Wind turbines

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

decommission/remove 1 x 500kW wind turbine = 1 month
decommission/remove 8800 x 500kW tubines = 8800 months = 733.33 years
decommission/remove 1 x average 1100MW nuclear power station (i.e. the equivalent in output to these 8800 turbines) = 340 years.

I suspect that if 8800 wind turbines needed decommissioning, it wouldn't be done one at a time!

Jim

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I suspect that if 8800 wind turbines needed decommissioning, it wouldn't be done one at a time!

Jim

As I suspect that 8800 teams of engineers would not be despatched to do it in a month either!

I merely make the point that when comparing the decommissioning of one technology with another, then the same "output quantity" - (in this case MW) of both technologies should be considered, for the comparison to be considered valid.

A typical wind farm, produces only a fraction of a percent of the output of a nuclear plant, therefore, decommissioning of said windfarm cannot be compared with anything other than the decommissioning of a fraction of percent of a nuclear plant.

I suspect that neither of us will be able to decide conclusively, which would be the lesser, as the only way to be certain would be to have access to the exact number of man-hours involved for each operation. (Not forgetting that this would have to include all of the associated secondary infrastructure etc.).

Regards
Mike.

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by thunder

Why would one want to remove the whole kit and caboodle? Surely just because the turbine has come to the end of its life doesn't mean there is no need for the electricity it produced. They would surely erect a new turbine on the old base. Or do the bases decay and become unusable? In which case they haul out one load of concrete and pour in fresh, don't they?

henrya

Exactly. Anyway, it is not just the turbines that wreck uplands. Where I am thinking of, what was once pristine upland bog, is now a rubbly desert upon which the turbines stand. Even if they did shift the rusty monsters and remove the rubble, it aint going to revert back to what it once was. What we have is total precious habitat destruction.
So, no way Jose for wind turbines on our uplands (or nuclear power stations, or houses, or landfill sites, or car-parks, or shopping centres, etc, etc, either ).

Regards, Chris

[fairplay]

So there you go, no electricity for people who live in the 'uplands', just keep on treading the treadmill.

Neil.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by fairplay

So there you go, no electricity for people who live in the 'uplands', just keep on treading the treadmill.

Or cutting the peat!

Jim

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by fairplay

So there you go, no electricity for people who live in the 'uplands', just keep on treading the treadmill.

Neil.

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Or cutting the peat!

Jim

Off the cuff, jocular remarks no doubt, but consider this: -

If the average daily UK electricity demand is in the region of 55000MW, (previous posts on this thread refer), and with the land mass of United Kingdom & Northern Ireland standing at just over 93,000 sq. miles: -

To provide approximately 50% of that amount of electrical power would need about 2.4 x 500kW wind turbines, or 12 x 100kW wind turbines for every single square mile of land. [Note - Wind turbine efficiency being approx 25% - Previous posts also refer].

Given that large areas of the UK are urbanised, and a good deal would be unsuitable from operational point of view, then the amount of land available to wind farms, (much of it upland / wildlife rich habitat), is considerably less than 93,000sq.m. – meaning that the density of turbines/sq.m. would need to be significantly increased.

Food for thought – (and one of several reasons why I favour nuclear power as the main player in the electricity supply game).

Regards
Mike.

[pressld2]

A good point well made, Mike, but two things...

1. 50% of power generated from wind is still too high. I can't see us ever achieving more than 20%. Solar might make 50% but wind won't.

2. They don't have to be on land:



Dave P.

[pressld2]

Sorry, a third point has just occurred to me...

3. What's wrong with urban locations? This is one of two sited at Dagenham in East London...



There's one this size or bigger in the car park of the Madejski stadium (Reading FC). I would have thought that urban locations were ideal, particularly in view of the fact that wind turbines can't be used in high winds (above 50mph if I recall correctly) and as several people have pointed out you need access roads to let engineers get to them for maintenance. Guess what, there are already roads leading in to Reading FC's car park!

Dave P.

[Lancashire Lad]

I'm with you pressld2

I don't think wind farms will ever achieve 50% of our supply requirement, but from previous posts there are many people who think these things are a panacea for all ills, and will be able to provide the larger part.

I am not so much against them in offshore locations, but my criticism still stands, in as much as to provide substantially significant contribution to supply, there would need to be tens of thousands of them.

Plus, in offshore locations, construction, maintenance, lifespan - (salt erosion etc.), and other factors would reduce their already meagre 25% efficiency rating still further.

As far as solar power goes, I really can't see that having any significant impact in GB for decades to come, our climate just does not lend itself to solar power (given present day efficiencies of that technology).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the development of these technologies, provided that they are actually as green as their protagonists would have us believe.

Regards
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by pressld2

...What's wrong with urban locations?....

Again, I don't particularly disagree on this.

I've already said in one of my earlier posts that I'd be quite happy if all these things were located on industrial estates or the like.

And single units at certain locations don't look that unsightly (I've got one about 300m from where I live).

But then, I wouldn't want to see these things on or adjacent to every building.

Regards
Mike.