Renewable Energy- Is the government missing a trick?

J-FRO

J-FRO

J-FRO

Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2011
Posts
4,450
Location
London
In light of today's news that E.On have been granted permission to build one of the UK's largest offshore wind farms, I've been thinking. Are the government missing a trick?

One of the huge bonuses of renewable energy is that there are no fuel costs. Once set up (which of course you need a lot of money to do), renewable energy sources such as wind farms will pay for themselves. They generate electricity, the electricity is measured and put straight into the national grid. A few maintenance workers are needed (supposedly only about 30 for 77 wind turbines of the coast of Yorkshire) but their salary comes straight out of the profit the energy companies such as E.On make from their free fuel - wind.

I know if we go back a bit in time the government started to sell up all the utilities companies, but what's to stop them creating a new one?

In the long run something such as a wind farm company will provide steady revenue for the government. Money which could essentially be put straight back into the budget kitty. So why aren't they jumping on this bandwagon? There's no political ties to the middle east so far as our wind goes. They won't have to put up with the hippy's saying its bad for the environment. As long as there are wind farms employees will be needed to operate them so there is job creation as well (not forgetting the huge benefit to the economy it will create in the set up costs, construction would see a nice little boost helping them with their cash flow problems which would help them to be able to take on jobs without having to worry about paying wages).

Why aren't they acting already?

EDIT: Link for those who may be curious

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12403377
 
Because wind farms are a relatively new technology and as such has a very high risk, field life of the wind farms is not yet known and regardless of the estimates given by the companies who design them.

But on a side note the goverment does tax any company who runs these wind farms and as such gets money from nothing.

KaHn
 
J-FRO said:
Why aren't they acting already?
Click to expand...

We don't have any money. Building this ourselves would require borrowing more money or making more cuts elsewhere. Conservative ideology tends towards a smaller state sector in any case but no government is going to priorotise long term infrastructure projects (without massive public approval) when they have another election in a much shorter time period and a massive defecit to deal with.
 
KaHn said:
Because wind farms are a relatively new technology and as such has a very high risk, field life of the wind farms is not yet known and regardless of the estimates given by the companies who design them.

But on a side note the goverment does tax any company who runs these wind farms and as such gets money from nothing.

KaHn
Click to expand...

It's not new. just little investment in it :p

tbh its a shame there's no way of converting sound into energy because as humans we are pretty ******* amazing at that.
 
I can see the argument for the relatively new technology being untested in the long run. But isn't risk a big factor in investment? And yeah they may be able to tax it, but if they owned it they would take all of the revenue as oppose to letting a vast majority of it go and sit in a big bank account somewhere under the name E.On. These companies make profits each and every year and each and every year they put prices up too. They inevitably will continue to let prices rocket skywards once we are solely relying on renewable energy. And when that times comes it will be out of our control.

And as for not having any money, you have to spend money to make money. Loads of businesses themselves operate on a borrow to sell basis. They will take a product of one company, promise to pay for it within 30 days or so, but within those 30 days they would have utilised it in such a way that they would have made the money back for the product and profit on top of that as well. So there's no reason why the government can't find the funds to operate on this basis regardless of the deficit. And I can hardly see there being any public opposition to the move if there are promises for fixed energy rates and benefits to the environment as well as job creation.
 
Because renewable enrgy sucks, we need nuclear. We had a very cold winter and wind turbines contributed almost nothing, sometimes not even a percent of the overall generation.

Also, we cant physically build the required amount. Too many people doing arty farty degrees so not enough people have the technical know how to design, build and maintain them.

Lets not forget that electricity generating equipment requires a lot of metals and rare earth metals. The amount of copper that needs to be laid for these is incredible plus china controls almost all of the rare materials needed for the components.

So, all these green groups that say its possible are lying out of ass, there simply isnt enough man power, trained people and resources to do it in such a short time.

Also remember that all renewable still needs a reliable baseload eg nuclear, coal, gas etc.
 
codec said:
tbh its a shame there's no way of converting sound into energy because as humans we are pretty ******* amazing at that.
Click to expand...

There is... It's called a microphone. But the output is so tiny it would really be worth it.

Although I believe there is one company out there that has created a device to convert the sound of factory machines into energy. Though again the output is miniscule.
 
Thanet Offshore Windfarm is 100 turbines. It took around 3-4 years to build at a cost of £900 million.

That is just one windfarm. Granted it is the largest off-shore farm in the world, but the government just doesn't have that kind of money.

It would be far better if we started manufacturing our own turbines, instead of buying them in from Europe. Better still, go nuclear.
 
Nuclear is dangerous and very expensive to run though. And it doesn't just have to be windfarms, tidal power as well is something they should also look at investing in.

And to say we can't build them because too many people are doing arty farty degrees is a ridiculous statement. There's still enough engineers to build them otherwise they wouldn't be going ahead with plans like this. And there are still some students doing engineering degrees.

I don't think china controls all the rare metals. It's a big country with a big demand for such materials, but quite a lot of the essential copper does actually come from south america as well.

And they may require a baseload, but its better to have fewer base loads and more renewable energy sources in the long run in my opinion.
 
Because wind projects have a very long payback time which is effected by things out of your control like the weather and maintance.

profit wise nuclear is a better bet even including decomissioning but the best of all for instant money is gas, hence why we have so many of them and they are on demand.

Power generation is a complex topic and finaically the goverment should make its mind up what it wants and stick to it. policy changes are one of the man reasons nothing gets buil.

A few years ago wste to enregy was the big new deal now thats not so popular, (never saw people liking it myself but the economics worked with the right incentives), these days everything is just up in the air.

My personel view is a well funded and regulated nuclear industy best fits our needs, with other renewables reducing peak load where they can.
 
Governments don't last long enough for the benefits to be seen
Weather dependant, wasteful to store for peak use
Getting the energy back to land from off shore
Local planning problems
A few ideas
 
J-FRO said:
Nuclear is dangerous and very expensive to run though. And it doesn't just have to be windfarms, tidal power as well is something they should also look at investing in.

And to say we can't build them because too many people are doing arty farty degrees is a ridiculous statement. There's still enough engineers to build them otherwise they wouldn't be going ahead with plans like this. And there are still some students doing engineering degrees.

I don't think china controls all the rare metals. It's a big country with a big demand for such materials, but quite a lot of the essential copper does actually come from south america as well.

And they may require a baseload, but its better to have fewer base loads and more renewable energy sources in the long run in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Im doing an engineering degree, but in the UK engineers are under valued plus renewables isnt the only thing they are needed for. We still need to design and create for a growing economy, growing population etc. etc.

Where is your source that nuclear is expensive? France seem to get on just fine. Also uranium as a fuel isnt susceptible to price fluctuations like coal or gas. Nuclear power in our country is safe and they are well engineered.

As for china and rare earth metals, it doesnt really matter what country is, either way not enough is being mined to keep up with the demand all these wind farms would require. But they do control a lot -

China controls more than 90% of current global supply of rare-earth metals-a group usually classified as 17 elements and sometimes are called "21st Century gold" for their importance in such high-tech applications as laser-guided weapons and hybrid-car batteries. Beijing has been tightening its exports with a quota policy.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576117511251161274.html?KEYWORDS=beijing%2Bincreased%2Bpower%2Bto%2Binfluence

The move to build reserves comes as China's supply of rare-earth metals to the rest of the world already is shrinking despite growing demand for the elements, which have strategic industrial and military value in such products as night-vision goggles and wind turbines. China's exports of rare-earth metals fell 9.3% last year.
Click to expand...

crisbduck also makes a point about a givernments intergenerational committments.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link Slambo, I actually had no idea about the 90% of the 17 metals. Thats quite a scary scenario.

As for me saying nuclear is very expensive to run, I meant in comparison to renewable energy sources due to the fuel costs and costs of storing nuclear waste.

I just can't help but feel that in the future renewable energy will be the way to go. windfarms and tidal power have no polluting effects, you don't have to rely on too heavily on expensive fuel costs once you're up and running and it's undoubtedly safer that any nuclear move.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nuclear at all. If anything I think a renewable energy - nuclear combo is the best way to go. But we can't rely on foreign nations forever to provide us with the fuel we need. And if we don't start ever to become self-sufficient when it comes to renewable energy, then the time may come one day when its too late.
 
Agree with KaHn,
I'm a chemical engineer by trade and even though I work more on the money and comercial side of things right now I definatly dont feel undervalued and my bank manager agrees.

UK engineering expertise is valued the world over (as my passport will testify) and even when the work is done in low cost centers like India, China or Korea the managment and FEED work (Front End Engineering and Design) comes from the UK. Ok some contractor CAD monkeys who leant Intergragh or Autocad of a cereal packet now struggle to get their £70/hr work casue they have to compete with an Indian on 10% of that but thats the way off all industrys these days and if you have real skills you still find work.

/Crosses his fingers that an Indian cant do process economics, estimating and risk management any time in the next 30 years.
 
Well tidal power can't just be built anywhere, it needs a strong tide to be effective (somewhere like the river severn) - you also need to basically dam the whole river width at high tide, and then let the water flow through the turbines as the tide turns when the pressure is greatest. There is also a large environmental aspect
link

As people have already said, wind power isn't that cost effective and has a large payback time - hence why people are reluctant to invest in it because it could become a loss maker and wind is unprecdictable.

Also the oil & gas industry steals all the best engineers :p ;)
 
KaHn said:
Since when?

KaHn
Click to expand...

From my travels to america, germany, Czech republic, etc. they seem to treat engineers with more respect than in the UK.

Amongst engineers, we are some of the worlds finest - BUT - we are under represented in our governments and as such (among other reasons) people do not feel we are as value to society as lawyers and doctors despite going through rigorous training and professional development.

Of course saying engineering, its a little too broad. There are pay differences between the individual disciplines and it depends on what industry you go into. My friends going into the oil industry will get a starting salary £10 - 15k more than those going into renewables.
 
People love investing in wind power, they farm subsidies like noones business and return a 10% return on captial harvested directly from the pockets of UK bill payers. Only problem is they are moderately capital intensive with highish maintenance costs (particulalry offshore) they are moderately unrelaible in output and won't necessarily be generating when you want it.
The combination of planning permission, grid infrastructure, deployment vessels and the credit crunch is thankfully slowing their spread. Hopefully sense will prevail before we've built the planned 32GW of wirlygigs our lunatic representatives want.

A good solid nuclear baseload capacity with a flexible gas fleet is the most practical, reliable and cost effective solution to our electricity needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom