Windfarm could cost up to £40 million

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

.....so when you have one planted in your back garden you'll be out there with the bunting?

Your are very gung-ho about this rape of the Manx countryside.  I posed the question in a previous post asking you to declare your very obvious bias in favor of these abominations which you have studiously avoided.

Put your cards on the table.

I doubt anyone will have one in their back garden. If you did you would have very good grounds to object.

Something about in the far distance that you do not like, no, you have no grounds for objection.

I have to be honest. I would love to see wind farms in the distance on a desolate hillside. I would see it as the progress of mankind. 

[Happier diner]

34 minutes ago, Cambon said:

48 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

You're not speaking nonsense.  Solely using the interconnector wouldn't be a bad idea.  However, one of the USPs of the Island is that we have our own independent energy provision.  If we don't do this, we will be beheld to the UK Govt forevermore and they would likely use it for blackmail to bring us into line over any disagreements.  It was only a few months ago that France was threatening to cut off the power to Jersey. 

We need some energy independence.  We can't build a new fossil fuel power station due to the green virtue signaling and whilst a small nuclear reactor would probably be a good option, can you imagine the whining, if you look at all this kick off over 5 - 10 windmills? 

Expand  

The Jersey situation was a bit of a laugh! UK jumped to their defense. With regard to blackmail, don’t underestimate the value of iom and the CIs to the UK. 
 

On the independence front, we have Peel, the gas power station, Sulby and the bio-mass plant, as they are calling incinerators these days. Plenty of resilience. Those can be phased out over time by replacing them with small turbines and solar panels. 
 

Any whining over nuclear would be ignorance, as a small nuclear plant can be housed on a ship or a barge, which is a very good place for it, as they require water for cooling. When we are done with it, just tow it away

You are some boy I have to say.

If you scaled up the reactor on a submarine to 60MW it would be billions of pounds. 

[WTF]

3 hours ago, Mercenary said:

I would normally agree but in this case onshore wind potentially makes good economic sense. 

gas turbines at pulrose was claimed to make economic sense a few years back,  that worked didn't it......................

[AcousticallyChallenged]

37 minutes ago, Cambon said:

On the independence front, we have Peel, the gas power station, Sulby and the bio-mass plant, as they are calling incinerators these days. Plenty of resilience. Those can be phased out over time by replacing them with small turbines and solar panels. 

Well, bar the oil and gas supplied by the UK.

Which leaves us with Sulby and the energy-from-waste plant.

But, the energy from waste plant also uses oil as part of its operation.

So that takes us down to Sulby, which can kick out 1.2 megawatts at full whack.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

The thing is, it would appear we are being railroaded into a few massive turbines, which is complete idiocy. Get the interconnection sorted and buy the cheap, green energy from the uk that we have already contributed towards. In addition to that it would be far more sensible to have multiple small turbines / solar panels feeding in from points all over the island. Such as a power plant on every rooftop. This could be done piecemeal over a long period of time. 
Installing half a dozen white elephants across a couple of beauty spots is short sighted and idiotic. What happens when the wind is too light or too strong to generate anything? Or, If one breaks down, or is taken offline for maintenance, a large part of our generating capability is lost. 

You keep on banging on with this message. For once and for all, there is no cheap electricity from the UK. Ours is cheaper. 

You are the one who is short sighted and idiotic. 

If there is no wind we would take UK power. There is already an interconnector and another one planned. 

It's not rocket science. 

[Utah 01]

3 hours ago, Mercenary said:

could generate 130 GWh (without requiring landing stage etc.) for circa £40m

...........and what, as per during the past week, is going to fill the gap when there is no wind? Wind contribution to the UK output was in the decimals of 1 percent at times last week.  It would have been no greater here.

[Utah 01]

47 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

If there is no wind we would take UK power

Clunk - is that a penny dropping?  We don't need to spend £40 million.

[Dirty Buggane]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

Any whining over nuclear would be ignorance, as a small nuclear plant can be housed on a ship or a barge, which is a very good place for it, as they require water for cooling. When we are done with it, just tow it away. 

This makes the most sense I've heard in all the green generation option's put forward.

And before we forget, where are these humongous windmills going to be brought ashore. It will cost in the region of £40,000,000 for the port and road infrastructure to be improved enough to transport these across the island. I would imagine some thing like a dual carriageway size roads to move something of the size and weight of the one piece blades and cranes to enable instalation. Remember the highway that had to be built to transport rock from stoney mountain quarry, and they were relatively small dump trucks.  

[Mercenary]

13 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

...........and what, as per during the past week, is going to fill the gap when there is no wind? Wind contribution to the UK output was in the decimals of 1 percent at times last week.  It would have been no greater here.

Err.. it's an additive to whatever we do on energy strategy, not a replacement?

 

That's my point, if we're paying £50m a year for fuel/electric alone currently (ignoring cost of running interconnectors, plants, capital costs etc), any reduction in usage would be saving at the margin through reducing this expenditure.

 

Edit: to address the 'what about when it's not windy' you're still saving the same amount (say £15m per year) of fuel/electric over a year that you would be buying, regardless of when it is. Yes energy will be slightly more expensive in calmer periods but the overall point stands.

 

It's like saying why do we have ice cream kiosks when it's not sunny the whole year - it's still (effectively) cash in the bank in the periods you are running 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Mercenary

[Kopek]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I doubt anyone will have one in their back garden. If you did you would have very good grounds to object.

...or collect the rent on it !

[WTF]

if windmills is the answer i'd go for 100 little instead of 10 big ,  better redundancy for breakdowns and maintenance.

[Kopek]

Serious Q. \could one of these big Sikorsky helicopters be used to winch the bits to the site rather than the multi lane highways that some are speculating on? A service road for constructor and maintenance crews would suffice??? Still a cost but.....

[Cambon]

3 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

This makes the most sense I've heard in all the green generation option's put forward.

And before we forget, where are these humongous windmills going to be brought ashore. It will cost in the region of £40,000,000 for the port and road infrastructure to be improved enough to transport these across the island. I would imagine some thing like a dual carriageway size roads to move something of the size and weight of the one piece blades and cranes to enable instalation. Remember the highway that had to be built to transport rock from stoney mountain quarry, and they were relatively small dump trucks.  

When Caribbean islands are decimated by hurricanes, that is what they do. It is easier and quicker to restore normality (including electricity) with power than without. A nuclear warship or submarine is used to provide the power necessary. Of course, our needs are greater than what one ship can provide for emergency cover, but it is not beyond what is available or possible. 

[Cambon]

4 hours ago, Happier diner said:

You keep on banging on with this message. For once and for all, there is no cheap electricity from the UK. Ours is cheaper. 

You are the one who is short sighted and idiotic. 

If there is no wind we would take UK power. There is already an interconnector and another one planned. 

It's not rocket science. 

You are actually correct. It is not rocket science. However, rocket science is what is required, not the ranting and bleating of greenies. Large turbines are not the answer. Buying cheap green power from uk is the answer until we can rationally and scientifically find the best answer for us. It could be nuclear. It could be geothermal. It is likely to be a combination of several sources. It could even involve the Lady Isabella. But however you look at it, massive turbines are not it.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

6 hours ago, Cambon said:

Any whining over nuclear would be ignorance, as a small nuclear plant can be housed on a ship or a barge, which is a very good place for it, as they require water for cooling. When we are done with it, just tow it away. 

Where do we get the fuel from? I don't think we have any uranium mines.

How do we transport the fuel? Do we have anything certified for transporting it? Remember, it's notoriously heavy.

How do we dispose of the waste? See above.

How do we deal with the perceived proliferation risk? We'd need an equivalent to the UK's nuclear constabulary.

Sellafield isn't the answer. They've had issues for decades with contamination, crumbling infrastructure and more.

I'm very much for nuclear power, but, it isn't a simple, or cheap, thing.