'Our' New Energy Policy
Discussion
Is there anything in the Governments anouncements today or is it simply Mr Liar simply being annoying again.
Let's get this straight - we are going to cut the amoung of CO2 due to electricity generation by 60%, but phase out nuclear power (only 25% of our needs are supplied this way at the moment)
.
What is this, and 80% of our other power stations going to be replaced with (assuming no increase in demand - yer right)?
Well the Government says wind (I design wind and tidal turbines, and the present technology is not bad), but there simply aren't the sites to generate this amount of energy efficiently. Don't forget that we produce emissions in producing the equipment in the first place - so it is not simply about financial cost of energy.
They have also suggested that wave power is a possibility. Anybody that has done the sums knows that there isn't that much energy in waves in the first place, let alone after conversion.
I can only conlcude that the government is basing our future energy policy on the discovery of a pepetual motion machine.
Doesn't work that way Tony - you may be able to ignore any rules on honesty and communication. Unfortunately the laws of physics are a little better policed
.
Let's get this straight - we are going to cut the amoung of CO2 due to electricity generation by 60%, but phase out nuclear power (only 25% of our needs are supplied this way at the moment)
. What is this, and 80% of our other power stations going to be replaced with (assuming no increase in demand - yer right)?
Well the Government says wind (I design wind and tidal turbines, and the present technology is not bad), but there simply aren't the sites to generate this amount of energy efficiently. Don't forget that we produce emissions in producing the equipment in the first place - so it is not simply about financial cost of energy.
They have also suggested that wave power is a possibility. Anybody that has done the sums knows that there isn't that much energy in waves in the first place, let alone after conversion.
I can only conlcude that the government is basing our future energy policy on the discovery of a pepetual motion machine.
Doesn't work that way Tony - you may be able to ignore any rules on honesty and communication. Unfortunately the laws of physics are a little better policed
. Well, let's see ... the target is set for 2050 ... will this government be in power then? .. no, in fact they almost certainly all be dead in 50 years (shame) ... so, the poltical motivation to make this policy work is ... uhm, bugger all ... which is a good thing, becasue it is bollocks.
p.s. Day dreamer .. in your line of work, did you ever come across a bloke called Bruce Valpy?
p.s. Day dreamer .. in your line of work, did you ever come across a bloke called Bruce Valpy?
Perhaps they're hoping to generate so much hot air around Westminster all our enrgy problems will be solved. Add to this the methane produce by Bliars bs and the energy savings made by running a government in a different time, space and reality to the rest of the country and I really think this might be the only part of the Blair project that will succeed.
Oh and you forget to mention - who's going to pay for the government's wonderful new plan - yup, you guessed it: you, me and every other sucker that has to watch out for the quarterly leccy bill landing on our doormats. Something will braek soon and I'm not talking about John Prescott's trouser elastic.
Oh and you forget to mention - who's going to pay for the government's wonderful new plan - yup, you guessed it: you, me and every other sucker that has to watch out for the quarterly leccy bill landing on our doormats. Something will braek soon and I'm not talking about John Prescott's trouser elastic.
Solar power is an utter waste of time in England. You can't even charge a mobile phone consistently on solar over here, let alone produce 300 bhp mounted on the top of my car.
However wind power - that's an idea, though one of those 100ft windmills on the roof may mess up the handling of my 911
However wind power - that's an idea, though one of those 100ft windmills on the roof may mess up the handling of my 911
) and it is "clean". Perhaps we should get the Reverend Blair to tell us when Parliament is going to get a vote on the War (what war?) and not change the bloody subject.
It's interesting to notice that despite the Governments new love affair with green power, they are only investing £300m over the next 10 years into research & development. That's less than 10% of the War (what war?) is going to cost us.
John
It's interesting to notice that despite the Governments new love affair with green power, they are only investing £300m over the next 10 years into research & development. That's less than 10% of the War (what war?) is going to cost us.
John
plotloss said: Apparently if we covered Australia with solar cells, no one would need a power station anywhere.
Personally I think this would be a small sacrifice for the Aussies to make.
Matt.
Cheeky bugger Matt
Not a bad idea though, we could charge whatever we liked once the monopoly is in place.
Could be some brownouts on days like today though, we are under a large blanket of cloud and rain
Why wind power is A Bad Thing, courtesy Mark Duchamp :
Here are the facts:
One single combined-cycle gas-fired power plant of 1000 Mw capacity,
relatively clean as to emission of greenhouse gases, and not built on
pristine landscapes, normally and reliably produces 800 Mw at all times, day
and night, year-round without interruption.
To produce the same amount of electricity using wind turbines, which on a
yearly basis work at 30% of their capacity due to the fluctuating nature of
the wind, one would need:
- 3,555 wind turbines of 750 Kw capacity each
or - 2, 666 wind turbines of 1 Mw capacity each
or - 1,333 wind turbines of 2 Mw capacity each
Any of these numbers - 3,555/2,666/1,333 - involves degrading considerable
extensions of countryside with obtrusive 300+ feet-high structures, their
associated tension lines, their access roads, their irremovable
rock-embedded concrete bases, their electric transformer sub-stations, etc.
As a windplant may include anywhere from 1 to 400 or more turbines, say 50
on average, we are talking about 71/53/26 plants, respectively - to produce
the same amount of electricity as one single gas-burning plant wisely built
in an industrial zone.
So the first negative effect of using this renewable energy is to multiply
the number of industrial plants by anywhere from 26 to 71 times. The second
is to erect these industrial structures in heretofore-preserved landscapes,
because wind turbines are normally established where the wind blows
strongest: on highly-visible hill-tops, mountain slopes or shore lines.
There, they stand to be seen from at least 20 miles around on a clear day.
Meaning that a single windplant has the potential of degrading the scenery
on 1256 square miles (20 miles x 20 miles x 3.14 ). Multiply this by 26, 53,
71 plants and you may affect 32,000, 66,000 or 89,000 sq mi of countryside
for an amount of electricity you could produce with a single conventional
plant built out of sight. To compare this with something tangible: The UK
covers an area of 94,251 sq mi.
But Downing Street wants to erect about 20,000 turbines by 2020, to produce
20% of British electricity. So we are talking about potentially spoiling
502,400 sq mi of countryside (1256 x 20,000/50), i.e. 5 times the size of
the country. So, either windplant density will have to be 5 times greater
than my original premise, or each plant will have to include 5 times more
turbines - or a combination of both. In whichever case quality of life in
the UK will be impaired for all: countryside residents, commuters,
travellers, vacationers, seamen, and tourists alike.
The United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand,
among others, have similar plans. Two hundred years of careful land
management segregating industrial zones from residential, agricultural and
wilderness areas are being discarded everywhere, in the hype surrounding
windpower. The face of the world is about to change forever.
All of this for zero benefits in terms of climate change. In a report
released the 30th of August 2002 by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering:
"The Energy Review places great faith in wind energy and proposes installing
22,000 MW of turbine capacity by 2020. However, Met Office data shows that
the country's wind record is not dependable the most likely power output
in real life is less than 7,000 MW. To ensure the supply it would have to be
backed up by 16-19,000 MW of conventional generation plant, adding an extra
£1 billion to the cost."
To back up wind-produced electricity it is indeed necessary to keep
fossil-fuel power plants spinning in reserve, ready to produce electricity
instantly when the wind drops - or blows too hard. (California learned that
lesson at great cost - this explains their about-face regarding windfarms).
But the stand-by mode is particularly inefficient in terms of gas emissions;
and much like automobiles idling at a red light, these plants will emit
considerable amounts of gases for nothing. And they will be kept idling 24
hours a day, just to be ready to takeover when wind turbines stop. ---- So
much for windpower being "clean".
We must add to these the gases massively produced during the construction of
the windplants themselves: to manufacture the steel and the plastics for the
turbines, high tension lines and other infrastructure; to make the asphalt
for the access roads, the cement for the concrete bases of tens of thousands
of giant wind towers; plus all the fossil fuels burned by the earth-moving
equipment, the trucks, the vehicles in general. In this regard, let us not
forget that hundreds of wind "farms", in order to be integrated to state,
regional or national grids, will require thousands of kilometers of new
tension lines, hundreds of thousands of new pylons, many substations, etc.
And paramount is the fact that the "farms" and related insfrastructure must
be built in addition to, and not in lieu of, conventional plants, because of
the intermittency of the wind and the need for back up. So all the gases
produced for their construction come on top of those produced for the
construction of conventional plants, for a total amount of electricity
produced that is hardly increased, but mostly displaced.
Considering the extra, additional, unnecessary gases produced during the
construction of the windplants, and tension lines to connect them to the
grid, plus the gases produced by conventional plants idling in stand-by
throughout the life of the "farms", it is abundantly clear that no real
savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Engineers' report also warns:
"The Energy Review sets a target of generating 20 per cent of our energy
from renewable sources by 2020. While this is a laudable aim it is
over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all
renewable sources: they are intermittent. Experience on the Continent,
especially in Denmark, has shown that grid stability can be adversely
affected when the penetration of intermittent renewables reaches about 15
per cent".
This, and other considerations such as the financial burden for the State,
the negative impacts on people, tourism and the environment, prompted the
new Danish cabinet to announce the end of subventions to the wind industry.
As if ruining the landscape, hence our quality of life, for no real benefit
and at great cost, was not enough:
"Major support for research to develop the hydrogen economy is urgently
needed. The Energy Review appears to accept fuel switching, probably to
hydrogen, as inevitable in the long term, but it is unwilling to recommend
early action or signal that this is the Government's preferred solution"
(also from the Royal Academy of Engineering report)
It is obvious that public money spent to subsidize harmful and useless
windfarms cannot be made available to R&D on real solutions, like hydrogen.
So the current windpower boom has yet another negative side effect: it
slows-down our conversion to the hydrogen economy. Thanks to subsidized wind
energy, we shall be burning fossil fuels for more years than necessary -
just the opposite of what Greenpeace, WWF etc. are hoping to achieve when
they promote windpower.
Other ill-effects of windplants include: noise, fires (by short circuit or
lightning - about 35 turbine-generated fires per year in California),
negative impact on tourism (discounting the initial novelty-driven visitors,
and school-children led by their educationists) soil erosion, contamination
of ground-water by lubricants and cleaning-liquids, animal habitat
destruction - and/or disruption - and the further reduction of priceless
wilderness areas in the world.
Finally, we have the bird problem:
It has been estimated that 4 to 5 million birds die every year worldwide due
to collisions with overhead cables and transmission towers (and their
guy-wires). These are non-moving obstacles. No estimate has been ventured as
to how many will be killed by 500,000 giant propellers beating the air from
Seattle to Sydney. A few field studies have been made, and their reports
quickly shelved. For instance: we know from the California Energy
Commission that the 7,000 turbines of Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles
and 300 redtail hawks in 1989 (not to speak of the smaller birds). In
Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed
by a single turbine during one night of migration. Extrapolating that figure
to 500,000 turbines spread around the globe, we would get 24,500,000 dead
birds... in one night. I know the limits of extrapolations, but it is
important to vizualize the magnitude of the problem.
That, and other evidence from Spain and the Netherlands, lead us to the
conclusion that millions of birds will be killed by windfarms yearly. Sadly,
emblematic species such as eagles, falcons and ospreys, endearing ones such
as storks, cranes and swans, and delightful ones such as migrating
songbirds, will be greatly thinned-down. Some species will disappear
altogether.
In conclusion:
Windplants are harmful in a number of important ways, beneficial in none,
and they cost dearly to taxpayers and consumers, more still to residents in
terms of property values. They are uneconomical and useless. But they are
highly profitable to their promoters because they are subsidized. So much so
that industry leaders have joined forces to lobby at the political, mediatic
and ecological levels, silencing the opposition with money - taxpayers'
money reaped from the subventions. I know of a bird society that receives
donations from electricity companies amounting to 25% of its annual budget.
Taxpayer's money has been used in that manner to build an apparent consensus
in favour of the wind industry. Politicians, for one, all agree on this
money-laden venture, which on top gives them a favourable "green" image.
Ecologists, too, promote windfarms, in the delusion that greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced. As a result of such a broad-based consensus,
strengthened by active propaganda and intrigue by the windpower lobby,
contrary opinions are not considered worth publishing by the media -- which
in turn favours ignorance, and perpetuation of the blind consensus that is
working to the detriment of both nature and mankind.
So it looks like wind turbines will continue to spread around the globe with
disastrous effects on birds, on the scenery, and hence on everybody's
quality of life; and for no savings whatsoever in greenhouse gas emissions.
To the contrary, more gases will be produced in the end as subsidies paid to
the wind industry cannot be used to accelerate our conversion to the
hydrogen economy: Politicians feel no pressure in that respect, basking as
they are in the green image provided by their aggressive windpower policy,
and with all the wining and dining associated with efficient lobbying by a
cash-rich industry --at taxpayer's expense.
California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of
windpower, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to
wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a
swimming pool are poured into the landscape from Vancouver to Auckland?
before countless pylons are added to the landscape? before the horizon is
marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the
birds? and for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?
It is time we study carefully the new California Energy Plan. It contains
many answers.
BIRDS AND WIND "FARMS"
1) Birds in general.
- Problems of vision:
The eyes of most birds are located on each side of the head, covering a
field of vision nearing 360º - to see predators coming from any angle. On
the downside, quality of perception is mediocre in front of the animal and
in his back, zones that are at the limit of the 180º covered by each eye.
This explains why they turn their heads so often when they are on land,
where they are particularly at risk. In the air, they often twist their
necks to look above them, where falcons and other raptors may be stalking.
But unless they turn their heads sideways while flying, their vision of what
is in front of them is rather poor. - Rabbits, and other mammals that
are usually preyed upon, have the same problem: for this it is easy to
capture them in nets).
This explains why so many swans, storks, cranes, bustards, starlings and
countless species of other day-flying birds regularly run into tension
lines, wind turbines or other obstacles, and die on the ground.
The problem is compounded at night. Low flying nocturnal migrants, such as
many species of songbirds, are particularly vulnerable - even when the
obstacles are lit (in overcast conditions, flood-lights attract the birds,
then disorient and blind them). The guy wires of a television tower are
known to have killed 5,408 birds in one night (item 356 of "bird kills"
document - available upon request).
"Nocturnal bird kills are virtually certain wherever an obstacle extends
into the air space where birds are flying in migration" (item 445 of
same document)
Birds are known to crash into all kinds of obvious obstacles such as
buildings, smokestacks, moving cars etc. -- even by day.
- flying in groups:
Where a single bird may luckily pass unharmed through overhead cables, or
the maze of a windfarm, those flying in flocks will always leave a
percentage of casualties behind: 1) law of numbers 2) breadth of the flock
3) bad frontal vision for those not located in the front row.
- Instinct:
Birds, like any other animal, identify living creatures, not objects, as
possible dangers. Their instinct doesn't warn them about television towers,
tension lines, or wind turbines.
- Appearance of slowness:
The arms of a wind turbine seem to be moving slowly. In view of their
length, however, they reach great speed at the tip. This has the effect of
deceiving the birds, of catching them off-guard.
A 100 feet-long blade weighing a ton and traveling at 100 miles an hour at
the apex will kill anything in its way (see pictures of a beheaded eagle, of
a sliced vulture -- available upon request)
In Altamont Pass, California, 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, among
other birds, fell victims to the turbines in 1989; and further south another
windfarm killed 7000 migrating birds (source: California Energy Commission).
Small birds, more numerous and often flying in flocks, are slaughtered in
greater numbers. In Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson
found 49 dead birds at the foot of a single turbine during a single night of
migration. Extrapolating the figure to the 500,000 giant windmills to be
erected around the world, we would get: 24,500,000 dead birds... in one
night. Extrapolations are inexact by definition; but they have the merit of
providing an order of magnitude.
In Tarifa, Spain, we have documented evidence that at least 13 different
protected species are being victimized by the "farms" (source: Windpower
Monthly - a magazine edited by the windpower industry itself).
- Pulling force:
All turbines, whether they work in water or in the air, create a depression
which has the effect of pulling-in water, air, and whatever happens to be
around. It is well-known that birds are prone to be sucked-in by the jet
engines of an airplane.
The blades of a wind turbine turn much slower than those of a jet engine,
but their sweep is hundreds of times bigger. Their pulling force has been
estimated to be in excess of 12 kilos per square meter, reaching 20 kilos
when the wind is strong. There is no bird, however big or swift, that can
resist such a force.
Table-fans will draw a feather. Giant fans standing 300 feet-tall on
hill-tops will suck-in an eagle, a stork, a crane, a swan.
2) Raptors.
- vision:
Birds of prey, like humans and predators in general, have their eyes located
in front of the head, for an in-depth perception of what's in front of them.
Their vision is superior to that of other animals: a peregrine falcon can
spot a pigeon flying 10 miles away.
As they hunt, they often focus their eyes at great distances, allowing them
to detect the prey before it can see them, and prepare a surprise attack
from a dead angle.
Anyone who has used a camera knows that when the lens is focused far away,
twigs moving in the forefront are barely visible. And so it is with the arms
of a giant turbine when the eyes of a raptor are focused on an area further
away. The danger is heightened by the fact that, in the attack, the eyes are
locked-in on the prey.
Proving this point we have documented evidence of peregrine falcons crashing
into highly visible, stationary cables of high-tension lines.
- flight pattern:
Birds of prey glide most of the time, to save energy. They use ascending air
currents, pass from one valley to the next over hill-tops and
mountain-crests, where windplants are normally located. And they drift on
the wind itself, the same wind that flows through the turbines of these
"farms". This makes them particularly vulnerable.
If they wait too long before maneuvering out of reach of the blades, the
pulling force of the turbine surprises them and they can't fight both the
wind and the pull: they get sucked-in.
- perching:
Birds of prey commonly perch on tall structures, like pylons, to rest and
hunt at the same time. On days without wind, when the blades are standing
still, turbines become a perching site, and will attract raptors. And those
will tend to come back the next day, and the next...
- perfect hunting ground:
Another reason for being attracted by the "farms" is that the area is
generally clear of vegetation, making it an ideal hunting ground where
rodents have no place to hide.
- vicious circle:
As the giant blades kill airborne predators, rodents tend to proliferate on
windplant grounds. Besides, bird carcasses provide them with a diet rich in
protein.
The presence of rodents will keep attracting raptors to be slaughtered. It
is a vicious circle, a "black hole" into which entire neighbouring
populations of hawks, kites, harriers, buzzards, falcons and eagles may
disappear.
- further-reaching black hole effect:
When a resident bird of prey (or the pair) has been killed by the turbines
installed on its hunting territory, that breeding area becomes vacant.
Sooner or later another raptor will claim the territory as its own. It may
be a young eagle coming from as far as 1000 kms away, in which case the
black hole would have a national, or international effect on certain bird
populations. In Spain, a radio transmitter fixed on a young imperial eagle
evidenced that juveniles may travel well over a thousand miles from their
birthplaces. That particular non-migrating specimen flew from Spain to
Senegal, and back, before selecting a territory (article in Quercus, a
Spanish wildlife magazine)
The black hole effect may be more lethal still. If the turbines happen to be
erected in a "dispersal area", i.e. a territory unsuitable for nesting but
good for hunting, it will affect many more raptors - for this is where
juveniles go to feed, the place being free of territorial adults. And
logically, any place containing prey that is not a breeding area occupied by
a territorial pair, is a dispersal area - to a degree or another.
3) Flying mammals.
From Navarra, Spain, we have evidence that bats are being killed in large
numbers by the blades of the turbines. This evidences that their radar-like
perception system is unable to save them from windplants.
4) Migrations.
Placing wind turbines on a migration route will thin populations down as
they fly through. Night-flying songbirds are particularly vulnerable.
High-flying waterfowl are less at risk, except when they land to rest - or
skirt mountain crests.
A migration route may be as wide as a country. Israel, Italy, Spain are the
natural highways to Africa for most European birds.
5) The attitude of bird societies and other nature conservation NGO's.
In May 1998, USA Today quoted a Sierra Club official who had labeled wind
turbines: "The Cuisinarts of the Air".
Today, Greenpeace is actively promoting windpower. Bird societies, the
Sierra Club and other NGO's agree or keep silent. Officially, the buzzwords
are: climate change, Kyoto Protocol, renewable energy. But financial
considerations also bear on the issue: NGO's receive subventions, grants,
donations, and their donors must be kept happy; they also get jobs,
field-study assignments, and commissions for environmental impact analyses.
And the cash-rich windpower industry is generous in that respect, having a
vested interest in putting ecologists on their side. As a matter of fact,
ornithologists have never been so busy, and so well paid, with so many
environmental impact reports to write -- one for each windfarm. And the
promoters are their employers -- a conflict of interest which borders on
indecency.
So there are plenty of reasons for bird societies and other conservation
organizations to keep silent on the bird slaughter issue.
Sadly enough, windplants do not really save on greenhouse gases. A critical
view, presented in "Windfarm Misapprehension", reveals that the contrary may
hold true, through side effects unforeseen by the ecologists -- gases
emitted by conventional power plants spinning for nothing in back up; gases
emitted in the construction of a huge windplant and grid network which will
NOT substitute conventional plants, needed for back up; and additional
delays in the coming of the clean hydrogen economy.
Mark Duchamp
Conservationist
Calpe, Spain
Here are the facts:
One single combined-cycle gas-fired power plant of 1000 Mw capacity,
relatively clean as to emission of greenhouse gases, and not built on
pristine landscapes, normally and reliably produces 800 Mw at all times, day
and night, year-round without interruption.
To produce the same amount of electricity using wind turbines, which on a
yearly basis work at 30% of their capacity due to the fluctuating nature of
the wind, one would need:
- 3,555 wind turbines of 750 Kw capacity each
or - 2, 666 wind turbines of 1 Mw capacity each
or - 1,333 wind turbines of 2 Mw capacity each
Any of these numbers - 3,555/2,666/1,333 - involves degrading considerable
extensions of countryside with obtrusive 300+ feet-high structures, their
associated tension lines, their access roads, their irremovable
rock-embedded concrete bases, their electric transformer sub-stations, etc.
As a windplant may include anywhere from 1 to 400 or more turbines, say 50
on average, we are talking about 71/53/26 plants, respectively - to produce
the same amount of electricity as one single gas-burning plant wisely built
in an industrial zone.
So the first negative effect of using this renewable energy is to multiply
the number of industrial plants by anywhere from 26 to 71 times. The second
is to erect these industrial structures in heretofore-preserved landscapes,
because wind turbines are normally established where the wind blows
strongest: on highly-visible hill-tops, mountain slopes or shore lines.
There, they stand to be seen from at least 20 miles around on a clear day.
Meaning that a single windplant has the potential of degrading the scenery
on 1256 square miles (20 miles x 20 miles x 3.14 ). Multiply this by 26, 53,
71 plants and you may affect 32,000, 66,000 or 89,000 sq mi of countryside
for an amount of electricity you could produce with a single conventional
plant built out of sight. To compare this with something tangible: The UK
covers an area of 94,251 sq mi.
But Downing Street wants to erect about 20,000 turbines by 2020, to produce
20% of British electricity. So we are talking about potentially spoiling
502,400 sq mi of countryside (1256 x 20,000/50), i.e. 5 times the size of
the country. So, either windplant density will have to be 5 times greater
than my original premise, or each plant will have to include 5 times more
turbines - or a combination of both. In whichever case quality of life in
the UK will be impaired for all: countryside residents, commuters,
travellers, vacationers, seamen, and tourists alike.
The United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand,
among others, have similar plans. Two hundred years of careful land
management segregating industrial zones from residential, agricultural and
wilderness areas are being discarded everywhere, in the hype surrounding
windpower. The face of the world is about to change forever.
All of this for zero benefits in terms of climate change. In a report
released the 30th of August 2002 by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering:
"The Energy Review places great faith in wind energy and proposes installing
22,000 MW of turbine capacity by 2020. However, Met Office data shows that
the country's wind record is not dependable the most likely power output
in real life is less than 7,000 MW. To ensure the supply it would have to be
backed up by 16-19,000 MW of conventional generation plant, adding an extra
£1 billion to the cost."
To back up wind-produced electricity it is indeed necessary to keep
fossil-fuel power plants spinning in reserve, ready to produce electricity
instantly when the wind drops - or blows too hard. (California learned that
lesson at great cost - this explains their about-face regarding windfarms).
But the stand-by mode is particularly inefficient in terms of gas emissions;
and much like automobiles idling at a red light, these plants will emit
considerable amounts of gases for nothing. And they will be kept idling 24
hours a day, just to be ready to takeover when wind turbines stop. ---- So
much for windpower being "clean".
We must add to these the gases massively produced during the construction of
the windplants themselves: to manufacture the steel and the plastics for the
turbines, high tension lines and other infrastructure; to make the asphalt
for the access roads, the cement for the concrete bases of tens of thousands
of giant wind towers; plus all the fossil fuels burned by the earth-moving
equipment, the trucks, the vehicles in general. In this regard, let us not
forget that hundreds of wind "farms", in order to be integrated to state,
regional or national grids, will require thousands of kilometers of new
tension lines, hundreds of thousands of new pylons, many substations, etc.
And paramount is the fact that the "farms" and related insfrastructure must
be built in addition to, and not in lieu of, conventional plants, because of
the intermittency of the wind and the need for back up. So all the gases
produced for their construction come on top of those produced for the
construction of conventional plants, for a total amount of electricity
produced that is hardly increased, but mostly displaced.
Considering the extra, additional, unnecessary gases produced during the
construction of the windplants, and tension lines to connect them to the
grid, plus the gases produced by conventional plants idling in stand-by
throughout the life of the "farms", it is abundantly clear that no real
savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Engineers' report also warns:
"The Energy Review sets a target of generating 20 per cent of our energy
from renewable sources by 2020. While this is a laudable aim it is
over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all
renewable sources: they are intermittent. Experience on the Continent,
especially in Denmark, has shown that grid stability can be adversely
affected when the penetration of intermittent renewables reaches about 15
per cent".
This, and other considerations such as the financial burden for the State,
the negative impacts on people, tourism and the environment, prompted the
new Danish cabinet to announce the end of subventions to the wind industry.
As if ruining the landscape, hence our quality of life, for no real benefit
and at great cost, was not enough:
"Major support for research to develop the hydrogen economy is urgently
needed. The Energy Review appears to accept fuel switching, probably to
hydrogen, as inevitable in the long term, but it is unwilling to recommend
early action or signal that this is the Government's preferred solution"
(also from the Royal Academy of Engineering report)
It is obvious that public money spent to subsidize harmful and useless
windfarms cannot be made available to R&D on real solutions, like hydrogen.
So the current windpower boom has yet another negative side effect: it
slows-down our conversion to the hydrogen economy. Thanks to subsidized wind
energy, we shall be burning fossil fuels for more years than necessary -
just the opposite of what Greenpeace, WWF etc. are hoping to achieve when
they promote windpower.
Other ill-effects of windplants include: noise, fires (by short circuit or
lightning - about 35 turbine-generated fires per year in California),
negative impact on tourism (discounting the initial novelty-driven visitors,
and school-children led by their educationists) soil erosion, contamination
of ground-water by lubricants and cleaning-liquids, animal habitat
destruction - and/or disruption - and the further reduction of priceless
wilderness areas in the world.
Finally, we have the bird problem:
It has been estimated that 4 to 5 million birds die every year worldwide due
to collisions with overhead cables and transmission towers (and their
guy-wires). These are non-moving obstacles. No estimate has been ventured as
to how many will be killed by 500,000 giant propellers beating the air from
Seattle to Sydney. A few field studies have been made, and their reports
quickly shelved. For instance: we know from the California Energy
Commission that the 7,000 turbines of Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles
and 300 redtail hawks in 1989 (not to speak of the smaller birds). In
Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed
by a single turbine during one night of migration. Extrapolating that figure
to 500,000 turbines spread around the globe, we would get 24,500,000 dead
birds... in one night. I know the limits of extrapolations, but it is
important to vizualize the magnitude of the problem.
That, and other evidence from Spain and the Netherlands, lead us to the
conclusion that millions of birds will be killed by windfarms yearly. Sadly,
emblematic species such as eagles, falcons and ospreys, endearing ones such
as storks, cranes and swans, and delightful ones such as migrating
songbirds, will be greatly thinned-down. Some species will disappear
altogether.
In conclusion:
Windplants are harmful in a number of important ways, beneficial in none,
and they cost dearly to taxpayers and consumers, more still to residents in
terms of property values. They are uneconomical and useless. But they are
highly profitable to their promoters because they are subsidized. So much so
that industry leaders have joined forces to lobby at the political, mediatic
and ecological levels, silencing the opposition with money - taxpayers'
money reaped from the subventions. I know of a bird society that receives
donations from electricity companies amounting to 25% of its annual budget.
Taxpayer's money has been used in that manner to build an apparent consensus
in favour of the wind industry. Politicians, for one, all agree on this
money-laden venture, which on top gives them a favourable "green" image.
Ecologists, too, promote windfarms, in the delusion that greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced. As a result of such a broad-based consensus,
strengthened by active propaganda and intrigue by the windpower lobby,
contrary opinions are not considered worth publishing by the media -- which
in turn favours ignorance, and perpetuation of the blind consensus that is
working to the detriment of both nature and mankind.
So it looks like wind turbines will continue to spread around the globe with
disastrous effects on birds, on the scenery, and hence on everybody's
quality of life; and for no savings whatsoever in greenhouse gas emissions.
To the contrary, more gases will be produced in the end as subsidies paid to
the wind industry cannot be used to accelerate our conversion to the
hydrogen economy: Politicians feel no pressure in that respect, basking as
they are in the green image provided by their aggressive windpower policy,
and with all the wining and dining associated with efficient lobbying by a
cash-rich industry --at taxpayer's expense.
California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of
windpower, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to
wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a
swimming pool are poured into the landscape from Vancouver to Auckland?
before countless pylons are added to the landscape? before the horizon is
marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the
birds? and for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?
It is time we study carefully the new California Energy Plan. It contains
many answers.
BIRDS AND WIND "FARMS"
1) Birds in general.
- Problems of vision:
The eyes of most birds are located on each side of the head, covering a
field of vision nearing 360º - to see predators coming from any angle. On
the downside, quality of perception is mediocre in front of the animal and
in his back, zones that are at the limit of the 180º covered by each eye.
This explains why they turn their heads so often when they are on land,
where they are particularly at risk. In the air, they often twist their
necks to look above them, where falcons and other raptors may be stalking.
But unless they turn their heads sideways while flying, their vision of what
is in front of them is rather poor. - Rabbits, and other mammals that
are usually preyed upon, have the same problem: for this it is easy to
capture them in nets).
This explains why so many swans, storks, cranes, bustards, starlings and
countless species of other day-flying birds regularly run into tension
lines, wind turbines or other obstacles, and die on the ground.
The problem is compounded at night. Low flying nocturnal migrants, such as
many species of songbirds, are particularly vulnerable - even when the
obstacles are lit (in overcast conditions, flood-lights attract the birds,
then disorient and blind them). The guy wires of a television tower are
known to have killed 5,408 birds in one night (item 356 of "bird kills"
document - available upon request).
"Nocturnal bird kills are virtually certain wherever an obstacle extends
into the air space where birds are flying in migration" (item 445 of
same document)
Birds are known to crash into all kinds of obvious obstacles such as
buildings, smokestacks, moving cars etc. -- even by day.
- flying in groups:
Where a single bird may luckily pass unharmed through overhead cables, or
the maze of a windfarm, those flying in flocks will always leave a
percentage of casualties behind: 1) law of numbers 2) breadth of the flock
3) bad frontal vision for those not located in the front row.
- Instinct:
Birds, like any other animal, identify living creatures, not objects, as
possible dangers. Their instinct doesn't warn them about television towers,
tension lines, or wind turbines.
- Appearance of slowness:
The arms of a wind turbine seem to be moving slowly. In view of their
length, however, they reach great speed at the tip. This has the effect of
deceiving the birds, of catching them off-guard.
A 100 feet-long blade weighing a ton and traveling at 100 miles an hour at
the apex will kill anything in its way (see pictures of a beheaded eagle, of
a sliced vulture -- available upon request)
In Altamont Pass, California, 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, among
other birds, fell victims to the turbines in 1989; and further south another
windfarm killed 7000 migrating birds (source: California Energy Commission).
Small birds, more numerous and often flying in flocks, are slaughtered in
greater numbers. In Nasudden, Norway, researchers Winkelman and Karlsson
found 49 dead birds at the foot of a single turbine during a single night of
migration. Extrapolating the figure to the 500,000 giant windmills to be
erected around the world, we would get: 24,500,000 dead birds... in one
night. Extrapolations are inexact by definition; but they have the merit of
providing an order of magnitude.
In Tarifa, Spain, we have documented evidence that at least 13 different
protected species are being victimized by the "farms" (source: Windpower
Monthly - a magazine edited by the windpower industry itself).
- Pulling force:
All turbines, whether they work in water or in the air, create a depression
which has the effect of pulling-in water, air, and whatever happens to be
around. It is well-known that birds are prone to be sucked-in by the jet
engines of an airplane.
The blades of a wind turbine turn much slower than those of a jet engine,
but their sweep is hundreds of times bigger. Their pulling force has been
estimated to be in excess of 12 kilos per square meter, reaching 20 kilos
when the wind is strong. There is no bird, however big or swift, that can
resist such a force.
Table-fans will draw a feather. Giant fans standing 300 feet-tall on
hill-tops will suck-in an eagle, a stork, a crane, a swan.
2) Raptors.
- vision:
Birds of prey, like humans and predators in general, have their eyes located
in front of the head, for an in-depth perception of what's in front of them.
Their vision is superior to that of other animals: a peregrine falcon can
spot a pigeon flying 10 miles away.
As they hunt, they often focus their eyes at great distances, allowing them
to detect the prey before it can see them, and prepare a surprise attack
from a dead angle.
Anyone who has used a camera knows that when the lens is focused far away,
twigs moving in the forefront are barely visible. And so it is with the arms
of a giant turbine when the eyes of a raptor are focused on an area further
away. The danger is heightened by the fact that, in the attack, the eyes are
locked-in on the prey.
Proving this point we have documented evidence of peregrine falcons crashing
into highly visible, stationary cables of high-tension lines.
- flight pattern:
Birds of prey glide most of the time, to save energy. They use ascending air
currents, pass from one valley to the next over hill-tops and
mountain-crests, where windplants are normally located. And they drift on
the wind itself, the same wind that flows through the turbines of these
"farms". This makes them particularly vulnerable.
If they wait too long before maneuvering out of reach of the blades, the
pulling force of the turbine surprises them and they can't fight both the
wind and the pull: they get sucked-in.
- perching:
Birds of prey commonly perch on tall structures, like pylons, to rest and
hunt at the same time. On days without wind, when the blades are standing
still, turbines become a perching site, and will attract raptors. And those
will tend to come back the next day, and the next...
- perfect hunting ground:
Another reason for being attracted by the "farms" is that the area is
generally clear of vegetation, making it an ideal hunting ground where
rodents have no place to hide.
- vicious circle:
As the giant blades kill airborne predators, rodents tend to proliferate on
windplant grounds. Besides, bird carcasses provide them with a diet rich in
protein.
The presence of rodents will keep attracting raptors to be slaughtered. It
is a vicious circle, a "black hole" into which entire neighbouring
populations of hawks, kites, harriers, buzzards, falcons and eagles may
disappear.
- further-reaching black hole effect:
When a resident bird of prey (or the pair) has been killed by the turbines
installed on its hunting territory, that breeding area becomes vacant.
Sooner or later another raptor will claim the territory as its own. It may
be a young eagle coming from as far as 1000 kms away, in which case the
black hole would have a national, or international effect on certain bird
populations. In Spain, a radio transmitter fixed on a young imperial eagle
evidenced that juveniles may travel well over a thousand miles from their
birthplaces. That particular non-migrating specimen flew from Spain to
Senegal, and back, before selecting a territory (article in Quercus, a
Spanish wildlife magazine)
The black hole effect may be more lethal still. If the turbines happen to be
erected in a "dispersal area", i.e. a territory unsuitable for nesting but
good for hunting, it will affect many more raptors - for this is where
juveniles go to feed, the place being free of territorial adults. And
logically, any place containing prey that is not a breeding area occupied by
a territorial pair, is a dispersal area - to a degree or another.
3) Flying mammals.
From Navarra, Spain, we have evidence that bats are being killed in large
numbers by the blades of the turbines. This evidences that their radar-like
perception system is unable to save them from windplants.
4) Migrations.
Placing wind turbines on a migration route will thin populations down as
they fly through. Night-flying songbirds are particularly vulnerable.
High-flying waterfowl are less at risk, except when they land to rest - or
skirt mountain crests.
A migration route may be as wide as a country. Israel, Italy, Spain are the
natural highways to Africa for most European birds.
5) The attitude of bird societies and other nature conservation NGO's.
In May 1998, USA Today quoted a Sierra Club official who had labeled wind
turbines: "The Cuisinarts of the Air".
Today, Greenpeace is actively promoting windpower. Bird societies, the
Sierra Club and other NGO's agree or keep silent. Officially, the buzzwords
are: climate change, Kyoto Protocol, renewable energy. But financial
considerations also bear on the issue: NGO's receive subventions, grants,
donations, and their donors must be kept happy; they also get jobs,
field-study assignments, and commissions for environmental impact analyses.
And the cash-rich windpower industry is generous in that respect, having a
vested interest in putting ecologists on their side. As a matter of fact,
ornithologists have never been so busy, and so well paid, with so many
environmental impact reports to write -- one for each windfarm. And the
promoters are their employers -- a conflict of interest which borders on
indecency.
So there are plenty of reasons for bird societies and other conservation
organizations to keep silent on the bird slaughter issue.
Sadly enough, windplants do not really save on greenhouse gases. A critical
view, presented in "Windfarm Misapprehension", reveals that the contrary may
hold true, through side effects unforeseen by the ecologists -- gases
emitted by conventional power plants spinning for nothing in back up; gases
emitted in the construction of a huge windplant and grid network which will
NOT substitute conventional plants, needed for back up; and additional
delays in the coming of the clean hydrogen economy.
Mark Duchamp
Conservationist
Calpe, Spain
Too right, Calvin.
Anyone notice who was following Blair to the stage (and prompting him, no doubt)?
None other than former drama teacher and Econut Supreme, (Baronet) the Honourable Sir Jonathan Porritt, CBE, late of Greenpeace and Fiend of the Earth, MP (failed), MEP (failed), and green advisor to the Prince of Wales.
Jonathan Porritt was a guest on Jeremy Clarkson's chat show, successfully shooting JC down in flames on global whining, errr.....warming.
This was probably JC's greatest failing in life....................
Anyone notice who was following Blair to the stage (and prompting him, no doubt)?
None other than former drama teacher and Econut Supreme, (Baronet) the Honourable Sir Jonathan Porritt, CBE, late of Greenpeace and Fiend of the Earth, MP (failed), MEP (failed), and green advisor to the Prince of Wales.
Jonathan Porritt was a guest on Jeremy Clarkson's chat show, successfully shooting JC down in flames on global whining, errr.....warming.
This was probably JC's greatest failing in life....................
Wind machines:
Can't we put them far out to sea????
Afterall, we have offshore oil drilling, with the oil piped back to land. Is it too counter productive to house all these wind farms a similar distance out to sea, with large cables bringing the elecrticity back.
Thre must be a lot of old structures in the North sea which could be suitable...
Or am I just talking hot air??
Can't we put them far out to sea????
Afterall, we have offshore oil drilling, with the oil piped back to land. Is it too counter productive to house all these wind farms a similar distance out to sea, with large cables bringing the elecrticity back.
Thre must be a lot of old structures in the North sea which could be suitable...
Or am I just talking hot air??
mybrainhurts said: Why wind power is A Bad Thing, courtesy Mark Duchamp : ....
"Major support for research to develop the hydrogen economy is urgently
needed. The Energy Review appears to accept fuel switching, probably to
hydrogen, as inevitable in the long term, but it is unwilling to recommend
early action or signal that this is the Government's preferred solution"
(also from the Royal Academy of Engineering report)....
....gases emitted in the construction of a huge windplant and grid network which will
NOT substitute conventional plants, needed for back up; and additional
delays in the coming of the clean hydrogen economy.
Mark Duchamp
Conservationist
Calpe, Spain
Hydrogen economy???
Sorry but this is a load of bollocks as well. There is a post in the engines forum from either lotusguy or Jon Gwyenne that details exactly why but it doesn't take a genuius to figure it out.
Basically hydrogen is either produced from water using HUGE amounts of electricity or its produced from fossil fuels thus emitting vast quantites of CO2.
So there would be no net improvement in anything.
I agree with the stupididty of reducing/eradicating nuclear power.
I was told by someone that using modern processing techniques if we were to continue generating nuclear power at the same rate we have for the last 40 years for another 50 years we would only produce an extra 25% high level nuclear waste over the large pile we already have.
So thats as much energy as we've already consumed from nuclear energy for only a small increase in high level waste. Also who cares exactly how much high level waste you've got. You only need a few tons for it to be a big problem. We've already made this and there's no way to get rid of it. So whats the problem with adding a bit more??
My main concern with nuclear energy is the cost. The nukes were only able to break even on running costs because the national grid was made to buy all the electricity they made. So the nuclear people simply turned the reactors up to full power and produced as much as they could so they would get loadsa money. It worked as with the steady income the nukes were able to operate profitably. Unfortunatley when the hole system deregulated the old agreement was cancelled.
This meant that the national grid would only buy leccy from the nukes when they needed it at peak times and didn't buy leccy during the night at low times.
The result for the nukes was a seriously reduced income.
Now for a coal or gas installation you can turn down the furnaces in low times and save yourself the fuel, thus saving your costs.
But with a nuke you can't the fuel costs are fixed so the nukes rapidly became unprofitable in the new system.
Thats what led to the goverment giving huge sums of wonga to British Energy.
However it is a clean (if somewhat expensive) way to make power. My only concenrn is that the engineers who run the nukes are given a free reign to make em safe rather than having cost cutting managers over their heads all the time. Its skimping on safety that leads to problems.
I also think (for what its worth) that being a net importer of fossil fuels is not good. (especially when most of the gas is supposed to come from russia of all places. MafiaGaz anyone???
Andy
One of the other aims is to make us more energy efficient its also just a rehash of all the Agenda 21 stuff from one of the earth summits.
Simple things like changing all your light bulbs for energy savers, insulating your house better, turning off the power to all you appliances at night instead of just putting them on standby, these will all help to reduce energy needs and hopefully your costs so you can spend more on your sports car
The problem with all the high profile political arguements going on in the UK at the moment is the government gives us half the picture then the tabloids (read ALL PAPERS here!) give us half that story and we're left with what looks like a very sharp stick being pointed at us based on only a quarter of the facts. I'd suggest that "The War", Congestion Charging and this Energy Policy all have been reported in this way and unfortunately most of our society will just nod and then walk away asking themselves what on earth Tony was talking about.
The nice thing about PH is that there are people from both sides of the fence with enough intelligence to look beyond the tabloids.
Simple things like changing all your light bulbs for energy savers, insulating your house better, turning off the power to all you appliances at night instead of just putting them on standby, these will all help to reduce energy needs and hopefully your costs so you can spend more on your sports car
The problem with all the high profile political arguements going on in the UK at the moment is the government gives us half the picture then the tabloids (read ALL PAPERS here!) give us half that story and we're left with what looks like a very sharp stick being pointed at us based on only a quarter of the facts. I'd suggest that "The War", Congestion Charging and this Energy Policy all have been reported in this way and unfortunately most of our society will just nod and then walk away asking themselves what on earth Tony was talking about.
The nice thing about PH is that there are people from both sides of the fence with enough intelligence to look beyond the tabloids.
I'm fairly confident that nuclear is the way to go. yes, it has drawbacks and is expensive, but it is proven technology and is capable of producing huge amounts of power.
Hydrogen shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It *can* contribute to CO2 emissions, IF the water-splitting plant is powered by a non-polluting power source. E.g. build solar furnaces in Saudi Arabia and use them to split seawater. Then deliver the hydrogen and oxygen to whereever it is needed by ship (the bigger the cargo, the easier it is to keep cold). Kills two birds with one stone, coz it allows you to "export" solar energy. The cost would be vast to introduce, but the scale of the thing could be vast too, so perhaps it might become viable.
Hydrogen shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It *can* contribute to CO2 emissions, IF the water-splitting plant is powered by a non-polluting power source. E.g. build solar furnaces in Saudi Arabia and use them to split seawater. Then deliver the hydrogen and oxygen to whereever it is needed by ship (the bigger the cargo, the easier it is to keep cold). Kills two birds with one stone, coz it allows you to "export" solar energy. The cost would be vast to introduce, but the scale of the thing could be vast too, so perhaps it might become viable.
Surely the way to make nuclear energy break even is to sell the spent fuel rods or the weapons-grade plutonium they produce at a profit to the iraqis, iranians, north koreans etc. THEN we blast away their nuclear weapons installations just as they take delivery (and have paid) and wait for the next crop of madmen and dictators to ring BNFL for a quote. 
Alternatively we get serious about balancing financial cost with environmental impact - I fully admit we have been getting cheap energy from fossil fuels with (an arguable) environmental impact (I think one major volcano eruption does more damage than all the world's fossil-fuel burning in one year). So we may need to foot the cost for cleaner energy in the future - but with proper debate and no hysterics about nuclear energy etc. I say go nuclear - with a spur to the nuclear energy industry it could become safer, cleaner and perhaps cheaper than at present.
Alternatively we get serious about balancing financial cost with environmental impact - I fully admit we have been getting cheap energy from fossil fuels with (an arguable) environmental impact (I think one major volcano eruption does more damage than all the world's fossil-fuel burning in one year). So we may need to foot the cost for cleaner energy in the future - but with proper debate and no hysterics about nuclear energy etc. I say go nuclear - with a spur to the nuclear energy industry it could become safer, cleaner and perhaps cheaper than at present.
Modern Pebble bed nuclear reactors are far more efficient (hence much less dangerous waste, they pretty much use all the radioactive products), cheaper to build and run, and infinitely safer as the cannot melt down (IIRC). They would have been online a few years ago but for all the wailing from the eco-****wits. They could easily meet all our energy needs with minimal pollution.
williamp said: Wind machines:
Can't we put them far out to sea????
Afterall, we have offshore oil drilling, with the oil piped back to land. Is it too counter productive to house all these wind farms a similar distance out to sea, with large cables bringing the elecrticity back.
Thre must be a lot of old structures in the North sea which could be suitable...
Or am I just talking hot air??
The problem is with them massive wind turbine things, like the HUGE one that is going to be planted off the West coast of Ireland, is that they are made out of aluminium which requires an awful lot of energy to smelt in the first place.
IIRC average ROI in energy terms is something like 100 years.
Matt.
has anyone else heard of an experiment in Sweden (I think) where they were burning saplings in a special generating station to produce steam to power turbines? or did I dream it. It occurs to me that we could kill two frogs with one hatstand here (if it's true that is)farmers are told to plant (in unused useless green belt) saplings (whatever they are only need to grow 1 metre and do it quickly) counter greenhouse effects, harvest and burn to produce power......shall I get my coat?
plotloss said:
The problem is with them massive wind turbine things, like the HUGE one that is going to be planted off the West coast of Ireland, is that they are made out of aluminium which requires an awful lot of energy to smelt in the first place.
IIRC average ROI in energy terms is something like 100 years.
Matt.
That may be true but its probably why there is a big aluminium smelting plant in Fort William, Scotland.
It may use mega electricity but its all provided from nearby hydro power. So there is no net CO2 produced to make the aluminium, which is nice.
If the windmills were made from aluminium from this plant then they would be very environmentally friendly.
Course you could question the need to smelt the aluminium in the first place if you didn't build the windmills you could just put the leccy that would be consumed by the smelter to build the things into the grid instead.
But lets not forget that both the smelting plant and the windmill factory create loadsa jobs.....
So well worth having both. (if you can keep the windmills offshore so no one will complain)
My personal view is that wind power is just a sop to the environ mentalists. The key to secure future power is nukes.
The govenment haven't actually ruled out nukes as yet. They're craftilly keeping their options open so that if they win the next election then they can authorise their construction and then say "we never ruled them out in the first place"
Of course they won't come out and just say that nuclear power is a good idea as that would lose them a lot of votes in the "green" lobby
Andy
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff