Windturbines Good/Bad
Discussion
I read somewhere a while back, from TB more than likely, that the above are a bit of a white elephant. Could someone with a bit of knowledge on the efficiency or pro and con's explain why they are either a great way to produce electricity or a complete and utter waste of time. A colleague of mine here in Germany is under the impression that they are a green saviour and have no negitive attributes. Is this the case???
They cost a lot of money to manufacture, a lot of energy to install, a lot of money to connect to the grid, and never produce electricity at anything like their peak output.
They also ruin the view and make a lot of noise, and when the wind stops blowing they're useless.
Oh, and their installation and operation would be financially impossible without the grants system.
They also ruin the view and make a lot of noise, and when the wind stops blowing they're useless.
Oh, and their installation and operation would be financially impossible without the grants system.
eldar said:
Plus you still need conventional power stations for when the wind doesn't blow. Nice big stationary high pressure over the UK is not unusual....
The wind allways blows. The future of wind turbines lies not in ground based installation but tethered flying turbines in the Jet stream.plasticpig said:
The wind allways blows. The future of wind turbines lies not in ground based installation but tethered flying turbines in the Jet stream.
That sounds great. I don't want to appear like a flat earther but how will the boffins deal with the fact that these heavy turbines need to remain aloft in 100+ kt winds whilst being tethered and transmitting energy to the ground?
There is also the small detail that the jetstreams move around and aren't in the same position for long.
plasticpig said:
eldar said:
Plus you still need conventional power stations for when the wind doesn't blow. Nice big stationary high pressure over the UK is not unusual....
The wind allways blows. The future of wind turbines lies not in ground based installation but tethered flying turbines in the Jet stream.The wind always blowing isnt always 'Good' wind.
The ones close to me, 20 Turbines over 2 sites, can only Generate between 12 and 35 mph. Below 12, and they arent turning fast enough to generate power, above 35, and they must put the brakes on to stop the turbine becoming unstable.
Add that to the cost of the infrastructure and the cost of construction, and they are not very efficient at all.
The ones close to me, 20 Turbines over 2 sites, can only Generate between 12 and 35 mph. Below 12, and they arent turning fast enough to generate power, above 35, and they must put the brakes on to stop the turbine becoming unstable.
Add that to the cost of the infrastructure and the cost of construction, and they are not very efficient at all.
I had always wondered when visiting the in-laws down on the Kent Coast why so few of the turbines out at sea actually seem to be turning, a little investigation shows they're suffering regular gearbox problems and are now on their third gearbox in four years, the idea that, once erected, they just sit there and generate free power is nonsense.
In 2007 and again in 2009
In 2007 and again in 2009
Fossil fuel generated power is cheaper at the moment than wind power so there has to be reason other than cost to install wind turbines. There are three reasons that I can think of: energy security, sustainability and CO2 emissions. There are of course other ways to achieve the same aims. After dam fed hydro-power, wind turbines are currently the cheapest route to those objectives, hence their popularity. This could change at any time as many alternatives are under design or test. Wind turbines are themselves in constant development of course and may stay ahead of the game. It will be difficult for alternatives to wind to become mainstream unless they can produce cheaper power.
Not every turbine has been installed in an effective location because sometimes the subsidy system has been taken advantage of. This is probably inevitable in a privatised system.
Not every turbine has been installed in an effective location because sometimes the subsidy system has been taken advantage of. This is probably inevitable in a privatised system.
Something of a review of previous windymill content. So costs will be higher now.
Wind Energy
Wind power is our fastest growing renewable electricity source, though it still represents less than 0.5% of UK electricity supply (~4% renewable total) a tiny fraction showing how present wind farms barely even scratch the surface of demand
Wind power in the UK receives a largely covert subsidy under the Renewables Obligation which currently doubles its value to the owning generator and which unlike conventional taxation-sourced support is not open to public view or Parliamentary attention. This subsidy comes from you and me.
"Without the Renewable Obligation certificates, nobody would be building wind farms" Daily Telegraph 26/03/2005
A big wind turbine onshore costs, overall, £1 million per megawatt of installed capacity and once functioning earns about £200,000 per megawatt installed per year, but without the the subsidy this would be £100,000 (offshore costs are at least 25% higher)
In addition to the consumer-sourced Reneweables Obligation another advantage is given to the renewable generator as non-renewable fuels pay the risible climate change levy (tax) but renewables are exempt
Many wind turbines are of 2.0 MW or greater capacity and about 120 m in height. Because of limitation by wind speed a 2.0 MW machine produces a quarter or a little more of its rated capacity, i.e. 0.5 MW on average
One half of annual generator company income per turbine is from the consumer-sourced subsidy, without which each machine would be close to 'bankruptcy' hence the comment in the Daily Telegraph above that nobody would build any turbines without our taxes subsidising the process and certainly not offshore where costs are greater and immediate 'bankruptcy' is possible
In February 2005 the Auditor General reported that "The Renewables Obligation is currently at least four times more expensive than the other means of reducing carbon dioxide currently used in the United Kingdom."
If 2.0 MW wind turbines were to replace the output of just one large 2000 MW conventional power station it would require at least 3000 turbines spread over 750 km^2 of countryside...and the ‘replaced’ power station could not be closed as its electricity would still be required to fill the considerable gaps when the wind turbines are not fully generating
The main reason given by government for installing wind power is that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and consequently reduce the rate of global warming (Climategate notwithstanding) yet the government’s own projection for CO2 saving by renewable electricity (mainly wind) in 2010 is just 9.2 million tonnes, which will be between one thousandth and one ten thousandth of man-made emissions even if their optimistic projections are right
-In a letter to HAT (Humberside Against Turbines) in 2005, Mike O’Brien as Energy Minister agreed the figure of 0.43 tonne CO2 / MWh as a reasonable figure for the emissions saving and an ASA adjudication (December 2005) and the Sustainable Development Commission (November 2005 corrected edition) also agreed that future projections of saving must be based on a lower figure than BWEA’s claim of 0.86 tonne CO2 /MWh - i.e. the industry claim for benefit was found to be exaggerated by 100% which considerably improved the cost-benefit analysis (artificially and wrongly)
In Denmark, where domestic electricity is nearly twice the UK price, Danish carbon dioxide emissions have increased compared with the pre-wind-power years
In 2003 the Head of Information for the West Denmark transmission authority compared the operation of the Danish electricity network to driving a giant articulated truck with no steering or brakes or any other controls
Still in Denmark, wind produced a “surplus” of 84% in 2004. That is to say that because of the nature of the delivery of wind power and the nature of the grid it was impossible to use 84% of the power produced (and remember that the turbines produce only 6% of their plated capacity so in fact the Danes were able to utilize 16% of 6% of the plated capacity of their installed turbines). Cunningly the Danes sold all but a small amount of the surplus to Norway, though I have no information on price etc. or whether Norway was able to use it.
Windfarms have a habit of killing many birds and bats, the infamous Altamont wind farm in California is a prime example - each of Altamont's 5,000 wind turbines produces enough electricity to serve 20 homes but the facility kills more birds of prey than any other wind farm in the world as golden eagles, hawks, and other raptors fly into the spinning turbine blades, a recent five-year study by the California Energy Commission estimates that every year 1,300 raptors are killed at this one site including more than a hundred golden eagles
Researchers in West Virginia discovered that a single 44-turbine wind farm in the Appalachian Mountains killed 4,000 migratory bats, with similar findings reported at wind farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, apparently with bats no impact is needed as the pressure changes near the blades can damage the bats' breathing systems
Wind farms are not aesthetically pleasing to many people, leading to moves to build more off-shore at the greater cost indicated earlier; without subsidy each offshore turbine would be 'bankrupt' and nobody would build such a money losing waste of effort in the first place
Farmers in the US who allowed the turbines onto their land were faced with bills of up to $10,000 per turbine to decommission them. It would seem that some components of the turbine need to be treated as hazardous waste. Of course the net result of this was that the turbines weren’t removed at all but were left to rot thus spoiling the view and introducing dangerous waste products into the environment.
In 2003 in Germany (relevant to the OP and a country fond of turbines) what they call their “capacity credit” for wind was equal to about 6% of the installed capacity. So like the one third lie (speed) we’ve come down from a quarter of the plated capacity to 6%.
The turbines planned for the Isle of Lewis, a remote island with very few voters but with moorland protected because of its unique place in terms of ecology and wildlife will be getting turbines 140m in height with a rotor diameter of 100m and they will string across the bog for over 40km with at least 200km of access road. (No objections to the road building from the greens either for what must be the most significant new road construction in the UK for a very many years. Though Greenpeace have, sort of, objected to the wind farm.
The Amec proposal for North Lewis is, according to the Amec ES, expected to kill a golden eagle every 4 – 6 weeks. Other proposals for the island are expected to have a significant impact upon the white tailed sea eagle population. It is illegal for an individual to even disturb one of these birds, never mind kill one, and should you set out to kill one then a prison sentence is the almost certain outcome. Quite what the reaction of the court would be if you announced the intention to do it on a monthly basis I don’t know.
The base of a single, near-shore wind turbine requires around 500 tonnes of cement, 550 tonnes of sand and aggregate, and 100 tonnes of steel. For the cement alone, the fuel used and the calcining of the calcium carbonate emit some 625 tonnes of CO2, and this does not include transport. If you add the emissions and environmental damage associated with chalk and limestone quarrying, the dredging of sand and aggregate, and the production of the steel, the emissions per unit of intermittent power are high. Moreover, a turbine requires regular maintenance and rebuilding. Any corrective carbonation in the concrete takes hundreds of years.
More on the astronomical UK costs coming soon.
Wind Energy
Wind power is our fastest growing renewable electricity source, though it still represents less than 0.5% of UK electricity supply (~4% renewable total) a tiny fraction showing how present wind farms barely even scratch the surface of demand
Wind power in the UK receives a largely covert subsidy under the Renewables Obligation which currently doubles its value to the owning generator and which unlike conventional taxation-sourced support is not open to public view or Parliamentary attention. This subsidy comes from you and me.
"Without the Renewable Obligation certificates, nobody would be building wind farms" Daily Telegraph 26/03/2005
A big wind turbine onshore costs, overall, £1 million per megawatt of installed capacity and once functioning earns about £200,000 per megawatt installed per year, but without the the subsidy this would be £100,000 (offshore costs are at least 25% higher)
In addition to the consumer-sourced Reneweables Obligation another advantage is given to the renewable generator as non-renewable fuels pay the risible climate change levy (tax) but renewables are exempt
Many wind turbines are of 2.0 MW or greater capacity and about 120 m in height. Because of limitation by wind speed a 2.0 MW machine produces a quarter or a little more of its rated capacity, i.e. 0.5 MW on average
One half of annual generator company income per turbine is from the consumer-sourced subsidy, without which each machine would be close to 'bankruptcy' hence the comment in the Daily Telegraph above that nobody would build any turbines without our taxes subsidising the process and certainly not offshore where costs are greater and immediate 'bankruptcy' is possible
In February 2005 the Auditor General reported that "The Renewables Obligation is currently at least four times more expensive than the other means of reducing carbon dioxide currently used in the United Kingdom."
If 2.0 MW wind turbines were to replace the output of just one large 2000 MW conventional power station it would require at least 3000 turbines spread over 750 km^2 of countryside...and the ‘replaced’ power station could not be closed as its electricity would still be required to fill the considerable gaps when the wind turbines are not fully generating
The main reason given by government for installing wind power is that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and consequently reduce the rate of global warming (Climategate notwithstanding) yet the government’s own projection for CO2 saving by renewable electricity (mainly wind) in 2010 is just 9.2 million tonnes, which will be between one thousandth and one ten thousandth of man-made emissions even if their optimistic projections are right
-In a letter to HAT (Humberside Against Turbines) in 2005, Mike O’Brien as Energy Minister agreed the figure of 0.43 tonne CO2 / MWh as a reasonable figure for the emissions saving and an ASA adjudication (December 2005) and the Sustainable Development Commission (November 2005 corrected edition) also agreed that future projections of saving must be based on a lower figure than BWEA’s claim of 0.86 tonne CO2 /MWh - i.e. the industry claim for benefit was found to be exaggerated by 100% which considerably improved the cost-benefit analysis (artificially and wrongly)
In Denmark, where domestic electricity is nearly twice the UK price, Danish carbon dioxide emissions have increased compared with the pre-wind-power years
In 2003 the Head of Information for the West Denmark transmission authority compared the operation of the Danish electricity network to driving a giant articulated truck with no steering or brakes or any other controls
Still in Denmark, wind produced a “surplus” of 84% in 2004. That is to say that because of the nature of the delivery of wind power and the nature of the grid it was impossible to use 84% of the power produced (and remember that the turbines produce only 6% of their plated capacity so in fact the Danes were able to utilize 16% of 6% of the plated capacity of their installed turbines). Cunningly the Danes sold all but a small amount of the surplus to Norway, though I have no information on price etc. or whether Norway was able to use it.
Windfarms have a habit of killing many birds and bats, the infamous Altamont wind farm in California is a prime example - each of Altamont's 5,000 wind turbines produces enough electricity to serve 20 homes but the facility kills more birds of prey than any other wind farm in the world as golden eagles, hawks, and other raptors fly into the spinning turbine blades, a recent five-year study by the California Energy Commission estimates that every year 1,300 raptors are killed at this one site including more than a hundred golden eagles
Researchers in West Virginia discovered that a single 44-turbine wind farm in the Appalachian Mountains killed 4,000 migratory bats, with similar findings reported at wind farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, apparently with bats no impact is needed as the pressure changes near the blades can damage the bats' breathing systems
Wind farms are not aesthetically pleasing to many people, leading to moves to build more off-shore at the greater cost indicated earlier; without subsidy each offshore turbine would be 'bankrupt' and nobody would build such a money losing waste of effort in the first place
Farmers in the US who allowed the turbines onto their land were faced with bills of up to $10,000 per turbine to decommission them. It would seem that some components of the turbine need to be treated as hazardous waste. Of course the net result of this was that the turbines weren’t removed at all but were left to rot thus spoiling the view and introducing dangerous waste products into the environment.
In 2003 in Germany (relevant to the OP and a country fond of turbines) what they call their “capacity credit” for wind was equal to about 6% of the installed capacity. So like the one third lie (speed) we’ve come down from a quarter of the plated capacity to 6%.
The turbines planned for the Isle of Lewis, a remote island with very few voters but with moorland protected because of its unique place in terms of ecology and wildlife will be getting turbines 140m in height with a rotor diameter of 100m and they will string across the bog for over 40km with at least 200km of access road. (No objections to the road building from the greens either for what must be the most significant new road construction in the UK for a very many years. Though Greenpeace have, sort of, objected to the wind farm.
The Amec proposal for North Lewis is, according to the Amec ES, expected to kill a golden eagle every 4 – 6 weeks. Other proposals for the island are expected to have a significant impact upon the white tailed sea eagle population. It is illegal for an individual to even disturb one of these birds, never mind kill one, and should you set out to kill one then a prison sentence is the almost certain outcome. Quite what the reaction of the court would be if you announced the intention to do it on a monthly basis I don’t know.
The base of a single, near-shore wind turbine requires around 500 tonnes of cement, 550 tonnes of sand and aggregate, and 100 tonnes of steel. For the cement alone, the fuel used and the calcining of the calcium carbonate emit some 625 tonnes of CO2, and this does not include transport. If you add the emissions and environmental damage associated with chalk and limestone quarrying, the dredging of sand and aggregate, and the production of the steel, the emissions per unit of intermittent power are high. Moreover, a turbine requires regular maintenance and rebuilding. Any corrective carbonation in the concrete takes hundreds of years.
More on the astronomical UK costs coming soon.
Something on UK costs.
At £2 million per megawatt of "capacity" (according to the Carbon Trust), the bill for the dreamy 33 gigawatts would be £66 billion (and even that, as was admitted in a recent parliamentary answer, doesn't include an extra £10 billion needed to connect the turbines to the grid). But the actual output of these turbines, because of the wind's unreliability, would be barely a third of their capacity.
The cost of merely connecting the UK's wind farms to the grid is more than the total cost of the equivalent nuclear capacity. The information was disclosed in parliamentary written answers to Owen Paterson. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks gave a number of figures adding up to over £10billion comprising:
- £0.6 billion to connect new renewable generation in Scotland and the North of England
- £3.8 billion to cover network refurbishment and the costs of accommodating new generators between 2007 and 2012
- £5.7 billion from 2005 to 2010 to cover other (unspecified) network refurbishment and development issues
Written replies also revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - the government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.
The EU's policy on biofuels is costly as well as partly misguided and those costs - around £50 billion by 2020 - would, as the EU's own scientific experts have recently advised, "outweigh the benefits".
Total cost of windymills ecolunacy over roughly 20 years will be a minimum of £100 billion or £4125 per household, which is about £205 per year over a ~20 year period. That's not including our share of the biofuels snafu.
Our emissions trading deficit is estimated at £6.5 billion a year – this would be £270 for every household.
Total paid for by us will be about £500 per household every year for 20 years, whether in taxes, levies, energy bills, or increased costs due to businesses passing their increased costs on to customers. The actual total will probably be between £300 and £500 depending on which elements of this pointless nightmare actually make it into reality but it depends on when everybody else wakes up.
Worst case figures I've calculated previously come in at well over £6000 per household and that is likely not the final story.
These numbers do not take into account government optimism, inflation, or the appearance any time soon of any common sense.
At £2 million per megawatt of "capacity" (according to the Carbon Trust), the bill for the dreamy 33 gigawatts would be £66 billion (and even that, as was admitted in a recent parliamentary answer, doesn't include an extra £10 billion needed to connect the turbines to the grid). But the actual output of these turbines, because of the wind's unreliability, would be barely a third of their capacity.
The cost of merely connecting the UK's wind farms to the grid is more than the total cost of the equivalent nuclear capacity. The information was disclosed in parliamentary written answers to Owen Paterson. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks gave a number of figures adding up to over £10billion comprising:
- £0.6 billion to connect new renewable generation in Scotland and the North of England
- £3.8 billion to cover network refurbishment and the costs of accommodating new generators between 2007 and 2012
- £5.7 billion from 2005 to 2010 to cover other (unspecified) network refurbishment and development issues
Written replies also revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - the government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.
The EU's policy on biofuels is costly as well as partly misguided and those costs - around £50 billion by 2020 - would, as the EU's own scientific experts have recently advised, "outweigh the benefits".
Total cost of windymills ecolunacy over roughly 20 years will be a minimum of £100 billion or £4125 per household, which is about £205 per year over a ~20 year period. That's not including our share of the biofuels snafu.
Our emissions trading deficit is estimated at £6.5 billion a year – this would be £270 for every household.
Total paid for by us will be about £500 per household every year for 20 years, whether in taxes, levies, energy bills, or increased costs due to businesses passing their increased costs on to customers. The actual total will probably be between £300 and £500 depending on which elements of this pointless nightmare actually make it into reality but it depends on when everybody else wakes up.
Worst case figures I've calculated previously come in at well over £6000 per household and that is likely not the final story.
These numbers do not take into account government optimism, inflation, or the appearance any time soon of any common sense.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 29th November 12:13
Final one for now on government targets, always helpful little things 
A total of 11000 new turbines will be needed by 2020, including offshore, in order to hit European renewable energy targets. As of 2009 with the few already up within the plan that is near as dammit 1000 per year or 3 per day.
Unfortunately the conditions, particularly offshore, do not allow for the construction of windymills on every day. So for that and other reasons the number needing to be built per day will be closer to 10.
If you can see that happening, apply for a job with DECC now.
A total of 11000 new turbines will be needed by 2020, including offshore, in order to hit European renewable energy targets. As of 2009 with the few already up within the plan that is near as dammit 1000 per year or 3 per day.
Unfortunately the conditions, particularly offshore, do not allow for the construction of windymills on every day. So for that and other reasons the number needing to be built per day will be closer to 10.
If you can see that happening, apply for a job with DECC now.
great for remote locations on a small scale, as long as back up.
Pointless on the scale we are building them.
The billions being paid out could be used a lot better elsewhere.
They just don't create enough power for their cost they will also have a short shelf life. As we seem to be building them all at once in 50 years we will be paying out the same again. Also they can't increaxse supply with the demand.
However Siemens and Vesta are having a huge Christmas party due to sales of Turbines.
Pointless on the scale we are building them.
The billions being paid out could be used a lot better elsewhere.
They just don't create enough power for their cost they will also have a short shelf life. As we seem to be building them all at once in 50 years we will be paying out the same again. Also they can't increaxse supply with the demand.
However Siemens and Vesta are having a huge Christmas party due to sales of Turbines.
Of the government announcements, the 4000 new windymills was breathtaking then the extra 7000 offshore windymills represented one of the biggest civil engineering project proposals for quite some time. All conjured up from the feverish brows of nulabia muppets convinced at the time that they had abolished boom and bust, that tax from the City was going to flow into HM Treasury without limit for ever, and that the Meltdown Clown was a genius.
Ooops.
Ooops.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff