ChatterBank5 mins ago
The National Trust Comes Out against Windfarms
About time too ?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9
077468/National-Trust-comes-out-against-publi
c-menace-of-wind-farms.html
077468/National-Trust-comes-out-against-publi
c-menace-of-wind-farms.html
Answers
There seems to be some misunderstan
17:27 Mon 13th Feb 2012
Tidal power would be a far better alternative to wind farms. Unlike wind the tides are totally predicable and constant. Turbines powered by the tide flow are also 'out of sight' and can be situated deep enough for ships to pass over . Tidal power stations situated at diffrent points around the coast could provide virtually 24/7 power all year. It just costs a lot more to set up in the first place.
Setting aside for the moment, the visual impact on the landsape, taking into account the cost of manufacturing, erecting and maintaining these things, also the fact the the wind frequently bloweth not (there isn't a breath here as I write) indeterminate life expectancy leading to the cost of removal. Nobody has yet come up with a figure to show that there is any advantage (apart from that to the manufacturer) in having them at all.
>>>and I don't like the National Trust
How can anyone not like the National Trust.
It is a charity, and one of Britains great institutions.
They have saved thousands of buildings and gardens from destruction, neglect or development.
They have purchased thousands of miles of British coastline to stop over development.
The own much of places like the Lke District and Snowdonia and have stopped development there, and encouraged "local" sheeps farmers to continue (often subsidising them).
Instead of building more wind farms we ought to encourage people (and businesses) to use less electricity.
A few years ago I used to work for an IT company in a large office block, and sometimes had to work during the night. Even though there was nobody else there but me and security there were lights blazing all over the building.
More pressure to stop companies doing that would mean we dont need to build more wind farms, or dam the River Severn and other rivers.
How can anyone not like the National Trust.
It is a charity, and one of Britains great institutions.
They have saved thousands of buildings and gardens from destruction, neglect or development.
They have purchased thousands of miles of British coastline to stop over development.
The own much of places like the Lke District and Snowdonia and have stopped development there, and encouraged "local" sheeps farmers to continue (often subsidising them).
Instead of building more wind farms we ought to encourage people (and businesses) to use less electricity.
A few years ago I used to work for an IT company in a large office block, and sometimes had to work during the night. Even though there was nobody else there but me and security there were lights blazing all over the building.
More pressure to stop companies doing that would mean we dont need to build more wind farms, or dam the River Severn and other rivers.
Many people who criticize the lack of efficiency of wind farms do so on the assumption that they will always remain inefficient. If you look back over just the last 30 years you can see many examples of technologies that have gone from horribly expensive to cheap and efficient. This will almost certainly happen with wind farms, but only if people invest in them today.
It does't matter how efficient the machinary becomes, if the wind isn't blowing then it won't work.
The answer is not wind power but as EDDIE51 says, tidal power. The French have had a tidal system running since 1966 in the river Rance in Brittany.It creates power for 240,000 households, the newly opened farm opened off the Cumbrian coast, which incidentally is the largest off shore farm in the world, offers electricity for only a third more. At a cost of 1 billion how many of these farms will we need and can afford ? we are surrounded by constant tidal movement, we are not surrounded by constant winds.
The answer is not wind power but as EDDIE51 says, tidal power. The French have had a tidal system running since 1966 in the river Rance in Brittany.It creates power for 240,000 households, the newly opened farm opened off the Cumbrian coast, which incidentally is the largest off shore farm in the world, offers electricity for only a third more. At a cost of 1 billion how many of these farms will we need and can afford ? we are surrounded by constant tidal movement, we are not surrounded by constant winds.
What load of exaggerated nimbyism, does anybody have any figures for the area of countryside 'destroyed'? I am sure that when the self appointed experts have come up with an alternative to wind turbines another lot of self appointed experts will find that that is 'destroying' something too. If you don't like wind turbines then don't use the electricity that they produce then there won't be any need for them. If the trees used to produce the telegraph were used to generate green electricity we could probably manage with fewer turbines.
Improving storage efficiency has crossed my mind, the following puts it into context, especially the last line in the summery. I still think tidal is the way to go.
http://www.epoverview...0Energy%20Storage.pdf
http://www.epoverview...0Energy%20Storage.pdf
There seems to be some misunderstanding here about the stand-by requirements for the capacity intermittently and unpredictably provided by wind-farms. Gas and coal-fired power stations (and for that matter nuclear as well) cannot be switched on and off when the wind fails and then resumes. They have to maintain “spinning standby” in order to be readily available as required. See this article:
http://www.aweo.org/windCourtney1.html
Effectively wind-farms produce no useful replacement electricity at all. They look good by giving the impression we are doing our bit to “save the planet” but they are the most inefficient, expensive and polluting (in their production) way of providing nothing extra. In short, they are a joke for which consumers are paying a huge price and the nation’s energy provision strategy, which is diverting such huge resources for their construction, is jeopardising the country’s energy security.
It is true that storage technology may improve (although I see nothing in the long term strategy to suggest this) but the necessity for spinning standby will not diminish even if all wind generated power can be stored.
http://www.aweo.org/windCourtney1.html
Effectively wind-farms produce no useful replacement electricity at all. They look good by giving the impression we are doing our bit to “save the planet” but they are the most inefficient, expensive and polluting (in their production) way of providing nothing extra. In short, they are a joke for which consumers are paying a huge price and the nation’s energy provision strategy, which is diverting such huge resources for their construction, is jeopardising the country’s energy security.
It is true that storage technology may improve (although I see nothing in the long term strategy to suggest this) but the necessity for spinning standby will not diminish even if all wind generated power can be stored.
A 1.5 MW wind turbine costs about £1,000,000 to erect. with a load factor of 30% ( ie when the wind is blowing), it will produce about £400,000 worth of electricity(@10 p per unit) in a year so will pay for itself in 3 years. The argument about power stations having to be kept spinning is a little misleading as the management of the national grid does use all the most modern tools availble for predicting supply and demand so predicted wind patterns are incorporated. As it is a power station on standby does not consume nearly as much power as one on full load. These power stations already exist so do not have to be built. Re. storage, Pumped storage power stations already exist as at Dinorwig in North Wales, and are used to top up whilst conventional power stations are being run up to load. The national grid are developing battery storage as an aid to load balancing, and this can replace keeping a power station running just for this purpose. Electrical power management in the UK is far more sophisticated than most people imagine and wind turbines have other benefits such as load balancing and stabilising the grid. I used to live almost next door to a 2000MW power station and if you thing that occasionally seeing a few whirly things in the distance is an affront to your sensibilities then you need a reality check.
Wind farms good. This is better http://www.communitys.../sheffield-renewables
Much of what you say has an element of truth, joifl. But there are a few errors in your calculations and assertions.
In particular, far from “occasionally seeing a few whirly things in the distance” as an alternative to the 2000MW power plant you lived near, to provide wind turbines to produce that amount of power would need an area of some 300,000 acres, or more than 450 square miles. This is presumably a little more space than the power station occupies. Additionally, of course, there can be few people who live near such installations who have seen them constructed since they moved in so they can scarcely complain about having their sensibilities assaulted by something that was already there when they took up residence. The same cannot be said for residents that live near wind farms.
The pumped storage facility you mention is a useful (if miniscule) addition to the National Grid’s armoury, but there are no plans as far as I can see for any more, and in any case the cost would make wind farm provision even less economic. Of course the National Grid is adept at balancing demand and supply. But they cannot balance what isn’t there and the plain fact is that for large periods of time, most notably when the weather is at its coldest in the winter (when we have an anticyclone dominating the weather), wind turbines produce little or nothing at all. Your figure of 30% efficiency is highly optimistic for onshore wind generation and quite frankly I’d sooner see the cash being wasted on those facilities spent on a new generation of nuclear power stations.
In particular, far from “occasionally seeing a few whirly things in the distance” as an alternative to the 2000MW power plant you lived near, to provide wind turbines to produce that amount of power would need an area of some 300,000 acres, or more than 450 square miles. This is presumably a little more space than the power station occupies. Additionally, of course, there can be few people who live near such installations who have seen them constructed since they moved in so they can scarcely complain about having their sensibilities assaulted by something that was already there when they took up residence. The same cannot be said for residents that live near wind farms.
The pumped storage facility you mention is a useful (if miniscule) addition to the National Grid’s armoury, but there are no plans as far as I can see for any more, and in any case the cost would make wind farm provision even less economic. Of course the National Grid is adept at balancing demand and supply. But they cannot balance what isn’t there and the plain fact is that for large periods of time, most notably when the weather is at its coldest in the winter (when we have an anticyclone dominating the weather), wind turbines produce little or nothing at all. Your figure of 30% efficiency is highly optimistic for onshore wind generation and quite frankly I’d sooner see the cash being wasted on those facilities spent on a new generation of nuclear power stations.
A few points,
1. The cost of a wind turbine was a figure that I had in my head from a previous AB question. I did however check it out on the web and found that my memory of the figure was correct. Anyone can do it.
2. The 30% load factor is commonly accepted as realistic for land based installations, some sites are as low as 20% some above 30%. Even at 20% load factor wind turbines are viable and cost effective, they just take a couple more years to pay for themselves.
3. I did not say that a 200MW power station could be replaced with wind turbines on the same footprint. My point was that a few people privileged to live in beautiful countryside may have to learn to tolerate seeing wind turbines. People living near large power stations have to put up with various kinds of pollution and inconvenience as well a chimneys and cooling towers, water vapour and smoke plumes that cut out sunlight and locally acid smuts that damage the paintwork of cars. Additionaly coal fired power stations have huge unsightly coal stocks and deliveries of coal go on 24/7. Downstream from power stations there are large areas of land dedicated to ash handling, storage and disposal.
People who have to see wind turbines get off quite lightly by comparison.
4. The pumped storage schemes facilitate transfer of power production when Wind turbines go offline.
5. I agree with NJ about nuclear power stations. They have achieved pariah status because of the propaganda produced by green organisation. Since their incorporation into the power production mix of the UK they have performed very reliably and safely. The fears about radioactive waste are misplaced as coal fired power stations discharge more radioactive isotopes into the environment than do nuclear stations.
6. I used to work in the power industry I have worked on pumped storage schemes, nuclear, coal, and oil fired power stations and have done a little consultancy work on a continental wind farm. If I had to list power generation in order of environmental compatability it would be as follows. Wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, gas, oil and coal. I can't give any quantitave reasons for this order as it is just an impression gained from working in the industry and may well not be very accurate.
1. The cost of a wind turbine was a figure that I had in my head from a previous AB question. I did however check it out on the web and found that my memory of the figure was correct. Anyone can do it.
2. The 30% load factor is commonly accepted as realistic for land based installations, some sites are as low as 20% some above 30%. Even at 20% load factor wind turbines are viable and cost effective, they just take a couple more years to pay for themselves.
3. I did not say that a 200MW power station could be replaced with wind turbines on the same footprint. My point was that a few people privileged to live in beautiful countryside may have to learn to tolerate seeing wind turbines. People living near large power stations have to put up with various kinds of pollution and inconvenience as well a chimneys and cooling towers, water vapour and smoke plumes that cut out sunlight and locally acid smuts that damage the paintwork of cars. Additionaly coal fired power stations have huge unsightly coal stocks and deliveries of coal go on 24/7. Downstream from power stations there are large areas of land dedicated to ash handling, storage and disposal.
People who have to see wind turbines get off quite lightly by comparison.
4. The pumped storage schemes facilitate transfer of power production when Wind turbines go offline.
5. I agree with NJ about nuclear power stations. They have achieved pariah status because of the propaganda produced by green organisation. Since their incorporation into the power production mix of the UK they have performed very reliably and safely. The fears about radioactive waste are misplaced as coal fired power stations discharge more radioactive isotopes into the environment than do nuclear stations.
6. I used to work in the power industry I have worked on pumped storage schemes, nuclear, coal, and oil fired power stations and have done a little consultancy work on a continental wind farm. If I had to list power generation in order of environmental compatability it would be as follows. Wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, gas, oil and coal. I can't give any quantitave reasons for this order as it is just an impression gained from working in the industry and may well not be very accurate.
Thanks for the info jomifl.
I think that many people (including me) are more inclined to think in terms of cost efficiency and energy security. In that case I would put the order as hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, oil, solar and (long way last) wind. Again, no quantitive information to base it on, just my feelings.
I think that many people (including me) are more inclined to think in terms of cost efficiency and energy security. In that case I would put the order as hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, oil, solar and (long way last) wind. Again, no quantitive information to base it on, just my feelings.
You are welcome NJ. My priorities would be cost efficiency and security too, though I am not sure in what order. I think we all have to make compromises even those who lve in rural 'paradises'. As others have said there are a lot more things that could be done to improve energy efficiency but unfortunately this does not seem to be a priority. I like the idea of a tidal pond. This is where, at a suitable place offshore a reservoir is built on the sea bed which generates power from water turbines as it fills and empties. This type of installation if built at places where the tidal cycles ar of suitable phase could generate power matched exactly to the requirements of the UK or any other country. They would have minimal environmental impact and very low running costs. The capital costs would probably be enormous, so whether they would be economically viable and repay the building costs or even the interest is a moot point.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
ChatterBank44 mins ago
News46 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.