Thread: Wind power seems to be working for some...

Pumping seawater from very close-in offshore(2/300m) to an elevation of choice will produce a net product of about 1.2MW,or,power for 2,264 homes, x 3.9 residents per home = 8,830 people. This at only 60% efficiency.

So,a close-in pumping station pumps 10,000 lps (10 cubic metres per second)to an elevation (Head) of 90m. 10 cu m per second delivered to a turbine 90m below will deliver 8.8mw at 100% efficiency and 5.3mw at 60% efficiency.

All of this is for a one pass system of abundant seawater.

No Dams,no Upper and lower Reservoirs as with the Pumped Storage System and no Run of River System either.

The Head and lps can be expanded upon in most cases.

Originally Posted by gc

That's 7.2% of total exports, and the sector has moved into profit. Under Danish law, the taxpayer is reaping the reward for the subsidies in reductions in energy bills. Their investment has paid off handsomely.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the sector is in profit. There is even a hint that it may have made a loss (since it is making workers redundant). Only turnover and employment figures are given. Why? If it were in profit, I suspect that this would have been trumpeted loudly. Furthermore, even if the industry made a profit, it does not follow that the Danish economy has profited; with subsidies and regulatory bias, it may have made a considerable net loss. I seem to recall seeing another report linked somewhere on this forum showing just that - and that the emphasis on wind power had significantly increased the cost of electricity domestically (whoops, just noticed mkpdavies post!).

Originally Posted by angelman

not if its only 2.5%. You may well be correct about the 25% figure being to do with water leakages. I have no idea where the figure comes from, it is just stuck in my head somewhere. Having said that another figure has sprung up - that of 10% but I know not why so I'll go with your 2.5%.

OK, but don't rely on it - my recollection might be wrong too. I'll post an update if I find the original link again. The important point is that, whatever the precise figure, it's the product of economic engineering tradeoffs.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Denmark- Wind Farms, A Terrible Expensive Disaster- Britain Follows This Pattern…. Centurean2’s Weblog



Indeed.

MKPD, you have presented this as a source, and it is nothing more than a blog by somebody who appears to be an ill-informed and biased lunkhead.

Originally Posted by Paul Birch

Nowhere in the article does it say that the sector is in profit. .

I'm sorry. I had assumed that since you were engaging in this debate, you might have a basic knowledge of what we are talking about. I was obviously wrong, unless of course you are being deliberately awkward. Either way, I won't get bogged down in pointless conversation with members of the flat Earth society.

Originally Posted by gc

I'm sorry. I had assumed that since you were engaging in this debate, you might have a basic knowledge of what we are talking about. I was obviously wrong, unless of course you are being deliberately awkward. Either way, I won't get bogged down in pointless conversation with members of the flat Earth society.

What on earth are you on about? You claimed (in post #8) that the sector is in profit, but nowhere in the article does it make that claim (and a search on the word profit finds no results on that page). Are you denying this? Or are you somehow assuming that record exports must equate to profits or economic benefit? They don't. Turnover and profits are very different.