Ossy Moor wind farm

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Of course their efficiency matters.
Would you operate a car that had appalling fuel efficiency?
How are energy costs ever going to come down without having efficient ways of producing energy?

They use wind as fuel which costs nothing which is why I asked what you meant by efficiency.
If they only manage to convert 10% of the wind that passes them to electricity does it matter?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, of course it matters. If they are not making energy then they are costing money to be stood doing nothing.
Who do you think is paying for that?
Have you had a look at the article from the Telegraph(the national newspaper, not the local rag)?
According to that article they are going to cost something in the region of six billion pounds in subsidies by 2020 - where is that money coming from?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay - Telegraph

Here is another report from the Telegraph. This is from December 2013.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Neil

They use wind as fuel which costs nothing which is why I asked what you meant by efficiency.
If they only manage to convert 10% of the wind that passes them to electricity does it matter?

Of course it matters, if they're only converting 10% (that's as & when they're functioning/turned on) they aren't being efficient enough to offset their cost. That being the initial production & purchase, assembly, subsidies, maintenance & as such are costing more to run that what they generate in return, ergo inefficient & most certainly not cost effective.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay - Telegraph

Here is another report from the Telegraph. This is from December 2013.

Oops looked liked some Local Authorities have been ripped off which is no surprise. That story is about small turbines not the type on Ossy Moor.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Of course it matters, if they're only converting 10% (that's as & when they're functioning/turned on) they aren't being efficient enough to offset their cost. That being the initial production & purchase, assembly, subsidies, maintenance & as such are costing more to run that what they generate in return, ergo inefficient & most certainly not cost effective.

You are missing my point about efficiency and how it's calculated with regards to wind turbines. The fuel is free and non polluting so doesn't matter.
What you appear to mean is how cost effective they are, as in cost to build and run compared to amount of power produced and how long before they have payed for themselves and are making money for the owner of them.

Talking about subsidies, many comment on wind power subsidies. This 2 year ol newspaper article from The Guardian states that wind power subsidies are dwarfed by fossil fuel subsidies Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks | Environment | The Guardian

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Neil

You are missing my point about efficiency and how it's calculated with regards to wind turbines. The fuel is free and non polluting so doesn't matter.

Right, see your point now, misunderstood the context. Theoretically, since the "fuel" is free it's just the technology that costs, the end product should be cheaper once the outlay has been recouped all according to the theory making for an efficient form of energy supply. Unfortunately in the real world, conditions are seldom perfect to produce the projected returns so all theory goes out the window, thereby making this method of energy production flawed & inefficient to my mind.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Neil

Oops looked liked some Local Authorities have been ripped off which is no surprise. That story is about small turbines not the type on Ossy Moor.

Yes, I know it is about smaller turbines, but if you look at the other article, those are not small turbines...and some of them are costing money to run.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Wave power would be free...and far more regular and predictable, light is free...so why is there not more push to maximise these more efficient types of energy....might it have something to do with subsidies.
At present, it is going to take many many years to recoup the cost of these eyesores....and without the benefit of cheaper energy.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Wave power would be free...and far more regular and predictable, light is free...so why is there not more push to maximise these more efficient types of energy..

I'd agree with that, I've also mentioned wave/tidal previously, then there's hydro electric as another consideration, there is plenty of options out there but not the will because quite a few bodies would be missing out on their dropsies.

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by Neil

Talking about subsidies, many comment on wind power subsidies. This 2 year ol newspaper article from The Guardian states that wind power subsidies are dwarfed by fossil fuel subsidies Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks | Environment | The Guardian

Neil, look at the figures in the article again!

Gas/coal/oil received £3.63 billion but supplied 85% of our energy.
All renewables received £1.4 billion but only supplied 6%.

So each of the 1% supplied by gas/coal/oil was subsidized by £42.7 million.
Each 1% supplied by renewables was subsidized by £233.33 million!

So how can that be efficient? The fuel is free? Hardly.
If all our energy came from renewables the subsidy would be £23,333,000,000- yes, that's £23 BILLIONS.
The last one out wouldn't have to switch the lights off- we couldn't afford to switch them on!

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

According to that article they are going to cost something in the region of six billion pounds in subsidies by 2020 - where is that money coming from?

by unjustified removal of peoples benefits , forcing cancer sufferers to work and people with other disabilitating illness's and generaly screwing money in any way possible from the people who can least afford to be screwed..Mainly the poor

[Margaret Pilkington]

Accyman, this money is being recouped from every single one of us who uses energy.
We pay subsidies on our bills and we pay increased cost of manufactured goods because of course, companies pass on the costs to us.
We are told to use less energy. This year we have used less energy - both electric and gas, but have paid more for the reduced amount we have used.
I feel we, the consumers, are being ripped off.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I feel we, the consumers, are being ripped off.

Of course we are. We are being ripped off because the energy companies are businesses only interested in making money. Energy companies should not be privatised and the last Labour government should have sorted that out but didn't so must agree with privatisation without having the stones to admit it.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Spot on Neil.
The energy companies run a cartel(which is illegal)....they say they aren't a cartel....but all of them put up their prices within days of each other...and in similar amounts.
To me that says Cartel.
So why does the government do nothing much about it?
They say there is going to be an investigation.......which will do nothing.
They say they will break up the big six suppliers....they won't because they don't have the gonads to do it.