UK wants every home wind-powered by 2020

In an ambitious scheme than even industry proponents seem skeptical of, Britain has unveiled plans to power every home in the country via off-shore wind farms by the year 2020. Right now the UK produces approximately half a gigawatt through this method of power generation, enough to provide 2% of the country's electricity, but nowhere near the 33 gigawatts called for in business secretary John Hutton's proposal. According to the British Wind Association Trade Group, while more offshore farms are always welcome, it is far more reasonable to expect a 20 gigawatt output by 2020 -- the bottleneck, apparently, is in procuring an adequate number of turbines. Another issue is the economic cost of wind power, which continues to exceed that of fossil fuel-based alternatives; luckily for the Brits, favorable exchange rates should help them pick up some American-made turbines on the cheap.

[Thanks, WebOn]

[zebcarlson2007 @ Dec 12th 2007 12:39PM]

Wind energy? I wouldn't think wind energy to be stable enough. And they loose 60% of the energy that's created by them.

Well, ill be interested to see how it turns out.

[Dorz @ Dec 12th 2007 3:54PM]

They should look at the maglev turbines: (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/) They're probably not even aware of them...would be a much better solution from my understanding.

[strider_mt2k @ Dec 12th 2007 12:40PM]

FART

[Pretol @ Dec 12th 2007 12:42PM]

Good for them. I love when government make bold moves like that. Unfortunately, couple years down the road, they're going to realize the downsides (whatever they will be, as no solution is perfect, regardless of what politicians tell you). And they'll jump on another bandwagon (covering oceans with solar panels, flying wind-kites, underwater ocean current generators... etc.)

[Shadowise @ Dec 12th 2007 12:42PM]

So basically, we need 50 times as many wind turbines as we have now?

I guess we will eventually be surrounded by turbines all along the coast.

[Phil Perman @ Dec 12th 2007 1:31PM]

According to a BBC News article its going to be 2 turbines for every mile of coastline. Of course they'll be bundled into farms so there wont be turbines everywhere you look, but it gives some idea of just how many they are planning on building

[m @ Dec 13th 2007 1:50AM]

nothing is perfect, but they're way less ugly than coal-fired power plants, in my opinion, and unlike coal, oil, or nuclear plants, don't poison the people living nearby.

[Technex @ Dec 12th 2007 12:48PM]

Ah more great news, I love the look of these anyway. They had one put up near me a while ago, I think it is bigger than the normal sea ones but everyone loves it.

Now those hippies won't know if they will approve of this world loving idea or hate it because of the bird killing..


Wind is the best, along with waves, both strong here in the UK...

:)

[GuyJ86 @ Dec 12th 2007 12:49PM]

If only they had 33 Flux Capacitors.........

[jamma @ Dec 12th 2007 1:14PM]

20 gigawatts.....!Great scott!!!

[dhughes @ Dec 12th 2007 12:50PM]

I hope it's not powered by the line of windmills in the picture, one large storm and there goes your power generating facilities.

[Flashpoint @ Dec 12th 2007 12:51PM]

AND WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WIND TURBINES?

Its amazing how quickly countries switch to alternative energy without fully understanding the environmental impact of artificial devices. For example even a hydroelectric dam causes unforseen environmental impacts - that is why America tried to advise China against the 3 Gorges - fear that it would cause neutrification and possibly be a terrorist target that in the event of disaster would kill millions.

If you wanna be safe, improve nuclear power and continue research into FUSION. At the very least it will lead nations to improve their electric infrastructure (America's sucks right now) and in the future, that would be a great basis for plug ins like the Chevy Volt.

[Blake Bowen @ Dec 12th 2007 12:57PM]

About an order of magnitude less than any other method that currently works. Nuclear is nice, but it has such a social stigma that no one wants to invest in it.

[Tommy @ Dec 12th 2007 1:03PM]

Have you thought about the downsides to the ever popular Compact Flourescent Blubs? Check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

So the same environmental groups pushing for these new lightbulbs are also griping about Mecury in the environment, which is a key ingredient for making these lightbulbs.

I say we all switch to LED lightbulbs, until we find out there's a major downside to that and go back to the tried and true tungsten.

Lets just trash Earth and move to Mars...

[xbit @ Dec 12th 2007 1:58PM]

The environmental impact would be less wind.

So Brits get to choose between more heat or less wind. Either way is a winner.

[Ian @ Dec 12th 2007 4:23PM]

ahhh good old foxnews got to love them..... /sarcasm

[eurobloke @ Dec 12th 2007 5:46PM]

Tommy, in Europe, CFLs come under the WEEE directive, which means recyclable facilities must be available for these. When they recycle CFLs, because they have chemicals like Hg, under the REACH directive they must be properly disposed of.

[Pavan @ Dec 13th 2007 3:51AM]

I saw the word Fox and I knew it meant that they're going to ignore the fact that the average CFL contains only 4mg of Mercury, and in its 5 year lifespan, will use electricity that resulted in 2.4mg of Mercury being released, vs. 10 for an incandescent bulb. What's worse...the chance that some mercury may wind up in a landfill because bubba forgot to recycle it, it broke, and the trashbag had a huge hole in it...or the guarantee of three times as much mercury being released into the air we breathe?

http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=1200

[Flashpoint @ Dec 12th 2007 12:55PM]

And I'm not saying wind energy shouldn't be considered, just be careful how you go about it.

Earth will be a perpetual motion machine for the duration of humanitie's life time.

In our oceans, we can cash in on wave machines which convert the kinetic energy of waves into mechanical energy and electricity.

Wind Farms will never fly in America because of NIMBY.
I like the idea that came from Asia to have wind farm generators built into building facets.

[yuppers @ Dec 12th 2007 1:59PM]

There was a proposal to build these off the coast of Long Island, but all the rich assholes in the Hamptons shit a biscuit at the prospect of sacrificing their precious ocean view for the good of the community.

[Dolf @ Dec 12th 2007 3:32PM]

To the people living in a cardboard box, you're a rich asshole. Typical.

[Speddy @ Dec 12th 2007 12:56PM]

Why not put a wind farm inside congress? With all those wind-bags, we could power the entire eastern seaboard and maybe sell some to pay off the deficit!

[Dolf @ Dec 12th 2007 3:35PM]

I like the way you think!

[Ian @ Dec 12th 2007 4:24PM]

now THATS an idea!

[Ilan @ Dec 12th 2007 1:00PM]

If only UK could find a way to bring that up to 1.21 gigawatts...Isn't the Delorian in some Planet Hollywood?

[coplice @ Dec 12th 2007 1:11PM]

What about a windmill that has solar panel at the top and on palm and a water turbine at the base? :D
Add to that a some rats running in whells inside.

[Skeezle @ Dec 12th 2007 1:13PM]

And to counter this, George W. Bush is proposing that the US be powered by nothing but oil & the blood of the working class by 2010.

[TheCow5 @ Dec 12th 2007 1:15PM]

Can someone help me with some understanding on this?
Why must they take up so much room, can't they place fifty of them in a straight line and have one stream of wind blow on then and as one spins the other will follow from the same wind and the wind coming from those in front, and can't they place some facing the fifty blowing the wind into them.
Now can they take it to a step forded and go underground. Channel the wind underground into big underground pips with wind turbines inside which can go around and around in a circle.
This would remove them from the surface and produce energy just the same.

[ratnikh @ Dec 12th 2007 1:24PM]

LOL

*wiping tears from my eyes*

Seriously though... WTF!?

Ok, ok... uhh.. so, let's see, by 2020, they say? This is their 2020 vision? It blows.

That was a breeze.

[blewyn @ Dec 13th 2007 12:57PM]

Do you ever get the feeling there's a reason why it's other people solving these problems and not you ? At the very least you could read up about it and find out why, no ?

[Chekote @ Jan 7th 2008 3:38PM]

I think you're a little confused as to what wind turbines actually do. They are not turning under their own power, therefore they do not *generate* any wind.

In your scenario, each time you place a turbine behind another one, it gets progressively wind energy, because the turbine in front is consuming some of the wind energy.

If a turbine was produced just as much wind energy as it consumed, then we could indeed setup an underground torus with turbines feeding each other and end up with a real perpetual motion engine. But the law of physics dictate otherwise.

[Eric @ Dec 12th 2007 2:00PM]

I hope you were sarcastic, mr cow. Anyway, that was the funniest thing I read all day.

I am in favor of wind energy, because after we draw enough energy from the wind, it will disrupt the atmospheric heat transfer system from the equator to the poles. I want the poles to stay frozen (which is might if there was no heat transfer from the equator), and I want the equator to turn into an uninhabitable desert so we can put up space elevators without trouble from the pesky equatorial governments.

[m @ Dec 13th 2007 1:52AM]

you forgot the ocean, eric, which has a great deal of influence on weather and climate. best of luck taking over the world, though.

[Nushio (NDF - Blue) @ Dec 12th 2007 1:19PM]

1.21 Jiggawats!

[EngadgetFanBoi @ Dec 12th 2007 1:22PM]

Need power? Use a Maglev wind turbine - 1000x more efficient that normal windmills.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/

I wonder why that link isn't posted under relevant posts... must be inconsistent tagging

[PS @ Dec 12th 2007 2:39PM]

Yeah! Was thinking about the same.
Someone plz send that link to Mr. Brown!! before he chucks 7,000 5GW turbines down the coast.
It seems 33 big ones would do :)))

[John @ Dec 12th 2007 1:24PM]

if they provide 2% of the country's electricity now, producing .5 gigawatts, how is it that 33 gigawatts are called for, and then only to power homes?

[Kurtis @ Dec 12th 2007 1:47PM]

Because energy demand increases over time, and between now and 2020 there is... time.

[John @ Dec 12th 2007 1:57PM]

So the power consumption for homes in the UK 13 years from now will be 13 gigawatts greater than the total power consumption now?

[Laurie @ Dec 12th 2007 5:13PM]

That's mainly due to the nuclear reactors from the 60's and 70's approaching their decommissioning point as they've finished their life cycle.

[Brennan @ Dec 12th 2007 1:29PM]

that would suck if there was no breeze for a couple of days. The people of UK will hate that for sure.

[Technex @ Dec 12th 2007 2:12PM]

Hah, I'm sure they will add some kind of UPS system :).

At least I hope so... :/

[Pavan @ Dec 13th 2007 3:37AM]

What can wind do for you?

[Dave @ Dec 13th 2007 4:51AM]

In the mountains of Wales there is a large lake, when there is surplus power water is pumped into the lake. When there is a shortfall of power the same water is sent through a hydro-electric plant. Basically the largest rechargable battery on the planet.

[Aaron @ Jan 11th 2008 2:56PM]

@Dave--The lake thing you are talking about is called Pump Storage. I have no idea how big the lake is in Whales that you are talking about, but California has one of the largest Pump Storage and water systems in the world. Its run by the California Department of Water Resources. Not many people know about pumped storage...kudos

RE: Brit plan--while the thought of 100% dependence on wind energy is tempting, people quickly forget that wind energy is not dispatchable. Like all sources of energy it depends on its fuel. Unfortunately we cant control wind energy's fuel source, so we are forced to maintain combined cycle gas or coal units to meet our energy needs when the wind isnt blowing. This isnt a little problem, its HUGE...Wind is only a partial solution and its incredibly difficult to get the energy to market because windy places arent generally located near major cities. And dont even start me on accurate pricing of wind...to bring wind to market you need to take other generators off market...there is a critical balance that must be maintained for the current frequency etc. Adding intermittent sources makes the already difficult job of energy balancing even more complicated...

[Saint Dumb Ox @ Dec 12th 2007 2:03PM]

This will make it really easy for China or Iran (or anybody with access to a nice quite sub) to wipe out power to England. I usually credit the Brits with being a bit smarter than this. It will be a short WWIII for England.

[Technex @ Dec 12th 2007 2:14PM]

We shouldn't worry about war no more but unfortunately this is still true...

Good job we have one of the worlds best ship defences!

[Andrew @ Dec 12th 2007 6:15PM]

Read it: "UK wants every home wind-powered by 2020"

Do you seriously thing military and government installations will be powered by this shit? Uh, no. Our nuclear deterrent is also all on nice, self contained mobile submarines. The plan calls for powering all HOMES by wind power. It doesn't state "go mad and get rid of all power generation and use windmills for EVERYTING". If this plan goes ahead, we'll still have oil/coal stations, nuclear reactors and pumped storage.

Furthermore, I really don't think all of these will be clumped in one place with a "bombz go here plzkthx" sign up. And ya know, I think the Royal Navy might notice people creeping about in submarines blowing up wind turbines.

[chay @ Dec 12th 2007 4:16PM]

Uh, yeah, cos it would be so much easier to blow up 7000 turbines placed over hundreds of miles of coastline than it would be to blow up 3 or 4 nuclear power plants.

/sarcasm

Seriously, wouldn't spreading the power generation to thousands of sites make the chance of taking it all out in an attack much LESS likely? So I think it's a good plan.

[Mastermind @ Dec 12th 2007 5:26PM]

Wouldn't need to blow them all up. Just scatter some lengths of cable into the blades and watch them all bind up!