SteamyTea

Quite right, there are a number of factors that change the numbers. A PV farm in Madrid, New York or Toronto, will probably outperform a similar sized on in the UK, and the Sahara. So the embodied energy/CO2e payback time (when compared to global averages) will be shorter. Perversely, the lower the global emission become, the longer the payback becomes. We are a long way off that at the moment. When gas, coal and oil are combusted to generate electricity, the carbon costs of fuel extraction need to be taken into account. This is not always done correctly as there is a difference between open cast and deep mine mining. But I think you will find that RE generation is sub 50 g/kWh and FF are greater than 250 g/kWh. That is a 5 to 1 difference, and you don't have to drill, dig, transport or processes the wind and sunshine.

Turbines, even small one, are mature technology, with the majority of the price being the tower, blades and inverter. The actural generator is the cheap bit. PV, while when understood technology 25 years ago, was a minor player, but as it initially rode on the back of the semi-conductor industry, and could use silicone billets that were not good enough for higher end computer 'stuff', there were opportunities to cheaply get all the rest of the components (glass, frame, backing and a little wiring) in place, before extra expense of silicone was needed. The engineers with vision, soon realised that PV produces more energy per unit land area than wind power, even with the technology for the early 2000s. This may seem counter intuitive, but you cannot cluster wind turbines too close together, and with all things 'energy', the larger the better. The other big difference is that it is a global market, so the USA, Canada and Germany soon outsourced the PV technology to China. China wanted to increase its domestic energy production, were willing to subsides the industry, and more importantly, take a 30 year view on it. The rest is history. Just had a look at the price of a Britwind 5kW "Please consider a budget of between £35,000 and £40,000 + vat for a fully installed H5 wind turbine, depending on tower type (there is currently 0% vat on new domestic installations)" So prices have doubled since I was involved with making them, which when I think about it, was 19 years ago. It is probably not that windy in real terms, and not a 'clean wind'. Height is the key. Then there is the distribution, which is not linear, it follows a Weibull distribution pretty well. Basically the higher the mean wind speed, the more often you get even higher wind speeds, and as power from a turbine is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, you need to start with a high mean. A quick look at my local satellite data shown that over Land's End, at the moment. with wind speed is 6.7 m.s-1 at the surface. Now when studying weather, especially wind speed, it is more normal to use air pressure than altitude. It is currently 1003 hPa. Going upwards a little to where the air pressure is 1000 hPa, the wind speed is 7.4 m.s-1 , a lot higher to where is is 850 hPa, the WS is 9.3 m.s-1 (that is about 1500 m high). So to get a good yield out of a small turbine, you need to put it at the top of Ben Nevis, on a 300 m tower. Small turbines have dreadful efficiency, probably no more than 30% (efficiency is based on the maximum energy that could be extracted, Betz Law). Larger turbines are around 50 to 55%. Don't get me wrong, I like turbines, but you would be better off spending the money on a diesel generator.

Short answer is no. Get in touch with this lot, I suspect it is about £3k/kW installed. https://www.britwind.co.uk/products/

Is that leaking by any chance?

It is so that you can pick up the twinks and bears. Sorry, mistyped, twigs and branches.

Kawasaki Racing Green.

As in your wife is not fully satisfied?

Just some economic data to back up what I said about high energy prices adversly affecting a small part of our economy. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8353/

Nothing to see there.

Wish that were true down here.

I would enjoy driving a car with 0-60MPH times below 5 seconds. Would also enjoy the quietness, and the self parking.

On some industries. Not sure how much of an impact is is having on the service sector. Not heard anything on the radio that our banking, insurance and legal side is in trouble. Our energy sector is doing well.

Common practice in hospitality to send people home if it is quiet. Part of the reason for the very high staff turnover.

There is a market for secondhand turbines. https://wind-turbine.co.uk/second-hand-wind-turbines-marketplace/?swoof=1&orderby=price-desc

That is how we end up with golf courses claiming good environmental and sustainable credentials when compared to a farmed field. I want a farmed field to have low biodiversity, I don't want slugs, rabbit's feet and deadly nightshades in my cornflakes. There is an economic model to help value nature, been a while since I used it, but was interesting research.

I still find this a harrowing scene.

Did you have a hearty breakfast to start the day.

Possibly because when a windfarm is retooled, they put larger turbines on them. Or it is just made up, like the 'million pounds of concrete needed'. Offshore turbines use a lot less concrete and they drill a large hole and grout a steel base in (there is a company down here that makes the rigs to do this). Maybe @Gus Potter can give some insight as to the design. I get a bit stuck when converting the forces for, say, a 5MW turbine that is 125m heigh. I think 1 Nm.s-1 = 1W. The diameter of the base will make a difference.

No idea, but probably pay for it twice, at least. Hinckley C has still not generated anything.

You sold cars I seem to remember. There must have been times during the day that you did not close a sale. But you still got paid at the end of the month. There are many different business models, the energy market is not the same as secondhand car sales. Work it out and come back and tell us all. Hinkley Point C uses 49,000 tonnes per reactor. The Three Gorges Dam is around 30 million m³. That is close to 100 million tonnes.

I think by the nature of high energy particles, and the need to contain them safely outside of normal operating conditions, planned replace is almost a new reactor core. Going back to my car analogy, it is like @Onoff's Capris. While old, they are mothballed till they get rebuilt. Very hard to mothball a glowing nuclear reactor till it is safe to send they boys in. They are still making Chernobyl safe after 40 years. It had only been running 9 years. I really do not see the need for nuclear in the UK, we have wind, solar, hydro and tidal resources that can meet our needs without the ridiculous expense of nuclear, let alone the risks. No new infrastructure is going to be cheap, so better off picking the cheaper ones that have the lowest environmental risks. Wind turbines and solar panels can be relatively easily relocated, with little lasting effects on the local environment, can't say the same for large thermal plants. I live in an ex mining town (ok, it's not coal), but even after 150 years since mining was the main industry down here, the land is still scared and polluted.

You have been lied to.

I am sure some economists, accountants, engineers etc go through all this at the initial stages. 30 years ago, no one bought a car thinking it would last 20 years, let alone 30. But we have a lot of 20 year old cars on the roads these days (mine is 16 years old). But then, 30 years ago, no one would have thought a Ford Escort, no Focus, would be a £30k car. Or that PV would come in at 10p/W.

Honestly surprised by this They extend the life of them, at great expense. https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/from-our-perspective/energy-theme/nuclear-power/about-nuclear-power/the-future-of-nuclear/plant-life-extension

Was a while back, and things have changed, but when we were doing MCD PV, we got asked to do an ASHP and the MCS paperwork was quite minor as we already had most of it.