View Full Version : Wind Power - Small Versus Big
Better Out Than In
02-May-11, 15:21
As the Thread on Spittal Wind Farm is so big, thought I would start another. Here are some points:
Big commercial wind farm arrays are not much use. They need to export there power to big cities and what with variations in generation and transmission losses perhaps achieve 20% or less availability. They generally do not benefit the local community much other than some lucky land owners and can be very damaging to the rural amenity. Also you need the same capacity again in inefficient stand by power (nuclear, pump storage etc.) for when the wind does not blow. All very costly. However I am not convinced regards the risk they cause to animals such as birds - I doubt they have much impact compared to all the other risks man exposes them to - loss of habitat, chemicals, shooting, road kill etc. Also they will make no difference to world climate as anything we might do is totally swamped by America, India and China.
But what about so called micro schemes (up to 30kw)? These are usually single towers and connected locally to farms and houses and are largely (if not totally) independent of grid. No grid losses and power is consumed at source or very locally to it. Are you against those as well?
I think small scale schemes / domestic turbinators are by far the best option IF the costs can be sorted out.
I see on the A836 (up hill from Forss) that a couple of places have now erected these small turbines.. B&Q 'used' to sell them, but seems they did not produce what was stated..
How strange, I thought the Danes loved these things? What! the Danes say they are noisy?
Put 'em out to sea if they must..
01 September 2010
'Danish State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: ‘It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.’
The move has met resistance from parliament, where amongst others Anne Grete Holmgaard, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee, said, ‘It is rather unacceptable that Dong – which is our large, state-owned energy firm – says goodbye to an investment in wind on land, and that they are doing so after we have cleared the way for a test centre where new types of turbines can be tested.’
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/49869-dong-gives-up-on-land-based-turbines.html (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/49869-dong-gives-up-on-land-based-turbines.html)
We looked at the costings for a 2.5 Kw turbine and found that you can buy one for about £3,000. this price is for self installation which I am told is reasonable easy to do.
However if you want to feed back surplus to National Grid you are unable to do so unless your system is installed by "approved contractors"
And the cost for getting one installed by "approved contractors"
£15,000
We looked at the costings for a 2.5 Kw turbine and found that you can buy one for about £3,000. this price is for self installation which I am told is reasonable easy to do.
However if you want to feed back surplus to National Grid you are unable to do so unless your system is installed by "approved contractors"
And the cost for getting one installed by "approved contractors"
£15,000
Bit of a Catch 22 there it seems...
Bit of a Catch 22 there it seems...
Catch 15K more like it
They generally do not benefit the local community much other than some lucky land owners and can be very damaging to the rural amenity.
The Scottish Green Party campaigns for publically/communally owned wind farms where the people of the land will benefit directly by payments into Local Government funding bringing much needed wealth to schools and hospitals. I would of thought they would nationalise the existing fleet of wind turbines if they have enough support.
On the matter of variability, small domestic size suffer even more from variability.
Catch 15K more like it
So small wind turbines costs £6 per watt and large wind farms cost just over £1 per watt, interesting that.
On the matter of variability, small domestic size suffer even more from variability.Which may be far better to 'touch' the domestic consumer.
So small wind turbines costs £6 per watt and large wind farms cost just over £1 per watt, interesting that.But at what subsidy? And, this is the cost issue. Is the environment worth £6 or £1 per watt.??? As a corporation I'd say £20 per watt at least, maybe more....maybe what the consumer thinks they need to pay.
But at what subsidy? And, this is the cost issue. Is the environment worth £6 or £1 per watt.??? As a corporation I'd say £20 per watt at least, maybe more....maybe what the consumer thinks they need to pay.
I can't get too excited over the hype of the cost of wind energy since we the consumers pay ~15p/kWh in our homes and wind costs are ~8p/kWh which includes the ROC cost, there is still a lot of profit in it for the energy companies without having to raise prices. Compare that with nuclear costs ~8p/kWh, same as wind, costs can only keep going up as uranium resources dwindle and the industry has to keep looking after a burgeoning level of nuclear waste.
Wind ultimately serves to decouple the rising costs of energy from the rising costs of the market price of conventional fuels like coal, gas and uranium.
One of the reasons small domestic turbines lost favour was when it became apparent that fixing them to a roof could cause all sorts of structural damage through vibration and wind stress. Modern roofs are designed and built to a fairly modest structural tolerance.
Hey David, this is interesting;
Global uranium resources (based on a report dated June 5th, 2006) are more than adequate to meet projected requirements for nuclear electricity generation, according to the latest edition of a United Nations-backed world reference guide.
Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand, jointly prepared by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than $130 per kilo, at about 4.7 million tonnes.
Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand, that is sufficient for 85 years, according to the study, also known as the ‘Red Book.’ Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2,500 years.
But world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates, the study considers that more than 35 million tonnes are available for exploitation.
The current uranium price (12/12/2008) is US$54 / lb (US$119 / kg) so this current figure is slightly down on the earlier article. However, there is adequate reserves of uranium in the world to keep the planet supplied with energy for hundreds of years.
Just 85 years eh? Hardly sustainable as a plan to sort out climate change. The only country pursuing fast reactor was the Japanese, no stomach for it now though. Apparently the only political party now expressly supporting fast reactor technology is the BNP but at what cost when wind is much cheaper? If it was brilliant then we would be doing it already. Just saying.
Bobinovich
02-May-11, 23:33
Seems to me that, given the incredible progress of technology over the last 85 years, another 85 years should be more than adequate for the world's boffins to come up with a clean, sustainable, constant and safe method of energy generation, especially if it was made THE priority engineering project of the this century and their collective knowledge was shared rather than numerous groups attempting to work against/beat each other. Utopian dream maybe, but I feel that's what is required.
Bob, in 85 years you and me will not be here [lol] But I agree with your theory
ywindythesecond
02-May-11, 23:47
As the Thread on Spittal Wind Farm is so big, thought I would start another. Here are some points:
Big commercial wind farm arrays are not much use. They need to export there power to big cities and what with variations in generation and transmission losses perhaps achieve 20% or less availability. They generally do not benefit the local community much other than some lucky land owners and can be very damaging to the rural amenity. Also you need the same capacity again in inefficient stand by power (nuclear, pump storage etc.) for when the wind does not blow. All very costly. However I am not convinced regards the risk they cause to animals such as birds - I doubt they have much impact compared to all the other risks man exposes them to - loss of habitat, chemicals, shooting, road kill etc. Also they will make no difference to world climate as anything we might do is totally swamped by America, India and China.
But what about so called micro schemes (up to 30kw)? These are usually single towers and connected locally to farms and houses and are largely (if not totally) independent of grid. No grid losses and power is consumed at source or very locally to it. Are you against those as well?
Hi BOTI. I imagine your question is directed at me and my ilk. The small turbines that are spring up nowadays are in response to the new Feed-in -Tariff scheme which was in response to the EU requirement to increase generation by renewables. Not to reduce carbon or make the world a greener place. Like big windmills, few people would find it viable to put a small one up unless there was an artificial financial incentive, and the artificial incentive for small windmills is significantly proportionately greater than for big ones, but once again it is the consumer who pays. For a small wind turbine say 6kW, your electricity supplier will pay you 27p/kWh for you to generate and use your own electricity, and 30p if you sell it bak to him. He then takes the cost of paying you and spreads it around all his other customers. So if your neighbour puts up a small wind turbine you can have a small rosy glow knowing that you personally are contributing to his good fortune and that over the lifetime of the windmill, you personally will pay more for his electricity than he will himself.
Now as for non-grid connected machines - I am all for them but there are few viable applications because of the problem of storing the energy. On big wind schemes, I would support a large scale windfarm devoted exclusively to topping up a pumped storage reservoir, or making hydrogen for that matter. The difference is that the energy created is then controllable and available on demand.
Bob, in 85 years you and me will not be here [lol] But I agree with your theory
Indeed that may be true, but it is the cross-fingers behind the back approach. But your reasoning touches on a very moral question.
Is it right that we should leave a pollution legacy for thousands of years for our children's children to look after for our short term gain?
Imagine it if the Picts had nuclear power and fossil fuels and in that 1000 years of time erosion, civil strife and corrosion had led to a widespread contamination problem for us to deal with. Birth defects and cancer would be endemic.
And what about carbon emissions? The carbon being emitted today will be in the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years from now. When atmospheric levels reach 550ppm which is expected to be around 2100, there will be a doubling of carbon dioxide levels since pre-industrial times, scientists reckon that could incur a 3 deg centrigrade rise in global temperature. They tell us the last ice age was just 3 deg less than today, so what catastrophic climate effects will we leave to our children to experience in 2100 when there will be a 3 deg increase?, and that will be in the lifetime of my child and your grandchildren probably.
Is it right that we should turn our backs on what could be achieved to stop it just because we want the view from our house to remain unchanged?
We are already seeing the ravages of catastrophic climate change, tornados, hurricanes in the US, floods in Australia. Droughts, famine in Africa, the list is endless.
Come on, we need renewable energy, do not succomb to the cleverly worded reasoning of the deniers!! :Razz[evil]
On big wind schemes, I would support a large scale windfarm devoted exclusively to topping up a pumped storage reservoir, or making hydrogen for that matter. The difference is that the energy created is then controllable and available on demand.
Incidentally that is not exactly what is being planned but when the supergrid kicks off with Norway being able to pump water uphill using Scottish-generated wind energy in times of low demand and high generation.
We are already seeing the ravages of catastrophic climate change, tornados, hurricanes in the US, floods in Australia. Droughts, famine in Africa, the list is endless.
C'mon, even you know that is a load of cobblers! None of those things are to do with climate change. Climate yes, change, no. But that reeks of the desperate rhetoric of the corporations trying to sell us climate change.
Large scale wind is about one thing, money. Money for the corporations making windymills, money for the operators and landowners. Paid for by you and me, out of our electricity bill.
It's a commercial enterprise that is being driven to supply one thing only, dividends to the shareholders.
C'mon, even you know that is a load of cobblers! None of those things are to do with climate change. Climate yes, change, no. But that reeks of the desperate rhetoric of the corporations trying to sell us climate change.
Large scale wind is about one thing, money. Money for the corporations making windymills, money for the operators and landowners. Paid for by you and me, out of our electricity bill.
It's a commercial enterprise that is being driven to supply one thing only, dividends to the shareholders.
Of course you're right Phil. Climate and change has been a feature of planet earth since its beginning. Everyone knows of the 'ice age' but they should also know that there were long periods when the earth's average temperature was in the region of 25C and the planet didn't have ice caps.
Environmental Fascism is being driven by money and greed. One of those renewable supporters mentioned morals. I would suggest the 'Renewable' lobby's morals to be just as questionable if they believe that they are justified in using scare tactics to justify huge hikes in energy prices to fund an unproven and grossly inefficient system of electricity generation.
C'mon, even you know that is a load of cobblers! None of those things are to do with climate change. Climate yes, change, no. But that reeks of the desperate rhetoric of the corporations trying to sell us climate change.
I wouldn't say it if I thought it was cobblers, what gain would it do? There would be no urgency to build wind farms in that case and making electricity is so much easier with fossil fuels. If it was cobblers then why are the Chinese and Russians acknowledging Climate Change, surely they would not prop up such BS in that case, they have scientists of their own btw.
Large scale wind is about one thing, money. Money for the corporations making windymills, money for the operators and landowners. Paid for by you and me, out of our electricity bill.
As a socialist then I would prefer to have the windmills in public ownership, but then only the Green party is campaigning for that. In the meantime we have to deal with the situation which we have inherited from Maggie. Perhaps you are right, a capitalist society is incapable of getting out of this environmental disaster?
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/show/6568/greens-launch-business-manifesto
Of course you're right Phil. Climate and change has been a feature of planet earth since its beginning. Everyone knows of the 'ice age' but they should also know that there were long periods when the earth's average temperature was in the region of 25C and the planet didn't have ice caps.
Environmental Fascism is being driven by money and greed. One of those renewable supporters mentioned morals. I would suggest the 'Renewable' lobby's morals to be just as questionable if they believe that they are justified in using scare tactics to justify huge hikes in energy prices to fund an unproven and grossly inefficient system of electricity generation.
Why put up with climate change when we don't have to? It wasn't greenhouse gases, it was other factors that caused climate change in the distant past and it happened much slower over a longer period. The earth's creatures will not evolve to adapt in time nor will we be able to politically change to adapt either. What we are seeing now is 0.2deg C per decade increase, it is unprecedented climate change.
I wouldn't say it if I thought it was cobblers, what gain would it do? There would be no urgency to build wind farms in that case and making electricity is so much easier with fossil fuels. If it was cobblers then why are the Chinese and Russians acknowledging Climate Change, surely they would not prop up such BS in that case, they have scientists of their own btw.
Twisting my words. Tornado's in the US, famine in Africa etc. is not due to recent climate change. Scare tactics, simple as.
I'm not denying climate change either.
BUT large scale windymills are about profit nothing more.
Small scale could work quite well, if logic was applied, to offset and reduce demand for energy.
Radical change is needed but is has to come from the ground up and not from the corporations lobbying governments for backhanded funding via 'tax' on our current leccy bills.
Look at how this is being driven, look at who is benefiting.
It most certainly not average Mr & Mrs Bloggs.
So instead of trying to introduce change we'll just keep using scaremongering about famine and floods and make more profit. Job done!
So instead of trying to introduce change we'll just keep using scaremongering about famine and floods and make more profit. Job done!
It isn't scaremongering, it is happening now, right now. Did you not notice the hard frost this year and then warmer than normal April? It is just weird.
If climate isn't changing then by sheer laws of averages we should be getting less weather records being broken each year, but we are continually breaking weather records.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/02/tornadoeslink to explanation (http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/02/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29)
neilsermk1
03-May-11, 12:31
Just 85 years eh? Hardly sustainable as a plan to sort out climate change. The only country pursuing fast reactor was the Japanese, no stomach for it now though. Apparently the only political party now expressly supporting fast reactor technology is the BNP but at what cost when wind is much cheaper? If it was brilliant then we would be doing it already. Just saying.
Not quite right, India are very much involved in fast reactor technology, and the US is in the process of resurecting a fast reactor programme, I am not sure if Russia ever stopped the research.
Better Out Than In
04-May-11, 14:40
Interesting. Off thread but a number of countries have +ve fast breeder strategies including India, Russia and France. Most are trying to switch from alkaline metals to [say] lead coolant. The political theory is that if you have fast breeder technology then you are independent of foreign control of the uranium source. Also the new designs should eventually be more efficient (taking account of full fuel cycle) than PWR's.
Regards very small wind turbines, say up to 1/2 kw, then these are expensive per kw and may not even cover their own production energy costs if mounted in urban areas - on houses with not clear air for example.
Micro schemes cover up to 30 kw and from about 10 kw upwards these can be at least, if not more efficient than large commercial wind generators. More efficient because they can be designed to generate over a larger variation in wind speed rather than the big units which need to be optimised for each site.
Although the cost of a 15kw turbine my only be £3k or so you need to add in the cost of the ancillary systems, cabling. control units, planning permission, installation, grid connection, export metre etc. etc. More licenced installers may only be making £2k to £4k per installation even though it looks as though they are charging £30k or more. It does stick in the craw though that if you install yourself you won't qualify for FIT or ROC's - however you do get a warranty with professional installation which takes some risk away.
If I have my numbers right then a properly sited turbine installation of up of say 10kw to 30kw would pay for itself without subsidies but would take a long time - perhaps 15 years even in Caithness - at current electricity prices. Perhaps less if you make your home all electric. So not many people would bother without the subsidies. Nationally the subsidies are supposed to be self financing through savings elsewhere in the energy system - e.g. less need to upgrade grid locally etc.
At the moment offshore wind is by far the most expensive way to generate renewable energy although there are initiatives to try and get cost down - low cost structure design, much large nacells, much large blades etc.
I can't understand the logic of using pump storage schemes (in Norway or elsewhere) to counter act days when the wind does not blow. Seems to me all you will be doing to passing electricity backwards and forwards. I can understand fast response pump storage to smooth out spikes and lulls in the grid but not as a energy storage scheme. Most pump storage schemes only operate for minutes to a few hours before they empty.
What ever your views on nuclear energy one PWR produces enough reliable energy equivalent to hundreds of hectares of land based wind farms. You would need to cover most of Wales in turbines to get the equivalent of a few nuclear installations. And nowadays nuclear sites put negiglible waste out into the environment - virtually all waste is captured and stored.
I can't understand the logic of using pump storage schemes (in Norway or elsewhere) to counter act days when the wind does not blow. Seems to me all you will be doing to passing electricity backwards and forwards.
It is not like you are pumping a liquid or anything, it is there instantaneously at the speed of light.
oldmarine
04-May-11, 14:48
Appears to me that modern technology will always be suspect regardless for what it is used.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.