"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from contains these words:


In Oz they have become aware of the unsolved problem of wind
farms
producing output when it can't be used and not producing output
when
it is needed, just as the Danes have after both have invested a
vast
amount in wind farms. UK next?

The UK has a national power grid and high population density
so there
isn't any problem of UK windfarms producing surplus power that
can't be
used; they just feed it into the grid.

Just feeding it into the grid doesn't necessarily mean it gets put
to any
actual or practical use, though. Distance between point of input to
the grid
and point of use is still a factor, because of losses associated
with Joule
heating, so generating facilities located re,otely from centres of
heavy
demand are relatively inefficient in meeting that demand. Further,
additional power input to the grid at times when supply already
exceeds
demand is still wasted.

Granted, those aren't problems to the wind turbine operators as
long as the
grid is obliged to accept energy input from them whether or not
needed
locally at the time.

There is another solution, given a National Grid - accept energy
from
sources which can't be easily turned on and off, and not from those
which can. It's unlikely that wind power will provide too much
electricity by itself in the forseeable future, even at times of low
demand.

That last sentence of Kay is a clear enough statement that the
present fashoin of favouring wind power is deeply flawed.
There really is no alternative to developing nuclear power stations as
fast as possible, all over he world. The whole brouhaha about
managing spent fuel and radioactive waste is entirely a political
problem. Scientific solutions do exist

But this is not gardening {:-((

Franz.