Windfarms - the end is nigh?

[elster]

wemorgan said:

Oakey said:

What's your point? 1.9GW from what? 4100 turbines? Demand is 48.7GW. I guess if we increase windmills by about x30 we'll be okay?

My point was a reply to:

"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."

My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.

Simples

So we only need to build another 120,582 to keep up with demand. The efficiency of a typical 3MW turbine is 40%, so 1.2MW which reduces year on year, with them being half as efficient after 10-15 years of use.

Then replace all 124,740 turbines every 10-15 years.

So that would be a cost of about £3 million each which is £374.22 Billion to be spent every 10-15 years.

So just for the infrastructure we are looking at an extra £1871.10 per household per year (20 million households) or conservatively £1247.40 (15 years).

That is a hell of an extra energy bill.

Edited by elster on Monday 25th February 11:05

[Oakey]

wemorgan said:

By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.

I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
It will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.

Edited by wemorgan on Sunday 24th February 21:05

So basically, your argument is that as our spare capacity draws closer to zero and we get closer to the risk of blackouts (due to short sighted energy policies and an attempt to reduce CO2 in the name of Climate Change) '4% seems like a bigger number'? Sort of in the same way that if we were running out of fresh drinking water then drinking your own piss might seem appealing? I suppose that's one way to spin it.

[Andy Zarse]

Oakey said:

wemorgan said:

By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.

I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
It will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.

Edited by wemorgan on Sunday 24th February 21:05

So basically, your argument is that as our spare capacity draws closer to zero and we get closer to the risk of blackouts (due to short sighted energy policies and an attempt to reduce CO2 in the name of Climate Change) '4% seems like a bigger number'? Sort of in the same way that if we were running out of fresh drinking water then drinking your own piss might seem appealing? I suppose that's one way to spin it.

The fact our spare generating capacity has fallen to a mere 4% is because we have invested in hopeless windmills instead of other sources seems entirely lost on wemorgan.

[emicen]

fid said:

I recall reading, years ago, that more energy is used in the manufacture of a wind turbine than it will generate in it's lifetime.

I dont have the figures to hand for the concrete base, but my work's wind turbine paid off the CO2 in its plinth in ~9months by my calcs when I saw the actual output for the first year of its installation.

Dont know what the energy consumption in the pylon, nacelle or blades is like.

[elster]

Oakey said:

wemorgan said:

By 2015 the UK spare energy capacity is forecast to be ~4%. Now all of a sudden 4% seems like a bigger number.
If I wore my rose tinted glasses I might suggestion wind power will be the only thing preventing blackouts.
But I'm not saying that. But I am say 4% is more important than you seem to think it is.

I've not glossed over anything - just tried to stick to facts than rhetoric.
I and everyone knows wind power generation will fluctuate. It's for this reason no one is suggestion the UK becomes too reliant on it as an energy source.
It will likely become a part of the energy generation, together with nuclear, gas and others.

Edited by wemorgan on Sunday 24th February 21:05

So basically, your argument is that as our spare capacity draws closer to zero and we get closer to the risk of blackouts (due to short sighted energy policies and an attempt to reduce CO2 in the name of Climate Change) '4% seems like a bigger number'? Sort of in the same way that if we were running out of fresh drinking water then drinking your own piss might seem appealing? I suppose that's one way to spin it.

What he is saying is that it is far better to spend £1 Billion on wind turbines instead of £50 million on another turbine in a coal power station.

[Art0ir]

wemorgan said:

I suspect the article you read was about small domestic turbines.

In the uk the average large industrial turbine produces 20-25 times the amount of energy it used to construct it.

Do you have a source for that? I'll bet my testicles they've overestimated (lied about) the energy they produce compared with real world figures.

[ikarl]

elster said:

wemorgan said:

Oakey said:

What's your point? 1.9GW from what? 4100 turbines? Demand is 48.7GW. I guess if we increase windmills by about x30 we'll be okay?

My point was a reply to:

"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."

My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.

Simples

So we only need to build another 120,582 to keep up with demand. The efficiency of a typical 3MW turbine is 40%, so 1.2MW which reduces year on year, with them being half as efficient after 10-15 years of use.

Then replace all 124,740 turbines every 10-15 years.

So that would be a cost of about £3 million each which is £374.22 Billion to be spent every 10-15 years.

So just for the infrastructure we are looking at an extra £1871.10 per household per year (20 million households) or conservatively £1247.40 (15 years).

That is a hell of an extra energy bill.

Edited by elster on Monday 25th February 11:05

The part above I've highlighted bold - that doesn't even scratch the surface of it!

[elster]

ikarl said:

elster said:

wemorgan said:

Oakey said:

What's your point? 1.9GW from what? 4100 turbines? Demand is 48.7GW. I guess if we increase windmills by about x30 we'll be okay?

My point was a reply to:

"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."

My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.

Simples

So we only need to build another 120,582 to keep up with demand. The efficiency of a typical 3MW turbine is 40%, so 1.2MW which reduces year on year, with them being half as efficient after 10-15 years of use.

Then replace all 124,740 turbines every 10-15 years.

So that would be a cost of about £3 million each which is £374.22 Billion to be spent every 10-15 years.

So just for the infrastructure we are looking at an extra £1871.10 per household per year (20 million households) or conservatively £1247.40 (15 years).

That is a hell of an extra energy bill.

Edited by elster on Monday 25th February 11:05

The part above I've highlighted bold - that doesn't even scratch the surface of it!

That is just for the turbines, it does not include the maintenance, grants, etc.

[98elise]

elster said:

wemorgan said:

Oakey said:

What's your point? 1.9GW from what? 4100 turbines? Demand is 48.7GW. I guess if we increase windmills by about x30 we'll be okay?

My point was a reply to:

"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."

My point was not: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.

Simples

So we only need to build another 120,582 to keep up with demand. The efficiency of a typical 3MW turbine is 40%, so 1.2MW which reduces year on year, with them being half as efficient after 10-15 years of use.

Then replace all 124,740 turbines every 10-15 years.

So that would be a cost of about £3 million each which is £374.22 Billion to be spent every 10-15 years.

So just for the infrastructure we are looking at an extra £1871.10 per household per year (20 million households) or conservatively £1247.40 (15 years).

That is a hell of an extra energy bill.

Edited by elster on Monday 25th February 11:05

Why do you think turbines get less efficient every year? Its a genuine question as in a former career I worked om motors, generators, motor gensets etc, and we never encountered any power drop off over time. They either work or they don't.

Also what do you mean by only 40% efficient. Their energy source is wind, so why does the efficiency matter that much. If your car ran on wind or solar would you be worried about the consumption? Do you think they are using up all the wind :-)

Edited by 98elise on Monday 25th February 12:49

[elster]

98elise said:

Why do you think turbines get less efficient every year? Its a genuine question as in a former career I worked om motors, generators, motor gensets etc, and we never encountered any power drop off over time. They either work or they don't.

It is not so much think as proven. The expected life was touted as 20-25 years. The E&T article showed that this is realistically 10-15 years, it was a Uni study.

I do not know the technicalities of why, as that is not my area of expertise. I will see if I still have the E&T magazine. Was 2/3 months ago.

[youngsyr]

Does anyone have sources for monthly amount of power generated by wind against total wind power capacity for the past decade or so?

Surely it must exist somewhere and plotting one against the other will show very clearly whether wind power has lived up to the claims.

[Oakey]

98elise said:

Why do you think turbines get less efficient every year? Its a genuine question as in a former career I worked om motors, generators, motor gensets etc, and we never encountered any power drop off over time. They either work or they don't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

Telegraph said:

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

Older turbines will need to be replaced more quickly than the industry estimates while many more will need to be built onshore if the Government is to meet renewable energy targets by 2020.

The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills.

The report concludes that a wind turbine will typically generate more than twice as much electricity in its first year than when it is 15 years old.

The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

youngsyr said:

Does anyone have sources for monthly amount of power generated by wind against total wind power capacity for the past decade or so?

Surely it must exist somewhere and plotting one against the other will show very clearly whether wind power has lived up to the claims.

Does this help you? http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Edited by Oakey on Monday 25th February 12:57

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

Does this help you? http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Thanks, that's great for actual power production, but there is nothing for total claimed capacity. Does anyone have any data for this?

I just read a report that stated between 2002 and 2008 average prodution was 24% of claimed capacity.

[Oakey]

According to the font of all accurate knowledge (Wikipedia) it's 8.4GW as of 2013

Also:

[wemorgan]

elster said:

wemorgan said:

Oakey said:

What's your point? 1.9GW from what? 4100 turbines? Demand is 48.7GW. I guess if we increase windmills by about x30 we'll be okay?

My point was a reply to:

"I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...
I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all."

My point was NOT: if we increase windmills by x30 we'll be ok.

Simples

So we only need to build another 120,582 to keep up with demand. The efficiency of a typical 3MW turbine is 40%, so 1.2MW which reduces year on year, with them being half as efficient after 10-15 years of use.

Then replace all 124,740 turbines every 10-15 years.

So that would be a cost of about £3 million each which is £374.22 Billion to be spent every 10-15 years.

So just for the infrastructure we are looking at an extra £1871.10 per household per year (20 million households) or conservatively £1247.40 (15 years).

That is a hell of an extra energy bill.

Edited by elster on Monday 25th February 11:05

You misread my post. I said "not".

Andy Zarse said:

The fact our spare generating capacity has fallen to a mere 4% is because we have invested in hopeless windmills instead of other sources seems entirely lost on wemorgan.

Hardly. I've said in previous posts that the total energy source from the UK should come from a balance of nuclear, gas, renewables etc.

elster said:

What he is saying is that it is far better to spend £1 Billion on wind turbines instead of £50 million on another turbine in a coal power station.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I've said no such thing. There's only so much time that can be spent writing a post on a forum. So it's best not to try to read in between the lines. Read each post as it is.

powerstroke said:

your posts make me think either you are a little stupid or getting a pull out of the wind subsidy industry... I think dispite all the propaganda the population ARE willing to take the time and are understanding the problem one of which is windmills are a very expensive dead end ...

I wondered when the insults would start.

You must socialise in more educated circles than I do, as my experience is the the general public aren't interested in energy. Few even know the difference between energy and power. People are more interested interested in money - fair enough.

No, I'm not getting a pull from the wind industry. I've even said in previous posts I believe nuclear and gas should be a part of the UK's energy generation.

---

OK - so few if anyone here wants wind turbines. Most people here want cheap (I think that's fair to assume). What's cheap? Imported gas? Nuclear? Shale? Each of them have serious question marks around them too - it's not just renewable that come with holes in the arguments. If decisions were easy they would have been made by now. Energy needs long term planning. 5 year Government terms aren't suited to long term plans. Many voters don't vote thinking so far ahead. Those are the problems we face. IMHO

[Oakey]

But one of the reasons that energy prices are rising is to pay the stupid FIT for those wealthy enough to install renewables!

[mondeoman]

Baseline nuclear and coal, split 75/25, to give around 30GW (or all nuclear, that'd be my preference)

Then top-up with CCGT to hit the winter max of 50GW.

Maybe add in some hydro and pumped storage and be done with it.

No need for any windymills, just do the job properly.

Funnily enough, tidal I have no problem with, nor local windymills for remote / small communities - but windmills as part of our "must have to keep the lights on" generation strategy, errr no thanks. Cheaper and a lot easier to buy in any extra 1 - 2GW we might need from France or Holland. Oh...

[Devil2575]

wemorgan said:

I wondered when the insults would start.

It never takes lomng on here, especially when the subject is to do with energy generation

I'm a little bit confused.

According to the Torygraph the Article is due to be published later this year yet it appears to have been published in Nature back in September 2012.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/fu...

It would be interesting to read the actual Paper, rather than a journalist's interpretation. Anyone got a subsrciption or fancy burning £22?

[AnonSpoilsport]

wemorgan said:

OK - so few if anyone here wants wind turbines. Most people here want cheap (I think that's fair to assume). What's cheap? Imported gas? Nuclear? Shale? Each of them have serious question marks around them too - it's not just renewable that come with holes in the arguments. If decisions were easy they would have been made by now. Energy needs long term planning. 5 year Government terms aren't suited to long term plans. Many voters don't vote thinking so far ahead. Those are the problems we face. IMHO

What exactly would they be, the 'serious questions' about (against) shale gas?

You are an engineer iirc, in what field? Do you work on/for wind turbines at all?

[Mojocvh]

AnonSpoilsport said:

wemorgan said:

OK - so few if anyone here wants wind turbines. Most people here want cheap (I think that's fair to assume). What's cheap? Imported gas? Nuclear? Shale? Each of them have serious question marks around them too - it's not just renewable that come with holes in the arguments. If decisions were easy they would have been made by now. Energy needs long term planning. 5 year Government terms aren't suited to long term plans. Many voters don't vote thinking so far ahead. Those are the problems we face. IMHO

What exactly would they be, the 'serious questions' about (against) shale gas?

You are an engineer iirc, in what field? Do you work on/for wind turbines at all?

"What exactly would they be, the 'serious questions' about (against) shale gas?"

Loads, even on threads in this here section in the last couple of days, pick it up at the back please....