Wind farms

[All Seeing Eye]

With the targets set for lowering CO2 emission more and more countries are turning toward wind power, my question is this:
Would it be feasible for the UK to generate ALL its electricity from off shore wind power? could it be possible and does anyone know just how many wind turbines would be needed in order to do it?

Next question is, if the UK turned to nuclear power for full generation then how many nuclear reactors would be needed and would the radioactive waste be too big to handle?

Thanks in advance for the help guys. :thumbsup:

 

[PlixTixiplik]

It looks like total UK power generation is nearly 400 TWh for 2004, and a typical wind turbine can put out about 1000-4000 MWh in a year, depending on turbine size and wind speed and consistency. So you would need 100,000-400,000 turbines to fully power England. Between offshore and onshore areas that would be possible, but it wouldn't be the smartest way of generating all of your power. It's generally not a good idea to put all of your eggs in one basket for energy generation.

As for nuclear, it depends on the size of the station, but it looks like a typical nuclear plant can generate anywhere between 3000 and 25000 GWh per year. So you would need about 20-120 of those. It can be a challenge to dispose of waste products, but that also depends on the type of reactor. Integrated fast neutron reactors can fission nearly all of the actinides so that the waste is only dangerous for 100 years or so. They are also safer new designs that incorporate cooling with liquid sodium, which is much less risky than water cooling. Plus they use 95-99% of the material so there is nothing suitable for weapons manufacturing - an issue when trying to develop peaceful nuclear power in less stable countries.

The cost per kwh (factoring in both operating and capital recovery costs) is about the same for both wind and nuclear, so it makes sense to use a mixture. I wouldn't want to have more than 20-25% of the capacity from wind given the variability of wind speeds. Solar will ultimately be able to contribute, even in cloudier places like the UK. Once that technology matures I can see nearly all of the power generation coming from solar in 30 or 50 years, but until then a mixture of nuclear, wind, solar, and less fossil fuel is best.

-MEC

 

[JustAFriend]

And dont forget all the repair people you'll have to keep on staff to keep the windturbines running - they are high-maintenance items!! Plus replacing quite a few of them each year when the really big storms roll through.

People tend to think that installing a windturbine is a one-shot affair, but they are a LOT more expensive over their lifespan than most people realize...

 

[Deckerd]

Tidal power is a much more realistic source of future large amounts reusable energy.

 

[Gertch]

I was watching some Youtube videos on this subject. I'd love to get a couple for my home (I have about 4 acres to work with) but I'm afraid I wouldn't have enough wind.

But the ones I was looking at were small and not like the huge fan blades you are used to seeing. Now if just 2 or 3 of these units could power a single house, then I'd think they would be well worth the effort. I just don't know what kind of return they'd garner.

 

[K'riq Sa]

I have forty acres in the Mohave desert and I am running a small wind generator to get about 25% of my daily energy. I am adding solar panels and a charge controler in the next week or so. That should cover my main power needs. I see batteries as being the most volitile link in this chain. In the 6-7 months that I have been testing this system 2 of 6 batteries have had to be replaced, and the other four are ready. They become harder and harder to charge and they lose thir charge faster.





officially,

K'riq Sa
Minister of the Church of the Mongrel Dogs