Wind turbines

[paulchandler6]

No one has yet mentioned wave power. I believe the costs for the generating equipment is high at the moment as it has to withstand storms, but the potential is there. I understand funding is available for a wave farm near the Orkneys and one proposed for North Cornwall. Does anyone know what ecological impact these have? They should be minimal? Cheers

[JennyS]

I couldn't find a thread on Wind Turbines, so I'll start one. Do you love 'em or hate 'em ! ?
Is it a case of 'not in my backyard' !
I like them , they're graceful. Does anyone have one ' in their back yard' ?

There are more and more wind turbines appearing in SW Ireland, and no I don't like them, but I am getting used to them.

Like most of us I use electricity and I would far rather put up with the aesthetic and sometimes physical damage caused by them than contemplate the horror scenario of nuclear power....and the 'oh well we don't know what to do with the waste but we'll build a whole new generation of them anyway' outlook of politicians etc.

At the moment (touch wood and keep praying it stays that way) Ireland has no nuclear power stations, though the East coast has suffered from the proximity to Windscale or whatever its now called.

I don't think there is a 'perfect' solution to the issue, but some alternatives are worse than others...... I would much rather not have them right in my back yard, but if they were that close I think I'd have to reckon fair cop - I want the benefits of electricity just like everyone else does - without the horrendous hazards associated with nuclear which seems to be the only alternative getting suggested by policy makers.

[John D]

Originally Posted by Coley

Wind turbines take up less space than a power station. Though they cover a larger area, their combined area adds up to less thean a power station that produces the same amount of energy would. Also, the area wind farms are usually placed are used for growing wheat or something.
I don't agree with people who say they are an eye saw because I think pilons are really ugly but we got used to them. I am shocked by the pictures of the poor birds, but people except the destruction of wild animals done by vehicles because we all want cars.

Do they take up less space?? I can assure they don't!
The second largest wind turbine development in Scotland has just been given the go ahead. It will consist of 71 turbines and generate 213 Mw(that depends very much on optimum wind conditions) The annual load factor is likely to be around 30%. A Power Station such as Longannet generates 2304Mw at an annual load factor of around 85%. The space taken up by 71 wind turbines will be greater than that of Longannet.
Wind turbines cannot replace coal or nuclear it can only supplement them. Electricity is required in large quantities 24/7 all year round. With current technology conventional stations will still be required well into the forseeable future whether fueled by nuclear, coal, oil or gas. The cleanest as far as CO2 is concerned is nuclear.
John D

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by John D

Do they take up less space?? I can assure they don't!

They need quite a bit of space.

"Wind turbines should ideally be placed about ten times their diameter apart in the direction of prevailing winds and five times their diameter apart in the perpendicular direction for minimal losses due to wind park effects. A 2 GW wind farm, which might produce as much energy each year as a 1 GW baseload power plant, might have turbines spread out over an area of approximately 200 square kilometres."

[John D]

Originally Posted by John D

Do they take up less space?? I can assure they don't!
The second largest wind turbine development in Scotland has just been given the go ahead. It will consist of 71 turbines and generate 213 Mw(that depends very much on optimum wind conditions) The annual load factor is likely to be around 30%. A Power Station such as Longannet generates 2304Mw at an annual load factor of around 85%. The space taken up by 71 wind turbines will be greater than that of Longannet.
Wind turbines cannot replace coal or nuclear it can only supplement them. Electricity is required in large quantities 24/7 all year round. With current technology conventional stations will still be required well into the forseeable future whether fueled by nuclear, coal, oil or gas. The cleanest as far as CO2 is concerned is nuclear.
John D

Please read 65% in place of 85%. Longannet is a coal fired station nearing 43 years old.
Nuclear stations can operate at an annual load factor approaching 85%.
It's worth noting than large amounts of electrical energy are required on INSTANT DEMAND 24/7 all year round. This whether there is enough wind or not. Renewables with the current technology and methods cannot provide that guarantee.
John D

[m1.carson]

Hi,

I know nothing about wind turbines, and have only seen one stand-alone at Reading, we were amazed at it's size, after watching it and reading about bird deaths, I can't understand how a bird can fly into a blade, they appear to travel so slowly, anyway, couldn't some sort of reflective material be used on the leading edges, I realise that wouldn't help night flyers of course but it might be a start, maybe it's not technologically feasable or too expensive.

Max.

[Gill Catton]

I think the problems particularly come in during foggy weather when the birds cannot see the things......

[Coley]

Originally Posted by John D

Do they take up less space?? I can assure they don't!
The second largest wind turbine development in Scotland has just been given the go ahead. It will consist of 71 turbines and generate 213 Mw(that depends very much on optimum wind conditions) The annual load factor is likely to be around 30%. A Power Station such as Longannet generates 2304Mw at an annual load factor of around 85%. The space taken up by 71 wind turbines will be greater than that of Longannet.
Wind turbines cannot replace coal or nuclear it can only supplement them. Electricity is required in large quantities 24/7 all year round. With current technology conventional stations will still be required well into the forseeable future whether fueled by nuclear, coal, oil or gas. The cleanest as far as CO2 is concerned is nuclear.
John D

I mean each as an individual unit. If you calculated the combined areas they don't take up as much space as a power station, car parks for the workers and the new road for the workers to get to the station. Well at least that is what my Environmental Science tutor told me when I was doing my A level on the subject.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Coley

I mean each as an individual unit. If you calculated the combined areas they don't take up as much space as a power station, car parks for the workers and the new road for the workers to get to the station. Well at least that is what my Environmental Science tutor told me when I was doing my A level on the subject.

In a way you're right, in terms of actual habitat loss anyway, a track is needed between turbines and access form a road, a service hut and that's about all the land lost. So they do take up as much space (if not more) but the actually directly affect less earth sort of thing.....

[Tormentil]

Each wind turbine requires roughly 0.1 square kilometres of unobstructed land, as far as I can ascertain.

The ones I've seen have proper tarmacaddamed service access "roads" to each turbine. Presumabley all the power lines from each turbine are placed under ground to substation that will then connect to the national grid.