Metered windpower now up to 2430MW but....... [Archive]

ywindythesecond

15-Aug-10, 20:27

I think we've all got the message that you don't think wind is worthwhile.:roll:

But...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/unknowns/nogas.jpg?t=1281873301

This picture shows that the gas and nuke generation across the country has multiple outages exactly at the same time as we lost much of the channel interconnector, at peak daytime usage at dinner time today. Massive brownouts across the country? How reliable is that?

My message is not that I think wind is not worthwhile. I do, but that is not what I am trying to show.

I am trying to show how unpredictable and unreliable wind is as a power source. Any nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plant can break down at any time but all nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plants never break down at the same time. Wind can and does. Frequently.

Re Graph,shame on you Reggy. You taught me that aberrations such as you show in the Generation by Fuel Type graph are probably caused by instrumentation problems, and this is no exception as the 24 Hr Instant Data shows:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9195/instrumentfailure.jpg

Column F is CCGT. Column G is coal. H is nuclear. I is wind. J is pump storage hydro. K is Hydro. N is the French interconnector.

Are you seriously suggesting that data published at five minute intervals by National Grid covering the generation of electricity nationwide is unreliable or somehow rigged?

Folks, there is a choice here-

believe Reggy,
or believe National Grid,
or subscribe to the biggest conspiracy theory of all time!!

Rheghead

15-Aug-10, 20:43

Re Graph,shame on you Reggy. You taught me that aberrations such as you show in the Generation by Fuel Type graph are probably caused by instrumentation problems, and this is no exception as the 24 Hr Instant Data shows:

But I'm sure you said earlier this year that those abberations in the wind output graphs were as a result of a sudden drop in the wind, you even produced supplementary evidence from the channel interconnector to back up your argument. You sounded so convincing and you scoffed at my suggestion to the contrary.

Now you are saying that BMReports are aren't completely accurate yet you have been presenting the data from BMReports as undeniable facts?? You are confusing me and many more of us I'd imagine.

Are we supposed to treat your posts with caution then? :)

Rheghead

15-Aug-10, 21:01

My message is not that I think wind is not worthwhile. I do, but that is not what I am trying to show.

I am trying to show how unpredictable and unreliable wind is as a power source. Any nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plant can break down at any time but all nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plants never break down at the same time. Wind can and does. Frequently.

I'm sorry ywindy, you are completely correct and I do apologise for being facetious, it is only in jest as a leg pull.

But get this, you are right, the variability of wind is a nightmare for the engineers at NGT et al who love predictability and flat lines and good steady performance. They pride themselves on their professionalism at keeping the lights on.
If the whole picture was just about good engineering then I would be 100% in your camp, the expense, the variable performance would make wind generation of electricity unpalatable to any self-respecting engineer.

However, we don't live in that perfect world, the National Grid recognises the problems faced by finite resources, Climate Change, future energy markets, security of supply etc etc and it would be silly of them to not open up the renewable energy market when the other markets are in decline.

And what is more, NGT are all too aware of the problems and limitations of wind and yet they are still prepared to manage it on the Grid. They don't expect wind to provide power when it is needed, so I cannot understand why you make out they have built a house of cards out of them thinking the opposite.

ywindythesecond

16-Aug-10, 22:57

I'm sorry ywindy, you are completely correct and I do apologise for being facetious, it is only in jest as a leg pull.

But get this, you are right, the variability of wind is a nightmare for the engineers at NGT et al who love predictability and flat lines and good steady performance. They pride themselves on their professionalism at keeping the lights on.
If the whole picture was just about good engineering then I would be 100% in your camp, the expense, the variable performance would make wind generation of electricity unpalatable to any self-respecting engineer.

However, we don't live in that perfect world, the National Grid recognises the problems faced by finite resources, Climate Change, future energy markets, security of supply etc etc and it would be silly of them to not open up the renewable energy market when the other markets are in decline.

And what is more, NGT are all too aware of the problems and limitations of wind and yet they are still prepared to manage it on the Grid. They don't expect wind to provide power when it is needed, so I cannot understand why you make out they have built a house of cards out of them thinking the opposite.

Thanks Reggy.

This extract from a newly published book by Derek Birkett “When will the lights go out” seems to answer the question of why National Grid perseveres with wind as a resource ---- it has no choice in the matter. NG has not built this “house of cards”. It just has to deal with it as best it can.

“National Grid Consultation of July 2009 provided an open statement of anticipated problems arising from increasing intermittence, with suggested solutions. To any informed observer this document was deeply worrying in the scale of innovation being mooted and the rapidly accelerating response required from increasing intermittence. It was clear that some serious technical problems were developing to which they had to respond. The knowledge of National Grid in these matters is unassailable but with responsibility confined to system balancing, as a commercial organisation they had little option but to accept government renewable policy and attempt to make it work. Whatever doubts were held could only be expressed on an informal basis, given the statutory obligation imposed on the civil service to deliver renewable targets.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Author
Derek G Birkett is the former Grid Control Engineer of Northern Scotland. He has a lifetime of experience in electricity supply throughout Britain. He has been involved in the operation, installation and commissioning of several power stations, whether coal-fired, hydro or nuclear, including Dounreay.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-will-Lights-Independent-Minds/dp/1906768404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281995350&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-will-Lights-Independent-Minds/dp/1906768404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281995350&sr=1-1)

Well worth reading.

Rheghead

17-Aug-10, 01:22

Kodiak

17-Aug-10, 11:30

This what should be done. Everyone get together and form a Huge Choir and then all sing :-

"The answer my friend is Blowing in the Wind,
The Answer is Blowing in the Wind"

Now can you please stop posting all these Boring Posts about how much Electricty is Generated by Wind Power. No matter what you post here nothing will change!!!

Phill

17-Aug-10, 13:14

No matter what you post here nothing will change!!!

Aahhhh but, you don't know that. There might be a windymill on standby somewhere to provide the electricery to post a post and the more posting there is the more uptime it may have.

:Razz

ywindythesecond

17-Aug-10, 20:24

But surely the lights won't go out within what is acceptable (via loss of load probabilities which is 9 times per century from what I read somewhere) because NGT makes sure there is enough marginal plant to come online should the worst happen?

Kodiak first.
It is your button Kodiak, you chose to be bored.

Reggy.
I’m not sure what you mean by “loss of load probabilities”, but one of the problems with an increasing wind energy resource, which Government says NG must take when it is being generated, is that in a low demand, high wind scenario such as at the beginning of July this year, NG could find itself with not enough marginal plant to turn off.

The choice is then to take the wind energy and risk the integrity of the system, or preserve the integrity of the system, and constrain off the wind generation. If NG cannot take it, NG has to compensate the generators.

As there is no fuel saving when the output from a wind turbine is switched off, then the compensation paid is virtually the same as if the electricity could have been used. And wind energy attracts ROCs, so compensation for not producing energy which nobody needs is about three times as much as the cost of the energy you need.

This cost filters through to the consumer.

Another problem is that NGT can only make sure that there is enough marginal plant to come online as long as that exists. Retiring generation, the age and decreasing reliability of existing plant, the strain put on generating equipment which is designed to run continuously but is forced to work intermittently to allow space for wind energy on the system, and the increasing reliance on a technology which can fail to produce any meaningful output at any time in the future, means that marginal plant has to be increased, not reduced.

Kodiak

17-Aug-10, 20:44

Kodiak first.
It is your button Kodiak, you chose to be bored.

No it is your Choice to Post the same thing again and again and again and again. to the extent that it is you that is totally Boring.

I am not bored but you are definately boring. Go get yourself a life and post something a bit more interesting, like how many pot holes are in the roads of caithness. Even that would be less boring that what you are posting.

J C Denton

17-Aug-10, 20:49

Sorry, ywindythesecond, but you really are a broken record. 27 of the 33 threads you've started, and all bar one thread this year, have been about wind farms. It's dull, to say the least.

mrlennie

17-Aug-10, 21:01

Sorry, ywindythesecond, but you really are a broken record. 27 of the 33 threads you've started, and all bar one thread this year, have been about wind farms. It's dull, to say the least.

OOW he just pulled a statistic on you!

I can't wait till lecy runs out then we get to go to bed at the right time!

ywindythesecond

17-Aug-10, 21:48

[quote=Kodiak;749309]No it is your Choice to Post the same thing again and again and again and again. to the extent that it is you that is totally Boring.

quote]

It is definitely the same topic, but never the same thing. Don't suppose you have actually tried reading them?

Do you think that the people now compelled to live in the shelter of Baillie and Stroupster Windfarms for a generation think it is a boring subject?
Do you think that those under threat of Spittal Hill and Durran Mains Windfarms think it is boring?
Do you think that the loss of the unique Camster Cairn environment is boring, or that the potential loss of the Yarrows Archaeological trail experience is boring?
Or that the beauty and tranquillity and heritage of Dunbeath Strath is at the mercy of our benighted Scottish Government is boring?

Or that the cost of your electricity will soar for no environmental gain unless you bored people wake up and realise that unless you start to ask hard questions about energy policy in this country PDQ, then we will be so deep into an energy crisis the way out would be very hard to find, and maybe even more costly than the bank crisis.

Kodiack and JCD, at least I have got you looking at a thread where you might get some information to your long term advantage. Please take the time to read, challenge, question, doubt, but don't dismiss it until you have checked out what I am telling you for yourselves.

Kodiak

17-Aug-10, 22:16

As I said before it is Boring and no matter what you say here on .org nothing will change as no one of any importance will listen to or read your little posts.

All you are doing is getting people angry at you for being so silly in posting the same thing time after time.

No one here is paying real attention to you, so why do you not just go to another forum and bore them.

One more thing it is very sad that you can not even spell my name right.

One Last thing, from now on I will not be reading any more of your boring posts as I have now added you to my Ignore List. I wish I had thought of this a long time ago.

FREEDOM AT LAST. !!!!!

mrlennie

17-Aug-10, 22:58

no one of any importance will listen to or read your little posts.

HOW DARE YOU!!!!:cool:

ducati

17-Aug-10, 23:25

Rheghead

17-Aug-10, 23:31

I've never seen anyone rant about being bored before :eek:

I suppose it is a bit like preaching existentialism

I think peeps would be bored if someone kept announcing that England had won the 1966 world cup every week or so. Old news?

ducati

17-Aug-10, 23:33

I think peeps would be bored if someone kept announcing that England had won the 1966 world cup every week or so. Old news?

Did they? Brilliant! :cool:

Green_not_greed

18-Aug-10, 08:14

I think peeps would be bored if someone kept announcing that England had won the 1966 world cup every week or so. Old news?

That's not news, thats history!

Corrie 3

18-Aug-10, 09:15

Sorry Kodiak but you are wrong on this score...How do you know that people arent reading Windy's posts?...Have you PM'd everyone on here to find out?...Have you done a poll?....How selfish of you to suggest that everyone is bored with Windy's posts just because you are!!!!

If you dont like a thread or topic then dont read it!!!!!!

But leave those alone that want to read it, you are ok, youre lights wont go out where you live but Windy is right, the lights will go out in this country very shortly and then at least there will be no .org for you to post your spite on!!!

[disgust][disgust]

Rheghead

18-Aug-10, 10:02

golach

18-Aug-10, 10:16

If only you could practice what you preach [disgust]

Here Here Rheg, I too am one who is beginning to get a tad tired of Windy and his repetitive posts. I bow to his knowledge of all things that are wrong with wind power, but I have now lost any interest he first generated. Windy, your wind has run out [lol]
Corrie3, tho I rarely agree with Kodiak, I respect his right to post on the Org, as you should.

Corrie 3

18-Aug-10, 18:58

Kodiak

18-Aug-10, 19:14

Hi Golach,
I respect Kodiaks and everybody elses right to post on the Forum, what I was complaining about was Kodiaks use of "everyone was fed up" of reading Windys posts...I dont want Kodiak to speak for me at all, I like reading the facts and figures of wind power.....So next time, Kodiak should state that HE is fed up...not everyone !!
[disgust][disgust]

OOO Did I upset you then, next time I will say everyone except Corrie 3 as he does not like to be included.

Since I can no longer read those boring threads I dont suppose this will happen, unless a clone starts posting.

DeHaviLand

18-Aug-10, 19:32

jeez, the irony of boring people while complaining about someone being boring:roll:

webmannie

18-Aug-10, 20:16

rupert

18-Aug-10, 22:31

Whilst ywindy's posts may be boring to some, I think he is doing a great job highlighting the uselessness of wind power and how this government has been brainwashed by the ever increasing might of the wind industry.

I listened to one wind farm developer recently state that the output has to be judged over the whole year. Well, I suspect ywindy will soon have a year's worth of data to analyse and I for one, am looking forward to him being able to prove these condescending, arrogant so and so's wrong.

Keep up the good work - it is now gaining recognition nationally and hopefully someone in power somewhere may wake up and smell the coffee as they say!

Rheghead

18-Aug-10, 22:39

wavy davy

18-Aug-10, 23:50

I read Windy's posts because I'm interested in wind power. They provide information and provoke discussion on the subject.
If I wasn't interested I wouldn't read them. So why read them if you're bored and why presume that others share your feelings.
The answer my friend is BLOWING in the wind.

ywindythesecond

19-Aug-10, 07:24

I'm guessing Pumped-storage hydroelectricity isn't part of the generation mix in a windy world? It doesn't matter if there is no wind as tidal will always be there to fill in the gaps as will hydro pumped storage facilities, nuclear, coal, gas, geothermal, biomass etc etc. It's all about grid management and i'm sure they are 'on the ball'.

I'd just like to see it all happen faster than it is!

Thanks Webmannie, but starting from “It doesn't matter if there is no wind as tidal will always be there to fill in the gaps...”.

There is no tidal power constructed yet, and it is a long time away before it might be viable.
Hydro pumped storage facilities are currently limited to four power stations, two in Wales, two in Scotland. Pump storage is used for fine balancing of output and demand. Pump storage has less than 24 hours running capacity. It is not a source of base load generation
Nuclear is being run down. Plants are ageing and Scottish Govt Policy is against Nuclear. UK Govt is half-heartedly promoting nuclear generation.
A number of “dirty” coal and oil plants are scheduled to close down in 2016 as part of EU legislation with no plans for replacement.
There are plans for increased gas generation, but the gas will come from countries which might not always be friendly to us.
Geothermal would depend on an interconnector with Iceland.
Biomass means either burning all our forests or turning over food production to fuel production.
Oil generation will be closed down by 2016.
All these disappearing or non-existent means of generation of electricity are to be replaced by wind power. Where would that come from today?
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/6836/19thaugustam.jpg
National Grid can only manage the resource available to it.
Government is the problem but the people of this country will carry the can.

rupert

19-Aug-10, 23:01

The National Grid has over 20 years worth of wind data, they concede that some years are better than others in terms of resource.

Do you really think ywindy's 'study' will change anything? So what influence could showing 2010 was a bad year might have on policymaking? None whatsoever, it is a red herring.

Well, if ywindy can show that 2010 was a 'bad year' that illustrates his point perfectly. How can you have an energy system that more and more relies on a source of energy, albeit renewable, that has a 'bad year'? Ridiculous.

Green_not_greed

19-Aug-10, 23:10

Best thread to read at this time of night if you can't sleep..................

Rheghead

19-Aug-10, 23:28

Well, if ywindy can show that 2010 was a 'bad year' that illustrates his point perfectly. How can you have an energy system that more and more relies on a source of energy, albeit renewable, that has a 'bad year'? Ridiculous.

All energy systems have or will have bad years. In fact this and last year has been very bad for nuclear as there have been lengthy outages at a number of power stations.

In comparison, how then can we rely on nuclear if it has a bad year? We cannot criticise wind if we lose sight of the fact that other energy suppliers have their faults as well otherwise we are in danger of sounding like an activist against a particular energy system.

ywindythesecond

20-Aug-10, 00:33

[quote=Rheghead;750237]All energy systems have or will have bad years. In fact this and last year has been very bad for nuclear as there have been lengthy outages at a number of power stations.

How many and for how long were for scheduled maintenance, and how many and for how long were for unexpected faults?

Rheghead

20-Aug-10, 09:18

How many and for how long were for scheduled maintenance, and how many and for how long were for unexpected faults?

2008 and 2009 were the bad years. A mixture of both and it depends on the weasel words that the energy companies choose to use. A scheduled maintenance period is unequivocal but you can have a planned shutdown for an unexpected fault or an unplanned shutdown for an unexpected fault. It seems Torness was out for 8 months and then tripped (unexpected shutdown to you and me) in Feb this year. Then you can have unexpected delays to a planned maintenance schedule which amounts to an unexpected outage. Obviously, the companies will choose the lesser image damaging words and the critics will use the worse words to describe the situation. At the end of the day, nuclear like any other energy source has reliability problems which is solved by relying on other plant being in place. If rupert did away with all power generation that had to rely on other plants then we'd have no lecky at all. So that line of critique of wind is a no-brainer if we looked at it properly.

http://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/EDF-ENERGY-OPERATIONAL-UPDATE.shtml

http://news.scotsman.com/nuclearenergy/Torness-shutdown-shows--nuclear.3985053.jp

orkneycadian

21-Aug-10, 03:42

......still only managing to generate 20MW at 8.50 am BST.]

Back to using erroneous data so soon after bowing out of the the last thread....

Anyone know the HTML code for a yawning smilie? Please PM if you do....

ywindythesecond

21-Aug-10, 08:20

2008 and 2009 were the bad years. A mixture of both and it depends on the weasel words that the energy companies choose to use. A scheduled maintenance period is unequivocal but you can have a planned shutdown for an unexpected fault or an unplanned shutdown for an unexpected fault. It seems Torness was out for 8 months and then tripped (unexpected shutdown to you and me) in Feb this year. Then you can have unexpected delays to a planned maintenance schedule which amounts to an unexpected outage. Obviously, the companies will choose the lesser image damaging words and the critics will use the worse words to describe the situation. At the end of the day, nuclear like any other energy source has reliability problems which is solved by relying on other plant being in place. If rupert did away with all power generation that had to rely on other plants then we'd have no lecky at all. So that line of critique of wind is a no-brainer if we looked at it properly.

http://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/EDF-ENERGY-OPERATIONAL-UPDATE.shtml

http://news.scotsman.com/nuclearenergy/Torness-shutdown-shows--nuclear.3985053.jp

The only comparison that can be made with conventional generation intermittency and wind power intermittency is that the same word is used.

Conventional plant needs back-up for mechanical failure or maintenance.

Wind power needs back-up because of the certainty that the fuel source will fail, and the uncertainty of when and by how much.

When Torness broke down, and NG maintains the ability to deal with the sudden loss of its single largest generator as well as other fluctuations, a plan would have been put in place to allow for its absence, and when ready to come back on stream, a plan would have been put in place for its orderly re-assimilation into the system.

As for planning for wind power, there is a fridge magnet in my kitchen:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7164/08212010080747am.jpg

A bit like planning for wind energy except the dog is more predictable.

Phill

21-Aug-10, 09:16

Good to see now we have a bit of wind the windymills are turned off :confused
The two I can see from my window aren't turning, dunno about the rest.

ywindythesecond

27-Aug-10, 08:59

Wind power needs back-up because of the certainty that the fuel source will fail, and the uncertainty of when and by how much.

This is how monitored wind has performed in the last week.
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/3135/last7days.jpg

It has been virtually turned off twice since I last posted, and is currently bumbling along the bottom with a miserable 13MW out of 2430MW recorded at 4am today.
Shame for the promoters of the third phase of Forss Windfarm exhibiting at Caithness Horizons over the last two days that the turbines at Phases 1 and 2 (Phases 1 and 2 of many, as the plans for Phase 3 indicate) were also bone idle for part of yesterday.

Walter Ego

27-Aug-10, 09:35

ywindythesecond

27-Aug-10, 23:19

I can appreciate Windys anti-windmill position and that he likes to keep reminding everyone just how bad it really is.

But apart from wind and tidal energy, do we have any sustainable and (relatively) non-polluting alternatives?

No.

I can find as many faults with alternatives to wind and tide as I can positive aspects. The question is one of balancing a mixture - not just banging an anti-one-power-source drum.

Walter,
The answer to your question can be found in a newly published book by Derek Birkett, "When will the lights go out" - £6.99 from Amazon, http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-will-Lights-Independent-Minds/dp/1906768404 .
Birkett is a retired engineer with extensive experience in the generation industry, including being the former Grid Control Engineer of Northern Scotland, so he knows what he is talking about.
If you what to find out in just how desperate a situation our electrical energy supply and transmission is in this country, and just how limited our options are for getting it under control again, you must read this book.

Walter Ego

28-Aug-10, 11:38

Walter,
The answer to your question can be found in a newly published book by Derek Birkett, "When will the lights go out" - £6.99 from Amazon, http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-will-Lights-Independent-Minds/dp/1906768404 .
Birkett is a retired engineer with extensive experience in the generation industry, including being the former Grid Control Engineer of Northern Scotland, so he knows what he is talking about.
If you what to find out in just how desperate a situation our electrical energy supply and transmission is in this country, and just how limited our options are for getting it under control again, you must read this book.

Thanks, Windy. I wouldn't mind a read of that.

My point is that all power sources have their downside. Fossil/hydrocarbon are a finite and immensley polluting resource.

Modern nuclear is cleaner, safer but again a finite resource.

Wind is unpredictable to a degree and tidal is non-constant unless you place enough generators in the sea to cover all parts of the tidal cycle over a 24 hour period. Storage of non-constant power requeres a massive use of resources and pollutant substances.

The real answer lies in less power consumption IMO.

Neil Howie

28-Aug-10, 14:03

Little article at Wired:

Problem Electricity is the ultimate just-in-time commodity, sent off to consumers as soon as it's generated... But solar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy) and wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy) installations produce power only when the sun is shining or a breeze is blowing.

Solution Obama's stimulus package includes $2 billion (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22188/?a=f) in grants for battery development.

Read More (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-04/gp_storage#ixzz0xuBdYCow)

orkneycadian

06-Sep-10, 18:31

Hello? Ywindy?? Are you still there???

Just wondered if you were having PC problems, as I was expecting you to be furiously posting details from your data sources which are saying that, at the moment, the small fraction of the UK's wind power that they count, is producing a mere 1,725 MW, out of a total 2,340 MW (as you list in the thread title) - A somewhat pathetic 71% of installed capacity, and a mere 4.3% of present demand :roll:

Yesterday must have been as bad, as the data suggests that of the energy generation in the last 24 hours, 4.9% was produced from wind.

Lights are still on at this side of the water, so assume the balancing boys are just about managing! In fact, I imagine that the whole of Caithness, just like Orkney, are running on home brewed wind power at the moment! :Razz

ywindythesecond

06-Sep-10, 20:42

Rheghead

06-Sep-10, 22:54

At least when the turbines are motionless they become as visually benign as a common and garden electricity pylon. No loss then.

Tilter

07-Sep-10, 00:49

Do you really think ywindy's 'study' will change anything? So what influence could showing 2010 was a bad year might have on policymaking? None whatsoever, it is a red herring.

Ooh Reggy you are so wrong. A wee bittie of media hype and a few soundbites can change the whole country’s thinking these days (not that we’re gullible or anything). But you know that. And Ywindy’s stats are already coming to the attention of the policy making boffins.

At least when the turbines are motionless they become as visually benign as a common and garden electricity pylon. No loss then.

Says you. I’d say it’s subjective. I’d say (subectively of course) they’re not visually benign because comparative to pylons they’re gargantuan and would definitely impinge on my amenity. But hey that’s just me (except ‘just me’ has a voice these days).

Rheghead

07-Sep-10, 08:14

Ooh Reggy you are so wrong. A wee bittie of media hype and a few soundbites can change the whole country’s thinking these days (not that we’re gullible or anything). But you know that. And Ywindy’s stats are already coming to the attention of the policy making boffins.

So is ywindy a proper campaigner of some sorts?

But surely it is something they are already aware of because I read years ago that wind is variable and has good years and bad years? :confused

Tubthumper

07-Sep-10, 09:17

It's been pretty blustery up here for the last few days, have the local turbines been 'shutting down' at all due to too much wind?

Rheghead

07-Sep-10, 09:41

It's been pretty blustery up here for the last few days, have the local turbines been 'shutting down' at all due to too much wind?

What have the wind speeds been these last few days?

Tubthumper

07-Sep-10, 10:18

I'd say force 6-8 pretty much the whole time since Sunday. Just my guess though.

ywindythesecond

07-Sep-10, 10:50

I'd say force 6-8 pretty much the whole time since Sunday. Just my guess though.

You get the last 24 hrs at http://www.xcweather.co.uk/GB/observations and look at wind animation for 24hrs. It is a rolling animation so you see the 24hrs prior to the time you look it up.

From BWEA:
"Most wind turbines start generating electricity at wind speeds of around 3-4 metres per second (m/s), (8 miles per hour); generate maximum ‘rated’ power at around 15 m/s (30mph); and shut down to prevent storm damage at 25 m/s or above (50mph)."

rupert

07-Sep-10, 12:08

You get the last 24 hrs at http://www.xcweather.co.uk/GB/observations and look at wind animation for 24hrs. It is a rolling animation so you see the 24hrs prior to the time you look it up.

From BWEA:
"Most wind turbines start generating electricity at wind speeds of around 3-4 metres per second (m/s), (8 miles per hour); generate maximum ‘rated’ power at around15 m/s (30mph); and shut down to prevent storm damage at 25 m/s or above (50mph)."

Cor Blimey it must be getting close to shutting down speed over here - I've just ventured outside and it nearly blew me over (and that's saying something!!).

Rheghead

07-Sep-10, 16:16

I'd say force 6-8 pretty much the whole time since Sunday. Just my guess though.

Nowhere near shutdown speed then.

ywindythesecond

07-Sep-10, 17:32

Nowhere near shutdown speed then.

The incidence of turbines closing down for high winds is rare and its effect is generally overstated. Unlike low wind events which can often cover the whole country, very high wind events of a magnitude sufficient to close a turbine down are relatively localised, and if widespread, the lights would probably be out because of storm conditions anyway.

orkneycadian

08-Sep-10, 09:54

^^^
What he says is indeed true! Very small percentage of hours in the year lost due to overwind, even here in Orkney - To shutdown, 10 minute average needs to be > 56 mph (force 9), 1 minute average > 67.5 mph (force 11) or gust of > 79 mph (force 12) - Exact figures depend on turbine type. Some will go to an average of 75 mph before shutting down.

The number of hours in the year that these speeds are attained are surprisingly small!

redeyedtreefrog

08-Sep-10, 17:50

On Monday, a new record was set for wind power in the UK, according to the National Grid. 40.5GWh or 5% of all generated. 10% if you count embedded generation.

Rheghead

08-Sep-10, 19:11

On Monday, a new record was set for wind power in the UK, according to the National Grid. 40.5GWh or 5% of all generated. 10% if you count embedded generation.

Hopefully that is set to continue for all our sakes.

ywindythesecond

08-Sep-10, 23:01

Hopefully that is set to continue for all our sakes.

If you keep adding windmills to the metred total, you can expect records to be broken regularly. What you don't expect is the same high record-breaking windfleet to make even more records at the other end of the scale.
Its generation was as low as 8MW on 31st August, and 6MW on 1st September. On 2nd August at one point generation was 1MW. Altogether metered generation has been in single figures 16 times so far this year. That is a record that should be shouted from the rooftops.
Somebody ask me how to check these figures please.

Eve

09-Sep-10, 00:38

If you keep adding windmills to the metred total, you can expect records to be broken regularly. What you don't expect is the same high record-breaking windfleet to make even more records at the other end of the scale.
Its generation was as low as 8MW on 31st August, and 6MW on 1st September. On 2nd August at one point generation was 1MW. Altogether metered generation has been in single figures 16 times so far this year. That is a record that should be shouted from the rooftops.
Somebody ask me how to check these figures please.

How do you check these figures please?:)

ywindythesecond

09-Sep-10, 08:19

How do you check these figures please?:)

Good question Eve!
You go to National Grid’s own NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements) website at www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com/) . This is the same data source used for Press and Journal’s report on the high wind on 29th August http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1895687?UserKey&UserKey (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1895687?UserKey&UserKey)=
and Reuter’s report on the new wind generation record http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6863W120100907 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6863W120100907) .

On the NETA website, you will find that most charts graphs and tables are on a rolling half-hour or five minute basis, so unless you record the data at the time, next time you look it will have moved on and out of sight. There is one exception. You can access a rolling three month stretch of half-hourly generation records over all technologies so if you log on today, you have records going back to 9th June 2010. You can save this as an Excel spreadsheet and have a permanent record of that period.

Here is how to do that:

Print this post.

Go to www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com/)

Hover your mouse over the General tab and select Electricity data summary.

From the drop down menu select Generation by fuel type (graph)

Click on Current/Historic button. Up comes a spreadsheet of the last 24hrs generation in half-hour average outputs. (CCGT is Closed Cycle gas, INTFR is French interconnector, PS is pump storage hydro, NPSHYD is ordinary hydro, INTIRL is Irish interconnector, OCGT is open cycle gas) S/P means Settlement period. The numbers are the half-hour period in the day. 23 is 11.30am for example.

Top right, click on Historic Data CSV. Choose open, then open the “generation by fuel” file that pops up, then save this as an Excel spreadsheet.

You now have a record of the last three months generation. Unhelpfully, the generation types are not headed and they are in a different order from the 24hr spreadsheet. Column H is wind. Col B is the date YMD. Col C is the half hour period of the day.

Select Line 1, Edit, Delete.

Click on any active cell in the spreadsheet, click Data, Sort, Sort by column H, Descending, and click No header row, and OK.

Column H now lists average wind output per half hour over the last three months starting at the highest and finishing at the lowest ( almost, the final entry which says 1 is an instrument error so ignore that)

Working up from the bottom you will find that there have been 55 half hour periods since 9th June when the UK metered windfleet has been producing less than 10MW.

(UK Metered windfleet was 1588MW prior to 14th July, 2010MW 14th July to 13th August, 2430MW since 14th August)

Rheghead

09-Sep-10, 13:12

How do you check these figures please?:)

Nobody seriously needs to check or doubt the validity of the figures, we just disagree with certain people's interpretation and presentation of them.

ywindythesecond

09-Sep-10, 18:36

Nobody seriously needs to check or doubt the validity of the figures, we just disagree with certain people's interpretation and presentation of them.

Just guessing that I am a "certain people" Reggy. Which interpretations and presentations do you disagree with? And who is we?

oldmarine

09-Sep-10, 18:51

My message is not that I think wind is not worthwhile. I do, but that is not what I am trying to show.

I am trying to show how unpredictable and unreliable wind is as a power source. Any nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plant can break down at any time but all nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro plants never break down at the same time. Wind can and does. Frequently.

Re Graph,shame on you Reggy. You taught me that aberrations such as you show in the Generation by Fuel Type graph are probably caused by instrumentation problems, and this is no exception as the 24 Hr Instant Data shows:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9195/instrumentfailure.jpg

Column F is CCGT. Column G is coal. H is nuclear. I is wind. J is pump storage hydro. K is Hydro. N is the French interconnector.

Are you seriously suggesting that data published at five minute intervals by National Grid covering the generation of electricity nationwide is unreliable or somehow rigged?

Folks, there is a choice here-

believe Reggy,
or believe National Grid,
or subscribe to the biggest conspiracy theory of all time!!

Windy: My degree was in Electronics Engineering and that was a long time ago (1956), I will have to study these graphs in more detail before I get a complete understanding at my now age of 85 years. Perhaps you have a point here but I have seen windmills generate electricity effectively here in certain places of the USA. And so, I will not completely discount power generated by wind mills.

redeyedtreefrog

09-Sep-10, 18:57

Windy: My degree was in Electronics Engineering and that was a long time ago (1956), I will have to study these graphs in more detail before I get a complete understanding at my now age of 85 years. Perhaps you have a point here but I have seen windmills generate electricity effectively here in certain places of the USA. And so, I will not completely discount power generated by wind mills.

The USA is a large country by area, so it's bound to be blowing somewhere. But in the UK, seeing as we're small and narrow, wind is pretty uniform. Which is why we need to be connected with all Europe.

oldmarine

09-Sep-10, 19:01

Rheghead

09-Sep-10, 19:05

Just guessing that I am a "certain people" Reggy. Which interpretations and presentations do you disagree with? And who is we?

As chairman of an anti wind lobby group, should we expect anything positive about wind farms in your posts if you are just interested in stopping wind farms?

ywindythesecond

09-Sep-10, 19:09

Windy: My degree was in Electronics Engineering and that was a long time ago (1956), I will have to study these graphs in more detail before I get a complete understanding at my now age of 85 years. Perhaps you have a point here but I have seen windmills generate electricity effectively here in certain places of the USA. And so, I will not completely discount power generated by wind mills.

Oldmarine, windmills are very effective generators when the fuel source is there. The problem is not the technology, but the commercial and political drivers towards having windpower as baseload generation.

And RETF, don't you think that if the wind is blowing somewhere else, the people somewhere else will keep it to themselves when it is scarce?

ywindythesecond

10-Sep-10, 09:10

As chairman of an anti wind lobby group, should we expect anything positive about wind farms in your posts if you are just interested in stopping wind farms?

Could you just answer the original question please? Here it is again;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
Nobody seriously needs to check or doubt the validity of the figures, we just disagree with certain people's interpretation and presentation of them.
Just guessing that I am a "certain people" Reggy. Which interpretations and presentations do you disagree with? And who is we?

Rheghead

10-Sep-10, 10:36

Could you just answer the original question please? Here it is again;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
Nobody seriously needs to check or doubt the validity of the figures, we just disagree with certain people's interpretation and presentation of them.
Just guessing that I am a "certain people" Reggy. Which interpretations and presentations do you disagree with? And who is we?

I disagree with you in that you think it is a great problem for the balancing boys to facilitate a large amount of wind power onto the national grid.

I disagree with you that a lack of wind in 2010 typifies the weather patterns in other years and policymakers on energy need to revise their green strategy.

I disagree with your repetition of this subject on the org and to the attention of national newspapers, it isn't news, we've heard it so often before.

We as in everyone who says the same thing about your posts.

So

1. as a chairman of a anti-wind farm lobby group,

2. as someone who fails to accept the effects and causes of climate change (contrary to mainstream scientific knowledge)

3. as someone who disagrees with the National Grid on how much they can balance the Grid.

Why should we trust what you say in your posts? :confused

Green_not_greed

10-Sep-10, 12:08

Why should we trust what you say in your posts? :confused

On the other hand Rheghead, as someone who provided information to support the developer of the Baillie wind farm at the PLI, why should we trust your own posts?

You appear to be as biased one way as Ywindy appears to be the other way.

Rheghead

10-Sep-10, 15:00

On the other hand Rheghead, as someone who provided information to support the developer of the Baillie wind farm at the PLI, why should we trust your own posts?

You appear to be as biased one way as Ywindy appears to be the other way.

Very uncharacteristic of me but I was motivated to do so due to the shocking misrepresentation of Baillie wind farm by CWIF and the antagonistic nature of some of its members, frightening my family on my property and also to do the right thing. If they were nice then I would have let it pass.

I am of the opinion that the climate science is correct and that it accepted and verified independently by the vast majority of climatologists.

Also, we can be assured that the NGT have years of experience and weather data to back up their claim that they can include a huge amount of variable renewable energy on to the grid with little technical changes or expense to the consumer. I trust them to make the decision that if wind power is worthwhile putting on the grid then it is worthwhile managing its inherent variability properly. If it can't be done then they would say so. Obviously if Climate change wasn't such an impending disaster waiting to happen then I'd imagine there was no urgency to get wind farms up and running.

There is plenty of evidence out there on reputable websites so I'd be very naive indeed to take anything from a climate change denier or least from someone who is least expected to say things positive about the things he is campaigning against.

Green_not_greed

10-Sep-10, 16:14

I'd be very surprised indeed if you didn't query some of the data given.

All I was pointing out is that you're hardly an impartial observer.

ywindythesecond

11-Sep-10, 08:30

The USA is a large country by area, so it's bound to be blowing somewhere. But in the UK, seeing as we're small and narrow, wind is pretty uniform. Which is why we need to be connected with all Europe.

I have been watching wind data for UK and Europe for a few months now which is not enough to come to any conclusion, but there seems to be a pattern that if it is still in UK it is very still in Europe, if it is wild in UK it is ruffled in Europe.
This is a wind picture of Europe on the two record breaking days for wind generation in UK, 2nd August when output fell to 1MW, and 6th Sep when output rose to1877MW.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/562/aug2sep6.jpg

orkneycadian

11-Sep-10, 12:32

This is a wind picture of Europe on the two record breaking days for wind generation in UK, 2nd August when output fell to 1MW, and 6th Sep when output rose to 1877MW.
:roll: Here we go again.... Although this time you have omitted to use the word metered....

For those not bored enough to have blocked this thread and are still actually reading it, please be reminded that the data the ywindy loves posting, only accounts for a portion of the installed wind capacity in the UK. So on the dates in question, the output was much greater than that claimed above. Usually, ywindy remembers to add the word "metered" as his caveat, but in the above quote, it suggests that the data he has found on a website accounts for the whole of the UK, which it does not, by a long shot.

What this thread appears to omit is claims that on days of reduced generation from coal, we burned less coal, on days of reduced generation by gas, we burned less gas, and in times of low rainfall, we produce less generation from hydro. It follows that on days of light winds, we generate less from wind power. No **** Sherlock! On the 6th of September, we were less dependant on Europe for making up our generation. On that date, we only imported 1 GW from France, as opposed to the 2GW it had been running for so long previously, or the 1.5 GW it is today

Will we have to endure the same claims in the future that during neap tides, production from tidal generating stations was a mere xx GW? Will all you Caithnessians be trying to scare off all the tidal developers for the Firth, with the startling revelation that once every lunar month, the tides will be rubbish for power generation, and conversely, will only reach a peak generation capacity once a month as well? If so, send them over to Orkney and well look after them for you!

The UK grid works on a mix of generation, and can quite happily accommodate variances in that mix. Sure, if the mix gets too heavy on one source of energy, it gets a bit more uncertain. If we relied 100% on imported gas from Eastern Europe for example, and that supply is cut off, whether through politics, terrorism or technical faults, then we would find ourselves in a pickle. But we don't rely on 100% imported gas (yet!) so that doomsday scenario is not likely to be tomorrows reality.

The folk planning the future generation mix are not as stupid as to assume that we can have 100% wind power, and still keep the lights on 365 days a year. From what I read of ywindy's posts, thats the doomsday scenario he is trying to portray. But it will never happen, so lets not get fooled into thinking that if another wind turbine is erected, it will spell disaster for the future stability of the UK grid!

I would be interested to read ywindy's statistics to see how much less fossil fuel we burned in the UK, or nuclear we generated from on the 6th of September, when we were probably generating the best part of 4 GW from all the UK wind power (not just the fraction that shows on the NETA site). I know that on that day, my peedie 6 kW turbine outside the house here kept the house nice and toasty, and the hot water cylinders piping hot, without the oil boiler ever starting once. In fact, I think the oil in the tank "might be starting to go off", its that long since I had some delivered! So I too have a mix for my energy, and can vouch that on days of light winds, its handy having a tank of oil and a boiler on standby as an alternaitve, as well as the "biofuel" (peats!). But what an awful less lot oil and peats I get through when its windy! ;)

oldmarine

11-Sep-10, 15:16

Data may not lie but those who use data can manipulate it.

Rheghead

11-Sep-10, 18:28

The folk planning the future generation mix are not as stupid as to assume that we can have 100% wind power, and still keep the lights on 365 days a year. From what I read of ywindy's posts, thats the doomsday scenario he is trying to portray.

Yes he is slaughtering a sacred cow of his own making.

ywindythesecond

11-Sep-10, 18:48

Data may not lie but those who use data can manipulate it.

I know exactly what you mean Oldmarine. It is like when orkneycadian (okc) posts
“please be reminded that the data the ywindy loves posting, only accounts for a portion of the installed wind capacity in the UK. So on the dates in question, the output was much greater than that claimed above.”

Perfectly true of course and makes the sample sound small, but the 2430MW "portion” is actually marginally greater than 50% of currently operational turbines in UK. See extract taken today from UK Renewables website (formerly BWEA)
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/610/bwea.jpg

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

Wouldn’t you?

redeyedtreefrog

11-Sep-10, 18:58

I know exactly what you mean Oldmarine. It is like when orkneycadian (okc) posts
“please be reminded that the data the ywindy loves posting, only accounts for a portion of the installed wind capacity in the UK. So on the dates in question, the output was much greater than that claimed above.”

Perfectly true of course and makes the sample sound small, but the 2430MW "portion” is actually marginally greater than 50% of currently operational turbines in UK. See extract taken today from UK Renewables website (formerly BWEA)
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/610/bwea.jpg

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

Wouldn’t you?

Are the sample turbines located in one general area or spread out over the whole country?

orkneycadian

11-Sep-10, 19:09

oh come come ywindy..... being only half right is an awful long way short of being right!

"Honest officer, my speedo said I was only doing 29 mph" is not really going to get you off the hook for doing 57 in a 30!

There is something fundamentally wrong to make claims that the production is x MW when the data it is based upon for accounts for only 51% of the installed capacity. If you estimated that the production on the 6th of September was 1877/0.51 = 3680 MW, that would be a reasonable guess, and I for one would agree with your estimate. But stating that it is a mere 1,877 MW is no more accurate than my excuse to the traffic cop above....

This of course means that on the 2nd of August, the production (assuming your 1 MW is right, would be about 2 MW. As I say, No **** Sherlock! No wind = no wind energy, just the same as no rain = no hydro energy, no gas = no gas energy, neap tides and slack water = no tidal energy, no waves or swell = no wave energy, etc, etc. I even hear that since they have stopped bringing nuclear fuel into Dounreay that its output is rather on the low side as well....

So to answer the question, no I don't agree that understating production by ~50 % is being representative. But I'll maybe try it next time I zip across the Causeymire and get stopped by the local constabulary!

ywindythesecond

11-Sep-10, 20:30

Are the sample turbines located in one general area or spread out over the whole country?

Most of the metered windpower is onshore in Scotland, but it is spread from Orkney to the Borders and from Skye to Aberdeenshire. Recently, offshore windfarms at Barrow, Liverpool Bay, Solway Firth and Thames Estuary have been added, and their outputs were included in the highest wind generation recorded yet by National Grid. Generation from Barrow and Liverpool Bay was included in the lowest wind generation recorded yet by National Grid.
okc makes a big point about my referring to only a limited sample of generation, but the fact is that that is the best information available to anyone. National Grid can't account for generation which it does not meter. All the generating companies know exactly what they are generating but not what everyone else is doing, so hard fact on 50% percent is the best you can get.

The list of windfarms currently metered by NG is found at www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) general, Electricity data summary, Peak wind generation forecast, and click on Power Park Modules EXCEL Spreadsheet

Rheghead

11-Sep-10, 20:40

I'd like to see some statistical analysis on how the full width at half height ratios bear up on increasing widespread metered performance. Just by eye I suspect the ratios are much better with more capacity being metered and this is a very good aspect of wind energy for the balancing boys.

ywindythesecond

11-Sep-10, 20:42

:roll:

The folk planning the future generation mix are not as stupid as to assume that we can have 100% wind power, and still keep the lights on 365 days a year. From what I read of ywindy's posts, thats the doomsday scenario he is trying to portray. But it will never happen, so lets not get fooled into thinking that if another wind turbine is erected, it will spell disaster for the future stability of the UK grid!

;)

Who exactly do you think "The folk planning the future generation mix" are?
Is it a Government organisation?
A Quango?
An industry body?
Who is in charge of strategic energy planning in UK and Scotland?
This organisation "planning the future generation mix" must have a name.
What is that name?

Rheghead

12-Sep-10, 01:16

ywindythesecond

12-Sep-10, 09:45

You obviously do your homework in the areas which you think you can enhance your 'no wind farm' agenda. So I am not surprised you claim a total ignorance in what is just a matter of googling words such as 'UK Government' 'low carbon transition' etc etc.
Help me out here please Reggy. Which UK Government Department is responsible for Strategic Energy Planning?

Rheghead

12-Sep-10, 19:54

Help me out here please Reggy. Which UK Government Department is responsible for Strategic Energy Planning?

You aren't really interested in an answer if you can't be bothered to google and find out so why ask me? :roll:

orkneycadian

12-Sep-10, 21:48

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

In that case then, can I suggest that if you are going to post any absolute values of MW's or GW's, that you factor them up to what might be a more realistic figure? At the moment, its a case of multiply by 1.96, but I see you have your finger well on the pulse of whats included in the BMReports and what the running total with BWEA is, so as the ratio changes, you can adjust your multiplication factor.

However, what merit there is in repeatedly posting these figures is questionable, as you are merely telling us what a nationwide network of "anemometers" are seeing, and confirming that that tallies with met data.

rupert

12-Sep-10, 22:25

You aren't really interested in an answer if you can't be bothered to google and find out so why ask me? :roll:

Do enlighten us Rheghead. I googled and came up with BERR which said amongst other things 'energy policy' but when I clicked on the link it went to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills with no mention of energy policy.

Maybe we don't have an energy policy now???

ywindythesecond

12-Sep-10, 22:44

Who exactly do you think "The folk planning the future generation mix" are?
Is it a Government organisation?
A Quango?
An industry body?
Who is in charge of strategic energy planning in UK and Scotland?
This organisation "planning the future generation mix" must have a name.
What is that name?

As Reggy and okc both decline to address this question, I will provide the answer. There is no UK or Scottish Government Department currently charged with Strategic Energy Planning. UK energy policy is a commercial free-for-all supported by political aspirations fuelled by the wind industry.

I could be wrong of course, and if anyone knows which Government Department is responsible for Strategic Energy Planning, and where its published Plan for a secure energy supply beyond 2020 can be seen, I would be very grateful for the information.

Rheghead

12-Sep-10, 23:33

As Reggy and okc both decline to address this question, I will provide the answer. There is no UK or Scottish Government Department currently charged with Strategic Energy Planning. UK energy policy is a commercial free-for-all supported by political aspirations fuelled by the wind industry.

I could be wrong of course, and if anyone knows which Government Department is responsible for Strategic Energy Planning, and where its published Plan for a secure energy supply beyond 2020 can be seen, I would be very grateful for the information.

You poor creature of the singular obsession.

Who is the architect of that commercial free-for-all/conditions? :lol:

Go on google it? [lol]

orkneycadian

13-Sep-10, 07:41

AI could be wrong of course, and if anyone knows which Government Department is responsible for Strategic Energy Planning, and where its published Plan for a secure energy supply beyond 2020 can be seen, I would be very grateful for the information.

Whats the matter ywindy? Not been invited onto one of the regional consultative committees? Presumably if you had, then you would know which bodies are represented on them....

Oh, and Googling works for me too!

ywindythesecond

13-Sep-10, 07:42

Whats the matter ywindy? Not been invited onto one of the regional consultative committees? Presumably if you had, then you would know which bodies are represented on them....

Oh, and Googling works for me too!
Don't keep it a secret then. What is the Plan?

orkneycadian

13-Sep-10, 10:02

Sorry ywindy, but it would not be appropriate to discuss that on a public internet forum.

oldmarine

13-Sep-10, 14:42

Those who are interested in reading about U.K. Energy Policy, use Google and click on U.K. Energy Policy and read all about it......

ywindythesecond

15-Sep-10, 09:53

Those who are interested in reading about U.K. Energy Policy, use Google and click on U.K. Energy Policy and read all about it......

Thanks Oldmarine, I had a good look but saw no sign of Strategic Energy Planning.
However, when I switched on this morning to record my boring stats, I found this very interesting example of how things will get difficult for the balancing boys when we have 32GW connected windpower in 2020 (as opposed to the 2430MW metered windpower at present).
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/107/forecastandouturn.jpg
There was a shortfall of 495MW in projected wind output this morning, and similar yesterday. Factor that up to 2020 generation levels and we are short of 6518MW, or slightly more than the total nuclear, pump storage and conventional hydro generation at breakfast time today.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5866/sep15amc.jpg

Rheghead

15-Sep-10, 11:10

There was a shortfall of 495MW in projected wind output this morning, and similar yesterday. Factor that up to 2020 generation levels and we are short of 6518MW, or slightly more than the total nuclear, pump storage and conventional hydro generation at breakfast time today.

Marginal plant generation will take care of that. :roll:

so if you are totally ignorant of strategic energy planning, how come you know what the wind generation is in 2020??? Everyone else seems to google it ok...

ywindythesecond

15-Sep-10, 12:03

Marginal plant generation will take care of that. :roll:

so if you are totally ignorant of strategic energy planning, how come you know what the wind generation is in 2020??? Everyone else seems to google it ok...

6GW is hardly marginal and hoping for 32GW of windpower through market intervention measures is hardly Strategic Planning. 16GW of oil and coal generation is due to close down in 2016 as a result of the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. There goes most of the marginal plant you refer to, and there is no Strategic Plan in place!

Rheghead

15-Sep-10, 15:42

6GW is hardly marginal and hoping for 32GW of windpower through market intervention measures is hardly Strategic Planning. 16GW of oil and coal generation is due to close down in 2016 as a result of the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. There goes most of the marginal plant you refer to, and there is no Strategic Plan in place!

Marginal plant is set to increase. Have you not been listening? Just google it lol

orkneycadian

16-Sep-10, 13:19

Rheghead

16-Sep-10, 14:52

For someone who claims to be very concerned about our countries energy generation picture.

He's not interested in energy generation, he's just interested in stopping wind farms and getting his name in the paper, wanting to feel important, self promotion, the local hero that wants to be a thorn in the Governments side, that sort of thing.

ywindythesecond

17-Sep-10, 09:06

So now its the turn of the weather forecasters to get it in the neck! We were quite glad here the last day or so that the wind has not been as strong as forecast, but it seems that its not pleasing some!

One thing puzzles me though. If ywindy is so worried about the complete energy picture in this country, why never a cheep when there is a loss of generation other than wind? Kingsnorth coal station in Kent has been off at least twice this year due to fires (seems odd to be complaining about fire in a coal powered station!), with the loss of up to 2GW of generation each time, the most recent in July.

Anecdotal reports here http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2010/july/12/power_station_battles_fire.aspx

and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8438360.stm

Now, we can bet our last penny, that had a fire in a 2MW wind turbine anywhere in the UK occurred, it would have been explicitly reported here, and on some other local forums. Yet, 2 fires in a 2GW coal station (1,000 times the capacity of the 2 MW wind turbine above), putting it offline both times in 7 months or so, never warrants a mention.

Similarly, the sudden loss of about 600 MW of capacity at Torness in February, http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Nuclear-reactor-shut-down-at.6046747.jp gets no mention, despite producing a very sudden and (probably) without warning loss of a significant lump of generation.

For someone who claims to be very concerned about our countries energy generation picture, an awful lot of significant and sudden events in non wind generation attract no comment, yet, a forecaster overestimates the wind and it generates a flurry of charts and data!

p.s. It also appears that the "balancing boys" coped quite well with the sudden loss of Kingsnorth and reactor 1 at Torness, without the lights going out! Funny that....

Edited: Said the forecaster underestimated the predicted wind - Meant of course, overestimated!

No blame to the weather forecasters, it is an impossible task.

Regarding major plant drop outs, it is entirely predictable that this will happen at some time, therefore NG maintains a Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) for these events. It is also entirely predictable that wind will drop to almost zero frequently, therefore NG place little reliance upon it, and therefore do not require to maintain a greatly enhanced STOR as shown in this extract from NG’s tender documentation for STOR services.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7246/storr.jpg

This is a scenario, it is not a plan, and it is not a strategy, but under this scenario, wind capacity rises by 1374%, conventional generation falls by 7.7%, demand falls by 2.4% and STORR rises by174%.

Connected capacity rises by 22,485MW to serve a reduction in demand of 1400MW. What is the sense in that?

If you take wind out of the equation, in 2009/10 there is a margin of conventional generation over demand of 31.5%. In 2025/26, there is a margin of 24%.

Why don’t we just build an extra two reliable conventional power stations and forget the extra 12,594 turbines? (Based on 2.25MW per turbine).

And regarding your relief from the wind, in spite of September being very windy so far, average generation this month from the 2430MW of connected windpower metered by National Grid has still not reached the 30% average claimed for all turbines by the wind industry. As of midnight last night, the average was 726MW, and 729MW is 30%.

Bet you a tenner that the final September average is less than 30%.

orkneycadian

17-Sep-10, 17:03

ywindythesecond

17-Sep-10, 18:31

Strewth almighty... :roll:.

726/2430 might not be 30%, but it is 29.87654% (odd but coincidental sequence!) Is that not close enough for you to be 30% or are we splitting hairs to 5 decimal places to try and prove a point?

In any case, how accurate is your data? The last time I looked, the first one I looked at (Spurness) was overstated in installed capacity by 33% (whoops,sorry, 33.333333%). Is that still the case, for if it is, it makes the 5th decimal point accuracy rather insignificant! How many more errors in the data I dont know-I looked at just 1 and it was way out, so there may well be others that are wrong too and skew the results by an awful lot more than a 5th decimal place!

I suggest you look at the important points and forget the trivia.

As regards average anything, there needs to be as much above average as there is below. So far this windy September, we are marginally more than 100% short of wind generation to achieve the average claimed by the wind industry.

In the scenario by National Grid, it looks at the equivalent of 12,594 No 2.25MW turbines being built to service a reduction in demand of 1400MW. This lunacy arises because this country has no Strategic Energy Plan.

You deride my information source, National Grid itself. Where else would you look for information on generation? Do you have a font of knowledge which no-one else is aware of? (Apart from Reggy of course.)

ducati

17-Sep-10, 23:14

Guys, this is completely unnecessary. Any idiot (and I count myself a proud member of this elite group) can look at the turbines every day and see that they don't turn, way more often than they do. So sometimes they are a useful eyesore, but much more often, they are a useless eyesore. :eek:

Rheghead

18-Sep-10, 02:52

Connected capacity rises by 22,485MW to serve a reduction in demand of 1400MW. What is the sense in that?

I see that 14GW of coal generation is to retire.

That equates to approx 12.5% of the UK's total Carbon dioxide emissions, I don't expect ywindy to be impressed by that since he doesn't accept greenhouse gases are warming the Earth up.:roll:

orkneycadian

18-Sep-10, 07:19

Guys, this is completely unnecessary.

I would agree! :) - I expect though, from past (org) performance, we can assume that within 7 days, another thread will appear with some more erroneous figures, or some other thinly disguised objection!

I've only been following this "debate" a short time, but its soon become apparant that Rheghead is right - Its only an anti wind turbine campaign presented differently in an effort to set it apart from the usual point made by the minority, viz, "I personally don't like the look of them"

A true debate on energy would be interesting, but this one is only ever anti wind and pro coal/gas/everything else. 3MW of difference in wind output (729 - 726 MW above) appears to be hugely important when it can be used to claim that wind has not met its "target" of 30% (where that figure comes from as a definitive target, who knows....), but (at least) 2.75 MW of error in the installed capacity appears to be dismissed as "trivia" and picking faults in data.

A windless day across the UK, and the resulting low amount of generation from wind is held aloft as some sort of trophy, with consequential graphs of how hard it must be for National Grid to cope with such flutuations in generation capacity. Meanwhile, large, traditional power stations falling off the grid are dismissed as "entirely predicatable", "will happen from time to time" and explained away that NG will maintain reserve for such events. That 3 random examples of such events have arisen from fires of various kinds, seems to generate (no pun intended!) no concern whatsoever, yet, I think we can reasonably assume that if any wind turbine in the UK so much as coughs or splutters, it will be cited as an example of how unreliable and dangerous they are. That is, if postings on another Caithness website relating to wind turbines is anything to go by ;)

ywindythesecond

18-Sep-10, 10:34

I would agree! :) - I expect though, from past (org) performance, we can assume that within 7 days, another thread will appear with some more erroneous figures, or some other thinly disguised objection!

I've only been following this "debate" a short time, but its soon become apparant that Rheghead is right - Its only an anti wind turbine campaign presented differently in an effort to set it apart from the usual point made by the minority, viz, "I personally don't like the look of them"

A true debate on energy would be interesting, but this one is only ever anti wind and pro coal/gas/everything else. 3MW of difference in wind output (729 - 726 MW above) appears to be hugely important when it can be used to claim that wind has not met its "target" of 30% (where that figure comes from as a definitive target, who knows....), but (at least) 2.75 MW of error in the installed capacity appears to be dismissed as "trivia" and picking faults in data.

A windless day across the UK, and the resulting low amount of generation from wind is held aloft as some sort of trophy, with consequential graphs of how hard it must be for National Grid to cope with such flutuations in generation capacity. Meanwhile, large, traditional power stations falling off the grid are dismissed as "entirely predicatable", "will happen from time to time" and explained away that NG will maintain reserve for such events. That 3 random examples of such events have arisen from fires of various kinds, seems to generate (no pun intended!) no concern whatsoever, yet, I think we can reasonably assume that if any wind turbine in the UK so much as coughs or splutters, it will be cited as an example of how unreliable and dangerous they are. That is, if postings on another Caithness website relating to wind turbines is anything to go by ;)
And they call me boring. Here is where the reference to 30% comes from. The bit in red is what I take issue with because it is just not true.
http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html
Electricity Produced

The amount of electricity produced by a wind energy development can be estimated by
Electricity produced = B x 0.3 x 8760
where B = the rated capacity of the wind energy development in kW
and constants 0.3 and 8760 have the same meaning as above
This is only an average estimation given that in many places, particularly Scotland and offshore, the wind speeds are higher leading to a greater electricity production per turbine, as power output is a cube of the wind speed.
On average then, a typical onshore turbine in the UK, rated at 2 MW, produces 5.3 million units of electricity each year. This is equivalent to 5,256 MWh or 5.3 GWh.

orkneycadian

18-Sep-10, 14:35

And they call me boring. :grin:

So the 30% is only an estimate then? And 29.87654% is not good enough for you? :roll: - Even more strewth almighty than previously!

Ref the production - A 2 MW turbine in Orkney or Caithness will easily produce 5.3 GWh in a year - They do, and the meters confirm this (proper, sealed meters in substations, as opposed to data on some website!).

Easy answer then - Build lots of turbines in Orkney and Caithness! They will then easily surpass the 30% threshold you have such a bee in your bonnet about, and maybe you will be happy!

For someone who appears to be very anti wind turbines in Caithness, your building a very good case to have them there (and here!) where capacity factors will easy surpass your desired threshold, rather than further south in the country where they won't! [lol]

Boring? Sometimes, but you do give us a laugh at times as well!

ywindythesecond

19-Sep-10, 10:19

:grin:

Ref the production - A 2 MW turbine in Orkney or Caithness will easily produce 5.3 GWh in a year - They do, and the meters confirm this (proper, sealed meters in substations, as opposed to data on some website!).

For the benefit of others, your 5.3GW is arrived at by:
2MW x 24hrs x 365 days = 17520MW capacity x 30% Load Factor = 5256MWh, or 5.3GWh. So what you are saying is that Orkney and Caithness turbines operate at 30% load factor or more.

According to the OFGEM website, and they are the people who hand out the certificates, Spurness Windfarm earned 68611 ROCs out of a potential 301158 MWh between April 2006 and June 2010, which is a load factor of 22.78%.

If you tell me the names of the windfarms you refer to I will check their records as well.

However, it might well be that as there is no record on the OFGEM website for August 2007, you will consider OFGEM to be just as unreliable as National Grid.

Rheghead

19-Sep-10, 13:07

The national average load factor for 2009 was 28% as far as I can work out from the data.

orkneycadian

19-Sep-10, 18:06

First one I have looked up (and maybe the last for the OFGEM website is slooooooowwwwww!)

Northfield wind turbine - Installed capacity = 850 kW

Number of sets of data between April 2006 and March 2010 = 42

Maximum possible production - April 2006 - March 2010 = 0.85 x 24 hours x 30 days x 42 months = 25,704 MWh

Certificates issued = 11,897

11,897 / 25,704 = 46.28%

How do you get this to be less than 30%? Even with your level of accuracy with percentages, whichever way I round this, I still get it to be quite a lot higher than 30%.

If I can be *****, I'll go and check some more before teatime, but that OFGEM site is painfully slow....

orkneycadian

19-Sep-10, 18:14

Second one - My baby 6 kW in the field at the back of the house.

Installed capacity 6 kW. Maximum possible production between commisioning (19th October last year) and today = 6 kW x 24 hours x 335 days = 48,240 kWh

Actual production = somewhere around 17,500 kWh (not checked closely, and can't at the moment)

Percentage = 17,500 / 48,240 = 36.28%

Again, wll over 30% I believe, despite one of the most windless years, and especially winters ever seen. And this from a mere 15m above ground level, a mere 60m above sea level!

By the way, this one doesnt feature on the OFGEM website as I have never yet gotten around to claiming the ROC's. So don't worry ywindy, youre not paying for this one!

orkneycadian

19-Sep-10, 18:24

Third one - Thorfinn Wind Energy Project (NM1500) Dug from the OFGEM site, eventually, but I notice that the data between April 2006 and March 2010 only has 40 months, and not 48 - Will go back and check Northfield.....

On the basis that the data given is for 40 months, and not 48....

Installed capacity = 1.5 MW

Maximum production = 1.5 x 24hours x 30 days x 40 months = 43,200 MWh

Certificates issued = 18,750

Capacity factor = 43.40%

Again, how do you get this to be less than 30%?

scotsboy

19-Sep-10, 18:30

ywindythesecond

19-Sep-10, 18:45

[quote=ywindythesecond;762579]
If you tell me the names of the windfarms you refer to I will check their records as well.
quote]

Now you have told me the names of the windfarms you referred to, I will check their records as well.

Please note that I have not made any prior reference to Northfield or Thorfinn data from the OFGEM website and I would thank you not to ascribe statements to me which I have not made.

Was I right with the OFGEM data on Spurness? And yes, the OFGEM site is a real ballbreaker. It takes very sad people to persevere with it.

orkneycadian

20-Sep-10, 19:13

The case for wind turbines in the North of Scotland gets stronger and stronger!

I gather then that when posting data on how poor wind turbines are, you like the contries average figure, which is obviosly lower than it in in the windy north (isles). The 2 spot values above for windfarm scale turbines (we'll leave my peedie one on a 15m tower out of it!) are roughly round about 45%, which is half as much again as the UK average, and probably twice as high as the lower ones in the country.

So what you are highlighting then is that wind turbines work an awful lot better in Caithness and Orkney than they do in the rest of the country? (I sense that Holmes chap lurking about somewhere again...;)),

Sounds like a very strong case for lots more wind turbines in Caithness and Orkney!

BTW, Spurness's capacity factor does not surprise me, but then thats how that operator chooses to run that site. Its like if a little old dear buys a Fiesta and does 500 miles a year in it just to collect her pension, its no bad reflection on Ford, or cars in general, that thats how she chooses to run her car.

Data from other places in Orkney, geographically around Spurness show far higher capacity factors than 22.78%, highlighting that what creates a low factor on Spurness is very site specific.

Rheghead

20-Sep-10, 19:23

Causeymire's rolling 12 month average load factor is 28.9%, Forss 41.9%, Boulfruich 30.7% and Bilbster is 28.4%.

Rheghead

20-Sep-10, 19:56

According to the OFGEM website, and they are the people who hand out the certificates, Spurness Windfarm earned 68611 ROCs out of a potential 301158 MWh between April 2006 and June 2010, which is a load factor of 22.78%.

LOL!!

You've picked your data very carefully but you are no match for the King of Checking-uppering.

The Spurness windfarm data is incomplete for the highlighted years so the average will be down by what you say but it doesn't mean the wind farm was under performing!!

Annual Summary

Generating Station Name : Spurness Windfarm - A,C Ofgem RO ID : R00056SQSC
Technology : Wind : On-shore wind Installed Capacity (kW) : 8,250
Country : Scotland
Notes :
1. RO period is the 12 months from 1 April to 31 March.
2. Capacity is the total installed generating capacity in kW..
3. Load factor is the annual load factor unless followed by *, which denotes
there is an incomplete year of data.
4. The relationship between MWh and number of ROCs from April 2009.
depends on the RO band into which the generator and technology falls.
2004/2005 8250 17.4% * 4,176 4,176
2005/2006 8250 26.1% 18,851 18,851
2006/2007 8250 23.5% 17,003 17,003
2007/2008 8250 9.4% * 6,249 6,249
2008/2009 8250 33.1% 23,952 23,952
2009/2010 8250 27.5% 19,883 19,883

bekisman

20-Sep-10, 19:59

Well I never! (Hi folks)
I really, really thought these wind turbines would save the planet, I'm now so disappointed, in fact I'm near disillusioned
Wind Turbines do Nothing for Emissions-reduction Goals (Spiegal online)
Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue..
Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.
But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.

Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected.
Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public. Even Germany's government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications.
That means: wind turbines and solar energy plants are revolutionizing Germany's mix of power sources, creating jobs and making the country more independent from imports. But they aren't helping in the fight against climate change.
In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall.
That is exactly what happened in recent trading. A certificate to emit a ton of CO2 cost almost nothing. As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies.
On the contrary. Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.
This phenomenon is especially apparent whenever the sustainable energy industry grows more quickly than anticipated -- as in recent years when growth in the renewable energy branch quickly rendered the EU Commission's CO2 plans obsolete.
More here I'm sad to say:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

Rheghead

20-Sep-10, 21:19

[SIZE=2]Well I never! (Hi folks)
I really, really thought these wind turbines would save the planet, I'm now so disappointed, in fact I'm near disillusioned

You should be disillusioned with the progress on renewable energy. It has got a whole long way to go yet!

ywindythesecond

20-Sep-10, 23:53

LOL!!

You've picked your data very carefully but you are no match for the King of Checking-uppering.

The Spurness windfarm data is incomplete for the highlighted years so the average will be down by what you say but it doesn't mean the wind farm was under performing!!

I didn't cherry-pick, I went straight to OFGEM but I raise my hat to your checking -uppering. Where did you get that? OFGEM or REF?

However, incomplete data does not necessarily imply that the average will be down by what I say, it may well be up, and the windfarm may be underperforming to a greater degree. I excluded August 2007 from my calculations because data was incomplete. On closer inspection, the whole 2007 data for Spurness is inconsistent. More tomorrow.

Rheghead

21-Sep-10, 00:28

it was ref

orkneycadian

21-Sep-10, 09:23

Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram.

Well, blow me away! I've been had!

Here was me genuinely believing that the sudden drop in heating oil consumption we've been experiencing since the 19th of October last year, was related to the commisioning of the wind turbine, the very same day. Now it turns out its not! Sheesh! :confused

I can only conclude that the reason that the oil level has only gone down a little bit (as opposed to normally requiring refilling by now) is that some anti-wind turbine activist has been peeing in my tank! [evil]

Some things that could do with explanation though;

The boiler is much quieter than it used to be - Should I send for a service technician? In fact, I have hardly heard it run since October last year. It did make some of its usual noise in January, but has been virtually silent since.
The house is a lot warmer than it used to be. Man, its even warm now when no-ones at home! And 420 litres of spring water remains piping hot for baths at all times. Should I warn all anti wind turbine activists to get themselves checked out at their doctors, as their urine must have a very high calorific content?
The bills from Hydro Electric have retracted to little more than the standing charge - Should I report my meter as being faulty?
I assume that for the above quoted claim to be true, the CO2 output from the ~1,500 litres of kerosene I haven't burned is the same as the CO2 output from the ~1,500 litres of kerosene I would have burned? Can someone explain that, as I am struggling.... How does not burning kerosene still result in the same number of grammes of CO2 being emmitted?

So many questions, so few answers.....

Its a good job there are some on here that are specialists in answer provision! Please send answers as soon as possible, as winter is coming, and I might need to get my boiler checked out before then! :D

bekisman

21-Sep-10, 11:45

Well, ******* me! I've been had!

Here was me genuinely believing that the sudden drop in heating oil consumption we've been experiencing since the 19th of October last year, was related to the commisioning of the wind turbine, the very same day. Now it turns out its not! Sheesh! :confused

I can only conclude that the reason that the oil level has only gone down a little bit (as opposed to normally requiring refilling by now) is that some anti-wind turbine activist has been peeing in my tank! [evil]

Some things that could do with explanation though;

The boiler is much quieter than it used to be - Should I send for a service technician? In fact, I have hardly heard it run since October last year. It did make some of its usual noise in January, but has been virtually silent since.
The house is a lot warmer than it used to be. Man, its even warm now when no-ones at home! And 420 litres of spring water remains piping hot for baths at all times. Should I warn all anti wind turbine activists to get themselves checked out at their doctors, as their urine must have a very high calorific content.
The bills from Hydro Electric have retracted to little more than the standing charge - Should I report my meter as being faulty?
I assume that for the above quoted claim to be true, the CO2 output from the ~1,500 litres of kerosene I haven't burned is the same as the CO2 output from the ~1,500 litres of kerosene I would have burned? Can someone explain that, as I am struggling.... How does not burning kerosene still result in the same number of grammes of CO2 being emmitted?
So many questions, so few answers.....

Its a good job there are some on here that are specialists in answer provision! Please send answers as soon as possible, as winter is coming, and I might need to get my boiler checked out before then! :D

Hey, as was said in Shakespeare in Henry IV part 2; 'don't shoot the messenger'; why don't you try insulting the Germans for a change, you might show a bit of wit: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...606763,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/...606763,00.html)

orkneycadian

21-Sep-10, 13:28

Does this mean then that your saying you only relayed the message, without vouching for, or verifying its accuracy?

bekisman

21-Sep-10, 19:40

Does this mean then that your saying you only relayed the message, without vouching for, or verifying its accuracy?

Eh? oh come now, surely you're being a silly billy here? do YOU verify the accuracy of everything you read ? that every atom of your postings is directly from yourself and not 'relayed'.. hmm of course not. I have no reason to doubt Anselm Waldermann and the article.

Your twaddle; "Should I warn all anti wind turbine activists to get themselves checked out at their doctors, as their urine must have a very high calorific content? " is a typical mocking knee-jerk by those who have been taken in and worship at the feet of turbines, pray tell [a] how many power stations have closed through this increase in your darling turbines. [b] how many farmers and land-owners have made vast profits. [c] how much has the cost of electricity come down.. And of course the 178,00 pages - on Google alone - by simply inputting "wind farm scam" tells a tale.. but then I've not verified or vouched that, have I?

Rheghead

21-Sep-10, 19:56

Anselm Waldermann=Christopher Booker :roll:

orkneycadian

22-Sep-10, 10:40

I do try to make sure the things I post in this thread are accurate. A problem though is the general sweeping statements made in this thread, and similar ones, that give others a jaded view on windpower.

For example, an earlier posting claimed that a new record for production had been established, omitting to mention that the recorded data accounted for only 51% of the installed capacity. This gives a much poorer view of wind power than it actually is. To give ywindy his due, this appears to have been a one off slip of the keyboard, as usually he remembers to caveat his figures with "metered" although the way the figures are presented never really make it clear that actual production is likely to be almost twice that quoted.

Yep, the posting is silly, but this thread can be so dry, it needs some silliness to keep me from getting utterly bored with the blinkered views of some! What the silliness highlights is that the claim in your reference simply cannot be true. It is not possible for my oil consumption to have fallen by ~1500 litres a year, and for not a single gram of carbon to have been saved. So one single turbine, of a mere 6 kW rating has singlehandely disproven a wildly erroneous sweeping generalisation. There is on ambiguity in the claim you posted - it is very clear that the authour thinks that not 1 gram has been saved. That, I think, is a lot sillier than my attempt at humourous diversion above!

Rheghead

22-Sep-10, 10:49

it is very clear that the authour thinks that not 1 gram has been saved. That, I think, is a lot sillier than my attempt at humourous diversion above!

I googled the author of the article and used the translation thingy and the author seems to be ridiculed a lot for that article. A bit like getting a botanist to comment on electrical engineering. [lol]

Aaldtimer

03-Oct-10, 16:55

Interesting article in the American Thinker...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

:eek:

Rheghead

03-Oct-10, 19:26

Interesting article in the American Thinker...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

:eek:

Totally factually incorrect, probably the worst piece of journalism I've seen. :eek:

bekisman

03-Oct-10, 19:54

Very interesting piece that Aaldtimer, of course there are those who would defend wind farms to the death - Smerral Wind farm, for example; perfectly reasonable to erect turbines with people living less than half a mile away?

"If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end." (quote from above link #131)

crayola

03-Oct-10, 20:08

Totally factually incorrect, probably the worst piece of journalism I've seen. :eek:
I agree with you Rheg. Every article I've ever seen in that rag has been total rubbish. That one is so stupid and so wrong about almost everything.

bekisman

03-Oct-10, 22:20

Seems they have the same con 'over there'..
The First Great Wind Rush
The year was 1981. Congress enacted financial incentives to support the wind industry in California and elsewhere. This was the first era of modern day wind called The Great California Wind Rush. It was short lived however and in 1985 all the financial incentives were withdrawn and the whole Large Wind Power industry collapsed. The business model can not work without taxpayer subsidies and incentives and without this the business model is completely unworkable. In 1985 in Altamont Pass, San Gorgonio Pass and Tehachapi Pass more than 14,000 wind turbines that had been built between 1981 and 1985 were quickly abandoned by the Large Wind Farm developers. They still stand there today almost 30 years later, unworkable, rusted and broken. A complete failure in public policy by the Government.
The Second Great Wind Rush
It was the decade of the 90’s and the wool was about to be pulled over the American taxpayer’s eyes once again. This time by a multibillion dollar politically connected corporation called Enron headed by the late infamous Ken Lay. He saw this failed public policy as an opportunity to reap tens of billions of dollars at the expense of hard working taxpayers. Enron with the help of Ken Lay’s leadership, who’s scams cost innocent people their life savings, set in motion a plan to lobby Congress. They disguised their plan as an environmentally friendly “renewable energy” project, and packaged it in with their “electricity deregulation” lobbying and political maneuvering efforts. Their efforts worked and they got laws passed at both the state and federal levels. These laws would do the following

1.) Permit them to tie into the grid
2.) Require utilities to buy the unreliable and unpredictable electricity under “Renewable Portfolio Standards”
3.) Allow them to sell “Renewable Energy Certificates” separate and apart from the electricity
4.) Provide them with an inflation-adjusted 10-year “Production Tax Credit” that now equals $.019/kWh
5.) Allow tax write-off of the 20-year project cost using an accelerated 5-year double-declining balance method (40% per year)

These subsidies are costing taxpayers and utility ratepayers in America to this day over $1 BILLION per year!
Even after Enron’s mile long lists of fraud were exposed and they declared bankruptcy and as millions of people lost their life savings because of Ken Lay and Enron, the Large Wind Energy business lived on. General Electric (GE) purchased Enron’s wind turbine manufacturing business, while Florida Power and Light (FPL) purchased Enron’s wind farm projects and adopted their business model. Florida Power and Light (FPL) has carried on Enron’s tradition of lobbying Congress to get what they want and according to the political watchdog group Opensecrets.org the $26 billion corporation has spent $30million lobbying members of Congress since 1998.
http://www.saveourstateri.org/wind_power_problems.htm (http://www.saveourstateri.org/wind_power_problems.htm)

ywindythesecond

03-Oct-10, 22:41

I agree with you Rheg. Every article I've ever seen in that rag has been total rubbish. That one is so stupid and so wrong about almost everything.

Well Crayola, that is a very strong statement! Perhaps you would like to explain what is stupid and wrong in it?

Rheghead

03-Oct-10, 22:47

These subsidies are costing taxpayers and utility ratepayers in America to this day over $1 BILLION per year!

The subsidy in the UK doesn't come out of the UK taxpayer's purse.

However, the subsidy to the UK nuclear industry (a much smaller country) does come from the taxpayer's purse to the tune of £2.3 billion per year which is just short of $4 billion and is set to rise as we enter into the death throes of the last generation of nuke plants. When they decomission wind turbines then they just remove or rebuild on the concrete base and send the steel off for recycling if needed.

ywindythesecond

04-Oct-10, 07:07

The subsidy in the UK doesn't come out of the UK taxpayer's purse.

However, the subsidy to the UK nuclear industry (a much smaller country) does come from the taxpayer's purse to the tune of £2.3 billion per year which is just short of $4 billion and is set to rise as we enter into the death throes of the last generation of nuke plants. When they decomission wind turbines then they just remove or rebuild on the concrete base and send the steel off for recycling if needed.

You should complete the sentence:
"The subsidy in the UK doesn't come out of the UK taxpayer's purse" it comes from the consumer's electricity bill and it is rising every time a windfarm is connected, and all the time you pay for wind generated electricity, you also pay for the conventional plant which will continue to provide your electricity when the wind drops.

In case you hadn't noticed, the current UK Government has said no subsidy for nuclear and the industry is still keen to get on with it. Take ROCs away and windpower will disappear, without ROCs there would be no windpower, same as there was before ROCs, and why? Simply because no-one in their right mind would place reliance on a power source which can just disappear completely uncontrolled unless there was a political or commercial intervention.

Time for stats.
On 6th September, the highest wind generation recorded by National Grid so far was achieved – 1877MW, from 2430MW connected capacity. Generation from the same turbines which created the "record" were producing, at one point on, 1st September – 6MW, 2nd September – 11MW, 3rd September – 26MW, and on 9th September – 38MW.

Two days ago, the 2430MW metered wind capacity rose and fell by more than 1200MW or about half of the total, in a 24hour period.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9320/oct2amoline.jpg

Note that this 1200MW was not available before it rose and not available again after it fell away.

Rheghead

04-Oct-10, 08:29

You should complete the sentence:
"The subsidy in the UK doesn't come out of the UK taxpayer's purse" it comes from the consumer's electricity bill and it is rising every time a windfarm is connected, and all the time you pay for wind generated electricity, you also pay for the conventional plant which will continue to provide your electricity when the wind drops.

You should add the next sentence.

It is estimated that costs of onshore wind energy is expected to break even with other forms of generation by early as 2015 due to maturity in the energy market and rising cost of fossil fuels and it is imperative that we have wind in place to buffer the high cost of fossil fuels.

Time for stats.
On 6th September, the highest wind generation recorded by National Grid so far was achieved – 1877MW, from 2430MW connected capacity. Generation from the same turbines which created the "record" were producing, at one point on, 1st September – 6MW, 2nd September – 11MW, 3rd September – 26MW, and on 9th September – 38MW.

Two days ago, the 2430MW metered wind capacity rose and fell by more than 1200MW or about half of the total, in a 24hour period.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9320/oct2amoline.jpg

Note that this 1200MW was not available before it rose and not available again after it fell away.

But that wind energy releases very little carbon dioxide which incidentally is blamed for global warming which will put a third of the Earth's species under threat of extinction, not to mention put coastal areas in danger of flooding and increasing markedly catastrophic weather events.

I think we are well aware of wind power's limitations and foibles just as much as we are about nuclear, wave etc. The fact is we need more wind and sooner rather than later if we are to avert catastrophe, I think that is worth paying for.

And as we are on to stats, here is one. A 1GW nuclear power station consumes 162 tonnes of uranium per year and uranium mining is viable at present prices if the concentration of the ore is 50 ppm so if the yield was 80% then rock removal per year to find the uranium would be over 4 million tonnes of rock per year just to feed one reactor!! Imagine a hole growing that big per year on your doorstep? What an eyesore that would be?

NIMBY or in anyone's backyard?

orkneycadian

04-Oct-10, 13:24

It is estimated that costs of onshore wind energy is expected to break even with other forms of generation by early as 2015 due to maturity in the energy market and rising cost of fossil fuels

In these parts, it already does, due to the far higher yields compared to further south. So again, the local anti's shoot themselves in the foot, by actually highlighting that for best effect, the UK's wind energy projects should be concentrated in this corner of the country! [lol] Bring them on!

ywindy - Still using just 51% of the countries turbines for your absolute data figures I see? Don't you get fed up trying to hoodwink the public with these figures? You do choose your words carefully I see, but you would mislead a lot less folk if you included the very realistic caveat - "These figures account for just 51% of the UK's installed wind power capacity, but are all that are metered by my data source. - For a more accurate picture of the whole of the country, I suggest you multiply any kW/MW/Gw figure I have quoted by ~1.96 in order to be more representative" - To save you typing it each time, you could include it in your signature?

The quote from American Thinker is, I agree Rheghead, laughable. Its main point seems to be that some very old turbines no longer run. Micon 108's? The wind turbine equivelent of the Mark IV Ford Cortina! If there are as many Mark IV Cortinas in daily use as there are 108's, that would be a major achievement. But I expect most Cortinas of all vintages are well scrapped, or sitting in air conditioned garages owened by collectors. Maybe a few are still daily drivers, but most I expect are long gone. What the point in highlighting that some 25 year old plus turbines are now defunct is somewhat beyond me, other than highlighting that the US are a bit behind us in cleaning up behind them. By way of example, Burgar Hill on Orkney, home of the experimental turbines in the 1980's, was cleared of all redundant ex prototypes as far back as 2000, when the last redundant 1980's turbine was cleared from the site.

So if the yanks are not so good at tidying up behind them, (whether that be turbines, tractors or cars or miscellaneous forign countries that they have invaded!), then it seems the point made should be how bad the yanks are at tidying up behind them!

p.s. I would also be inetersted to hear if anyone with a 2010 model car of similar general design (4 doors, ~1.6 litre petrol engine) finds it to be less reliable, less fuel efficient and more maintenance intensive than a Mark IV Cortina, even when the latter was new! ;)

Rheghead

04-Oct-10, 14:50

The quote from American Thinker is, I agree Rheghead, laughable.

Indeed, and here is another quote made to misinform

but wind "capacity" is calculated assuming perfect wind 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.

Capacity is quoted like it says but the author was on about performance which the wind industry never boast is the same as capacity.

You only have to view the RenewableUK website to see that the author was lying.

orkneycadian

04-Oct-10, 17:24

Interesting article in the American Thinker..

Like so many stories, it gets more interesting the further you delve....

The story portrays a picture of rot in Hawaii that sets in, a mere 9 years after construction, in 1994. But all that is, is a transfer of lease. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Lae) says the following....

In 1987 the Kamaoa Wind Farm began operation with thirty-seven Mitsubishi 250 kW wind turbines with an operationally typical total peak output of 7.5 MW.[/URL] By 2006 the turbines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Lae#cite_note-20).... were falling into disrepair, and they were finally shut down on August 15, 2006. At the end of August 2006, components for a new set of wind turbines were transported to South Point. The Pakini Nui project consists of 14 General Electric wind turbines constructed ..... about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the old Kamaoa wind farm. Completed in April 2007, Pakini Nui supplies up to 20.5 MW of power to the island electricity grid of Hawaiian Electric Industries[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Lae#cite_note-21"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric). The wind farm is operated by Tawhiri Power, LLC. It is the southern-most wind farm in the United States.

So, if I read this right, the original wind farm became uneconomical to keep going 19 years after commisioning (not bad considering the usually quoted 20 year lifespan) and was shutdown on the 15th of August, a mere 2 weeks before components started arriving for a wind project almost 3 times the size? Hardly sounds like the actions of an island disenchanted with wind energy!

The American Thinker story suggests that the local utility company (HEI) cut off the power in 2006 - Probably a wise thing to do once the wind farm was decommisioned, and probably in readiness for connecting the new 20.5 MW windfarm, 1.5 miles away!

So it would appear from this Wiki article at least, the Hawaiians are quite happy with their wind power - Happy enough anyway to replace an obsolete wind farm they had kept going for 19 (21 if you take the American Thinker start date to be correct) years with one almost 3 times the size. All they need to do now is figure out how to tidy up their old windfarm and sell it for scrap!

ywindythesecond

04-Oct-10, 22:04

It is estimated that costs of onshore wind energy is expected to break even with other forms of generation by early as 2015 due to maturity in the energy market and rising cost of fossil fuels and it is imperative that we have wind in place to buffer the high cost of fossil fuels.

Could you provide sources or explanations for the highlighted phrases please?

Rheghead

04-Oct-10, 22:17

Could you provide sources or explanations for the highlighted phrases please?

Would it make a difference to your view about wind power if I did?

ywindythesecond

04-Oct-10, 22:24

ywindy - Still using just 51% of the countries turbines for your absolute data figures I see? Don't you get fed up trying to hoodwink the public with these figures? You do choose your words carefully I see, but you would mislead a lot less folk if you included the very realistic caveat - "These figures account for just 51% of the UK's installed wind power capacity, but are all that are metered by my data source. - For a more accurate picture of the whole of the country, I suggest you multiply any kW/MW/Gw figure I have quoted by ~1.96 in order to be more representative" - To save you typing it each time, you could include it in your signature?

I don't have a queue of people complaining about being misled. What would be misleading would be to factor up the instantaneously recorded metered wind generation data pro-rata to connected capacity when there is no means of verifying it. The likely result would be an overstatement of generation because most of the 49% which is unseen by National Grid is in England and Wales which is known to be generally less productive than in Scotland which constitutes the majority of the metered generation.

In any case, it is not how much wind generation can be achieved which is important, it is how frequently wind generation across UK drops to negligible levels. On 2nd August 2010, the 2110MW connected windpower metered by National Grid produced at one point 1MW. Applying your factor of 1.96 the entire UK windfleet might have been producing 1.96MW.

Damn!! Here I am, nearly 100% understated again!!

The data I report on is verifiable, its limitations are known. When you can find a better source of information, tell us all.

Rheghead

04-Oct-10, 22:29

I don't have a queue of people complaining about being misled. What would be misleading would be to factor up the instantaneously recorded metered wind generation data pro-rata to connected capacity when there is no means of verifying it. The likely result would be an overstatement of generation because most of the 49% which is unseen by National Grid is in England and Wales which is known to be generally less productive than in Scotland which constitutes the majority of the metered generation.

In any case, it is not how much wind generation can be achieved which is important, it is how frequently wind generation across UK drops to negligible levels. On 2nd August 2010, the 2110MW connected windpower metered by National Grid produced at one point 1MW. Applying your factor of 1.96 the entire UK windfleet might have been producing 1.96MW.

Damn!! Here I am, nearly 100% understated again!!

The data I report on is verifiable, its limitations are known. When you can find a better source of information, tell us all.

Irrelevant, marginal plant would step in to provide that power.

ywindythesecond

04-Oct-10, 23:40

Irrelevant, marginal plant would step in to provide that power.
How much "marginal" plant will we need available to step in when 80% of Scotland's energy is to come from renewables, and what would that plant consist of?

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 12:54

What would be misleading would be to factor up the instantaneously recorded metered wind generation data pro-rata to connected capacity when there is no means of verifying it.

]I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

Come on ywindy - Get a grip...

Either your ~50% data is good enough to be representative of the other half, or its not. Make your mind up and stop changing your tune to suit the situation!

Droopy

05-Oct-10, 14:37

Quote:

It is now well documented that wind turbines generate noise, both audible and
subsonic. There is a growing body of evidence from residents living near operational
wind farms that this noise is debilitating, incessant, irritating and destroys residential amenity.

Quote:

The effect on the landscape would be detrimental to local residents, tourists, and house prices.

Dont hold your breaths guys! Im still waiting for an actual local example from ywindy on the above comments from his own, or part owned, or member off, or connected to, or speaks on behalf off, oh you get the picture! Website.

Caithness is filling up with turbines, most people arnt bothered, some are, and some would love them but cant have them....so they object to them because of birds, bats, noise, traffic etc etc......................Sad really.

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 17:40

How much "marginal" plant will we need available to step in when 80% of Scotland's energy is to come from renewables, and what would that plant consist of?

My marginal plant consists of a Stanley kerosene fired cooker, and acts nicely as a 100% heating energy back up for my turbine. It should do, its rated at 23.4 kW and makes a fine substitute for a wind turbine of a mere 6 kW rating.

It hardly runs at all these days, and consumes no oil whatsoever when in "standby mode".

If that were to fail, there's plenty peats in the hill!

Hope this is helpful.

ywindythesecond

05-Oct-10, 20:16

Come on ywindy - Get a grip...

Either your ~50% data is good enough to be representative of the other half, or its not. Make your mind up and stop changing your tune to suit the situation!

Take your time and read what I post okc. The devil is in the detail.

Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=759315#post759315)
]I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

Once again, please stop attributing statements to me which I did not make. ( Sorry, can't get rid of these italics, it is not supposed to be in italic)

ywindythesecond

05-Oct-10, 20:20

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 20:29

Once again, please stop attributing statements to me which I did not make.

I suggest you report to admin then that someone else is accessing your profile and posting on your behalf. Both these quotations were lifted out of your previous postings using the Quote function. Click the peedie blue arrow to the right of the "Originally posted by...." to see the original posting if what you wrote has slipped your mind.;)

Nothing I have attributed!:)

Rheghead

05-Oct-10, 20:38

... my posts are almost exclusively directed at National energy policy and the futility of reliance on wind generation....

Fact is we can rely on the wind to provide power, no technical or political difficulty is going to change that.

The reasons why your posts are irrelevant is that the current 2020 targets require no change in how the grid is operated as the variation in wind output can be absorbed.

Come back in 10 years time and we can discuss your concerns.

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 20:44

Take your time and read what I post okc. The devil is in the detail.

Don't worry, we do that, and see both devil and detail! Thing is, its lost on most folk. The single word "metered" looks quite innocuous, but it lets you get away with knocking 49% of the countries wind production figures, just because it suits! Its been suggested you introduce more clarity to your claims, but it appears your preference is to let folk try and sort out "the devil in the detail", in a manner akin to expecting that the entire UK population can solve crosswords using the cryptic clues only:eek:

ywindythesecond

05-Oct-10, 20:45

Come on ywindy - Get a grip...

Either your ~50% data is good enough to be representative of the other half, or its not. Make your mind up and stop changing your tune to suit the situation!

My data is good enough to be representative of the other half under similar wind conditions, not universally. You could probably add value to this discussion if you concentrated on the issues.

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 20:50

My data is good enough to be representative of the other half under similar wind conditions, not universally. You could probably add value to this discussion if you concentrated on the issues.

But ywindy, how will you verify that the wind conditions are similar? Power must be reported by National Grid before you will consider it "verified" yet you post wind data to supplement it from a kitesurfing enthusiasts webpage!

[lol][lol][lol]

ywindythesecond

05-Oct-10, 20:51

Don't worry, we do that, and see both devil and detail! Thing is, its lost on most folk. The single word "metered" looks quite innocuous, but it lets you get away with knocking 49% of the countries wind production figures, just because it suits! Its been suggested you introduce more clarity to your claims, but it appears your preference is to let folk try and sort out "the devil in the detail", in a manner akin to expecting that the entire UK population can solve crosswords using the cryptic clues only:eek:

OK okc. I will continue to post reliable data which people can verify for themselves.
This is my last word to you on the subject: Where is there a more reliable source of UK wind generation data than on the NETA website at www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) ?
When you can find one, let us all know. If you can't find one, then stop bitching. Over and out.

Rheghead

05-Oct-10, 21:00

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good, and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing when wind conditions across the country are similar.

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing if they were geographically dispersed evenly across the UK.

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 21:48

OK okc. I will continue to post reliable data which people can verify for themselves.

That'll be the end of the data from the kitesurfing sites then? :roll:

This is my last word to you on the subject:

Hallelujah! :D

Where is there a more reliable source of UK wind generation data than on the NETA website at www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) ?
When you can find one, let us all know. If you can't find one, then stop bitching.

Sorry ywindy, the data I have is not available on the public web as it is commercially sensitive. There is nothing wrong with the reliability of the data you post (give or take a 25% error for sites like Spurness). It is simply incomplete for the whole of the UK. There is nothing wrong with presenting that data as the best that is publically available. You could continue to post this data as the best there is in the public domain, but please stop trying to hoodwink the general public that X MW is all that the country produced today, when in reality, it was more like 1.96X MW.

I have no problem with estimating that the country wide production is 1.96 x what NETA says. Hell, I'll even be open to some adjustment of that factor in the face of evidence. Come with any factor and something to substatntiate it, between say 1.75 and 2.25 and I might even agree with you. After all, MORI and the likes can poll 1000 members of the public in the country, and can sensibly scale that up to a countrywide opinion.

You know you will not find a single website that gives you all the data for the UK in one place (unless you pull if from ROC data - Good luck!), but that is no reason to strike 49% off the board. And hiding the devil in the detail is no excuse either!

As for data being reported that people can verify for themselves, I hope that your data source now has Spurness corrected to 8.25 MW capacity and not 11MW. Otherwise, its hardly verifiable, if the one and only entry on that list I have ever checked turned out to be erroneous by a factor of 25%!

orkneycadian

05-Oct-10, 22:02

I think most reasonable people would see a 50% sample as pretty good and fairly representative of what the other 50% is doing if they were geographically dispersed evenly across the UK.

But Scotland is geographically well represented and it is reasonable to assume that the aggregate performance of all the windfarms connected in Scotland will be similar to the metered mix at any one time.

Does that mean we could get ywindy to factor up to at least what is produced across Scotland? His data is very light on Orkney turbines - We now have something like 33.25 MW connected on Orkney, with the energisation of the 4.5 MW Hammars Hill Windfarm last week. But only 8.25 MW of this is on ywindy's radar (less than 25%), so it gives a very disproportionate picture of what happens this side of the water. He doesn't like factoring up the whole UK, but in light of his above posting, I see no reason why he cannot factor up the Scottish production only, and publish it as Scotland data?