Wind No Wind

[Scout]

I must laugh :lol: when we have no wind we have charts showing how much was produced by wind farms etc but when we have wind like we have had for the past few days nothing has been posted I wonder why ;)

[ywindythesecond]

I must laugh :lol: when we have no wind we have charts showing how much was produced by wind farms etc but when we have wind like we have had for the past few days nothing has been posted I wonder why ;)
I have been waiting to see if you were interested enough to ask. Watch this space!

[Gronnuck]

I thought that once the wind reached a particular high speed the blades 'free wheeled' and electrickery was no longer produced :confused

[Scout]

I thought that once the wind reached a particular high speed the blades 'free wheeled' and electrickery was no longer produced :confused


Yes you are right. I think I am correct in saying 80mph or more. That will prob mean we have power off were poles blown down etc as well :lol:

[DRM]

Came up the causwwaymire on Wed Night about 6 pm and all the windmills were stationary - Too much wind!!!
Make you laugh but shows they are a waste of money if they dont work in a gale on a cold night when we need the power - They are just a rip off of taxpayers money.

[shatter]

all the windmills going today

[landy]

Came up the causwwaymire on Wed Night about 6 pm and all the windmills were stationary - Too much wind!!!
Make you laugh but shows they are a waste of money if they dont work in a gale on a cold night when we need the power - They are just a rip off of taxpayers money.


here here....

[shatter]

Came up the causwwaymire on Wed Night about 6 pm and all the windmills were stationary - Too much wind!!!
Make you laugh but shows they are a waste of money if they dont work in a gale on a cold night when we need the power - They are just a rip off of taxpayers money.
:confused:confused:confused

[Boozeburglar]

I must laugh :lol: when we have no wind we have charts showing how much was produced by wind farms etc but when we have wind like we have had for the past few days nothing has been posted I wonder why ;)

It is not really of much interest when they are producing.

What is interesting is what will happen when we are too reliant on them, and there is a dip in production.

[olivia]

Windfarms are an absolute rip-off in all respects. Unreliable, inefficient and a sure-fired way of making the already rich very much richer at our expense. See this article -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7078856.ece

[gleeber]

Windfarms are an absolute rip-off in all respects. Unreliable, inefficient and a sure-fired way of making the already rich very much richer at our expense. See this article -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7078856.ece

My understanding of that article you linked is that it's only the Rocs that are the problem. It's costing every household about £13 50 a year in utility bills for the subsidies paid to the landowners.
Apart from that according to the figures in the link wind power is very profitable and it's clean and renewable.
I know were paying for it but that's the price we pay for all the fancy gadgets we use in the 21 century.

[Scout]

So if we say that we are getting done out of our pockets on green energy. how much are we paying for power stations and the mess that has gone on up here. It seems if you can't see it then thats ok. I keep saying and no one comes back with answer what happens to waste from power stations dumped underground we really have no idea if these will not leak in 50 60 years times. Of course so long as there are jobs it really does not matter how much we muck up this planet.If we had no wind mills and just power stations do you really think your bills would come down? I don't think so.

[Mik.M.]

At least the land owners get paid whether they work or not.

[Tubthumper]

£250 000 per year for the Dunbeath Community sounds pretty good to me. It's a shame that a retrospective community obligation can't be enforced for the existing farms where the owners offer little or nowt...

[ywindythesecond]

I must laugh :lol: when we have no wind we have charts showing how much was produced by wind farms etc but when we have wind like we have had for the past few days nothing has been posted I wonder why ;)

Sorry to keep you waiting Scout, I have been doing my monthly stats.
This is what has been going on recently:
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4319/windyweather.jpg
Bags of wind, but no reliability, so no power stations turned off, and we paid for the wind and the standby generation and didn't save any carbon.
Now the wind has dropped and these overworked people at National Grid who have to deal with the wild and unpredictable swings can get back to their job of managing a reliable predictable controllable and economical energy system for a few hours until the wind gets up again.

It is not a case of wind OR nuclear. It is a case of wind OR any other reliable power source. The tough choices the government have are:

Gas which might get turned off if we fall out with someone.
Coal which goes against carbon saving.
Wave and tidal which have yet to be developed and may never deliver in sufficient quantity.
Nuclear, which is politically difficult but a cracking way to get your energy.
Or keep its head firmly in the sand and ignore the evidence that engineers and economists have been telling them for years- wind doesn't work as a reliable base load, and you are throwing our money away instead of governing the country.

[Gronnuck]

I think ywindythesecond sums the situation up nicely.
If the green lobby have their way we'll be sitting around in the cold and the dark waiting for sufficent electrickery to boil the kettle.
We could burn the furniture to keep warm but that would mean releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
We're doomed I tell ye, we're doooomed!

[Scout]

I think ywindythesecond sums the situation up nicely.
If the green lobby have their way we'll be sitting around in the cold and the dark waiting for sufficent electrickery to boil the kettle.
We could burn the furniture to keep warm but that would mean releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
We're doomed I tell ye, we're doooomed!

If we take your arguments as facts and just kept to Nuclear and all the wind farms came down tomorrow. 1) would there be any cost to public for having Nuclear. 2) What happens to waste and how much would this cost to clean up. 3) Compare how much wind farms cost to Nuclear and would our electricity bills come down if we had no wind farms just Nuclear.

[Scout]

Sorry to keep you waiting Scout, I have been doing my monthly stats.
This is what has been going on recently:
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4319/windyweather.jpg
Bags of wind, but no reliability, so no power stations turned off, and we paid for the wind and the standby generation and didn't save any carbon.
Now the wind has dropped and these overworked people at National Grid who have to deal with the wild and unpredictable swings can get back to their job of managing a reliable predictable controllable and economical energy system for a few hours until the wind gets up again.

It is not a case of wind OR nuclear. It is a case of wind OR any other reliable power source. The tough choices the government have are:

Gas which might get turned off if we fall out with someone.
Coal which goes against carbon saving.
Wave and tidal which have yet to be developed and may never deliver in sufficient quantity.
Nuclear, which is politically difficult but a cracking way to get your energy.
Or keep its head firmly in the sand and ignore the evidence that engineers and economists have been telling them for years- wind doesn't work as a reliable base load, and you are throwing our money away instead of governing the country.



Good at least we can see you are fair giving your answers back even if I don't agree to all of them.

[Tubthumper]

Windy, that's a different data set than what you've posted before. You know, the graphs with all bars to show what was delivered against what was projected. And how little we were getting, so wind power is rubbish.
You're not trying to hide something just because the wind's blowing, are you? That smells of a University of East Anglia trick...

And by the way, why can't the choice be wind AND nuclear??

My support of the anti wind loby is waning, like my ability to pay my gas bill...

[ywindythesecond]

Windy, that's a different data set than what you've posted before. You know, the graphs with all bars to show what was delivered against what was projected. And how little we were getting, so wind power is rubbish.
You're not trying to hide something just because the wind's blowing, are you? That smells of a University of East Anglia trick...

And by the way, why can't the choice be wind AND nuclear??

My support of the anti wind loby is waning, like my ability to pay my gas bill...

Its the same source Tubs, I have simply extracted the output data. This is the www.bmreports (http://www.bmreports) Forecast data from 31st March
A significant feature is that the forexcast washttp://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9332/m31amo.jpg
A significant feature is that the forecast was a full half Gigawatt short, amply illustrating why it would have been foolish to turn off any thermal plant.
Yes you can have wind and nuclear. The problem is relying on wind as baseload. I would fully support a wind plant which solely served a pumped storage hydro scheme. The power it produced would create a despatchable resource which can be called upon when needed.
The beauty of www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) is that is facts, instantly, straight from the horse's mouth. We don't have to debate these facts, and we don't have to rely on opinion.

[Tubthumper]

Thanks for that Windy, I get it now. Fair enough about wind being unreliable, also that a baseload capability is required, but the graphs do show that when wind is blowing, electricity is generated. Now if only the moneygrabbing landowner, visual impact and planning permission issues could be sorted out, we'd surely have a viable contribution to our energy needs. :D

[golach]

Thanks for that Windy, I get it now. Fair enough about wind being unreliable, also that a baseload capability is required, but the graphs do show that when wind is blowing, electricity is generated. Now if only the moneygrabbing landowner, visual impact and planning permission issues could be sorted out, we'd surely have a viable contribution to our energy needs. :D

Wind power is no help to me with my Gas central heating,[disgust] but I am still in favour of wind power, tide power, any thing thats green. Nuclear power is the way to go IMHO.

[Tubthumper]

I think I've figured it out.
On these graphs there is consistent underestimation of wind forecast. That means wind power always looks bad. Why are the grid people not revising their forecasts downwards in light of experience? A half-decent statistician could help there. That would seem to me to be a good idea, rather than finding that windpower constistently underperforms.
Is this because the grid people resent having to buy expensive wind power? Smells fishy to me.
Also I assume the national grid forecasters are using Met Office wind forecasts. Foolish. for whatever reason the Met Office have proved to be hopelessly unreliable at doing what they are paid to do.
I think for windpower generation forecasting, Tugmistress should be contracted to the task - she's much better and far cheaper.

[ywindythesecond]

I think I've figured it out.
On these graphs there is consistent underestimation of wind forecast. That means wind power always looks bad. Why are the grid people not revising their forecasts downwards in light of experience? A half-decent statistician could help there. That would seem to me to be a good idea, rather than finding that windpower constistently underperforms.
Is this because the grid people resent having to buy expensive wind power? Smells fishy to me.
Also I assume the national grid forecasters are using Met Office wind forecasts. Foolish. for whatever reason the Met Office have proved to be hopelessly unreliable at doing what they are paid to do.
I think for windpower generation forecasting, Tugmistress should be contracted to the task - she's much better and far cheaper.

I think you have your unders and overs a bit mixed up in that post, but I know what you mean. Here is a wider sample of 10 days in March:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9435/10daysinmarch.jpg

They are very good at predicting most of the time but the only thing predictable is that the wind is unpredictable. As you can see there is no pattern one way or the other.

[ywindythesecond]

If we take your arguments as facts and just kept to Nuclear and all the wind farms came down tomorrow. 1) would there be any cost to public for having Nuclear. 2) What happens to waste and how much would this cost to clean up. 3) Compare how much wind farms cost to Nuclear and would our electricity bills come down if we had no wind farms just Nuclear.
Good questions.
1. As far as I am aware, there are no public subsidies for new nuclear power stations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm
2. I searched for my 1999 Dounreay Induction papers and couldn't find them. In it there was a graph showing how the quantity of waste from nuclear establishments fell dramatically from the early ones to modern ones, and it was a steep initial curve followed by a long-term steady decline.
There are lots of Orgers out there who can put this issue in perspective and I hope some will.
3. We buy and sell electricity from and to France. 72% of French electricity is nuclear. At present, therefore, nuclear priced electricity is competitive.
Will bills come down if there is no windpower? The answer is no because existing windfarms and those with planning consent and contracts with the Grid are protected. But the costs would not rise as they would if the planned sevenfold increase in wind by 2020 happened.
The more grid-connected windpower we have, the more fossil fuel we burn to allow us to say that we are using renewable energy.

[Loafer]

I think you have your unders and overs a bit mixed up in that post, but I know what you mean. Here is a wider sample of 10 days in March:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9435/10daysinmarch.jpg

They are very good at predicting most of the time but the only thing predictable is that the wind is unpredictable. As you can see there is no pattern one way or the other.

To quote Benjamin Disraeli "there are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies and statistics".

We need more than just windmills....we need education with regards to usage and how to cut down, we need renewables, but more importantly before our lights go out we need nuclear and the sooner it happens the better for all our sakes

The Loafer

[Tubthumper]

I think you have your unders and overs a bit mixed up in that post, but I know what you mean. Here is a wider sample of 10 days in March:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9435/10daysinmarch.jpg

They are very good at predicting most of the time but the only thing predictable is that the wind is unpredictable. As you can see there is no pattern one way or the other.
Sorry about the over/under thing, I'm a bit dense. I can see where you're coming from about base load and unpredictability, however if you shut your eyes nearly and kind of squint at the graph, you can see that there is some correlation.
And I have to ask - how do the Germans and the Danes (you know, the guys that have been using large turbine installations successfully for over 20 years and are happy with it) manage?

I've devised a sort of equation, maybe the clever folk can correct it?
Happy smiling warm brits + eastenders = improved public efficiency + Nuclear + ccgt + (wind + pumped store hydro + solar + (large hydro+small hydro) + biomass) + coal / public education + power cuts - (greedy moneygrabbing landowners x local outrage) + sensible local democracy

[Scout]

Sorry about the over/under thing, I'm a bit dense. I can see where you're coming from about base load and unpredictability, however if you shut your eyes nearly and kind of squint at the graph, you can see that there is some correlation.
And I have to ask - how do the Germans and the Danes (you know, the guys that have been using large turbine installations successfully for over 20 years and are happy with it) manage?

I've devised a sort of equation, maybe the clever folk can correct it?
Happy smiling warm brits + eastenders = improved public efficiency + Nuclear + ccgt + (wind + pumped store hydro + solar + (large hydro+small hydro) + biomass) + coal / public education + power cuts - (greedy moneygrabbing landowners x local outrage) + sensible local democracy

I agree with your views to a point :-) Greedy landowners.These turbines are placed on someones land so why should landowners not be paid for these turbines sitting on there ground? They do not get any were near the amount the company gets unless they take all the risk. Again if your point means if Landowners don't take money for these turbines then that would mean electricity bills would come down I could see were you are coming from but I don't think that would be the case.

[Geo]

What they should do is convert half the turbines into fans and point them at the turbines when there is no wind. Then they'd always be producing power!








;)

[Tubthumper]

I agree with your views to a point :-) Greedy landowners.These turbines are placed on someones land so why should landowners not be paid for these turbines sitting on there ground? They do not get any were near the amount the company gets unless they take all the risk. Again if your point means if Landowners don't take money for these turbines then that would mean electricity bills would come down I could see were you are coming from but I don't think that would be the case.
Maybe I'm being harsh on the landowners. I think it's interesting that some landowners can offer £1/4 million a year to the local community, while some of the existing ones offer little or nothing. Maybe its not the landowners that are the problem, but seeing as they are the local 'face' of the industry, perhaps they need to do a bit more to make it worth the community's while hosting the things.
After all, although they are on an individual's land, the big ones that are coming now will dominate everyone's view.
I'll amend my equation to include 'greedy shareholders + (1/greedy landowners) + substantial community trust fund'

[ducati]

Maybe I'm being harsh on the landowners. I think it's interesting that some landowners can offer £1/4 million a year to the local community, while some of the existing ones offer little or nothing. Maybe its not the landowners that are the problem, but seeing as they are the local 'face' of the industry, perhaps they need to do a bit more to make it worth the community's while hosting the things.
After all, although they are on an individual's land, the big ones that are coming now will dominate everyone's view.
I'll amend my equation to include 'greedy shareholders + (1/greedy landowners) + substantial community trust fund'

I think that they would need to start making actual money. i.e. pay for their cost, the cost of the landowners cut, the cost of having coal/gas generation on standby, the cost of connecting to the grid and the subsidy we are paying for the grid to use wind power when it is not convienient, before serious money is available to the communities that host them.

When will this be? Never, in my opinion.

That's a grand post Tubs, hope you enjoyed my time travelling :eek:

[Tubthumper]

I think that they would need to start making actual money. i.e. pay for their cost, the cost of the landowners cut, the cost of having coal/gas generation on standby, the cost of connecting to the grid and the subsidy we are paying for the grid to use wind power when it is not convienient, before serious money is available to the communities that host them.
When will this be? Never, in my opinion.
That's a grand post Tubs, hope you enjoyed my time travelling :eek:

CONGRATULATIONS DUCATI!! :)

I thought you meant my ramblings were grand - thought I'd missed something. And what was that back in time ploy anyway??!!

But why no poem?? :confused

[Tubthumper]

In my joy I forgot to ask - How do the Germans and the Danes manage? What do they do that we don't or can't (or won't)?

[ducati]

CONGRATULATIONS DUCATI!! :)

I thought you meant my ramblings were grand - thought I'd missed something. And what was that back in time ploy anyway??!!

But why no poem?? :confused


We have an org Poet Laurite. We have proved time and again we can't hold a candle

And time travelling is easy ;)

[Tubthumper]

Perhaps later you shall have a pome of your very own. But at the moment I have to shut the ostriches in. And the damned alpaca. Flaming great hairy thing, a cross between a camel and a texel yowe? Hah!

[georgen]

I thought that once the wind reached a particular high speed the blades 'free wheeled' and electrickery was no longer produced :confused

Causey machines will stop if the windspeed is over about 60mph for ten minutes or more. Once the windspeed drops they automatically restart. Yes, you're right, they do "freewheel" when the windspeed's too high too.

I estimate that the Causey machines are off about 5 times a year or so due to high wind...

[georgen]

Came up the causwwaymire on Wed Night about 6 pm and all the windmills were stationary - Too much wind!!!
Make you laugh but shows they are a waste of money if they dont work in a gale on a cold night when we need the power - They are just a rip off of taxpayers money.

It was nothing to do with windspeed. They were off for some routine testing..

[ducati]

In my joy I forgot to ask - How do the Germans and the Danes manage? What do they do that we don't or can't (or won't)?

The Danes make the things then sell them to us. They have a good mix of renewable supply and have been doing it for 30 years. Good article here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203293,00.html

Despite it being FOX :eek:

[Neil Howie]

It is not a case of wind OR nuclear. It is a case of wind OR any other reliable power source.

Or

a way of storing the wind power and delivering it in a constant way. That is a technological problem. Not a wind problem. Solve it, and you will make billion$.

[secrets in symmetry]

Or

a way of storing the wind power and delivering it in a constant way. That is a technological problem. Not a wind problem. Solve it, and you will make billion$.
You've hit the nail on the head there Neil.

The Danes export their wind generated electricity to Norway where it's used to pump water up mountains for storage. The Danes can't do it themselves because they don't have mountains.

[Scout]

Sorry to keep you waiting Scout, I have been doing my monthly stats.
This is what has been going on recently:
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4319/windyweather.jpg
Bags of wind, but no reliability, so no power stations turned off, and we paid for the wind and the standby generation and didn't save any carbon.
Now the wind has dropped and these overworked people at National Grid who have to deal with the wild and unpredictable swings can get back to their job of managing a reliable predictable controllable and economical energy system for a few hours until the wind gets up again.

It is not a case of wind OR nuclear. It is a case of wind OR any other reliable power source. The tough choices the government have are:

Gas which might get turned off if we fall out with someone.
Coal which goes against carbon saving.
Wave and tidal which have yet to be developed and may never deliver in sufficient quantity.
Nuclear, which is politically difficult but a cracking way to get your energy.
Or keep its head firmly in the sand and ignore the evidence that engineers and economists have been telling them for years- wind doesn't work as a reliable base load, and you are throwing our money away instead of governing the country.



Ok I thought I come back to the chart. I asked a friend about this and here is his response to my question.
Well - in a way they are correct because they are looking at the balancing flows on the National Grid large wires network. What the graphs do not illustrate is the way local demand is satisfied. Wind farms are all in remote areas so the flows are all used up by the time they are seen by National Grid on the big wires - hence the small 86MW's.

[Tubthumper]

Interesting how the Danes & Norwegians work together to maximise the benefts of their natural resources - I'd like to know how they manage the actual earnings, and how they work around any problems created.
And how do the Germans deal with fluctuations in wind?
We're not at the forefront of this technology- if anything we're right at the back as usual.

[ducati]

And how do the Germans deal with fluctuations in wind?


Gaviscone :eek:

[ywindythesecond]

Ok I thought I come back to the chart. I asked a friend about this and here is his response to my question.
Well - in a way they are correct because they are looking at the balancing flows on the National Grid large wires network. What the graphs do not illustrate is the way local demand is satisfied. Wind farms are all in remote areas so the flows are all used up by the time they are seen by National Grid on the big wires - hence the small 86MW's.
Your friend is partly right Scout. National Grid "sees" the output from 1588MW of windfarms in Scotland and it is this output which is included in the www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) charts and tables. The list of plants is found at the Power Park Modules EXCEL Spreadsheet (http://forum.caithness.org/bsp/staticdata/PowerParkModules.xls)
button on the "Peak Wind Generation Forecast" page.
The total connected windpower in the UK is around 4100MW which is taken from the BWEA website which can be accessed from the link at the Wind Forecast Out-turn page. There is about 1800MW connected wind in Scotland. 1588MW connects directly to the HV network and is visible to the grid. The balance is connected into the distribution system and like your friend says can't been seen. In England and Wales, the main transmission is mostly 400KVA lines and in Scotland, it is mostly 132KVA. National grid do not own or operate distribution in England and Wales and all windpower there is connected into the distribution system and invisible to national grid.
So in round terms, about 40% total windpower is seen and fed into the tables. As Scotland is reckoned to be windier than the rest of UK, total generation at any time can be generously estimated to be 2.5 times the visible output. All percentages I quote are actual outputs from visible generation.
It is interesting to note that at any one time, UK demand is understated in the tables by the amount of invisible generation nationwide. National grid has to balance the system including potentially 2.5GW generation invisible to it.

[Tubthumper]

Wait a minute - the turbines at Forss are connected to an 11kVA line, and the proposed ones at Baillie will connect to a 33kVA one(??), both of which have always fed rural communities. That means that in the past, those lines only had electricity taken from them locally by consumers, wheras now electricity is pushed into them locally as well as being taken out locally.
So is it not fair to say that 'our own' wind-generated electricity being pushed into these lines (however erratic the wind is) is being used by the local community and saving electricity needing to be pushed in from a coal/ oil/ gas/ nuclear station? Thus the losses that would be incurred by using exclusively South energy are reduced and therefore any electricity that's generated here is a bonus.
Granted the line will need to be 'topped up' with power from south when the wind isn't blowing, but surely this is a form of 'local grid' arrangement where we use what's made locally when its available, export it when we have an excess, and import when we need to.
I've figured it out! That teacher was wrong, I AM clever!!:D

[Tubthumper]

I guess my assessment was too simplistic. Perhaps the teacher was right after all. Electricty is for big people, not for silly little girls like me.

I was so proud of myself. :(

[ywindythesecond]

I guess my assessment was too simplistic. Perhaps the teacher was right after all. Electricty is for big people, not for silly little girls like me.

I was so proud of myself. :(
Don't give up Tubs! The grown-up answer "because" isn't good enough.

I don't know all the answers, but I believe the difference between a wind station being seen or not seen is that it has to be connected at a substation. Causeymire is obvious, but Buolfruich is also directly connected even though it is a toty wee windfarm .
Re local, Causeymire is about 50MW. According to BWEA, that will serve
50MWx30%x24hrsx365days/4700kwh=27,957homes
http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html.
so we don't need any more up here.
The big point I am trying to make is that when the wind blows, something else gets switched off to make room for it. Often but not always, that is a coal-fired power station where the switch is thrown but the coal keeps burning, and often, it has to be switched back on again in no time at all because the wind has gone. No reliability, no carbon reduction, great cost to the consumers, and a deceived electorate. This is the wind record for April so far.
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5720/image6ty.jpg
If your milk was delivered with this dependability wouldn't you change your milkman?

[Tubthumper]

I still think I understand the whole concept better now that i've figured out how the Forss setup is connected. When the blades are turning (up to a point) power is being supplied which is being used.
Anyway, I have a deep and abiding respect for Germany and its approach to energy. Their blend of energy includes wind and nuclear and they've been doing it for years with minimal fuss. That means it must be possible to sensibly accomodate wind energy (after all, their wind can't be more unreliable than ours, surely?)
So how do they manage it? What do we need to do to bridge the times when wind dies away?

[ywindythesecond]

I still think I understand the whole concept better now that i've figured out how the Forss setup is connected. When the blades are turning (up to a point) power is being supplied which is being used.
Anyway, I have a deep and abiding respect for Germany and its approach to energy. Their blend of energy includes wind and nuclear and they've been doing it for years with minimal fuss. That means it must be possible to sensibly accomodate wind energy (after all, their wind can't be more unreliable than ours, surely?)
So how do they manage it? What do we need to do to bridge the times when wind dies away?

I Googled “German Windpower” and Wikipedia came up with this:
“At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity) of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigawatt) (GW).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wwea-0#cite_note-wwea-0) Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wwea-0#cite_note-wwea-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wor-1#cite_note-wor-1) and is growing rapidly, having doubled in the past three years. Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration (with large governmental subsidies), such as 19% of stationary electricity production in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark), 13% in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Spain)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-2#cite_note-2) and Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Portugal), and 7% in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany) and the Republic of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Ireland) in 2008. As of May 2009, eighty countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wor-1#cite_note-wor-1)
Wind power is non-dispatchable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation), meaning that for economic operation, all of the available output must be taken when it is available. Other resources, such as hydropower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower), and standard load management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_management) techniques must be used to match supply with demand. The intermittency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_sources) of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-ieawind-3#cite_note-ieawind-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-claverton-energy.com-4#cite_note-claverton-energy.com-4)”
Denmark gets its electricity from Sweden when the wind isn’t blowing. I don’t know how the political and commercial arrangements of windpower work in Germany, but 7% penetration is reckoned to be manageable.

Tony Blair did two things to us.
1) He went to Kyoto and came back with a binding undertaking to reduce carbon emissions. Instead of Governing, he put the onus on electricity generators to do it (the Renewables Obligation) and used the carrot of the Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) for every green megawatt, and fines if the Obligation isn’t met. The easiest way to do this is to put up windmills. And to help this along, Government decrees that if the wind is producing electricity, the Grid must take it regardless of whether it is the best or worst source or the cheapest or dearest source of power available at the time. By and large, it is usually the dearest because of the ROCs and it is always the worst because you have no idea if you will get it when you want it and you have to take it when you don’t.
2) One of the last things Blair did to us was go to Europe and agree to targets to have 20% of our energy from Renewables by 2020. (He was supposed to agree to 20% of our electricity to come from Renewables.) The Scottish Government has lunatic targets of 50% of our energy from Renewables by 2020, completely ignoring the fact that coal and nuclear power stations are scheduled to close and nobody is building anything but windfarms for power in Scotland.

UK and Scottish Governments are into wind so deep that they can’t back out, but at least England is aiming to build some nuclear power stations which will help bridge the gap.

If you rely on wind for 20% of your energy, then when there is no wind (and the last two months show us that this happens frequently), then you are 20% of your energy short. UK Government strategy is to build more gas plants (reliant on the good auspices of foreign powers-remember Ukraine?) to back up our wind energy. Scottish Government strategy is to rely on wind-end of policy-end of story.

Here is something I wrote earlier
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661284?UserKey (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661284?UserKey)=

[Scout]

I Googled “German Windpower” and Wikipedia came up with this:
“At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity) of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigawatt) (GW).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wwea-0#cite_note-wwea-0) Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wwea-0#cite_note-wwea-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wor-1#cite_note-wor-1) and is growing rapidly, having doubled in the past three years. Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration (with large governmental subsidies), such as 19% of stationary electricity production in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark), 13% in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Spain)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-2#cite_note-2) and Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Portugal), and 7% in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany) and the Republic of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Ireland) in 2008. As of May 2009, eighty countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-wor-1#cite_note-wor-1)
Wind power is non-dispatchable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation), meaning that for economic operation, all of the available output must be taken when it is available. Other resources, such as hydropower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower), and standard load management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_management) techniques must be used to match supply with demand. The intermittency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_sources) of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-ieawind-3#cite_note-ieawind-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#cite_note-claverton-energy.com-4#cite_note-claverton-energy.com-4)”
Denmark gets its electricity from Sweden when the wind isn’t blowing. I don’t know how the political and commercial arrangements of windpower work in Germany, but 7% penetration is reckoned to be manageable.

Tony Blair did two things to us.
1) He went to Kyoto and came back with a binding undertaking to reduce carbon emissions. Instead of Governing, he put the onus on electricity generators to do it (the Renewables Obligation) and used the carrot of the Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) for every green megawatt, and fines if the Obligation isn’t met. The easiest way to do this is to put up windmills. And to help this along, Government decrees that if the wind is producing electricity, the Grid must take it regardless of whether it is the best or worst source or the cheapest or dearest source of power available at the time. By and large, it is usually the dearest because of the ROCs and it is always the worst because you have no idea if you will get it when you want it and you have to take it when you don’t.
2) One of the last things Blair did to us was go to Europe and agree to targets to have 20% of our energy from Renewables by 2020. (He was supposed to agree to 20% of our electricity to come from Renewables.) The Scottish Government has lunatic targets of 50% of our energy from Renewables by 2020, completely ignoring the fact that coal and nuclear power stations are scheduled to close and nobody is building anything but windfarms for power in Scotland.

UK and Scottish Governments are into wind so deep that they can’t back out, but at least England is aiming to build some nuclear power stations which will help bridge the gap.

If you rely on wind for 20% of your energy, then when there is no wind (and the last two months show us that this happens frequently), then you are 20% of your energy short. UK Government strategy is to build more gas plants (reliant on the good auspices of foreign powers-remember Ukraine?) to back up our wind energy. Scottish Government strategy is to rely on wind-end of policy-end of story.

Here is something I wrote earlier
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661284?UserKey (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661284?UserKey)=


Really what you have said is what I have been saying all time. Should be a mixed power supply nuclear power wind farms etc. As to my other question you came back and said you don't think there would be any public money put in to nuclear power. Well I can tell you no private group would put up 100% money for these with out public funding. and the cost would be far higher then wind farms. So from what you have said I can't really see why you object.:confused

[ywindythesecond]

Really what you have said is what I have been saying all time. Should be a mixed power supply nuclear power wind farms etc. As to my other question you came back and said you don't think there would be any public money put in to nuclear power. Well I can tell you no private group would put up 100% money for these with out public funding. and the cost would be far higher then wind farms. So from what you have said I can't really see why you object.:confused

What do you base this opinion on? I object because when the wind doesn't blow, you can't get electricity, and the record shows that this happens quite often. It is irrational to place reliance on something unreliable.

[ywindythesecond]

Really what you have said is what I have been saying all time. Should be a mixed power supply nuclear power wind farms etc. As to my other question you came back and said you don't think there would be any public money put in to nuclear power. Well I can tell you no private group would put up 100% money for these with out public funding. and the cost would be far higher then wind farms. So from what you have said I can't really see why you object.:confused

This is what wind is doing just now 9.15am on Friday 9th April.
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7707/1wind.jpg
Tomorrow it looks like it will be doing even less.

This is what nuclear is doing. Coal and gas have been switched off in this illustration.
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6892/3nuclear.jpg
Barring breakdowns and maintenance, it will be doing much the same till kingdom come.

All the other colours are there because a controller chose that form of generation to satisfy a demand. Wind is there because of political dogma and because it happens to be around. Coal is still being burned to step in when wind dies down. No carbon is saved. Our costs are about four times as high as they would be if we switched off the wind and actually got some benefit from using the coal.

[Scout]

This is what wind is doing just now 9.15am on Friday 9th April.
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7707/1wind.jpg
Tomorrow it looks like it will be doing even less.

This is what nuclear is doing. Coal and gas have been switched off in this illustration.
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6892/3nuclear.jpg
Barring breakdowns and maintenance, it will be doing much the same till kingdom come.

All the other colours are there because a controller chose that form of generation to satisfy a demand. Wind is there because of political dogma and because it happens to be around. Coal is still being burned to step in when wind dies down. No carbon is saved. Our costs are about four times as high as they would be if we switched off the wind and actually got some benefit from using the coal.

This gives what is good and bad about each one and even Coal is not good:~(

Energy & the Environment
Advantages & Disadvantages
Coal
Advantages
Coal can be found in lots of places in the world and there is still plenty in the UK.
Coal can be easily transported to the power stations.
Coal is a relatively cheap energy source.
Disdvantages
To dig up coal, we have to create mines which can be dangerous and not very nice to look at.
Transporting coal by lorry and train from the mine to the power station causes pollution.
Burning coal produces polluting gases like sulphur dioxide which make acid rain.
Of all energy sources, burning coal releases the most greenhouse gases which may add to
global warming.
Coal is a non-renewable source and will run out in about 100 years.
Coal miners can be affected by black lung disease or pneumoconiosis and also emphysema if
they breathe in too much of the coal dust.
Oil and Natural Gas
Advantages
Oil and natural gas are found in lots of places in the world.
We can transport oil and gas in pipes and by using tankers or ships.
Disdvantages
Environmental damage can be caused when building the rig and by accidental oil spillages.
Oil and gas are not renewable, so once the supplies are used, they will run out.
Burning these fuels releases greenhouse gases into the air. This may add to global warming.
The price of oil and gas will increase because supplies are running out and lots of people will
want it
Working on an oil or gas rig can be dangerous due to the risk of explosions and bad weather.
Nuclear
Advantages
Nuclear fuel does not make harmful greenhouse gases.
You only need a very small amount of nuclear fuel to make a lot of energy
Disdvantages
The waste that is produced when using nuclear fuel is radioactive and very harmful. It needs
to be disposed of carefully
Nuclear power stations are at risk from terrorist attack and sabotage.
World uranium supplies may run out in about 50 years.
Wind
Advantages
Wind is free and will not run out so the cost is in building the wind turbine.
Wind power generation does not create greenhouse gases
There are very few safety risks with wind turbines.
Disdvantages
We can only use windmills in areas where there is a lot of wind. Sometimes there may be days
where there is little wind.
We need a lot of turbines to make a lot of electricity.
Some people don‛t like the way wind turbines look, they think they spoil the countryside.
Wave
Advantages
Waves are free and will not run out so the cost is in building the power station.
Wave power does not produce greenhouse gases.
There are very few safety risks with wave power generation.
Disdvantages
Waves can be big or small so you may not always be able to generate electricity.
You need to find a way of transporting the electricity from the sea onto the land.
Not many people have tried to generate electricity this way yet so the equipment is expensive.
Tidal
Advantages
Tides are free once the power station has been built and will not run out.
No greenhouse gases are produced when we make the electricity.
We know exactly when the tides happen so we know when electricity will be made.
Disdvantages
You may need to build a large wall called a dam to make the water flow through the generators.
This may not be good for plants and animals that live nearby.
The tides only happen twice a day, so can only produce electricity for that time.
Geothermal
Advantages
Geothermal energy does not produce greenhouse gases
The energy source is free and will not run out
Disdvantages
There are not many places where we can build geothermal power stations
Harmful gases and minerals may occasionally come up from the ground below. These can be
difficult to control.
Solar
Advantages
The energy from the Sun is free.
The sun does not produce greenhouse gases.
The sun will always be there during our lifetime.
Disdvantages
It is relatively expensive to build solar power stations.
When it is cloudy or at night there is not enough light so no electricity can be made.
Some people don‛t like the look of solar panels.
Biomass
Advantages
The fuel is cheap and can use things that we might otherwise throw away.
We can find waste everywhere and should not run out.
Disdvantages
When the fuel is burned greenhouse gases are made which pollute the environment.
Sometimes people grow biomass crops where we could grow food.
We may not have enough space to grow enough biomass fuel.
Hydro-electric
Advantages
When the electricity is generated, no greenhouse gases are made.
The water used is free.
It is a renewable energy source.
Disdvantages
The dam is expensive to build.
By building a dam, the nearby area has to be flooded and this could affect nearby wildlife and
plants.
If it does not rain much we may not have enough water to turn the turbines.

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=Scout;688604]This gives what is good and bad about each one and even Coal is not good:~(



Good run-down Scout, but although the wind is free, the electricity from it comes with a cost much greater than building and running the development. I mentioned it earlier. It is the Renewables Obligation Certificate. Every Megawatt hour generated by wind earns one ROC. This has a value to the generator. See http://www.e-roc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm (http://www.e-roc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm).
Causeymire Windfarm generates about 125,000MWh a year. http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf) p115
If we take the value of the ROC at £47, we the consumers pay around £5,785,000 for the privilege of using wind power from Causeymire alone. And you don’t seem to be getting this bit - it does not allow us to shut down any polluting coal-fired power station, on the contrary we continue to burn the coal, keep polluting, waste a valuable resource, and put money into shareholders pockets in the greatest scam ever invented.
Multiply Causeymire’s 50MW rated capacity by 600 to come to the Government target of around 30,000MW by 2020, and the cost to the consumer is around £3,471,000,000 a year and almost no carbon is saved.
It is not the wind that is the problem, it is the wind industry and its hold over Government.

[Scout]

[quote=Scout;688604]This gives what is good and bad about each one and even Coal is not good:~(



Good run-down Scout, but although the wind is free, the electricity from it comes with a cost much greater than building and running the development. I mentioned it earlier. It is the Renewables Obligation Certificate. Every Megawatt hour generated by wind earns one ROC. This has a value to the generator. See http://www.e-roc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm (http://www.e-roc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm).
Causeymire Windfarm generates about 125,000MWh a year. http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf) p115
If we take the value of the ROC at £47, we the consumers pay around £5,785,000 for the privilege of using wind power from Causeymire alone. And you don’t seem to be getting this bit - it does not allow us to shut down any polluting coal-fired power station, on the contrary we continue to burn the coal, keep polluting, waste a valuable resource, and put money into shareholders pockets in the greatest scam ever invented.
Multiply Causeymire’s 50MW rated capacity by 600 to come to the Government target of around 30,000MW by 2020, and the cost to the consumer is around £3,471,000,000 a year and almost no carbon is saved.
It is not the wind that is the problem, it is the wind industry and its hold over Government.


All other supply cost as well be interesting to see how much. As you can see most will run out sometime so we have to look into future. This will be with ROC price what you say may be right now but this could go down or up in 10 or 15 years no one knows. I think I am correct in saying they have agreement with Government for 25 years so in 25 years we could see our bills to what they are now bigs may fly :D but it could be no one knows. To me you seem to hit the wind farms but not really worry about the other facts that most will run out sometime. At least the wind farms are supply electricity and in a clean way.

[Tubthumper]

I've come round to the idea that, blot on the landscape they may be, the wind turbine is going to be the most obvious 'stick-out' indication of us making some commitment to a future for our kids.
Windy's only objection to windpower is our need to have coal power on standby.
Rather than standing making a noise, we should be getting our engineers, scientists and politicians to sort out the means for storing energy to 'sort out the bumps', ie when excess wind power is generated, pump water up hill to store; when the wind drops monentarily, release water downhill through turbines.
We here in the north can lead the way in developing integrated solutions, after all we have the wind and (out west) we have plenty of empty moutainous landscape, with an unused 125kVA line nearby.
That's what we need to do - stop shimfing about the negatives and actually get on with solving the problems.
Oh, the Danes and Norwegians are already doing it. UK bringing up the rear and making a load of noise about the view - as usual.

[ywindythesecond]

I've come round to the idea that, blot on the landscape they may be, the wind turbine is going to be the most obvious 'stick-out' indication of us making some commitment to a future for our kids.
Windy's only objection to windpower is our need to have coal power on standby.
Rather than standing making a noise, we should be getting our engineers, scientists and politicians to sort out the means for storing energy to 'sort out the bumps', ie when excess wind power is generated, pump water up hill to store; when the wind drops monentarily, release water downhill through turbines.
We here in the north can lead the way in developing integrated solutions, after all we have the wind and (out west) we have plenty of empty moutainous landscape, with an unused 125kVA line nearby.
That's what we need to do - stop shimfing about the negatives and actually get on with solving the problems.
Oh, the Danes and Norwegians are already doing it. UK bringing up the rear and making a load of noise about the view - as usual.


My objection to windpower is the commercial and political drivers which force us into a position of energy instability for no environmental benefit, and at great cost to the populace.
I have already stated that I would fully support a scheme that used windpower solely to serve a storage hydro scheme.
But hydro electricity and pump storage hydro is used sparingly for specific reasons. This extract from Scottish Power’s Cruachan Literature http://www.scottishpower.com/uploads/CruachanPowerStation.pdf (http://www.scottishpower.com/uploads/CruachanPowerStation.pdf)
is very informative.

“A FLEXIBLE ASSET
Demand for electricity fluctuates throughout
the day. Typically it is low during the night,
with peaks at meal-times and on winter
evenings when customers require lighting
and extra warmth.
Thermal generators, such as coal-fired
power stations, can take several hours to
start up and deliver electricity to the grid.
As a result, it is uneconomic to operate them
for short periods. They operate most
efficiently at full load, running for many hours
at a time.
Cruachan is much more flexible.
When its turbines are on “spinning reserve” –
turning in air, awaiting the rush of water – it
can supply 200 MW of electricity to the grid
in less than 30 seconds and a further
200 MW within two minutes.
Normally, the plant runs for periods of two or
three hours at a time to meet daytime
peaks, but it is capable of operating
continuously for up to 22 hours if necessary.
This makes Cruachan a valuable asset in
ScottishPower’s generation portfolio.
Whenever there is a surge in electricity
demand, or load is lost from another
generator, Cruachan can step in to deliver
power as necessary.”

The potential for further development is discussed in the following from
http://www.all-energy.co.uk/Hydroelectricity.html (http://www.all-energy.co.uk/Hydroelectricity.html)
“CURRENT HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
Now owned by Scottish and Southern Energy, the hydro stations of NoSHEB continue to generate cost effective renewable electricity today. In addition to this, SSE has begin construction on a 100MW scheme at Glendoe; the first large-scale hydro electric station to be built in Scotland for 50 years. There are two pump storage schemes operating in Scotland that provide 700MW of electricity for balancing services and to meet peaks in demand. While not classed as hydro energy, as it is a means of storage rather than of generating electricity, pump storage has many similarities to hydro generation and is based on the same principles.
While it is generally agreed that most of the large hydro sites within Scotland have already been developed, there remain countless opportunities for the development of small-scale hydro through 'run-of-river schemes'. At the present time, there is close to 180MW of new hydro either in construction, with resolution to consent, in planning or in scoping. Longer term, there remain many opportunities for the development of small-scale hydro schemes throughout Scotland. In particular, there is increasing interest in the development of run of river and smaller impoundment schemes of between 100kW and 1MW size.”

Wind cannot be turned on when needed, and for a period of 65 minutes today, the 1588MW of connected wind power metered by National Grid was producing 7 MW.
An energy policy which relies on 50% of our energy from renewables, mostly wind, is lunacy. Scotland’s electricity demand is quoted as 8,000MW.
· That is 2000 2MW turbines full time at full rating, which is not achievable.
BWEA use 30% rating for their “number of homes” served.
· That is 6,667 2MW turbines.
National Grid consulted on 15% as being “firm” ie reliable.http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/32879A26-D6F2-4D82-9441-40FB2B0E2E0C/39517/Operatingin2020Consulation1.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/32879A26-D6F2-4D82-9441-40FB2B0E2E0C/39517/Operatingin2020Consulation1.pdf)
· That is 13,333 2MW turbines.
E.ON thought 10% might be more realistic, and suggested 5% should be considered.http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/4F15AC9D-C47E-4447-9D07-5DDCAD2BC987/38401/EonUK.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/4F15AC9D-C47E-4447-9D07-5DDCAD2BC987/38401/EonUK.pdf)
· That is 20,000 to 40,000 2MW turbines.
Between 9 am and 10.05 am GMT on Sunday 11th April 2010, the 1588MW resource was putting out 7MW of power, or 0.441% rated capacity.


That would need 453,714 2MW turbines to satisfy Scottish Government targets.
This is April so far:


http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7994/12thapril10rollingouttu.jpg
It is not just momentary loss of wind that has to be dealt with.
UK Governments main plan is to increase reliance on gas from foreign powers who might not always like us.

[secrets in symmetry]

Mr Windy2, could you please supply some sources for your claims that no CO2 is saved when windfarms are generating electricity and fossil fuel power stations are on standby. This is contrary to what I've read elsewhere, and some of my sources are very anti-wind.

[ywindythesecond]

Mr Windy2, could you please supply some sources for your claims that no CO2 is saved when windfarms are generating electricity and fossil fuel power stations are on standby. This is contrary to what I've read elsewhere, and some of my sources are very anti-wind.
Thanks SiS. I don't believe I have ever made a generalised statement along the lines that you refer to. I have certainly made reference to all the elements of it at various times. If you could provide specific references to my "claims" I will be happy to respond.