I don't think wind turbines are as useless as some make out. However, I am frustrated that wind is the only renewable the government have done much pushing for. The baseload power generation, in my opinion, should be made up of mostly completly submurged tidal stream turbines (note: not barrages) and nuclear power stations, but I think wind turbines probably do have a place in the generation mix (though something needs to be done about pylons, which are much more of an eyesore than most modern wind turbines).
Tidal power, although much more reliable that wind, isn't constant, so probably wouldn't be any use as baseload. It is, however, suddenly very promising. The latest government scheme for renewables has not just cut wind's subsidy by 10%, but has also added incentives for wave power to be used, by upping the value of the
ROC▸ (renewable obligation certificates) per unit of power. Expect much to happen, especially off northern Scotland. These will be completely underwater, and may very well look like wind turbines. BAE Systems have done considerable work already. The advantage over wind is the density of water against air - there is a lot more energy in the same sized place.
I believe I have read of a proposal for a fossil-fuel-powered (diesel perhaps) generation station which I think was supposed to start up and shut-down almost instantly as back up for wind farms. If true, that sort of thing would mean we would only need to burn fossil fuels when it isn't windy, rather than having to keep coal-fired stations running even when it is windy to prvide power when it isn't. Pumped-storage hydro-power might also be good company for wind generation (when you have more wind than you need pump water up, when there isn't enough wind let the water flow).
Pumped storage, such as Dinorweg electric mountain, was conceived as good company for nuclear power stations. They work best when they are on full power permanently. At night, the chain of nuclear stations proposed would need something to use their excess power on. Charging up the nation's night storage heaters and milk floats took only some of the power, so Dinorweg was born. It uses off-peak energy to pump the water uphill, so there is loss of energy. But it can turn the dial from zero to 1.8MW in less than half a minute, and sustain that for up to six hours. Of course, not all the nuclear stations were built, so a second plant tentatively planned for Exmoor never saw the light of day. Exmoor,
BTW▸ , did have pumped storage, from 1899 until the night of the flood in 1952 - see
here for more.
The National Grid already relies on a number of diesel-powered generators to provide that last little bit of electricity when the conventional stuff doesn't quite add up. These tend to be owned by farmers, and make a nice little income for them, even if they are not often used. Pumped storage is a good idea in principle, but would cost sums that may make nuclear look cheap. Dinorweg cost ^425m at 1974 prices, and took 10 years to build. Someone in Scotland suggested this as a storage for wind power, and was shot down in flames by angry kilt-wearers, who said it would ruin what little of Scotland is left unspoiled by wind turbines.
Promising for the future is Thorium. It offers most of the benefits of traditional nuclear, with hardly any of the disadvantages. There are thousands of years of supply. It consumes 98% of input fuel, as opposed to 5% for uranium, leaving a few gallons of waste instead of a few truckloads. India is ahead of the field on this possible fuel, and hopes to start its first Thorium reactor later this year. Even Friends of the Earth are moving towards support. Bit ironic that a country we are still giving aid to could be the one to leave us behind.
