Windfarms - Good or Bad

[John D]

Chasman is correct when he says that 'wind generators' have a 'load factor' of around 30%. That means in other words that their OUTPUT in kWhs is equal to their rating in kW*8760*0.3. (where 8760 is hours in a year). Where does the energy requirements for the other 70% come from???? The only known reliable sources in terms of energy output are NUCLEAR, COAL FIRED and GAS TURBINE. Chasman is also correct in saying that there is technology for 'cleanig emmissions' from COAL FIRED Stations. Scottish Power are actually fitting it at Longannet Power Station which is one of the largest coal fired stations in the country.
Wind generators on a smaller scale may have a part to play, especially if they can be associated with a process that is not dependent on a full time energy requirement. For example on a farm or where hot water is required. The energy from the 'wind generator' would be used to heat the water. In turn of course hot water can be stored until required. If top up is required some other form of energy could be used (ie electricity from the mains,gas,oil, LPG etc).
Unfortunately with present technology electrical energy cannot be stored in large quantity, storing it in the form of hot water is one method.
Hydro is of course also a method of storing 'electrical energy' in the form of the water retained in a dam, ready to be used to overcome a system peak. Nuclear stations, which normally run around the clock, are sometimes used in conjunction with hydro stations. During the night when the requirement to supply customers is very much reduced, the excess energy is used to pump water, which has previously passed through a hydro station, back up to the dam so there will be sufficient water for the morning peak. This is a very efficient method of mixed generation. Even with all the rain we get partucularly in Scotland there is never a guarantee that there will be enough water for the hydro stations so water is used at times over and over again.
It will be sometime yet, if ever, before there will be real alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuel fired stations. Wind and wave power will only be supplementary to them not replacements.

[eeyore]

Although there is technology to "clean emmisions" from coal fired power stations this does not help the global warming issue as most cleaning technologies concentrate on removing acid gasses. there is no technology available to remove CO2 as source.

An american firm has developed technology to sequester Carbon from the CO2 as a silicate but this technology is still in the developmental stage and may not be taken forward due to lack of funding.

Apart from the global warming issue the problem with fossil fuels is that they are finite and will run out in the not too distant future - this will leave us with only nuclear as a viable alternative unless serious money is put into alternative now.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by chasman

wind only works 1/3 of the time, disrupts the wildlife, divides society but solar hot water collectors dont.

I agree with you up to a point about the disruption and danger to wildlife but these issues should be overcomable if sufficient funds are allocated to them. Dismissing one of the major sources of alternative power out of hand seems shortsighted to me - yes at present they only work effectively one third of the time but combined with fuel cell technology this could be overcome.

With sufficient investment Wind, solar, Tidal, Hydro, and heat pump technology together could be a real alternative to nuclear - particularly if combined with a real drive for energy efficiency - this seems a better option than risking irradiating a large chunk of the UK.

Also no offence but it strikes me chasman that your real problem with Wind turbines is that a company wants to build them near you, again up to a point I can see your point as skye doesnt strike me as the best location, but that is no reason to dismiss wind generation in toto.

If we dont do something about global warming soon the odden feature will melt, and the gulf stream will stop - at that point skye will have a climate equivalent to spitzbergen in norway and noise and disruption from turbines will be the least of your problems.

[chasman]

· An aviation fuel tax, the Government charges taxes equivalent to over 250% on motor fuel, which most us pay as an essential to get to work. Air transport has been blamed for much of artificial global warming, at 30 to 40 thousand feet up there is no rain to dissolve CO2 or plant life to absorb it, yet the Government allows these greenhouse emissions, mostly holiday trips, to be tax-free!
· Model Specific Road Tax, to penalise the gas-guzzlers and reduce tax on fuel-efficient cars, similar measures already exist on company cars. Also diesel cars are proven to reduce CO2 emissions, yet our Government is the only one in Europe to tax diesel more than petrol
· Energy efficient housing, grants could be made available for this, if each household had one high-energy light bulb, it would save more energy than the puny wind industry could ever conserve.


As well as the fact that it is more windy in the Vale of Belvoir but the Coal Mine was not built there becuase of the nimbys so they thought they would build the wind farm on the old coal mine site - where it is not so windy!

[chasman]

Originally Posted by eeyore

If we dont do something about global warming soon the odden feature will melt, and the gulf stream will stop - at that point skye will have a climate equivalent to spitzbergen in norway and noise and disruption from turbines will be the least of your problems.

usual scaremonger statement that is supposed to make anyone who asks questions or doubts the eco fascists look like they dont give a monkeys about the environment - of course we do - but just putting up wind turbines willy nilly because it sounds good is no good.

anyone who just tried to look good never got nowhere.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by chasman

usual scaremonger statement that is supposed to make anyone who asks questions or doubts the eco fascists look like they dont give a monkeys about the environment - of course we do - but just putting up wind turbines willy nilly because it sounds good is no good.

anyone who just tried to look good never got nowhere.

i won't take offence at that cos I'm here for a debate not a fight.

1) First off I said if the gulfsteam stops it will be a lot colder here, without the gulfstream our cklimate will be like that of labrador, the gulfstream makes us a lot warmer so this is hypothetically true.

2) The odden feature - which causes the gulf stream to come our way did not form last year or this year , this has caused a size reduction, if it continues to shrink the gulfstream will stop coming to ourside of the atlantic - this is irefutably true

3) The odden feature is made of ice - Ice melts if the temperature rises above zero this is simple scientific fact.

4) The greenhouse effect is causing a rise in atmospheric temperature - this was accepted by world leaders at kyoto.

Ergo it is provably fact that if global warming continues to increase, the odden feature will melt and we will have no gulfstream. The only question then is whether the rise in global temperature will ofset our falling temperature through loosing the Gulfstream. Most models sugest that it would only take a 5 degree rise to melt the feature so our climate will then be 5 degrees warmer than labrador - and in the winter that is still flippin cold.

This also proves that petty name calling is no match for reasoned and logical argument.

[John]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i won't take offence at that cos I'm here for a debate not a fight.

1) First off I said if the gulfsteam stops it will be a lot colder here, without the gulfstream our cklimate will be like that of labrador, the gulfstream makes us a lot warmer so this is hypothetically true.

2) The odden feature - which causes the gulf stream to come our way did not form last year or this year , this has caused a size reduction, if it continues to shrink the gulfstream will stop coming to ourside of the atlantic - this is irefutably true

3) The odden feature is made of ice - Ice melts if the temperature rises above zero this is simple scientific fact.

4) The greenhouse effect is causing a rise in atmospheric temperature - this was accepted by world leaders at kyoto.

Ergo it is provably fact that if global warming continues to increase, the odden feature will melt and we will have no gulfstream. The only question then is whether the rise in global temperature will ofset our falling temperature through loosing the Gulfstream. Most models sugest that it would only take a 5 degree rise to melt the feature so our climate will then be 5 degrees warmer than labrador - and in the winter that is still flippin cold.

This also proves that petty name calling is no match for reasoned and logical argument.

And if anyone doubts what eeyore has just stated you must be mad. I doubt if there is anyone with a shred of common sense that doesn't realise that if the course of the gulf stream is changed we could plunge into an ice age.

Global warming will change the course fairly quickly if the ice melts at the present, or even quicker rate. Once the extremely cold water pushes into the gulf stream it becomes fairly obvious what will happen.

We know Global warming will cause this. What we don't appear to be agreeing on is how best to try for some form of renewable energy that will sit right with all factions of society. I doubt if that will ever happen as whatever is decided will upset someone.

Personally I don't like windfarms. They are (to me) ugly. They spoil the landscape and are a danger to migrating birds. You only have to look at the wind farms of Tarifa (near Gibraltar) to realise how bad a landscape can look, together with bird mortality at high rates. You now only have to go a little further up the road towards Seville to come to a new project in an area that Birdwatchers know called La Janda to realise the damage to habitat that can be caused by sighting these wind turbines over vast tracts of land.

When I last went to La Janda I could have literally cried when I saw the change that had happened in just over a year. Where once birds, such as White Stork, Collared Pratincole and various Egrets and Herons (plus many other smaller birds) were breeding in huge numbers there was now just barren ground, devoid of vegitation and beauty, scarred by the multitude of roads that are needed to service these giant turbines. For me that is a terrible price to pay.

Is it right that we carry on building the amount of turbines we are doing without giving the land and its wildlife what appears to be no second thought. For me I think it is wriong but hey!! who am I. I am only one person out of millions with similar thoughts and really, in the scheme of things, are our thoughts important enough against an industry hell bent on doing what they think is right, no matter what anyone else thinks. It appears not.

John

[eeyore]

I agree with you john, I have no particular brief for wind turbines, I just wanted to take issue with being called an "ecofacsist scaremonger"

The problem is that every form of non carbon energy has its detractors and problems to whit

A) tidal barages - bad for birds, spoil the coast line
B) wave ducks - may not work anyway
c) solar -impractical in our climate likely to get more so if the gulfstream slows down
d) Nuclear - risk of accidents, what to do with the waste
e) biomass - needs a lot of land area so not good for nature, methan escapes will add to GHE
f) Better insulation and reduced energy use - prohibitely expensive for the poor, impacts on everyones lifestyle.

However we are being forced into an age in which we (well the govt) will have to make unpleasant and unpalatable decisions and doing nothing is not going to be an option.

any thoughts anyone (preferably those that dont include calling me names )

[chasman]

the eco facsicts are the people who call me non caring about the environment because i am asking probing questions about the validity of the potential site here. for some reason because i ask these questions i am labelled an anti environmental - those are the ecofascists.

i agree that global warming may ne happening but forcing ones opinion about the solution on other intelligent beings is out of order without proper consultation first.

the local developer has refused to answer any more questions about the project despite saying they would have an open and honest debate. they have not replied to letters and are dragging their heels on the proposed weather balloon. my piont is that it is wind is greater in the vale of belvoir but because there are more nimbys there it will be built here just like the coal mine situation.

there are better solutions than plastering our country with big white pylons and propellors.

disruption from turbines will be the least of your problems.

that is the scare monger bit.

[nightshade]

Wind farms will not go away but I am sure there must be a more aesthetically pleasing and wild life friendly design,what we are getting is the Lowest Bidder(non-the-less expensive)
version.
How about giving the university students a chance to design an alternative? I favour the Dutch windmill style,with one set of sails driving multiple gearboxes and generators underground more expensive initially but less invasive for our descendents and only one obstacle instead of multiple ugliness .
Any takers?