Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.
Thus they generate much less pollution.
|
I'd love for that to work, but I know from a friend (who was a power station engineer) how hard it can be to 'switch on' a power station. You have to keep them ticking over rather than letting them stop entirely, unless you have plenty of notice of when you're going to need the extra capacity.
One of his favourite stories was how, in the wake of privatisation, a lot of the staff got early retirement as the company sought to reduce manning levels, but reduced the staff by so much they were missing certain expertise. He made a packet out of going back in to do shifts as a freelance, especially when, on one occasion, they did have to get a turbine back on line quickly and there was *nobody* on shift in the power station who knew how to do it!
Back to the point though ... if we still have to have masses of capacity in reserve, what benefit ultimately is there in wind power? I'm not saying there's no place for wind in the energy mix, I was just challenging etc's suggestion that we could divert money from nuclear programmes and take the country 100% wind-powered. Clearly, even if we're only maintaining 'traditional' power stations for back-up purposes, that's not possible.