Wind farms - should they be curbed?

Hello emilyharburn. I agree. Noticed a very fine one next to the Tesco warehouse in Daventry the other day when driving up the A5. I think Cambridgeshire are due a few, don't you, as it is so empty and windy and they have got rid of most of the hedges for growing grain.

I wonder what reaction the traditional kind of windmill provoked when it was first invented? The sort people now try to preserve and restore.

The problem with wind turbines is that they are just not very efficient. They only generate power when the wind is blowing and then often work at considerably less than full capacity. Average annual production is generally less than a third of full capacity, often much less. They also generally do not generate power when the weather is extremely cold because cold periods are usually accompanied by calm conditions - or gales, when they also have to shut down. This means that most of our conventionally powered power stations will need to continue in use to provide the back-up for high demand periods when the wind turbines arent turning.

Offshore where winds can be very variable and gust from force 2 or 3 to force 8 or 9 in seconds and back they can overwhelm the electricity grid. Grid controllers have compared running a grid with a significant proportion of the power coming from wind turbines with riding a bucking bronco and government and the eelctricity industry are already putting in extra measures to restart the grid should it be forced into having to shut down to shed load suddenly when dealing with a surge of wind power. The probability of this happening grows as each large windfarm comes on stream.

Denmark has already introduced a moritorium on more windfarms for just that reason. It also has the most expensive electricity in Europe because so much of its power has to be bought on the spot electricity market on a day to day basis to balance the erraric supply of wind based power.

I find it so frustrating that so much debate is about whether people like them or hate them, whether they are noisy or distracting and nobody ever seems to ask about whether they actually do the job they are meant to do, whether they really can replace conventional power stations and why the consumer should pay such a huge premium on their fuel bills to feather the nests of the shareholders of the companies building and operating them.

Well quite. Re, what they look like. That's what dinorwig pumped storage is for flicketyb and we are very lucky to have it. It is a way of storing electricity , basically - well energy that can be turned back into electricity anyway. Pump it up at night when there is excess electricity and use the water to drive turbines when it is needed.
What would make wind more useful world wide is more ways of storing electricity. Preferably ones that do not require major re-modelling of lakes and the insides of mountains. But it is wonderful and a highly recommended tourist attraction in Llanberis.

Well said, Flickety! Exactly what DH is always saying, and I agree.

Flickety I agree with every word you say. Fact is...they do not do the job for which they have been invented. When will people, other than those who ultimately reap a handsome reward, listen to reason.

The Severn Barrage could have provided 5% of the countries electricity requirements reliably in all weathers. Why did concerns about birds stop that being built when it never stops wind farms being built?

All the government subsidies seem to be going to the least efficient forms of renewable energy wind farms and photovoltaic cells, which only produce power in daylight - and winter nights are long and dark and get longer and darker the further north you go. The government's money should be going to tidal, and hydro power, power and gas generated from waste and nuclear.

The best use for wind and photovoltaic power is to produce hydrogen for use in transport to replace hydrocarbons and biofuels grown on farmland.

FlicketyB for Prime Minister! Or at least, Energy Minister

I agree re the S Barrage - but the RSPB keep campaigning against wind farms as well.
Would not seem too difficult to create new wetlands if you are already spending all that money.
Not quite following your "produce hydrogen" argument there - could you take us through it a step at a time please.

For those of you who want nuclear power have you seen the news about Sellafield today?
I'd rather live near a wind farm than a nuclear power station. It worries me how close we are to Hartlepool, and Sellafield is the other side of the Pennines. I believe they have only just allowed Welsh lamb to be put on the market after Chernobyl.
Come to think of it, I do live near wind farms. They have lots of sheep grazing underneath them.
Quite often wind turbines are shut down because the power they generate cannot be stored as there is too much in the system already, so it's not the case that they are inefficient. At least they can be shut down easily.
I have also never understood why every industrial estate cannot have wind turbines.
We need a mix of renewables. Ecotricity are doing that at the moment. Looking into wave power and biogas as well as wind turbines. Has anyone else been up their turbine at Swaffham?

Yes - they are ugly, noisy, upset people and cows, and after the environmental costs of their manufacture, they have to work for years to make it up.

I am very green in my principles and attitudes, but do not see them as a 'green' solution.

jen I don't think anyone actively wants nuclear. It is a problem of balancing between 2 evils - on the one side, burning fossil fuels that we have to buy from abroad and possibly accelerate climate change and on the other side nuclear - very expensive to build and creates problematic waste.
I actually favour much more effort to reduce the amount of energy we use. Every year our consumption goes up. And we are surrounded by examples of energy being squandered. (excessive lighting in shops, patio heaters and housing stock that is still not well insulated just for a few random examples)
Successive governments have avoided the thorny issue of nuclear waste and they have certainly not bitten the bullet re energy efficiency issues.
Look at the current government's "flagship policy" on this issue. Bet you haven't even heard of it.... let alone understand it.
Industrial estates are not all in suitable places for wind turbines. They have to be big to be worth bothering with so they have to be in places not too near residential estates and in windy places. And they do require a certain amount of space to erect!

Whether power from wind turbines is saved or switched off doesnt change the fact that wind turbines are inefficient with output generally running at less than a third of rated capacity. Their total capacity is also very small.

I live near two power stations. One coal-powered and due to close next year can produce 2000Mw of power. The gas fired power station can produce roughly 1500Mw. The largest wind turbine available can, I believe, produce 5Mw of power. It would take 700 wind turbines to produce the power generated by my local power stations assuming they were working to full capacity. 2100 wind turbines if they were working to the standard efficiency of about 1/3. Even then the power would only be available when the wind blew and not on tap 24/7.

I have lived near nuclear facilities for nearly 50 years without any damage to my health and fears for my safety or that of my family. Compare the number of people affected by nuclear accidents with those killed over the years by the production of and pollution from coal or the number of people killed by dam collapses.

Which is of course, flicketyb why we cannot rely on wind turbines as the only source of energy. Do you not think though that it is good to develop a mix? Given the fact that other renewables are still relatively inefficient, weather related or they are blocked (as in S barrage) . The Spanish have a big wave power installation, I wonder how that is going. But again - calm days and the output drops.

Yes, I believe in a mix and there is a place for wind power in it but successive British governments seems to think that renewable power = windpower, yet there are so many more alternative reliable ways of generating renewable power, waves, tidal, river barrages, power generation from waste of all kinds. Even easier, reduction in demand througha major insulation programme comparable to the conversion to natural gas in the 1960/70s. We have halved our domestic fuel consumption over the last 12 years by the inrtroduction of successive insulation and usage changes and have further to go.

Of course we have to develop wind technology. By 2050 a third of this country's energy needs could be met by wind power. Energy generated by wind can of course be stored.
flicketyB your final paragraph does not hold up statistically. The problem being that in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident the probable number of deaths are incalculable. Chernobyl for instance estimates range from 4000 to 500,000. It is more than 25 years since the accident, but it is not over, in fact it is getting worse. The people live with radiation all around them. They drink contaminated water and wash with it. Children are still being born with birth defects and radiation related cancers are killing people still. You are lucky that you 'have lived near nuckear facilities for nearly 50 years without any damage to my health' others were not so 'lucky'.

I'd be interested to learn how it's possible that a third of this country's energy needs could be met by wind power by 2050, nanadog. That seems wildly optimistic to me.

The UK target for 2020 is 20% ana though its unlikely it will be met.
This may seem a long document but it makes interesting reading, however just reading the various graphs is fascinating too. There are of course other renewables that need to be explored

www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/EWEA_EU_Energy_Policy_to_2050.pdf

Thanks, nanadog - will read that later as on my way to the dentist now! [trepidation emoticon]

ana commiserations

Flicketyb, you make this statement:
"We have halved our domestic fuel consumption over the last 12 years by the inrtroduction of successive insulation and usage changes and have further to go."
Where did you get this idea from?

If you look at Chart 5 in this paper it tends to show there is little improvement since 1970. A slow rise up to the mid 2000s and then a bit of a downturn.

www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-consumption/2323-domestic-energy-consumption-factsheet.pdf

Chart 8 seems to show that energy use has been prevented from doubling by insulation etc - but has not fallen significantly - I assume because people have more appliances and warmer houses.

JessM, sorry I didn't make myself clear, by 'we' I meant DH and I. We have halved our domestic fuel consumption since 2000. which is why I think a national insulation operation, similar to the conversion to natural gas should be mounted, with insulation of all kinds heavily subsidised by government and full insulation being made a condition for a house before it can be sold.

As far as figures for nuclear deaths go James Lovelock in his book 'The Revenge of Gaia' quotes figures from the Paul Scherrer Institute, a swiss state funded research centre, showing that between 1970 and 1992 fatalities per fuel per terrawatt year (world annual consumption is aprox 1.3 terrawatt years) were as follows: coal, 6400; hydro, 4000; natural gas, 1200; nuclear, 28.

To get a third of our power from wind would probably require us to build at least another 3,000 more wind turbines and while it is easy to talk about storing electricity if we get a lot of our power from wind but developing that storage is proving very difficult. The only effective method at the moment is pumped storage as at Dinorwig and I do not know of any other sites considered suitable for other pumped storage systems. Apart from that there are a couple of other technologies that can store upto 200Mw of electricity but only for periods of well under 24 hours. No good for prolonged windless periods. To be effective we would need to be able to store energy for weeks, if not months and that is a long,long way down the line.

Chernobyl 1986 I think. Where did you get your figure of 28 from? Very dubious source which puts the rest of your per tonnes of power per kilowatt/terrrawat gooblygook into the realms of fantasy.

I gave my source in my posting. It is a mainline, government supported, highly respected institution. Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. 28 is the average per year for 22 years. It could be that the 28 x 22 were all in one year, but if you multiply the figure for all the others by 22 the comparison is still in favour of nuclear.

I suggest you read the James Lovelock book I mention in the post. It covers the subject in great detail.

It's a good book. Very informative. Lovelock has now said that he exaggerated the likely effects of climate change though.