbishment, upgrade or replacement.