Wind versus Coal

An interesting little side piece in E+T.  It will require 233  5 MW wind turbines to replace one 500 MW coal fired power station. This will occupy 55 square mile. This is also assuming quite a high capacity factor of nearly 43% but I will keep to the quoted numbers.

 

I am not sure if it is viable /sensible to build new coal fired power stations. The Chinese and the Indians certainly think that it is. So to look at the nuclear option:

To replace a 3 MW nuclear power plant with 2 EPR units, Hinkley point C or Sizewell C, will require 330 square miles to be filled with wind turbines (maybe more depending on the wake effect).

www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/wake-effect.html

This is more than twice the area of the Isle of Wight, not impossible but politically very difficult.

The more important question is the resources required. It is difficult to find numbers for the concrete and steel requirements for wind turbines. I do understand that this is affected by the ground conditions and foundation requirements however some number exist in this 2011 document.

pubs.usgs.gov/.../sir2011-5036.pdf

Table 5, page 12,  gives 100 tonnes of steel per MW and 400 tonnes of concrete per MW.  So to replace Hinkley Point C will, according to Kurt Cobb, require 6990 MW of wind turbines.

Steel 6990 * 100 tonnes  = 699 000 tonnes

Concrete 6990 * 400 tonnes = 2 796 000 tonnes.

The quoted figures for Hinkley Point C are:

Steel 280 000 tonnes

Concrete 3 000 000 tonnes.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/innovative-thinking/projects-innovation-drives-hinkley-point-c-16-01-2019/

https://chamberuk.com/chrisfayers/

So similar amounts of concrete and a lot less steel for Hinkley Point C. The NPP has an expected life span of 80 years, wind seems to be typically 20-25 years.

Hinkley Point C could also use a lot less materials, cost less and be on time if it was built somewhere other than the UK:

www.spectator.co.uk/.../

Is wind power a sensible use of our finite resources?

Parents
  • The land under a wind farm doesn't have to be concreted over.  Each turbine needs a concrete pad.  The rest can be grassed over and used to graze sheep or grow crops.

  • Hello Jon:

    It seems that everyone in the UK  seems to believe that the root cause of the current social/financial problems started in the 2007/8 bank crisis, however I think it goes back to about 1987.

    If you are into pop music I draw you attention to The Pet Shop Boys "Actually' Album and the song "SHOPPING" which deals with changing the laws by allowing the  sale of Public Assets - "the big bang in the city"

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay Florida  

  • Hello Simon:

    A major difference between the UK and the US seems to be a lack of interest in the UK for purchasing stock and bonds. Stock and bonds provide  (over time) personal wealth- for ones retirement.

    In the UK personal wealth seems to be mainly created by the increase in ones home prices.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay Florida

       

  • A major difference between the UK and the US seems to be a lack of interest in the UK for purchasing stock and bonds. Stock and bonds provide  (over time) personal wealth- for ones retirement.

    There's an awful lot of investment in shocks/shares/bonds by UK workers - a few might directly own them directly (especially after the 1980s/90s sell offs), but the most usual route is via a pension schemes (whose operators are hopefully able to keep a closer eye on the investments than most of us could afford the time to do).

       - Andy.

  • Individuals in the UK tend only to dabble in the stock market, if at all.  Our pension funds are huge, though.  But most invest in a diversified portfolio, much of which isn't in UK shares.  Because UK companies tend to under-perform compared with the global market.

  • Hello Andy:

    Here in the US there is basically a two step process for creating retirement funds.

    "Some" companies have pension plans that for every $ dollar one contributes the company adds (say) 10 US cents, up to a maximum per year with full vesting over (say) 5 years. They are placed in mutual funds "not individual stocks or bonds". There are now two two options -- pre tax or post tax.

    When one leaves that company it is recommended that this pension fund be converted to an individual retirement fund.

    Reason for this is your old company may be sold or go bust - which happened to me twice. 

    Then the US has specific tax rules concerning when funds can or must be taken out of these retirement funds.

    Mutual funds are hedges against owning poor performing stocks or bonds.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay FL 

  • Hello Simon:

    Now you have hit the nail on the head - "people don't like to invest in UK companies because they tend to under perform compared with the global market".

    Ask yourself why do UK companies under perform? 

    I will not invest in UK companies because of this factor.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay Florida 

    P.S When working in the US during 1980's-1990's, my US company had me audit English parts distributors. It was obvious then about poor performing UK companies.  

  • Hello Jon:

    Mental health issues effect females too especially in their teen age years

     However males appear to be more prone to suicide.

    Since starting work I have known/worked with 5 men of all ages who have committed suicide.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay FL

  • Hello Jon:

    Where does this all leads too?

    Adapt or die!. 

    Population migration, both internally and externally will cause major social stress and potential conflicts.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay Florida 

    .  

  • One does wonder where this all leads?

    Well, the largest thing we leave for the future generations, in this case, and many others,  is the bill.

    Personally, I'm in a similar position to Simon, in terms of age and education, and have landed very much feet down. I'm not so sure my children will be able to say that at my age.

    I'd like to add an additional problem with property in the UK, as if we needed another, and that is the concept of leasehold. This allows a free holder to own the land under say a large block of flats, and collect rent and service charges  for it, while what the occupants buy for their  quarter million pound bedsit,  is actually only the right to live there for some fraction of 99 years, depending what the previous occupant, has used of the lease. That is not great but is not the main insidious problem as the lease can be renewed, but the sale of the freehold to someone with no real interest in maintaining the building, as the ground rent comes due if they do or not. This can leave leaseholders with a responsibility to pay, for something that in extreme cases,  may not even be habitable or saleable...

    The real problem is that there are a lot of folk making a living (== extracting money from something) without actually putting much effort in return, and worse, this behaviour is held up as some sort of ideal to aspire to.

    Mike

  • Hello Mike:

    After WW11  in 1948 my parent (who never really talked about all the details) purchased an old home in London for a small amount as it only had 10 years left on the 99 year lease.

    Then the government changed the law to allow people to buy out the lease for again a very small amount of money. It thus became a very desirable property.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay 

    Florida 

Reply
  • Hello Mike:

    After WW11  in 1948 my parent (who never really talked about all the details) purchased an old home in London for a small amount as it only had 10 years left on the 99 year lease.

    Then the government changed the law to allow people to buy out the lease for again a very small amount of money. It thus became a very desirable property.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay 

    Florida 

Children
No Data