View Full Version : Wind power is now cheaper than coal in some countries
As discussed in another thread, wind is getting cheaper and in some countries is cheaper than coal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23159-wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-some-countries.html
Point taken Rheg, we'll now just build all our wind plants in Austrailia then......;)
It probably is here, we'll never know because the whole thing is surounded by a multitude of subsidies paid for by guess who?
secrets in symmetry
14-Feb-13, 22:45
That's excellent news Rheghead. :cool:
Let's hope this will lead to more (and faster) development of energy storage technologies.
Green_not_greed
15-Feb-13, 00:23
As discussed in another thread, wind is getting cheaper and in some countries is cheaper than coal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23159-wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-some-countries.html
Once again, twisting the truth compared to the UK situation. I have been informed that if UK wind subsidies fall another 10%, then industrial-sized developments like Lime Kiln at Reay won't be viable, as the "investors" wont get their expected "returns". Nothing else matters. Its nothing to do with saving the planet - but all to do with greed.
In the UK, the funding of the subsidies to make wind power viable comes from consumers. The effect of this has been to significantly push up electricity prices (about 10% a year for the past few years off the top of my head) so more and more people are being pushed into "fuel poverty". The people suffering from more and more wind farms are the low paid and pensioners. I am disgusted that you think this is acceptable in any way. Perhaps self-centred, self-important little "eco-warriors" should all sign up to paying more for their electricity to help fund those poor people developing onshore wind farms, in order to help minimise the costs to the lower paid and those on a pension. I would be interested to hear your response.
As discussed in another thread, wind is getting cheaper ...........l (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23159-wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-some-countries.html)
Last i checked, wind was absolutely free....are the government planning to charge us for it then?
As discussed in another thread, wind is getting cheaper and in some countries is cheaper than coal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23159-wind-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-some-countries.html
The New Scientist is totally biased on this subject and will permit no criticism of wind energy and other renewables or doubts about global warming, which for a supposedly scientific magazine is pretty shocking. Science should be always questioning and based on genuine, impartial research. Having said that, it's not exactly a surprising statement. It all depends on the public subsidies paid and presumably the availability of coal.
secrets in symmetry
15-Feb-13, 22:48
The New Scientist is totally biased on this subject and will permit no criticism of wind energy and other renewables or doubts about global warming, which for a supposedly scientific magazine is pretty shocking. Science should be always questioning and based on genuine, impartial research. Having said that, it's not exactly a surprising statement. It all depends on the public subsidies paid and presumably the availability of coal.Your comment about New Scientist is a downright lie. I suppose this isn't unexpected, because every statement I've ever seen you make on wind is a downright lie.
Are you aware of this? Are you proud of posting rubbish?
secrets in symmetry
15-Feb-13, 22:52
Once again, twisting the truth compared to the UK situation. I have been informed that if UK wind subsidies fall another 10%, then industrial-sized developments like Lime Kiln at Reay won't be viable, as the "investors" wont get their expected "returns". Nothing else matters. Its nothing to do with saving the planet - but all to do with greed.
In the UK, the funding of the subsidies to make wind power viable comes from consumers. The effect of this has been to significantly push up electricity prices (about 10% a year for the past few years off the top of my head) so more and more people are being pushed into "fuel poverty". The people suffering from more and more wind farms are the low paid and pensioners. I am disgusted that you think this is acceptable in any way. Perhaps self-centred, self-important little "eco-warriors" should all sign up to paying more for their electricity to help fund those poor people developing onshore wind farms, in order to help minimise the costs to the lower paid and those on a pension. I would be interested to hear your response.This is yet more nonsense from the deniers.
I sometimes wonder what it's like to be wrong about everything. I suppose you don't know - because you're never right, so you can't compare the two.
Now, now children!
There will always be those that are for and those that are against no matter what the subject is and throwing mud about if you are not planning a wattle and daub wall is counter productive.
I know some of the orgers writing on this thread and they have always seemed to be mature, thoughtful people who although they might not hold the same views as myself are perfectly entitled to have them and to argue their corner.
With this is mind, please do not make libelous remarks about each other that shame the entire community or at the very least make one blush for it, you are adults, set an example and behave as such please.
RIGHT that's my rant over and for the moment I am not sending any of you to the naughty step but I will be keeping a sharp eye on you!
Green_not_greed
16-Feb-13, 01:36
Green not greed is a liar. He can not provide proof that I am in the pocket of a wind developer or equally been paid by such. If I get banned by this website on the basis of groundless accusations then I am bitterly disappointed by the judgement of the moderation team. I have never received one penny from anyone, my motivation to support renewable energy is bolstered by the overwhelming scientific evidence that cutting carbon emissions will go towards slowing down climate change. It is a matter of history that I provided an oath to tell the truth at the Baillie wind farm inquiry of my financial interest.
I see you're using that word again....don't you ever learn, boy ? You are off topic. Try and stick to topic for a change.
Lets make the question simple, even for you. Do you thinks its acceptable for the less well off and pensioners to face "fuel poverty" and struggle to pay their bills, in order to meet continued increasing contributions to their bills from the wind industry through agreed subsidies, even though the benefiting organisations are successful, muliti-billion capital companies?
To avoid your further unpleasantness, a simple Y or N will do. Though I would expect a justification of a N response.
I see you're using that word again....don't you ever learn, boy ? You are off topic. Try and stick to it, for a change.
You accused me of being in the pocket of wind developers. I've never received anthing from any one who is developing a wind farm. I challenge you to provide proof.
Green_not_greed
16-Feb-13, 01:54
You accused me of being in the pocket of wind developers. I've never received anthing from any one who is developing a wind farm. I challenge you to provide proof. Come on you liar.
I'd check your spelling advisor. Can you provide proof the other way? Where is the accusation?
Now, now children!
There will always be those that are for and those that are against no matter what the subject is and throwing mud about if you are not planning a wattle and daub wall is counter productive.
I know some of the orgers writing on this thread and they have always seemed to be mature, thoughtful people who although they might not hold the same views as myself are perfectly entitled to have them and to argue their corner.
With this is mind, please do not make libelous remarks about each other that shame the entire community or at the very least make one blush for it, you are adults, set an example and behave as such please.
RIGHT that's my rant over and for the moment I am not sending any of you to the naughty step but I will be keeping a sharp eye on you!
Well said Lizz, go and bang their heads together, they are acting like bairns :(
I'd check your spelling advisor. Can you provide proof the other way? Where is the accusation?
It has been removed. I'm certainly flattered that you think I'm worthy of being paid for my expertise in this field of knowledge.
More evidence to show that onshore wind energy is cheaper than most forms of energy generation.
Onshore wind is the current least cost zero carbon option with a total cost of £94/MWh, which puts it between CCGT and coal. A modest real cost reduction over the next decade means that it is projected to undercut CCGT to be the least cost substantive renewable option.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65715/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf
secrets in symmetry
16-Feb-13, 13:11
Now, now children!
There will always be those that are for and those that are against no matter what the subject is and throwing mud about if you are not planning a wattle and daub wall is counter productive.
I know some of the orgers writing on this thread and they have always seemed to be mature, thoughtful people who although they might not hold the same views as myself are perfectly entitled to have them and to argue their corner.
With this is mind, please do not make libelous remarks about each other that shame the entire community or at the very least make one blush for it, you are adults, set an example and behave as such please.
RIGHT that's my rant over and for the moment I am not sending any of you to the naughty step but I will be keeping a sharp eye on you!It's a sad indictment of the anti-wind brigade that they have to resort to irrational nonsense and obvious untruths instead of objective argument based on facts. Rheghead is very good in that respect.
The schoolboy at least tries to collect hard data, but then he comes to incorrect conclusions and writes nonsense about it in public.
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1007835]As discussed in another thread, wind is getting cheaper and in some countries is cheaper than coal.
So why start ANOTHER thread? are you on a "waste the server space" drive?
secrets in symmetry
16-Feb-13, 14:20
This is such an important milestone that it certainly warrants its own thread.
We, the people of Caithness, should be proud of our contribution to the global wind industry.
I don't agree with multiple threads myself however important. Also not being picky SIS but what exactly have the people of Caithness contributed to the wind industry? Theres very few if any local jobs been created, thousands of tonnes of rock have been moved by trucks which have contributed to environmental pollution, ships have sailed thousands of miles to land the parts which were made in other countries, but the worst of all is the beautiful Caithness scenery is now just a blot on the landscape. Tourists will think twice about coming to Caithness in the future. Wind power may be cheap and sustainable but at what cost to reality
cptdodger
16-Feb-13, 15:07
To be honest, when I moved here, I was actually surprised there was'nt more wind farms ! Speaking personally, I like them, not because they maybe cheaper than coal, or more efficient than something else. I just do'nt have a problem with looking at wind farms. I do'nt honestly think it would be just wind farms that would stop tourists coming here, because if it was they would be hard pressed to find anywhere in Britain to go on holiday, without coming across wind farms at some point on their travels.
cptdodger
16-Feb-13, 15:29
Just out of interest, I found a photo (courtesy of flicker) http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizo_the_scot/4344169211/ . This is where I am originally from, and these turbines are placed at the Michelin tyre factory. As you can imagine, there was an outcry because they were being put in a mainly residential area, but at the end of the day, these turbines saved jobs. What the company saved on electricity they were actually able to keep the staff they had, because at one point they were down to working a three day week.
Although they look huge on the photo! we do'nt even notice them now, they literally are just part of the landscape.
secrets in symmetry
16-Feb-13, 15:36
I don't agree with multiple threads myself however important. Also not being picky SIS but what exactly have the people of Caithness contributed to the wind industry? Theres very few if any local jobs been created, thousands of tonnes of rock have been moved by trucks which have contributed to environmental pollution, ships have sailed thousands of miles to land the parts which were made in other countries, but the worst of all is the beautiful Caithness scenery is now just a blot on the landscape. Tourists will think twice about coming to Caithness in the future. Wind power may be cheap and sustainable but at what cost to realityOur county has a large number of turbines, which are producing significant quantities of green electricity from our copious wind resource.
We should admire the landowners with windfarms on their property.
hmm ok let me make it a wee bit clearer for my understanding. I was talking about the people of Caithness, not just a few farmers or landowners who have made money on the deal. As for "donating" money to local causes and charities etc can you point me in the direction of where it states just exactly how much money has been given please. I am open about this and have my own views but i just don't see any benefit whatsoever. If as you claim there is copious amounts of green electricity being produced then when does it cancel out the emissions emitted during the manufacture/shipping/construction of these farms. As for costs and benefits, again, some clear guidance on the cost of a single kilowatt produced by these windfarms and can someone explain why, when this is a cheap (or free as claimed) power source, has my electricity cost gone up? Just a few points i may be missing somewhere......
Our county has a large number of turbines, which are producing significant quantities of green electricity from our copious wind resource.
We should admire the landowners with windfarms on their property.
Is there any data anywhere of how much the main wind farms in caithness have produced? (thinking Spittal and American base ones specifically)
Surely only in the way you should admire any successful business man/woman in Caithness? Or do you truthfully believe the landowners are doing this to benefit the planet and not their pocket? Remove the payments and I'm pretty sure we'd get the answer very quickly......
Is there any data anywhere of how much the main wind farms in caithness have produced? (thinking Spittal and American base ones specifically)
Try this link
http://www.ref.org.uk/roc-generators/search.php?mode=client&rid=&GeneratorName=forss&CtryCode=&kwaction=equals&InstalledkW=&TechGroup=&TechCode=&dateaction=equals&AccreditationDate=&Location=&CHP=&turbineaction=equals&NumTurbines=&TurbineModel=&HubHeight=&BladeDiam=&Developer=&Operator=&SiteOwner=&Postcode=&save=Search
Thanks Rheghead, now what about a website that says how much those megawatts actually cost to produce. They aren't produced for free, i'm not that gullible :-). Likewise a website to show me what the resale price of that electricity is so i can judge who is making the profit and from whom
when this is a cheap (or free as claimed) power source, has my electricity cost gone up? Just a few points i may be missing somewhere......
Can you give a link to the claim that wind energy is free like you say?
Thanks Rheghead, now what about a website that says how much those megawatts actually cost to produce.
Do you mean the cost to build a wind farm spread over its lifetime?
More evidence to show that onshore wind energy is cheaper than most forms of energy generation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65715/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf
Most forms.....ergo there are some that are cheaper?
I was interested to read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/wind_power_how_much/
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how many Carbon emitting power stations have been or will be closed down because of the increase in wind turbines.
MerlinScot
16-Feb-13, 18:19
I do'nt honestly think it would be just wind farms that would stop tourists coming here, because if it was they would be hard pressed to find anywhere in Britain to go on holiday, without coming across wind farms at some point on their travels.You're right and wrong at the same time. Right because tourists are not attracted to Caithness at all, save as considering it as the natural passage to Orkney. So it doesn't make a difference for tourism if there are 10 windfarms or 100. Wrong because a few tourists in Sutherland (where I used to live before) admitted that they were disturbed by the view of the turbines because they ruined the wild landscape, which was the reason why they had decided to come to Scotland in the first place.
What I never understood (I was talking about this with my husband today!) is why there are 4 or 10 turbines spread everywhere instead of having just a few big, huge plants as there are in Sweden, or New Zealand. His idea was that was due to the fact that different suppliers are involved and so they build the windfarms where they think they will have the best profits.
Any ideas about this?
cptdodger
16-Feb-13, 18:39
You're right and wrong at the same time. Right because tourists are not attracted to Caithness at all, save as considering it as the natural passage to Orkney. So it doesn't make a difference for tourism if there are 10 windfarms or 100. Wrong because a few tourists in Sutherland (where I used to live before) admitted that they were disturbed by the view of the turbines because they ruined the wild landscape, which was the reason why they had decided to come to Scotland in the first place.
Fair point, I must admit when I was working at the Castle Of Mey, and speaking to people in general, I do'nt remember anybody mentioning wind turbines. A lot of them were there because they just loved the area, but then, I did'nt ask them outright about windmills either. As I said previously, I have no problem with them, so that question would not enter my head !
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how many Carbon emitting power stations have been or will be closed down because of the increase in wind turbines.
That is because there is no answer to the question for the reasons that I explained earlier. Wind farms aren't here to close power stations, they're here to reduce carbon emissions. If there wasn't a need to reduce the use of fossil fuels then using wind farms would be silly unless there was nowt else to use.
http://www.variablepitch.co.uk... (http://www.variablepitch.co.uk)
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/... (http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/)
You can look at these sites and decide for yourself
When you click on variablepitch click stations then on MAP and it will tell you how much each farm or turbine in Caithness has produced and how much it has been paid
and you can then understand why people want them on their ground and I doubt it has anything to do with cutting emissions,
A link for PDF file How Turbines Make Money For Landowners - No to the Huntspill (http://www.huntspillwindfarms.org.uk/resources/How_turbines_make_money.pdf)
That is because there is no answer to the question for the reasons that I explained earlier. Wind farms aren't here to close power stations, they're here to reduce carbon emissions. If there wasn't a need to reduce the use of fossil fuels then using wind farms would be silly unless there was nowt else to use.
If there is no answer to the question, and intermittent wind turbines are not able to offer baseload.....how much does it cost, in emissions and cash, to have all the currently carbon emitting power stations on standby for when the wind is non-existent, as it has been here the last couple of days (according to the turbine I can see from my living room window and the bushes opposite me)....or when it isn't within the rather limited parameters to actually turn and produce anything?
In fact, if there is no answer to the question, are we not just paying silly money to add to the bank accounts of landowners, energy companies and wind turbine producers on the off-chance that sometime, somewhere, somehow, it will all come good...once we can work out how to ensure that wind blows all over the country all the time..and how to get it from here, where it isn't needed, South to where they claim it is, and how to store it so that it is more reliable without having to have back up power stations......and without that costing us even more silly money (and trashing the countryside with huge pylons, into the bargain)?
Well, excuse me....but if they are not here to close down power stations, even just a few power stations, why do we have them at all? If what we are getting is a really big chunk of Carbon cost for every wind turbine, which over its lifetime isn't so bad...but in that lifetime it also does sod all to reduce the emissions from power stations.....why bother? The whole wind turbine method of producing renewable energy is nothing more or less than another cash cow for those profiting from them. If people were really interested in cutting carbon emisssions rather than garnering profit....they'd not be erecting wind turbines......they'd be cutting back their own energy usage, ditching the 4x4s etc......but hey...being passionate about "green" energy as epitomised by windmills does kinda save having to do anything about cutting carbon emissions individually. It is the cop-out of the selfish, it seems to me.
Well, excuse me....but if they are not here to close down power stations, even just a few power stations, why do we have them at all? If what we are getting is a really big chunk of Carbon cost for every wind turbine, which over its lifetime isn't so bad...but in that lifetime it also does sod all to reduce the emissions from power stations.....why bother?
Why bother? Have you not heard of Climate Change?
If I really thought that wind farms did not go to reducing the carbon footprint of our energy generation then I'd be the first person to object to wind farms.
.but hey...being passionate about "green" energy as epitomised by windmills does kinda save having to do anything about cutting carbon emissions individually. It is the cop-out of the selfish, it seems to me.
Actually you're right and wrong. You are wrong, I think people have a great capacity to think altruistically, I believe people do see the need to accept wind turbines as part of their daily environment and to accept the need to pay utilities extra to get the carbon foot print from our energy generation. And that is why there does need to be a top-down approach from Government etc to get those incentives in place and operating..
But you are right, people are selfish, people don't like to pay extra or to go out of their way just to comply with regulations.
Why bother? Have you not heard of Climate Change?
If I really thought that wind farms did not go to reducing the carbon footprint of our energy generation then I'd be the first person to object to wind farms.
I have....nobody can fail to be aware of the perpetual bleating about it....but you still have not convinced me that even filling every square inch of the UK with Wind Turbines will do anything to ameliorate climate change as long as we still have to ensure base load using carbon emitting power stations. Care to actually try instead of just offering hopes and dreams?
As long as we, the population, do not do what we can to reduce carbon cost first, then wind turbines are just a sticking plaster on an open artery. Wind turbines are not an excuse to carry on as we have been since the Industrial Revolution.
Do you run a car? How many electrical appliances do you run (and keep plugged in/on stand-by)? How high do you have your heating? Do you go foreign holidays by plane? How well insulated is your house? How much of your food comes from local suppliers from local sources? Cutting back on carbon costly stuff like that by individuals and households would do more to help the environment than any number of Wind Turbines that allow us to think that we don't have to do anything for ourselves.
Do you run a car? How many electrical appliances do you run (and keep plugged in/on stand-by)? How high do you have your heating? Do you go foreign holidays by plane? How well insulated is your house? How much of your food comes from local suppliers from local sources? Cutting back on carbon costly stuff like that by individuals and households would do more to help the environment than any number of Wind Turbines that allow us to think that we don't have to do anything for ourselves.
Cutting back on having stuff or doing the things that we want is not a part of a low carbon/sustainable economy. If it were then I'd be against it.
I wonder where Eck got all this money for renewable energy when there are so many against his policies in Kaitness
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-19886553
secrets in symmetry
16-Feb-13, 23:32
Cutting back on having stuff or doing the things that we want is not a part of a low carbon/sustainable economy. If it were then I'd be against it.Yes, indeed.
I don't know why you take time to answer stupid questions that you've answered many times before. Some people don't listen, and even when they do listen they evidently don't understand the answer.
secrets in symmetry
16-Feb-13, 23:41
You're right and wrong at the same time. Right because tourists are not attracted to Caithness at all, save as considering it as the natural passage to Orkney.Sadly, you are largely correct.
What I never understood (I was talking about this with my husband today!) is why there are 4 or 10 turbines spread everywhere instead of having just a few big, huge plants as there are in Sweden, or New Zealand. His idea was that was due to the fact that different suppliers are involved and so they build the windfarms where they think they will have the best profits.
Any ideas about this?On a homogeneous landscape, it's optimal to have turbines as far apart as possible, so that they don't interfere with each other. Each turbine takes energy from the wind, and it also causes turbulent wind-flow patterns which make its downwind neighbours less efficient.
Surely only in the way you should admire any successful business man/woman in Caithness? Or do you truthfully believe the landowners are doing this to benefit the planet and not their pocket? Remove the payments and I'm pretty sure we'd get the answer very quickly......
SiS - Again I ask the same questions in case you missed it in post #25
ywindythesecond
17-Feb-13, 01:08
More evidence to show that onshore wind energy is cheaper than most forms of energy generation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65715/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf
Just Joined this thread and am reading from the start but I had to respond to this post. I checked the link posted and found this caveat ;
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties
Just Joined this thread and am reading from the start but I had to respond to this post. I checked the link posted and found this caveat ;
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties
Yes, and it seems that the body that comissioned it was the Government. We can't rely on it but the government can, is that what you are saying? :roll: Silly disclaimer.
ywindythesecond
17-Feb-13, 02:06
Yes, and it seems that the body that comissioned it was the Government. We can't rely on it but the government can, is that what you are saying? :roll: Silly disclaimer.
That is right Reggy.
Though the Government commissioned it, the people who wrote it added a disclaimer saying:
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties
So the Government pays an organisation to produce a report and the producers disclaim responsibility for it?
"This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes"
"It should not be relied on"
"We accept no responsibility"
MerlinScot
17-Feb-13, 12:13
I wonder where Eck got all this money for renewable energy when there are so many against his policies in Kaitnesshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-19886553
Sadly, they cut 50% of the funding of many rape and abuse charities after October 2012, that is where they're starting to find the money. That will mean that some charities will survive only thanks to private funding or they close down.
Eck wind-farms are ok, raped and abused people can rot in h*ll in his opinion, who cares... Right? In the end, you can't please everyone.
MerlinScot
17-Feb-13, 12:16
Sadly, you are largely correct.On a homogeneous landscape, it's optimal to have turbines as far apart as possible, so that they don't interfere with each other. Each turbine takes energy from the wind, and it also causes turbulent wind-flow patterns which make its downwind neighbours less efficient.That is correct but my husband's question was another... Why are the 'farms' far from each other? And if you were right, why do they have huge farms with many turbines in other countries? I don't think they have more stupid engineers.... :/
Slightly off topic, but can someone justify the felling of the thousands of trees at Camster wind farm and the digging up of peat for roads, foundations etc.? After all trees and peat are both carbon sinks. It seems total madness. In other wind farm locations they have keyholed the turbines and so left most of the trees.
The other thing I find abhorrent about Camster is the waste of the wood. Why was this not offered to the community instead of it being mulched? (I hasten to add I wouldn't have been hoping to benefit).
The whole enterprise is a money-making scam which is helping to drive more into fuel poverty and doing little to cut carbon emissions due to the loss of trees, ruination of peat, need for back-up etc.
Try this link
http://www.ref.org.uk/roc-generators/search.php?mode=client&rid=&GeneratorName=forss&CtryCode=&kwaction=equals&InstalledkW=&TechGroup=&TechCode=&dateaction=equals&AccreditationDate=&Location=&CHP=&turbineaction=equals&NumTurbines=&TurbineModel=&HubHeight=&BladeDiam=&Developer=&Operator=&SiteOwner=&Postcode=&save=Search
Thanks, from that I looked at the Causeymire windfarm and it states it's never produced more than 30% of it's capacity since it started. Is that in line with governement/developers estimates? Just seems very low to me, especially when you can't choose when to produce that energy.
Thanks, from that I looked at the Causeymire windfarm and it states it's never produced more than 30% of it's capacity since it started. Is that in line with governement/developers estimates? Just seems very low to me, especially when you can't choose when to produce that energy.
It doesn't give that much information. I think REF only started doing this since ~2009. 2010 was a bad year, and this last ROC period was bad but the rolling average is 27.6%, so it suggests that there have been a good year in 2011 to lift the average which is over the national expectation..
The whole enterprise is a money-making scam which is helping to drive more into fuel poverty and doing little to cut carbon emissions due to the loss of trees, ruination of peat, need for back-up etc.
Someone needs to make money or it doesn't get done. That is called business. I wish it wasn't like this but it is the system that we've got so we have to make the most of it.
Wind power incentives is just a minor reason why your fuel bill is going up. Rising fossil fuel prices is by way the biggest chunk that accounts for the rise. I hope it isn't lost on you that the reason for having wind is to reduce our reliance on those fossil fuels.
Loss of carbon sequestration on the land where a wind farm stands due to treefelling or wetlands is largely a red herring. An acre of forest sequesters about 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. I cannot be bothered to factor the figure up for comparison but Causeymire wind farm mitigates the production of approximately 60,000 tonnes per year. No comparison really.
You can look at all the Info you need on here click stations then map.
http://www.variablepitch.co.uk... (http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/)
Someone needs to make money or it doesn't get done. That is called business. I wish it wasn't like this but it is the system that we've got so we have to make the most of it.
Wind power incentives is just a minor reason why your fuel bill is going up. Rising fossil fuel prices is by way the biggest chunk that accounts for the rise. I hope it isn't lost on you that the reason for having wind is to reduce our reliance on those fossil fuels.
Loss of carbon sequestration on the land where a wind farm stands due to treefelling or wetlands is largely a red herring. An acre of forest sequesters about 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. I cannot be bothered to factor the figure up for comparison but Causeymire wind farm mitigates the production of approximately 60,000 tonnes per year. No comparison really.
No thats not called business, an industry that can not survive without large subsidies is not a business
You have stated many times wind turbines are being built to cut C02 but now it's to reduce our reliance
on fossil fuels ,so it what way do wind farm's do either as you have already said earlier no power stations
have or will be shut down due to wind farms being built
No thats not called business, an industry that can not survive without large subsidies is not a business
Now you are inventing new word definitions in order to kick the wind industry. There are hundreds if not thousands of industries/businesses from all forms of energy generation to farming that get subsidies of one kind or another.
I had a walk around an old cemetary in Glasgow a couple of months ago. From the top of the hill you can see a fair bit of Glasgow which sits in a natural basin and is surrounded by hills. All the way round all the hills around Glasgow had turbines on them. I thought they fitted in quite nicely with the landscape and in a way made it more interesting.
We take energy for granted a bit like meat without thinking too much about its source.
I didnt know they got subsidies. I thought it would be self sufficient?
MerlinScot
17-Feb-13, 22:52
I had a walk around an old cemetary in Glasgow a couple of months ago. From the top of the hill you can see a fair bit of Glasgow which sits in a natural basin and is surrounded by hills. All the way round all the hills around Glasgow had turbines on them. I thought they fitted in quite nicely with the landscape and in a way made it more interesting.We take energy for granted a bit like meat without thinking too much about its source.I didnt know they got subsidies. I thought it would be self sufficient?To be honest, I still have to meet a tourist visiting Glasgow for its landscape... They could fill all the hills around the city with turbines and it would always be nicer than what is already there....
To be honest, I still have to meet a tourist visiting Glasgow for its landscape... They could fill all the hills around the city with turbines and it would always be nicer than what is already there....
You may be right about tourists and the landscape. I was the only one in the cemetary and I never spent a bean. :lol:
Glasgows a fine city or maybe your meaning was lost in translation.
Slightly off topic, but can someone justify the felling of the thousands of trees at Camster wind farm and the digging up of peat for roads, foundations etc.? After all trees and peat are both carbon sinks. It seems total madness. In other wind farm locations they have keyholed the turbines and so left most of the trees.
The other thing I find abhorrent about Camster is the waste of the wood. Why was this not offered to the community instead of it being mulched? (I hasten to add I wouldn't have been hoping to benefit).
The whole enterprise is a money-making scam which is helping to drive more into fuel poverty and doing little to cut carbon emissions due to the loss of trees, ruination of peat, need for back-up etc.
Bet Rheghead can though! He is the green equivalent of a Christian right supporter of Israeli excess, because that is their perceived and unequivocally accepted wisdom. At the very least he can justify it in his own mind because that is how things ARE...not how things could be with some will and the application of commonsense.
Bet Rheghead can though! He is the green equivalent of a Christian right supporter of Israeli excess, because that is their perceived and unequivocally accepted wisdom. At the very least he can justify it in his own mind because that is how things ARE...not how things could be with some will and the application of commonsense.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself about what needs to be done to stop the worst aspects of Climate Change. It is not common sense to sit back, gurn about wind farms from your posh house and cross your fingers and rely on the goodwill of the ordinary citizen to recycle the occasional egg box and put an extra layer of insulation in the roof (though that would be really useful). We've already had that approach since the late eighties when the warnings first came out and virtually nothing has been done about it. Now is the time to get real. I do not agree that policy is directed to transforming the countryside into a forest of wind turbines as I think strategy is to have just 15GW in place across the UK. But if you think that is too many then it just reflects how desperate the situation is looking like.
Change is on the way, not just in the climate but in the way we have to conserve and develop ways of generating low carbon senergy, we just have to accept that. 100 years in the future, the next generation will look at the attitudes of the neo-liberalists in the Tea party to the grassroot anti-wind groups like CWIF and they will wonder why could they be so blind to the consequences of Climate Change, why did they stall progress? The truth will lie in the fact that they did not care because we will not live with the worst aspects of Climate Change but our children and their children will.
ywindythesecond
18-Feb-13, 23:31
Perhaps you need to educate yourself about what needs to be done to stop the worst aspects of Climate Change. It is not common sense to sit back, gurn about wind farms from your posh house and cross your fingers and rely on the goodwill of the ordinary citizen to recycle the occasional egg box and put an extra layer of insulation in the roof (though that would be really useful). We've already had that approach since the late eighties when the warnings first came out and virtually nothing has been done about it. Now is the time to get real. I do not agree that policy is directed to transforming the countryside into a forest of wind turbines as I think strategy is to have just 15GW in place across the UK. But if you think that is too many then it just reflects how desperate the situation is looking like.
Change is on the way, not just in the climate but in the way we have to conserve and develop ways of generating low carbon senergy, we just have to accept that. 100 years in the future, the next generation will look at the attitudes of the neo-liberalists in the Tea party to the grassroot anti-wind groups like CWIF and they will wonder why could they be so blind to the consequences of Climate Change, why did they stall progress? The truth will lie in the fact that they did not care because we will not live with the worst aspects of Climate Change but our children and their children will.
For balance and information, I recommend a half-hour browsing the CWIF website. Thanks for the reminder Reggy. www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)
secrets in symmetry
21-Feb-13, 12:13
That is correct but my husband's question was another... Why are the 'farms' far from each other?Because they're built where landowners want them built?
And if you were right, why do they have huge farms with many turbines in other countries? I don't think they have more stupid engineers.... :/Huge closely-packed windfarms are far from ideal, but people try to pack as many turbines as they (half) sensibly can into the available space. Indeed, many mostly-older windfarms have been built with the turbines far too close to each other. Recent, more careful, analysis has shown that the "wake" of a turbine can affect the performance of downwind turbines much more that was first thought. It could be stupid engineers or stupid developers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9841848/Sabotage-suspected-at-toppled-wind-turbine-as-second-is-brought-down.html
Is this the start of the fightback??
MerlinScot
21-Feb-13, 13:54
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9841848/Sabotage-suspected-at-toppled-wind-turbine-as-second-is-brought-down.html
Is this the start of the fightback??
Woah, that's wind-farm terrorism Shaggy [lol]
MerlinScot
21-Feb-13, 13:58
Because they're built where landowners want them built?
Don't think so because in many cases it is nobody's land, so they don't need permission from landowners. I think they build them when they are sure there will be the most profits for them and if they have to pay a landowner, that's fine. I think none of the landowners complained about the 'rich' income given by windfarms.
Probably the second reason you mention is the right one.
My guess would be that they also need a lot of money to buy and install 400 turbines and no provider can afford it in Scotland.
secrets in symmetry
23-Feb-13, 01:14
Don't think so because in many cases it is nobody's land, so they don't need permission from landowners. I think they build them when they are sure there will be the most profits for them and if they have to pay a landowner, that's fine. I think none of the landowners complained about the 'rich' income given by windfarms.
Probably the second reason you mention is the right one.
My guess would be that they also need a lot of money to buy and install 400 turbines and no provider can afford it in Scotland.How can land be nobody's land? Surely all land either belongs to someone, or is in the care of someone.
I doubt they'd get permission to install 400 turbines in one windfarm.
MerlinScot
23-Feb-13, 17:31
How can land be nobody's land? Surely all land either belongs to someone, or is in the care of someone.
I doubt they'd get permission to install 400 turbines in one windfarm.
Sorry, government owned land. About the second point you could be right, there is a strong opposition to install even 5 turbines, let alone 400 :D
I don't know if this is an off-topic question... Are all the little turbines installed as test turbines for future wind-farms, or they are private-owned and their energy doesn't go into the grid at all?
I don't know if this is an off-topic question... Are all the little turbines installed as test turbines for future wind-farms, or they are private-owned and their energy doesn't go into the grid at all?
Some doesn't, I'm about to go off grid :cool: Some gets fed to the grid and the feed in tarrif http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=feed in tariff &source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Ffeed-in-tariffs%2Foverview&ei=l_soUaPYD6Gc0QXjr4GYAg&usg=AFQjCNEbOJYQ1cNFNf0wYD6NBgRTGsXwjw&bvm=bv.42768644,d.d2k is payed to the generator.
secrets in symmetry
24-Feb-13, 01:12
Sorry, government owned land. About the second point you could be right, there is a strong opposition to install even 5 turbines, let alone 400 :D
I don't know who owns the land at (say) the Causewaymire windfarm, but I would guess it isn't the government - either Westminster or HolyEck.
Lobbing this one into this thread as it's the latest windymill ranty.
I've long maintained that carving up huge areas of countryside like Caithness and beyond doesn't make sense in an eco / green way. Turns out there is a significant Co2 release from the peatland these windymill farms are built on thus no reduction in Co2, but plenty of cash for the developers paid for by us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
Lobbing this one into this thread as it's the latest windymill ranty.
I've long maintained that carving up huge areas of countryside like Caithness and beyond doesn't make sense in an eco / green way. Turns out there is a significant Co2 release from the peatland these windymill farms are built on thus no reduction in Co2, but plenty of cash for the developers paid for by us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
That's rubbish and has been debunked many times before. Andrew Gilligan eh? Might have known.
Green_not_greed
24-Feb-13, 18:10
That's rubbish and has been debunked many times before. Andrew Gilligan eh? Might have known.
Well if thats so can we please see that facts and not some brush off by some self styled eco-activist who thinks he knows better than everyone else ? Thanks.
Well if thats so can we please see that facts and not some brush off by some self styled eco-activist who thinks he knows better than everyone else ? Thanks.
Just read the webpage. The headline says
Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists
But more than what? What does it mean?
Their paper isn't even published yet and the Telegraph is jumping to big conclusions. I suggest you don't jump on the unqualified bandwagon.
Let's hope the report is better than the last from the REF which had too many errors in it that they took it off their website. Even with their worst case scenario, the payback for CO2 was 2 years.
ywindythesecond
24-Feb-13, 23:31
Just read the webpage. The headline says
But more than what? What does it mean?
Their paper isn't even published yet and the Telegraph is jumping to big conclusions. I suggest you don't jump on the unqualified bandwagon.
Let's hope the report is better than the last from the REF which had too many errors in it that they took it off their website. Even with their worst case scenario, the payback for CO2 was 2 years.
Think you should read it again Reggy with the scales off your eyes. The people who prepared the "carbon calculator" for the Scottish Government are now having second thoughts and are prepared to hold their hands up. That is what it is about.
And incidentally, you were the very first to "debunk it". "That's rubbish and has been debunked many times before. Andrew Gilligan eh? Might have known."
Very scientific, not.
That is what it is about.
What it is about is the Telegraph are setting off the lie so it can go around the world a few times before the truth catches up with it. I'll be waiting for the full report. You obviously didn't read the Telegraph link.
ywindythesecond
25-Feb-13, 00:57
What it is about is the Telegraph are setting off the lie so it can go around the world a few times before the truth catches up with it. I'll be waiting for the full report. You obviously didn't read the Telegraph link.
If you say so it must be right Reggy.
Sorry are we talking about the same report that I read and that was not published by The Telegraph?
It has been a well known fact for some time that The Flow Country is a massive sponge that not only holds back waters that would strip the countryside with floods but that it also is a bank for CO2.
The whole point of the matter being if you have to build a wind farm just don't disturb any peat bogs. they are there for a reason.
The whole point of the matter being if you have to build a wind farm just don't disturb and peat bogs. they are there for a reason.But they cannea be built without without disturbing them.
Just don't build where there are peat bogs, simple.
Sorry are we talking about the same report that I read and that was not published by The Telegraph?
It has been a well known fact for some time that The Flow Country is a massive sponge that not only holds back waters that would strip the countryside with floods but that it also is a bank for CO2.
The whole point of the matter being if you have to build a wind farm just don't disturb any peat bogs. they are there for a reason.
As far as I see, this Telegraph has highly edited the comments from the report's authors to give the impression to its readership that wind farms that are built on peat will never save any carbon dioxide. Whilst building wind farms on land other than peat is better, that is not in doubt, you'd have to question the motives of reporting on an unfinished report where the contents cannot be verified at the moment.
I'll accept that previous estimates on the loss of carbon dioxide sequestration may have been on the conservative side, but it would take a huge rehash on their calculations to suggest that wind farms that are built on peat do not save any CO2.
MerlinScot
25-Feb-13, 16:59
The whole point of the matter being if you have to build a wind farm just don't disturb any peat bogs. they are there for a reason.Which one? Just curious.
secrets in symmetry
25-Feb-13, 23:57
As far as I see, this Telegraph has highly edited the comments from the report's authors to give the impression to its readership that wind farms that are built on peat will never save any carbon dioxide. Whilst building wind farms on land other than peat is better, that is not in doubt, you'd have to question the motives of reporting on an unfinished report where the contents cannot be verified at the moment.
I'll accept that previous estimates on the loss of carbon dioxide sequestration may have been on the conservative side, but it would take a huge rehash on their calculations to suggest that wind farms that are built on peat do not save any CO2.You're being much too kind to the Torygraph, Rheghead. The vast majority of the article is a sensationalist list of irrelevant quotes from a London peat zealot, and a similar list of quotes from the usual clown of the John Muir Trust. I know a bit about this work - Gilligan has it twisted so far round the bend that he's turned it into a pack of lies. The point is simple and I don't think Gilligan gets it lol!
ywindythesecond
26-Feb-13, 00:13
You're being much too kind to the Torygraph, Rheghead. The vast majority of the article is a sensationalist list of irrelevant quotes from a London peat zealot, and a similar list of quotes from the usual clown of the John Muir Trust. I know a bit about this work - Gilligan has it twisted so far round the bend that he's turned it into a pack of lies. The point is simple and I don't think Gilligan gets it lol!
Don't leave us hanging in mid air Sis, explain what you find wrong with it please.
Any of them Merlinscot, they should be reserved for sphagnum moss and evil smelling water:lol:
MerlinScot
26-Feb-13, 19:45
Any of them Merlinscot, they should be reserved for sphagnum moss and evil smelling water:lol:Wow, that's something to preserve for sure! Given the number of insects they produce they should have been excavated a long ago and... Poof, got rid of them! Stinky bogs!
Any of them Merlinscot, they should be reserved for sphagnum moss and evil smelling water:lol:
You are correct. I don't know if it has been done before but I think there is much scope for directing community benefits into building measures that will preserve wetland habitats. I know that forested crops have a really harmful effect on the natural wildlife of wetlands so there seems to be a synergy of sorts going on there if a wind farm needs deforestations as part of its development.
MerlinScot
27-Feb-13, 10:11
You are correct. I don't know if it has been done before but I think there is much scope for directing community benefits into building measures that will preserve wetland habitats. I know that forested crops have a really harmful effect on the natural wildlife of wetlands so there seems to be a synergy of sorts going on there if a wind farm needs deforestations as part of its development.
Man always had and always will have an impact on land. Peat bogs were not there in Prehistoric times so you're trying to preserve something that nature itself could decide to destroy later on. Nature is the only thing able to adapt and destroy. You should encourage to build windfarms in there, they would probably incur in some problems later on hehe ;)
The forests were there before the deserted moors and the wetlands, man destroyed them. So what you're saying is in itself a contradiction.
The only mistake, in my opinion, has been to plant trees that were not originally there in the first place.
If you'd like further reading about it Rheg, 'The landscape of Scotland: a hidden history' by C. W. Jones is a good and an easy-to-read book for all people interested in discovering more about natural landscapes in Scotland with an archaeological twist in it.
The forests were there before the deserted moors and the wetlands, man destroyed them. So what you're saying is in itself a contradiction.
The only mistake, in my opinion, has been to plant trees that were not originally there in the first place.
The forests that I had in mind were planted in the 1960-1970s which are the ones which we have here. We have the odd patch of natural woodland but they aren't the problem for wetland fauna.
MerlinScot
27-Feb-13, 11:25
The forests that I had in mind were planted in the 1960-1970s which are the ones which we have here. We have the odd patch of natural woodland but they aren't the problem for wetland fauna.
Yeah, but the problem isn't the forest, it is the pine tree, which is not local, therefore it is creating problems to fauna and other plants. Although I think that planting trees and destroying them to put a windfarm in its place as they did in the Lairg area doesn't seem clever or sensible anyway.
Personally, (so take it as just my opinion) I don't like the wetlands at all, so I wouldn't mind more tree plantation and reverse a bit the whole process of the wetlands taking over the rest. In the end, in the 19th century many of these areas were cultivated and the soil was indeed fertile in a few areas.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.