The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

'Breaking off' in strong winds?


Proper bona fida ones?


And as above 'statistically' - an utter non story.

A couple of headlines and a series of non-stories follow which, being non-stories, will be easy enough to locate in the media.

1,500 accidents and incidents on UK wind farms

Gales wreck two wind turbines in Scottish storm

The following incidents are from 09/11 through 01/12 and exclude at least as many dangerous incidents from even-less-proper windymills.

It is reported 19/01/12 that a 32.4m (112.2 ft) Endurance E-3120 turbine suffered a catastrophic collapse at Wattlesborough, near Shrewsbury, Shropshire.
The controversial turbine had only recently been commissioned.

31/01/12 Kirklees Council yesterday suspended planning applications for a type of windmill manufactured by Brighouse firm Evoco Energy. The move came after high winds ripped blades from the company’s turbines in Hepworth and Upper Cumberworth earlier this month.

13/01/12 Engineers investigate after wind turbine ripped apart. Dolfor residents reported hearing a big bang over Christmas, the noise of a turbine exploding and hitting the ground. “It goes without saying that this distance should be greater and that turbines should be nowhere near public footpaths."

Wind turbine blades fly off in storm 07/01/12 Ryan Gill, of manufacturers Evoco, blamed the exceptionally strong winds for the damage. …Fraser McLachlan, the chief executive of GCube, a wind turbine insurer, said “It does happen"

Blown away: gales wreck wind turbines as Scottish storm wreck havoc
09,/12/11 A 100-metre tall wind turbine burst into flames in North Ayrshire, and in Coldingham in the Scottish Borders, a turbine crashed to the ground yards from a road.

Wind kills wind turbine 01/12/11 A wind turbine came crashing down as high winds and burst of torrential rain swept across Huddersfield.

When blades from a less proper turbine fly off it will be a major statistical consolation for people living and working nearby.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

'Breaking off' in strong winds?


Proper bona fida ones?


And as above 'statistically' - an utter non story.

Here's one instance:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/safet...

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

A couple of headlines and a series of non-stories follow which, being non-stories, will be easy enough to locate in the media.

1,500 accidents and incidents on UK wind farms

Gales wreck two wind turbines in Scottish storm

The following incidents are from 09/11 through 01/12 and exclude at least as many dangerous incidents from even-less-proper windymills.

It is reported 19/01/12 that a 32.4m (112.2 ft) Endurance E-3120 turbine suffered a catastrophic collapse at Wattlesborough, near Shrewsbury, Shropshire.
The controversial turbine had only recently been commissioned.

31/01/12 Kirklees Council yesterday suspended planning applications for a type of windmill manufactured by Brighouse firm Evoco Energy. The move came after high winds ripped blades from the company’s turbines in Hepworth and Upper Cumberworth earlier this month.

13/01/12 Engineers investigate after wind turbine ripped apart. Dolfor residents reported hearing a big bang over Christmas, the noise of a turbine exploding and hitting the ground. “It goes without saying that this distance should be greater and that turbines should be nowhere near public footpaths."

Wind turbine blades fly off in storm 07/01/12 Ryan Gill, of manufacturers Evoco, blamed the exceptionally strong winds for the damage. …Fraser McLachlan, the chief executive of GCube, a wind turbine insurer, said “It does happen"

Blown away: gales wreck wind turbines as Scottish storm wreck havoc
09,/12/11 A 100-metre tall wind turbine burst into flames in North Ayrshire, and in Coldingham in the Scottish Borders, a turbine crashed to the ground yards from a road.

Wind kills wind turbine 01/12/11 A wind turbine came crashing down as high winds and burst of torrential rain swept across Huddersfield.

When blades from a less proper turbine fly off it will be a major statistical consolation for people living and working nearby.

Ah, sorry didn't see this post before I provided a ink below to the North Ayrshire case. Some good examples here.

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

A couple of headlines and a series of non-stories follow which, being non-stories, will be easy enough to locate in the media.

1,500 accidents and incidents on UK wind farms

Empty headline. What was the cause or outcome? Were they time lost?

There are 8,000 wind turbines in the UK at the last count, operating 24/7. And you've found how many failures?

Yes, it'd be quite statistically important if it happened to you, but then you are more likely to die in so, so many other ways!

[Ali G]

Of course, the officially sponsored by politicians (due to expertise in nothing other than conning voters) move to diesel has been a spectacular success as assessed by more measures than are feasibly possible to assess in any single lifetime.

[MYOB]

Evanivitch said:

Empty headline. What was the cause or outcome? Were they time lost?

There are 8,000 wind turbines in the UK at the last count, operating 24/7. And you've found how many failures?

Yes, it'd be quite statistically important if it happened to you, but then you are more likely to die in so, so many other ways!

The point of the matter is that turbines should be subject to an exclusion/safety zone for obvious reasons. These ones in the aforementioned photo where they are sited next to a road appears to be in a very dangerous position. However, I appreciate the photo may be misleading in that the road is perfectly safe (eg, closed to public) and is not a distraction to either vehicles or pedestrians.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

'Breaking off' in strong winds?


Proper bona fida ones?


And as above 'statistically' - an utter non story.

Well, if they managed to install 2 out of 3 in what must be significantly different positions compared to the plan one might wonder about the quality of the work and possibly the quality of the components.

And the people who were checking the work against the plan.

If the landowner encouraged such activity for some reason and the construction team went along with it that might also raise some concerns.

Nothing for the local council "officers" to be concerned about I suppose. Is anything?

[rolando]

Evanivitch said:

rolando said:

I suggest you read this

I would, but it's unavailable.

Council making it hard to access stuff which should be in the public domain.

Try here

Scroll down to: 16 Feb 2017 Consultee Comment DCCHW and click on the doc button to the right to view the PDF.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Other than the SPR / Siemens Gamesa turbine, the lack of detail in TB list has the usual whiff of steered news.

That response has the whiff of something else, brown and sounds like a bell.

Lovin' "steered news" (wtf) which in context means news you don't like.

Given the information I supplied revealed what might politely be referred to as 'gaps' in your claim, I expected a dismissive response to reality (again).

Do tell PH which items in the list were fake news (none) tick tock.

[rolando]

First of a couple examples

They are supposed to have control systems that stop them overspeeding and to apply the brakes. A spectacular example of self-destruction

Of course, the wind industry will make every effort to claim that they never fail. Just like virtually all their claims, to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

[Gary C]

Come on, things break. We don't abandon them just because they do.

We would never drive if that was the case.

This thread has turned into a wind witch hunt with no real discussion, just sniping back and forth.

[turbobloke]

Some unsubsidised, low-cost but incredibly useful computer modelling predicted that type of response.

All details easily found for those prepared to look and stomach the results.

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Exactly.

Back on topic:

Some studies into bird and bat fatalities near wind farms:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.255...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.260...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.191...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21...

[MYOB]

For specific concerns anyone has on energy and planning matters, take a look at the relevant National Policy Statements:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationa...

These are guidance that developers and consenting bodies must use for their projects. With these, are details on what must be assessed and how they ought to be assessed and mitigated. Obviously far too much information here for many of us to absorb, but the point is, any concerns over birds, infrastructure remaining in situ, and even the viability of particular types of generators are all discussed here.

[MYOB]

Jinx said:

Back on topic:

Some studies into bird and bat fatalities near wind farms:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.255...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.260...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.191...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21...

Why are you using figures from wind farms around the world? The UK and EU have different rules in place regarding the siting of turbines.

There are many habitats assessments (under EU directives) that are carried out in order to minimised as much as possible the effects on wildlife.

Edited by MYOB on Monday 13th November 14:44

[Jinx]

MYOB said:

Why are you using figures from wind farms around the world? The UK and EU have different rules in place regarding the siting of turbines.

There are many habitats assessments (under EU directives) that are carried out in order to minimised as much as possible the effects on wildlife.

Edited by MYOB on Monday 13th November 14:44

And is there any evidence these different rules make a positive difference? Or are they merely positive spin (pun intended).

[Jinx]

MYOB said:

For specific concerns anyone has on energy and planning matters, take a look at the relevant National Policy Statements:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationa...

These are guidance that developers and consenting bodies must use for their projects. With these, are details on what must be assessed and how they ought to be assessed and mitigated. Obviously far too much information here for many of us to absorb, but the point is, any concerns over birds, infrastructure remaining in situ, and even the viability of particular types of generators are all discussed here.

5.3.6 Of the "Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy" I suspect is used a lot to justify Wind farms -

5.3.6 said:

In having regard to the aim of the Government’s biodiversity strategy the IPC should take account of the context of the challenge of climate change: failure
to address this challenge will result in significant adverse impacts to biodiversity. The policy set out in the following sections recognises the need to protect the most important biodiversity and geological conservation interests. The benefits of nationally significant low carbon energy infrastructure development may include benefits for biodiversity and geological conservation interests and these benefits may outweigh harm to these interests. The IPC may take account of any such net benefit in cases where it can be demonstrated.

Given the shear amount of nonsense papers in "Nature Climate Change" that use the top end predictions of the IPCC estimates - it would be easy enough to justify killing thousands of actual birds to save tens of thousands of modeled ones.

[MYOB]

Jinx said:

And is there any evidence these different rules make a positive difference? Or are they merely positive spin (pun intended).

Why don't you ask the RSPB? After all, they are a statutory consultee on such matters with regards to planning on policy on energy matters.

[tag1]

Gary C said:

LongQ said:

Maybe more flexible potential than has been thought.

http://www.powermag.com/press-releases/switzerland...


SInce historically most Nuclear has been designed and built to satisfy base load needs there was no evident requirement in the design objective for load following.

Now, with the focus on alleged "renewables" and CO2 reduction for some reason, the opportunity to re-assess nuclear presents itself but is only partly realistic in a renewables scenario where planning to build for oversupply capacity while trying to work around the intermittency problem has the potential to make life both very expensive and ugly. Not to mention inefficient.


A load following capable nuclear industry of some sort could present a favourable argument.

Thanks for that link. Interesting. Certainly I was meaning the AGR fleet more than water reactors. Agr's originally were designed to have 30mw/minute ramp rates but a phenomenon called PCI became a concern in the 80's whereby power ramps can cause clad damage and failure so we had to limit the number and severity of ramps.

Don't know if sizewell B is considering Alfc, will ask.

Nuclear has to be a huge factor in long term generation.The country unfortunately for far too long made the necessary investment in nuclear uneconomic and proceduraly next to impossible.Finding partners , designing, approving and building the fleet of new reactors is huge challenge.However,there could be matters that the NDA/goverment have to resolve elsewhere in the industry that would mean there was no/a very restricted route for handling the high level waste.Its a while since I was involved so I could be wrong and progress may have prevailed.But I doubt any safety case would be approved without a sensible and achievable way of dealing with waste.

[MYOB]

Jinx said:

Given the shear amount of nonsense papers in "Nature Climate Change" that use the top end predictions of the IPCC estimates - it would be easy enough to justify killing thousands of actual birds to save tens of thousands of modeled ones.

I don't think anyone is as flippant as you suspect when it comes to the protection of wildlife. The is a lot of guidance out there in order to protect wildlife, for example:

https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk...

Don't ask me to tell you which one, but I believe there have even been some wind farms refused consents due to concerns over birds.

Edited by MYOB on Monday 13th November 15:22