Windfarms - the end is nigh?

[hornetrider]

Devastating research, this. Looks like a killer blow to the entire concept, frankly. Hurray for peat bogs!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/...

[extraT]

Of course the piece is completely nutral, was not funded by the Scottish Government who currently have an agenda against the UK or Europe, and was not published in a Journal as a subjective piece.

[wemorgan]

devastating to onshore wind farms on peat bogs - quite a specific report then

[miniman]

That's fantastic, even if the offset is borderline it makes a mockery of the whole snake oil industry.

[wemorgan]

miniman said:

That's fantastic, even if the offset is borderline it makes a mockery of the whole snake oil industry.

How and where did it say that in the above report?

[miniman]

wemorgan said:

miniman said:

That's fantastic, even if the offset is borderline it makes a mockery of the whole snake oil industry.

How and where did it say that in the above report?

article said:

“Large peatland wind farms introduce high potential for their expected CO2 savings to be cancelled out by release of greenhouse gases stored in the peat,” they said.
“Emission savings are achieved by wind power only after the carbon payback time has elapsed, and if this exceeds the lifetime of the wind farm, no carbon benefits will be realised.”

What I meant was, this seems to be saying that the release of gases from the peat could make the overall CO2 reduction marginal, and that whilst the Eco mentalists might well consider that to be acceptable, I think that the only possible justification for the things would be significant savings.

[vodkalolly]

Why do the morons think that a fluctuating power supply will be any good? These stupid windmills generate zero electricity sometimes for weeks on end (Dec 2010) Why are the political trash so gullible? Wind would be much better suited to pump store than directly producing electricity. The notion of 100% renewable is just ludicrous until fusion is perfected.

[wemorgan]

that has little if anything to do with the article being discuss

[Art0ir]

I don't agree with principle of the report (starting with the premise of CO2 being mankind's greatest enemy), but anything that will bring the wind farm industry to an end is good in my book.

[elster]

There are many arguments against windfarms. This is hardly the biggest. The main one being that they are showing to have reduced output of 50% lower within 10 years of construction.

This is merely an article to try and get the eco mentalists on side.

They could possibly explode, so they want to save the carbons or save the atmosphere...

[Rickeh]

I don't care how much carbon dioxide they create. I care about how much energy they produce...

[powerstroke]

I think the wheels are finaly coming off , but how will the politians get out of this monumental waste of OUR money without loosing face and the kick backs they and there friends ,familys and other suspects are enjoying????

[elster]

Rickeh said:

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.

[wemorgan]

elster said:

I think it is somewhere between bugger all and fk all.

Peak output of 1.9 GW today

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php

[elster]

wemorgan said:

Peak output of 1.9 GW today

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php

3.5% ish then. Now let's look at how many wind turbines there are and what the average is?

Then lets look at the same ones next year and see how much less they make.

There was a really good article in IET magazine the other month about how crap they are.

[Jim the Sunderer]

wemorgan said:

Peak output of 1.9 GW today

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php

Enough to get to 1955.

[wemorgan]

These debates are much better when the facts are being discussed.
It was said that wind turbines produced next to no power.
The actual answer is 1.9GW.
Nuclear was 7.9GW today.

[Oakey]

wemorgan said:

These debates are much better when the facts are being discussed.
It was said that wind turbines produced next to no power.
The actual answer is 1.9GW.
Nuclear was 7.9GW today.

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?

[wemorgan]

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

[kiteless]

I understand that the capital cost for the installation of one large (1 - 2.5MW) turbine is £2.5 million. So assuming that 4,100 turbines UK-wide is correct, that's a cost of over £10 billion to satisfy something like 4% of total electricity demand.

Jesus wept.