WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[Dorts]

Is the reliance on 'wind-power' as a major source of energy now going too far?
Concern over huge fluctuations in the supply of electricity from Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines has now prompted National Grid to begin detailed forecasts of wind strength,(not from the Met Office I hope).

On the windiest days, the turbines deliver about 8 per cent.
But never mind 8 percent, 1 percent, or even 0.5 percent - during the recent cold spell, when energy demands were at their greatest, on several occasions wind contributed a magnificent ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT of generating capacity.

The government's own figures give the output of wind farms as 27% of installed capacity,(debatable). Can you imagine spending billions on building a power station with that level of reliability?!! "there you go Mr Cameron, one power station, £50 billion please, oh and by the way, it only works on Tuesdays and Thursdays."

It is now estimated that CO2 levels due to the building and maintainance of these turbines and the output from gas and and oil-fired power stations on constant standby, has actually gone up!
I thought that reducing CO2 was the main reason for building them?
'Green' power from Wind? Does anyone really still believe it is a worthwhile exercise on a national scale?
Time for another re-think I say.
Dorts.

[Fauna]

I' sure i read something recently that there was going to be rethink on using windfarms...saying that they are a total waste of rescources and environmentally damaging. I know I read it in relation to China and the Rare earth materials...for the life of me i can't find it agian.

[rossy]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Is the reliance on 'wind-power' as a major source of energy now going too far?
Concern over huge fluctuations in the supply of electricity from Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines has now prompted National Grid to begin detailed forecasts of wind strength,(not from the Met Office I hope).

On the windiest days, the turbines deliver about 8 per cent.
But never mind 8 percent, 1 percent, or even 0.5 percent - during the recent cold spell, when energy demands were at their greatest, on several occasions wind contributed a magnificent ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT of generating capacity.

The government's own figures give the output of wind farms as 27% of installed capacity,(debatable). Can you imagine spending billions on building a power station with that level of reliability?!! "there you go Mr Cameron, one power station, £50 billion please, oh and by the way, it only works on Tuesdays and Thursdays."

It is now estimated that CO2 levels due to the building and maintainance of these turbines and the output from gas and and oil-fired power stations on constant standby, has actually gone up!
I thought that reducing CO2 was the main reason for building them?
'Green' power from Wind? Does anyone really still believe it is a worthwhile exercise on a national scale?
Time for another re-think I say.
Dorts.

yes a waste of money, and im right behind you on this one, rossy.

[wanlock dod]

I'm not sure that the installed capacity of wind farms is debatable, unless the installers don't know how many turbines there are or what their rated capacity is. Actual power generation is a rather different issue though.

Where did you get the info on actual power generation by windfarms? I'd love to know how much power they generate, although I think that it's a rare day when our local windfarm is entirely still.

Given that most people don't use electricity for their space heating requirements I'm not sure that it's so much of a problem that on some cold days the wind farms are not generating, aroudn here it was the difficulty of getting fuel oil delivered that folks were concerned about.

I found an interesting summary of the cost of installing power plants from the US (Estimated Capital Cost of Power Generating Plant Technologies (USD per kW) | Jcmiras.Net_02) which suggests that the cost of building a coal fired power station is similar to that of a windfarm (on an equivalent output basis). The costs of mining and transporting wind are, however, rather lower than the equivalent costs for coal I think (not to mention the habitat destruction associated with extracting it).

Despite any issues over carbon emissions savings and power generation, for me windfarms are a real bonus because they give some folks something to winge about, and for that reason I applaud them.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

I'm not sure that the installed capacity of wind farms is debatable, unless the installers don't know how many turbines there are or what their rated capacity is. Actual power generation is a rather different issue though.

Where did you get the info on actual power generation by windfarms? I'd love to know how much power they generate, although I think that it's a rare day when our local windfarm is entirely still.

Given that most people don't use electricity for their space heating requirements I'm not sure that it's so much of a problem that on some cold days the wind farms are not generating, aroudn here it was the difficulty of getting fuel oil delivered that folks were concerned about.

I found an interesting summary of the cost of installing power plants from the US (Estimated Capital Cost of Power Generating Plant Technologies (USD per kW) | Jcmiras.Net_02) which suggests that the cost of building a coal fired power station is similar to that of a windfarm (on an equivalent output basis). The costs of mining and transporting wind are, however, rather lower than the equivalent costs for coal I think (not to mention the habitat destruction associated with extracting it).

Despite any issues over carbon emissions savings and power generation, for me windfarms are a real bonus because they give some folks something to winge about, and for that reason I applaud them.

Hi wanlock, thanks for your response.
Figures regarding output are from the Government, National Wind Watch and other sources.
'
Installed capacity' is the maximum capacity available from a turbine or wind farm at any one time. Example; if installed capacity is 1000 kw and a tubine is generating 270kw, it is running at 27% of installed capacity.

I think you miss the point I am trying to make. The main reason that governments are installing great numbers of wind turbines is to produce 'green-energy', that is energy that produces very little CO2 as a by-product.
But if as is happening so frequently, the turbines are running at an average of only 28% maximum capacity, and often at far less than that, the extra power required has to come from conventional power plants, which do produce large amounts of CO2, completely defeating the object.

Due to constant fluctuations and unreliability of wind as a power source, large amounts of power needs to be available 'on demand'. This means conventional plants need to be running on standby all the time, no matter how much the wind blows, just incase it stops blowing. And this will always be the case with 'wind power', unlike tidal for example which is completely predictable.

So, as I said in my original piece, "would you buy a generator that only works for two days a week?" For that is exactly what we taxpayers are doing.
Dorts.

[Gill Catton]

I think wind farms are fine, they are not the only solution but they are definately part of the solution for now. Wind farms wouldn't be built if they did not return enough electricity to make them economically viable.

I'm so tired of hearing the 'they take more energy to make that they ever return' argument because I have heard that said of all power sources. So what's the solution, hang around until we've come up with something that takes less energy to create? and what do we do in the interim while the oil is becoming harder and more expensive (and more dangerous) to source?

No one can alter the fact that Oil is running out and we need alternatives now. Even Uranium is finite. You cannot ban a form of energy production because some people think its ugly... that's crazy. If we did that we'd never have any electricity at all.

In addition wind turbines have a short life span and in twenty to thirty years time hopefully we will have come up with something better and then the turbines can be taken down and need not be replaced.

To my mind If you use electricity then you have to be prepared to have to sit and look at how it is produced be it a coal fired power station, a nuclear power station, fields full of solar panels, or wind turbines.

For example, why is it ok for the people of Didcot (and surround land for tens of kilometers) to have to look at the power station yet its not ok for other to have to look at 100s or even 1000s of wind turbines?

At least if we can produce this energy on and around our Islands we won't be held to ransom by other parts of the world for that portion of energy.

[ForestPaul]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

For example, why is it ok for the people of Didcot (and surround land for tens of kilometers) to have to look at the power station yet its not ok for other to have to look at 100s or even 1000s of wind turbines?

Because wind turbine arrays are typically constructed in the few remaining bits of wild open countryside on our crowded island and then require further intrusion to get the power out to where it's actually needed.

Their purpose is to tick boxes and meet targets, not actually generate useful power.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by ForestPaul

Because wind turbine arrays are typically constructed in the few remaining bits of wild open countryside on our crowded island and then require further intrusion to get the power out to where it's actually needed.

Their purpose is to tick boxes and meet targets, not actually generate useful power.

Not true, I know of many proposed wind farms inland on boring bright green farmland. In very similar location types to Didcot power station actually.

Often cabling can be used underground where the above ground will heal itself very quickly.

If as a general rule they didn't generate useful power they wouldn't be economical and wouldn't be built.

[basquesteve]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

I think wind farms are fine, they are not the only solution but they are definately part of the solution for now. Wind farms wouldn't be built if they did not return enough electricity to make them economically viable.

As I understand, not one would be built, with out hugh government subsidies, they are not economically viable

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by basquesteve

As I understand, not one would be built, with out hugh government subsidies, they are not economically viable

I don't know the detail of government subsidies and I don't really mind if they are big subsidies, of all the things my tax money goes into I'm happy for it to go towards renewable energy because frankly I like using electricty. Its not like private companies don't pass the cost of building power stations onto their customers too.

Hundreds of people (including my parents) are getting solar panels on their roofs just because there is a current government commitment to buy surplus energy produced by the panels. Without this they wouldn't bother. Yes admittedly solar energy is not without its faults or environmental costs - but there is no form of power production that doesn't have a downside but so long as there is a sun and you can maintain the panels its good re-newable energy.

It seems to me that we have been aware since the 60s that oil is going to run out we as a species have spent at least 30 years doing not nearly enough about coming up with a better and renewable energy source.

So this is the situation we are left with. We have to try these things out NOW not sit around a wait until we've come up with something that might work better.

Ultimately the solution is unlikely to be any one thing its likely to be a network of resources. Eventually some windfarms will probably end up not being as good as was hoped (because both humans and computer modelling can get it wrong) and these would be unlikely to be replaced when they come to the end or their viable life particularly if a better solution has been established to take up the slack.