Wind turbines

[m100]

Following on from

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=66851&postcount=49

essentially use the grid as your battery - when you're generating you're either using the power, and/or the excess is "exported" into the grid where it'll displace power that would have probably been generated by fossil fuels

If it is done purely as grid tie with zero interaction with
Except the consumer has to finance both the 'green' wind turbine, the subsidies associated with that and the replacement of the conventionally fuelled reserve. To finance this the consumer currently pays for offshore wind at around 0.8p per kWh or round about 10% more on their electricity bill or around half that for onshore wind. 2 x 250kW turbines = 7k per annum from Joe Public and that is on top of what the electricity can be sold for.

This diversion of energy spending strangles the financing of large scale conventionally fuelled generation meaning there is very distinct possibility of the lights going out from 2016. Why build an expensive nuclear or clean coal power station with carbon capture when you can immediately print money with a wind turbine?

Despite having the so called best wind resource in Europe there are still times when it doesn't blow, anywhere, at times of peak demand. Wind turbines seriously distort the planning process for large scale generation, they force what should be base load generation to two and three shift operation and thus be significantly less efficient, creating more emissions than they would in a world without wind turbines.

- and I would contend that they are considerably "friendlier" to have on one's doorstep than many of the alternatives.

So it's four thousand 1MW wind turbines as far as the eye can see together with a 4GW conventionally fuelled power station just in case the wind doesn't blow....or just 4GW of conventionally fuelled power station.

Or for us in Yorkshire it would be a Drax on our doorstep (which many of us are very happy with) or a forest of wind turbines across hundreds of square miles ruining the view AND a Drax on our doorstep.

 

[Brosville]

I've no interest in pouring more petrol on this particular fire - I KNOW wind works, pays, is very green , and if properly sited is a very important part of any sane renewable energy mix in these islands - as I've already said, I'm chief admin on a forum where this subject is debated up hill and down dale, and I come here to primarily talk bees as a pleasant change from "renewables", and only wrote what I did on "wind" in response to statements made in another thread........

 

[m100]

I KNOW wind works, pays, is very green

Oh it works... in isolation, ignore all the other issues it causes and it's the perfect solution.

In isolation it pays if you can cope with an intermittent supply, but grid tie and it pays massively because of unjustified and obscene subsidies. Besides the trashing of the long term funding for large conventional generation it also seriously distorts the planning process for distribution networks. It kills off real renewables such as large scale tidal or wave, like the ridiculous funding for energy saving lamps it takes funding away from where it is really needed, massively improving the energy efficiency of domestic premises.

It looks like wind turbines will sadly ensure that we enter a new dark age of a third world nation strangled by the greens.

 

[Brosville]

 

[roche]

The only point I can agree with is the need to massively improve the energy efficiency of domestic premises...

 

[Poly Hive]

There are several wave systems being trialled off Orkney and at long long last this country is looking in the right direction which is offshore.

Consider this. RGIT built (bear in mind they run the offshore oil engineering degrees) a trial turbine and put it into the Pentland Firth. It lasted 8 hous before failing under pressure.

Built by experts with donkeys years of offshore engineering experience and they UNDER engineered it badly.

I firmly believe that wind turbines are there as a sop to the greens and the bloody silly EU situation. Not to mention the lovely grants that are/were available. They are massively ugly and have no place in such places of outstanding natural beauty such as Lewis and Shetland not to mention the Great Glen. Funny how the green brigade see it as practical to blight such places and claim real politic but the same justification fails for nuclear. Double standards anyone?

The real power is out there at sea, and the backbone of the future power supply for the UK will be nuclear. The rest is window dressing for politicians who signed up to stupid agreements as pay off for other deals.

Not to mention looking good whilst strutting the world stage.

PH

 

[TBRNoTB]

I've no interest in pouring more petrol on this particular fire - I KNOW wind works, pays, is very green , and if properly sited is a very important part of any sane renewable energy mix in these islands - as I've already said, I'm chief admin on a forum where this subject is debated up hill and down dale, and I come here to primarily talk bees as a pleasant change from "renewables", and only wrote what I did on "wind" in response to statements made in another thread........

Everytime I pass Avonmouth, two out of the three WT seem to be taking a rest! I live in the Quantocks, it is proposed that EDF are to build 2x1600 MW turbines in the next few years. Would you prefer the building of 3200 1 MW 400 ft high wind turbines covering the Quantocks and Exmoor? as you put it I KNOW which I prefer.
roadster

 

[Hivemaker.]

I think wind turbines would look lovely on Exmoor....plenty of wind most of the time.

 

[victor meldrew]

I think wind turbines would look lovely on Exmoor....plenty of wind most of the time.

Consumption of more baked beans springs to mind
Should solve all the quiescent problems with the Wind Turbines

John Wilkinson

 

[oliver90owner]

The troubles where wind turbines are often attacked - mostly by those, who may not be brainless but, nevertheless, want their cause to be heard at the expense of the truth - are:

Firstly, but not in order necessarily, the rating system whereby the rating has to be the the maximum output. Those who think this bears any resemblance to the actual output at any other time than rated windspeed are either poorly informed, brainwashed or, shall we say, of lesser experience of the real facts of life around us. The connecting wires to the grid have to be capable of the rated output - or they may fail! We all know that the wind does not blow consistently at every location, don't we?

Secondly, the aesthetics point of view. I look out from a window in Galicia (by the coast) and am possibly surprised if I cannot see a wind turbine, given a wide panorama. There may be 40 and more in sight from some vantage points. Those in Spain (the few I know may not be representative) do not seem to mind them perched on each ridge, spinning merrily, most of the time. There may be a few locations in the UK which should be kept turbine free, but it is always a case of NIMBY, it seems, for the most part. These are likely the people with a carbon footprint very much larger than Victor's size 12s!

I agree off-shore is better, more productive, etc but it takes time to sort out the new designs for these newer generations of high output turbines and get the power cables connected, not only to the grid but grid reinforcement also.

I am looking forward to GigaWatts or TerraWatts of energy derived from 'free' and renewable sources of energy.

And as for 400 foot high for a 1MW turbine - get real. Do some maths or get some reliable data before spouting, please

Regards, RAB

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Or for us in Yorkshire it would be a Drax on our doorstep (which many of us are very happy with) .

9 weeks to go!

 

[m100]

Firstly, but not in order necessarily, the rating system whereby the rating has to be the the maximum output. Those who think this bears any resemblance to the actual output at any other time than rated windspeed are either poorly informed, brainwashed or, shall we say, of lesser experience of the real facts of life around us. The connecting wires to the grid have to be capable of the rated output - or they may fail! We all know that the wind does not blow consistently at every location, don't we?

No one is expecting the actual output to be at the level of maximum output. It's that 1000 x 1MW wind turbines will over a typical year produce on a random basis around 20-25% of what 1000MW of carbon/hydro/nuclear generation will generate per annum AND those 1000 x 1MW turbines will either drastically reduce system margin resulting in a very high rate of brownouts/blackouts or you have to provide fast response conventional generation almost to the total installed capacity the wind turbines were supposed to be displacing in the first place.

That the wind can fail to blow across a very wide area of the UK for an extended period at any time of the year has to be of concern if the intended expansion of wind turbine capacity takes place. At the moment it is manageable, god help us if we end up with the consented circa 40GW of wind generation as with as little as 15GW the lights WILL start to go out.

Some current data

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Today 2110MW installed wind turbine capacity, possible peak of 588MW at 1700h, tomorrow a possible peak of 250MW at 0000h

In the past 24 hours the wind total was 7596MWh or an average of 316MW

Typically conventional generation will be available 90% of the time at its full output. In a single day (actually in just 7 hours) we have a swing from 28% to 12% from turbines installed right across the UK despite the forecast of circa 12-15 mph sustained winds across the entire country and a front having just passed through. Looking out the window the trees are bending in the wind, the turbines across the country fail to generate anything like their installed capacity AGAIN.

40-50% generated from (mainly imported) gas is another pathetic relic from the deregulation of the electricity industry. At the end of 2015 a large number of coal fired stations will have to cease generation under the 'Large Combustion Plant Directive' Once those go the impact of wind turbines on system operation will be very severe.

People forget how old some conventional generation is and how long it takes to build. We should be building nukes, clean coal plants and undertaking carbon capture on a massive scale. It's not going to happen. There is zero incentive to do anything other than erect poxy bloody wind turbines which are a licence to print money in the VERY short term and a scar on the landscape or a hazard to shipping in the long term.

The only place for a windmill is on a sandcastle on the beach.

 

[roche]

Given that 12-15mph is probably not the rated windspeed for their power rating, and that power available from the wind is proportional to the cube of the windspeed, I would say that the turbines are doing quite well.

 

[oliver90owner]

No one is expecting the actual output to be at the level of maximum output

when you say 'no one' you need to read post #7.

It's that 1000 x 1MW wind turbines will over a typical year produce on a random basis around 20-25% of what 1000MW of carbon/hydro/nuclear generation will generate perannum

And at what cost for FUEL? Zilch, I would suggest.

The only place for a windmill

You seem to conveniently forget that these were one of the basic energy collectors in days before the indusrtrial revolution. We perhaps need to regress to these simpler forms of energy harvesting. Because the fossil fuels WILL run out at the current rates and increases in their use. Make no mistake about that. They are FINITE.

RAB

 

[m100]

Given that 12-15mph is probably not the rated windspeed for their power rating, and that power available from the wind is proportional to the cube of the windspeed, I would say that the turbines are doing quite well.

"the average wind speed across the UK quoted by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), is approximately 5.6 metres per second [m/s] at 10 metres above ground level (agl)."

http://www.mpoweruk.com/wind_power.htm

5.6m/s is 12.5mph

We currently have and the forecast for the coming day is for 10-15mph at ground level

For the local average windspeed at 10m, 25m and 45m agl

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/windspeed/default.aspx

http://www.bwea.com/images/misc/noabl_c.gif for the figures at 25m (ok I know the horrible ugly useless things will be much higher than that...)


Just how fast do you want or need the wind to blow?

...and then you have to consider that if the wind blows too hard they eventually run out of feathering capability and have to stop generating completely.

And at what cost for FUEL? Zilch, I would suggest.

The cost of fuel at first sight is zero, but how do you finance the cost of all the replacement conventional generation for when wind turbines do sweet bugger all?

 

[Brosville]

"Damnant quod non intellegunt"

 

[m100]

"Damnant quod non intellegunt"

...Or in English only a fool resorts to Latin

 

[freckledbeck]

Nuclear is the dangerous option, regardless of efficent it is. (and I think it's a very expensive option)
I, for one, am not happy investing in something we have no way of processing the waste from, and something that if/when something goes wrong the results are catastrophic. I guess I am biased as I have children who I wouldn't like to see inherit radioactive nuke dumping grounds.
Has anyone come up with a solution on how to decommission the existing white elephants which have already exceeded their safe working life?

Give me benign turbines any day!

PS perhaps the real solution to our impending energy problems is to use less energy!!!!

 

[m100]

Has anyone come up with a solution on how to decommission the existing white elephants which have already exceeded their safe working life?

1) none of them in the UK have exceeded their safe working life and carried on operating

2) Yes they have worked out a way and have been implementing it for the past couple of decades

Nuclear power is safe, besides the UK's very unhealthy dependence on imported gas the only thing you should be really afraid of is are rabid environmentalists and dodgy fly by night financiers plugging wind turbines as the solution to all the worlds problems. The solution to this problem is to start burning Greenpeace and FoE supporters with 100% carbon capture.

Once the greens are totally out of the picture the engineering and scientific community can develop real world solutions to the energy problems that will see us with a secure, sustainable solution for hundreds if not thousands of years.

 

[freckledbeck]

Nuclear power is safe, besides the UK's very unhealthy dependence on imported gas the only thing you should be really afraid of is are rabid environmentalists and dodgy fly by night financiers plugging wind turbines as the solution to all the worlds problems. The solution to this problem is to start burning Greenpeace and FoE supporters with 100% carbon capture.

Lol !!!!!!!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Nuclear power safe? I think not................

none of them in the UK have exceeded their safe working life and carried on operating

Really? I thought there were several nukes past their sell by date, and lots of debate about who is to pay for the decommissioning as no one seems to want to accept the financial burden and responsibility......