hi folks

I am doing some volunteer work and need to chat with someone about the cons of land based wind farms. Has anyone got a few minutes to chat and point me in research directions please?

regards

Linda

Why only the cons?

I would recommend a visit to this wind turbine, as it is awesome. The adjoining village liked it so much that they demanded a second one and complained when it didn’t happen quickly enough.

The public can climb up to the viewing platform (300 steps). This is the only wind turbine where you can do this.

http://www.ecotricity.co...n-britain-centre-norfolk

To dispel the myth that they don’t do a lot, you can monitor their wind farm output in real time:

http://www.ecotricity.co...e-wind-energy-production

So they are environmentally friendly?

They only work when the wind blows. We need electricity all the time. In order to achieve this we need to ensure that for every kW that the wind turbine can generate we need the same generating capacity using some other method, one that can be switched into the system quickly, which limits our options.

Yet we have a totally reliable alternative that would not despoil our countryside. We live on an island surrounded by tides. Tidal turbines placed at headlands around the country would create a reliable source of energy. And when it is slack water at one headland a few miles away the tide will be running strongly. Given that water is viscous the turbines can be quite small.

Yet how much emphasis - and subsidies - are provided for this environmentally friendly source of power?

Chris / Frank - I agree with the points re tidal but this is future tech and wind is here now. Ass for 'no wind' - whilst these haven't been common recently: Pumped storage could provide the reserve - but we don't have enough high level valleys to flood - which is where the North Sea power link to Scandinavia may come in handy. Winds blow here - we send electricity and pump water uphill in Norway. Winds stop - the Norwegians turn on the hydro - and we get (some of) the electric back...

Flicker can be an issue - as can noise - if the turbines are poorly sited or early designs - but the (in)efficiency argument is fatally flawed. We wouldn't be seeing so much investment if there wasn't a real need for some generation without nuclear or carbon.

Nuclear floor prices have just been guaranteed (to the French!) by this Govt at a level about fifty percent above any current generation ... So who gets the subsidy???

Steve

As off now, 10.11 wind turbines are producing 960MW on the Irish transmission system, at 00.05 this morning they were producing 1269MW.

By 2020 Ireland will have instantaneous wind penetration of 75% of total demand, the highest in the world.

Yes it does work and no the consumer does not pay through hidden subsidies.

LINDA - pm me if you want to chat about wind farms etc

Jonty

When it comes to efficiency it is worth considering the fact that we are looking at first generation wind turbines. If the same negative attitudes had been take n with cars we would all still be driving 1885 Daimlers and saying the horse is more efficient. They are developing rapidly, as are PV cells.

Tidal power

I have personally been involved in tidal energy sources and my associate has been involved as a leading scientist for ~50 years with infoormation and working equipment from the 50's and he states that tidal will do almost all that is needed with very little cost [however that is the problem as the profits are low for the manufacturets etc.] however politics get in the way!! Think about it

My husband works on onshore wind farms so I'm commenting on the basis of what he has told me and although not from a safety perspective, one of the major problems I know of with wind generation is the national grids inability to handle it. I've lost count of the number of occasions whereby the company my husband work for have had to either curtail or completely shut down wind farms in high winds as they are producing too much energy for the grid to cope with. When this happens, the national grid have to pay compensation to the electricity generation companies.

I'm all for renewable energy but when you are relying on British weather it is very unpredictable and the national grid don't seem to have the infrastructure to handle it when production conditions are good (i.e. the weather conditions we all hate and moan about).

Linda

All these sorts of issues are addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment that is required as part of planning application for any onshore windfarm.

You could not have expressed my views better, thanks.

In Shetland we have one relatively small windfarm and a quote their website is

"Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd developed, owns and operates the Burradale Windfarm. Burradale is one of the most productive windfarms in the world with a recorded capacity factor* of 52%. The high productivity is due to Shetland's unique wind resource."

If 52% is one of the most productive in the world, how inefficient are the majority.

Tidal is much closer to 100% and does not require "hot back-up" that wind does.

Hi folks

I'm sure that Linda XC is far to well-mannered to say this - but she didn't ask for a discussion on the merits or otherwise of wind v water power generation.

Her question was very specifically about what appears to be a possible plan for a small Wind Generator site and any implications of that going ahead.

Anything else is another thread really.

Frank Hallett

I didn't realise this was a forum for the anti-windfarm lobby. I think the Daily Mail is more appropriate for that topic.

But now that I have started, I guess I am biased as I have worked in wind for a number of years and am currently based offshore in Germany.
I also wish people would use the term "variable" instead of unreliable and inefficient.
Tidal energy is the only guaranteed source for renewable energy and that too is variable.

Sorry Linda that I am unable answer your questions but I am sure there are a number of people on the forums who are capable of doing so.

The wind farm lobby haven't got a hope in hell of providing a reliable electrical base load for the country.

Nuclear is the way forward - expensive yes! But if you want to keep watching Cornonation Street - pay up!!

Plus it keeps me in a very well paid job.

Thank you for your view on my interpretation of what Linda actually requested information on ACHRN. I must agree that the request was only "very explicit" in my view - obviously not a number of others. This is not an unusual situation on this forum, as the range of respondents inevitably [I trust that you'll allow that definitive?] produces a wide range of opinion.

However, it is obvious from our respective comments that we have interpreted the original post in conjunction with Lindas additional post at #16 [that seems to focus more closely upon her needs] rather differently.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree on our variation in understanding of what was being sought.


Frank Hallett

cont!
as well as with my voluntary work.

thanks again

Linda

I want to know what they do to cows?

Come on ... it IS Friday!

Churchill said that there are liars, damned liars and statisticians and here we IOSH members, who should know how to use and to question statistics, are comparing apples with oranges or perhaps with turnips.
The quoted efficiencies of conventional power stations compare the input thermal energy contained in the nuclides, coal, oil, gas or “biomass” (wood chips and sewage solids etc.) with the electrical energy output to the national grid. All of these lie in the mid- to high-thirties percent (34 to 38 percent). The second law of thermodynamics demands that heat is rejected to allow heat engines such as steam turbines to function. Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power stations are able to run at around 53% because the waste heat rejected by the aero engine exhaust gases is used to boil water which drives a steam turbine. All of these sources are able to run non-stop apart from planned shutdowns and the very occasional breakdown. The water-to-wire efficiency of hydro and tidal power stations is around 92% and the wire-to-water-to-wire efficiency of pumped storage facilities is around 82%.
Wind generators use the term “efficiency” to mean the actual annual output in megawatt/hours divided by the “nameplate capacity” multiplied by 8,760, the number of hours in a year. This neatly avoids having to mention the numbers of hours (days) when there is no, or little, wind, and the fact that to achieve “nameplate capacity” needs at least 30 knots of wind (Beaufort Force 7 “Near Gale”) which rarely occurs on mainland Britain. The 52% wind farm “efficiency” in Shetland, mentioned above, simply confirms the number of days when Shetland has high winds. Betz’s Law limits the maximum wind-to-rotor shaft conversion efficiency of the aerosol blades to 59%. The true air-to-wire efficiency of a wind generator rotor is around 40-50%.

You should also factor-in the problem of lifespan. With turbine gearbox failure now coming to the fore. Several studies now point to life expectancy of 7 to 10 years before major replacement is needed. Currently the WT fleet is providing 5 GW to the grid, in favourable conditions. Base load is nuclear at near 8GW with despatchables of coal at 12GW and gas at 7GW. Until a long term high capacity system is available for wind generation it will continue to be an unreliable system.