View Full Version : Growth and Location of Windfarms
Can someone please explain why it's being predicted that Scotland (between now and 2012) will host an onshore wind capacity of 6500 MW and England and Wales only 500MW?
National Grid Seven Year Statement 2006
'The overall picture indicated by the two tables is of a growth in the installed capacity of wind generation from just under 2.5GW in 2006/07 to over 10.5GW by 2012/13 (made up of 6.5 GW of on-shore wind and 4GW of off-shore wind). Most of the on-shore wind is in Scotland. For example by 2012/13 the prospective capacity in Scotland is around 6GW compared to 0.5GW in England and Wales by the same year. All the off-shore wind capacity indicated is off the coasts of England and Wales'.
Can someone please explain why it's being predicted that Scotland (between now and 2012) will host an onshore wind capacity of 6500 MW and England and Wales only 500MW?
Maybe, just maybe, Scotland has a lot of empty land and a lot of wind
Maybe, just maybe, there are a few greedy landowners who don't give a stuff about spoiling one of the UK's remaining areas of natural beauty......
The 21st century answer to the Highland Clearances - the Highland Proliferations......
Maybe, just maybe, Scotland has a lot of empty land and a lot of wind
I think you'll find there's a fair bit of 'empty land' south of the border, a fair amount of wind and locations far nearer to the centers of consumer demand.
Credit where credit is due though - why would those south of the border choose to obliterate their landscapes when we north of the border are apparently eager to make the sacrifice for them.
If it can happen on Lewis.....
Island wind farm receives backing
Plans for one of Europe's largest onshore wind farms have been approved by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council).
The £500m project, which will see 176 giant turbines built on the Isle of Lewis, has divided the community.
Opponents warn of long-term environmental damage while supporters point to economic benefits, including more than 400 jobs during construction.
Councillors voted by 18 to eight to support the plan.
The comhairle's backing was given on condition that five turbines were removed from the 181 Lewis Wind Power (LWP) proposed for the site on Barvas Moor.
The final decision on the planning application rests with the Scottish Executive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6363359.stm
Councillors voted by 18 to eight to support the plan.
One wonders how they will benefit......
_________________________________________
Just on my local news this lunchtime....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6375291.stm
Here's one punters view of the likely benefits from building 181 turbines on Lewis.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=217912007
And from the RSPB
http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=16664950&folderPk=85696&pNodeId=149221
For a clearer breakdown of the projected growth of wind farms, a wee bit different eh?
http://www.bwea.com/statistics/
137 windfarms operational in the UK currently? So, how many wind turbines maketh a windfarm? 10? 15?
And a total of 480 windfarms either in use, under construction, consented or in planning.
4800 wind turbines? 7200?
For a clearer breakdown of the projected growth of wind farms, a wee bit different eh?
http://www.bwea.com/statistics/
Pity the BWEA haven't bothered informing the National Grid. Or is the National Grid now joining the ever swelling ranks of spreaders of misinformation. Thank goodness we have your knowledgable self and the BWEA as providers of the facts.
I've started a list of 'Fallacious Misinformers'. So far the only factual evidence appears to be coming from the wind industry and Rheghead.
Live in Western Isles and have yet to speak to anyone, other than councillors, in favour of the proposals to build these massive (140 metres high) windturbines, pylons, roads, quarries etc that go with building a windfarm.
As you read in papers it is mainly the councillors who want these wind farms, and most of the councillors will be leaving come the next elections and taking their "new blood" bonus with them so they could not care what happens, they are not going to be in a position to be accountable, they have retired!
So tough luck on the electorate and the prople who live here.
I am not against wind farms - just think small, personal or local use ones best, power loss and damage to environment carrying electricity to other sites outweighs benefits, especially as where power is going has hills and open spaces nearer (but some of it is English national park, even though the power cables required to take power down to them would be going through Scottish national park).
So far the only factual evidence appears to be coming from the wind industry and Rheghead.
Thanks very much, it is always a pleasure, though I implore you not to include the National Grid to your list just yet. I am sure you would agree to their 7 year statement which includes...
For example, for 8000MW of wind (e.g. in line with Government's 2010 target of 10% renewables), around 3000MW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25000MW of wind only 5000MW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as "standby plant".
Thanks very much, it is always a pleasure, though I implore you not to include the National Grid to your list just yet. I am sure you would agree to their 7 year statement which includes...
Too late - National Grid are already on the list. I'm using your rules - any evidence of misinformation and that's it they can't be believed.
You stated the BWEA has a clearer breakdown of the projected growth of wind farms. If national grid are talking nonsense about growth and location of windfarms how can we believe the rest of the tosh they spout.
They really should have a chat with the wind industry in Germany who haven't managed to retire any conventional capacity.
And how on earth do they calculate that 8000MW of wind will meet the 10% 2010 target?
Live in Western Isles and have yet to speak to anyone, other than councillors, in favour of the proposals to build these massive (140 metres high) windturbines, pylons, roads, quarries etc that go with building a windfarm.
As you read in papers it is mainly the councillors who want these wind farms, and most of the councillors will be leaving come the next elections and taking their "new blood" bonus with them so they could not care what happens, they are not going to be in a position to be accountable, they have retired!
Oh, so they do have some financial 'incentive' to push this through?
So tough luck on the electorate and the prople who live here.
Always the case - greedy landowners who spend a few weeks of the year in the far north killing wee creatures for sport and inviting their hooray henry chums up from the big city to tear around the narrow back roads in their Range Rovers.....
I am not against wind farms - just think small, personal or local use ones best, power loss and damage to environment carrying electricity to other sites outweighs benefits, especially as where power is going has hills and open spaces nearer (but some of it is English national park, even though the power cables required to take power down to them would be going through Scottish national park).
Nor I - I think that small community specific turbines are the way forward. The needs of the community are met and any excess is flogged back to the power companies and the 'profits' fed back into the community and NOT into councilor's/landowner's pockets.
The damage done to this hilltop shows that wind farms are not a low impact development when it comes to the damage done to the area around it.
http://johnrsweet.com/personal/Wind/windpix1.html
The drainage of the peat bogs in Lewis is a risk which seems to have been overlooked by the developers and the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar - once the land has dried out it will never, ever recover.
Has anyone got photos or info on damage to moorland by installation of turbine towers as we all know the damage to Moor land is especially longterm and should be looked at diferently to Grassland installation
I am not against wind farms - just think small, personal or local use ones best, power loss and damage to environment carrying electricity to other sites outweighs benefits, especially as where power is going has hills and open spaces nearer (but some of it is English national park, even though the power cables required to take power down to them would be going through Scottish national park).
I completely agree with you but unfortunately the benefits of small scale generation types specific to an area are not financially attractive to developers, landowners or (before Rheghead jumps in waving the governments renewable energy flag) ever likely to meet the ridiculous renewable energy target that's been set.
Local/regional councils are not interested in wind energy from a global (climate change) or national (dwindling fossil fuels and security of supply) perspective they are interested simply in local revenue
- wind turbines = community benefit
What the community think is irrelevant.
cliffhbuber
22-Feb-07, 22:31
Several references have been made to this thread and others about, "landowners".
Does a major portion of the land belong to landowners?
What amount of land in Caithness and the Highlands is owned by landlords, corporations, etc.?
Almost 50% of Caithness is in the hands of some 10 estates.
Source:http://www.firstfoot.com/whowns/Who-Owns/Who-Owns/Caithness.htm
Sutherland:
6 owners have possession of nearly 30% of this county, less than 40 owners own nearly 75%.
Source:http://www.firstfoot.com/whowns/Who-Owns/Who-Owns/sutherland.htm
cliffhbuber
22-Feb-07, 23:06
Thanks MadPict.
Dos this reality of a significant proportion of the land owned by a few originate from the Highland Clearances or the tribal claims before that lengthy very nasty process? (or perhaps a bit of both?)
Guess if the peat bogs dry up and get blown to the four corners of the world we could always burn the turbines.....
http://forum.caithness.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4&d=1135900233
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-07, 01:12
Has anyone got photos or info on damage to moorland by installation of turbine towers as we all know the damage to Moor land is especially longterm and should be looked at diferently to Grassland installation
Check this site
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm)
The reason Scotland us to be covered from end to end with Wind Driven Power Stations, because that is what they really are, is because the Scottish Executive have decided to play "Power Games", if you will excuse the pun, with Westminster. The unseemly rush is simply so MSPs can crow that they reached their target before Westminster in order to show how "advanced" they are by comparison.
It's nothing more than Politicians going on Ego Trips, that is why Holyrood has taken the power to ride roughshod over everybody when it comes to Planning Permissions for the Turbines. If I am not mistaken, and I may be, the only Planning Permissions the local Planning People have control over is the sitting of the anemometers which are used to check the local wind conditions. All that means is that they can try to find the impossible. How do you convince anybody that a single, very tall, very thin pole with three tiny cops spinning on top of it, in the middle of nowhere is a blot on the landscape?
When it comes to countless huge concrete towers topped by three huge blades measuring 300 feet (90 Metres)in diameter and reaching a total of 400 feet (116 metres) in height appearing all over the place then Holyrood has the final say.
Everything else is window dressing to keep the locals happy. Hold a few Meetings, take part in some Consultations, have a local Enquiry if necessary and then declare that the majority are in agreement with what you were intent on doing anyway. And no, that’s not an Englishman having a go at Scotland, I’m simply describing the way I see Politicians at that level operating.
MSPs may well operate in the misguided belief that they are “showing Westminster the way” but what they don’t grasp is that English MPs are overjoyed to see them do it. Scots get trampled underfoot by their own MSPs whilst English MPs sit back and let them because it means they don’t have to trample their own voters underfoot. The power will get lost in the National Grid and it’s not English Constituencies which have massive Concrete Towers with huge propellers stuck on top on every scrap of spare land available.
English MPs must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box whilst MSPs think they are putting one over on them.
Oh yes, and it’s not the Yarrows Wind Farm, it’s the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm and only has 13 turbines. I have no doubt that the next stage will be called something else with a small number of turbines to pretend it’s totally unconnected and not part of a huge 50 turbine monstrosity.
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-07, 02:51
landscape?
Oh yes, and it’s not the Yarrows Wind Farm, it’s the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm and only has 13 turbines. I have no doubt that the next stage will be called something else with a small number of turbines to pretend it’s totally unconnected and not part of a huge 50 turbine monstrosity.
Only 13 turbines at Yarrows?
True.
North Strathy has "only" 35 turbines, but it depends on South Strathy with "only" 77 Turbines having a switching station and a connection to the grid miles away near Forsinard.
I have the suspicion that, rather than risk the uproar the have had on Lewis by immediately showing their hand about the total size, they will do things in stages. "We only want to put thirteen up." Then once that's done, "Well, just a few more." and "A few more won't harm things." and so on until they reach the end number they really want.
I think somebody said that a total of 50 had been mentioned. I suspect that 13 is only the starter and will be followed by a another application for a small number using the name of another small area such as “Whatever Name” Wind Farm and so on in the hope that they can add and add using the excuse that the last one was allowed so why is this one different?
Anybody who isn’t aware of every tiny landmark in an area would naturally assume that there were four or five small Wind Farms scattered about a fairly large area rather than a single large site all in one place.
I used Yarrows because I am having a bad day and got this Thread confused with the Yarrows Thread but I am very suspicious that this will be the technique they use in order to gain leverage to erect as many as they want by scattering a few small sites around then use them as leverage to fill in the gaps.
Besides, you get far less hassle picking people off a few at a time rather than provoking a huge response from a large number drawing attention Nationally.
I would guess that it won’t be long before attempts are made to play one area off against another. “Look what they are getting, you don’t want to miss out do you?”
There used to be a term for that particular game by getting people “Jumping for the Jelly Beans!” Or to put it another way, “Dangling the Carrot!”
It’s surprising what you can get people to accept if they think they are missing out.
The old adage "thin end of the wedge" applies nicely here. Get a few in, then they argue that the 'infrastrucure' is in place so adding a few more will cause little disruption/damage.
They are happy enough to lop a few off the total to try and get these farms approved knowing full well that when the time comes then can add the ones they had to bargain away plus a good few more when the clamour has died down or the protesting voices have moved away in disgust/despair.
The developers/"wind energy companies" (money grabbing landowners to you and me) will have 'bought' their way into the good books of those that matter (like Comhairle nan Eilean Siar) and the wee man and woman whose lives will be blighted can go and take a running jump.....
Oh yes, and it’s not the Yarrows Wind Farm, it’s the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm and only has 13 turbines. I have no doubt that the next stage will be called something else with a small number of turbines to pretend it’s totally unconnected and not part of a huge 50 turbine monstrosity.
When Npower held a public meeting (two years ago) at Portlands, there were 53 possible turbines in the Yarrows development. 13 is simply not an economically viable number, when a new road must be driven up through the East Clyth crofts, where there is nothing but a dirt track and a bit of the former Lybster Light Railway - if they get this, they will go for more.
By the way, everyone in the district got a little montage of the turbines in an "information" booklet last week. Although most of the turbines on the map are pretty near the top of the Yarrows/Warehouse hill, the montage makes them look as if they are planted at the bottom. They need to be challenged on their bogus or misleading information.
I would have thought that smaller numbers of large windfarms is better than larger numbers of small windfarms?:roll:
I have the suspicion that, rather than risk the uproar the have had on Lewis by immediately showing their hand about the total size, they will do things in stages. "We only want to put thirteen up." Then once that's done, "Well, just a few more." and "A few more won't harm things." and so on until they reach the end number they really want.
I think somebody said that a total of 50 had been mentioned. I suspect that 13 is only the starter and will be followed by a another application for a small number using the name of another small area such as “Whatever Name” Wind Farm and so on in the hope that they can add and add using the excuse that the last one was allowed so why is this one different?
Anybody who isn’t aware of every tiny landmark in an area would naturally assume that there were four or five small Wind Farms scattered about a fairly large area rather than a single large site all in one place.
I used Yarrows because I am having a bad day and got this Thread confused with the Yarrows Thread but I am very suspicious that this will be the technique they use in order to gain leverage to erect as many as they want by scattering a few small sites around then use them as leverage to fill in the gaps.
Besides, you get far less hassle picking people off a few at a time rather than provoking a huge response from a large number drawing attention Nationally.
I would guess that it won’t be long before attempts are made to play one area off against another. “Look what they are getting, you don’t want to miss out do you?”
There used to be a term for that particular game by getting people “Jumping for the Jelly Beans!” Or to put it another way, “Dangling the Carrot!”
It’s surprising what you can get people to accept if they think they are missing out.
How true this is.
And as MadPict has pointed out, as time passes and objection is seen as a pointless exercise folk get beaten into submission and just give up in despair.
What to do?
Government, SE, regional and local councils have been pushing community benefit as hard as they possibly can. I wonder how many communities would embrace a windfarm development if there was no community benefit. Would they agree purely for the supposed planet saving qualities of wind energy? Sadly, I doubt it.
Would landowners and developers appear to be quite so keen on reducing carbon emissions if the financial benefits were not quite so attractive.
No chance - imo.
Would local councils support wind farm developments for the good of the planet alone?
When you see councils suggesting that windfarms can be used to attract dirty carbon emitting heavy industry you have to conclude the answer would be a resounding 'No'.
As a matter of interest I wonder if those who support onshore wind have in mind a limit to the numbers of wind turbines in an area, across Scotland, throughout the UK above which they would start to question the rationale, or rather lack of it.
Do we just continue throwing up turbines until the wind industry/government announce an end? When we've reached the UK 2020 target? When we reach the Scottish target? Or, god help us, when we reach the Highland target?
National Grid Company, BWEA, the DTI, FREDS all predict different levels of onshore wind. Does anyone actually have a clue where we're going with this?
I would have thought that smaller numbers of large windfarms is better than larger numbers of small windfarms?:roll:
How many windfarms and how many turbines per windfarm?
How many windfarms and how many turbines per windfarm?
It depends on the Governments RE targets, the return on investment of RE projects, site location and the level of investment that the wind developers want to invest.
I would have thought that smaller numbers of large windfarms is better than larger numbers of small windfarms?
Whether your wind turbine total is 10 sites with 50 turbines or 100 sites with 5 - they're still a blot on the landscape cos they'll still be 300 feet tall and have the sweep equivalent to a 747's wingspan.
Smaller, less intrusive, turbines exist and if sited with consideration for the community which will be supplied, they will be far less noticeable (and have a much smaller environmental impact on the land).
I dare say there are arguments against community generators but as I have stated before now if we have to have large windfarms why can we not site them in areas which will not have such a huge impact on the landscape?
I see the current batch of off shore wind farms off the coast of East Anglia as a far better option to covering Lewis or Caithness with the damn things. These are well out to sea (Greater Gabbard will be ±26 km) and will only be seen on a really clear day. And then with a bit of 'camoflage' might be made almost invisible to landlubbers.
It depends on the Governments RE targets, the return on investment of RE projects, site location and the level of investment that the wind developers want to invest.
Rheghead, you suggested that smaller numbers of large windfarms would be better than larger numbers of small windfarms. Very vague.
I didn't understand for whom/what this would be better? Or what you mean't by 'better'? So in an attempt to understand I asked how many windfarms and how many turbines per windfarm you were suggesting would be the better option.
You know what the RE targets are but the proportion of this target intended to be met by onshore wind is an unknown. Are you suggesting that the 2020 RE target should be met by onshore wind if RE alternatives are not available?
We're not talking about return on investments of RE projects, we're talking onshore wind. It's plain to see that ROC's are doing a grand job in encouraging investment (and paying a tidy dividend) in onshore wind.
Were you looking out for developers interests by suggesting that smaller numbers of large windfarms are 'better'?
Why can't you just be honest and say what you mean? No hiding behind government targets and wind industry statistics.
Why can't you just be honest and say what you mean? No hiding behind government targets and wind industry statistics.
OK, I will spell it out and try not to be vague this time.
The Government targets will in a loose way translate into individual company strategies for renewable energy generation. That is the purpose of the RO, as an incentive to earn money, nothing wrong in earning money.
So if our fictional company, Windup, aims to install a wind generating capacity of 5GW over its 10 year mission statement and in turn anti- windfarm lobbies force each application into a downsized version of the original then Windup will need to apply for siting windfarms elsewhere to make up for the loss of capacity on the original application.
This will have the effect of failing to take advantages of scale in terms of maintenance tracks, sub-stations, and power cables etc etc . IOW, you will see more power lines than if the anti wind lobby had left them alone in the first place. The anti-wind farm group will claim a minor victory but only in terms of a NIMBY one, they will have failed to look towards the bigger picture as you might expect with them being NIMBYs. A compounding fact will be that more windfarms will need to be built to make up for the extra energy needed to create all the extras and their reduced energy balance.
The net arguement is that, in terms of windfarm proliferation and unsightliness, the anti-windfarm lobby is as part of the problem as the wind companies!!
.
So if our fictional company, Windup, aims to install a wind generating capacity of 5GW over its 10 year mission statement, say, so if in turn anti- windfarm lobbies force each application into a downsize version of the original then the company will need to apply to for another windfarm somewhere else to make up the loss of capacity.
This will have the effect of failing to take advantages of scale in terms of maintenance tracks, sub-stations, and power cables. IOW, you will see more power lines than if the anti wind lobby had left them alone in the first place. The anti-wind farm group will claim a minor victory but only in terms of a NIMBY one, they will have failed to look towards the bigger picture as you might expect with them being NIMBYs.
The net arguement is that, in terms of windfarm proliferation and unsightliness, the anti-windfarm lobby is as part of the problem as the wind companies!!
I wish to invest a fictional 10 million pounds in your Company Rheg.
I am trying to pay back the World for all the Global Warming problems we Humans have caused lately. I will of course be investing in the Wave Power projects planned for the other side of the Firth, the Pentland Firth I mean, not the Firth of Forth.
I feel that Wind Power and Wave power will help in a small way to combat the World Wide Global Warming threat.
I admit it will not cure it, but hey is this not the real reason for Wind & Wave power and not just PROFIT
Golach,
Stop adding to the CO2 problem and get off that computer....
:D
And before you ask - I am pedaling like Lance Armstrong on speed... (http://www.econvergence.net/electro.htm)
OK, I will spell it out and try not to be vague this time.
The Government targets will in a loose way translate into individual company strategies for renewable energy generation. That is the purpose of the RO, as an incentive to earn money, nothing wrong in earning money.
So if our fictional company, Windup, aims to install a wind generating capacity of 5GW over its 10 year mission statement and in turn anti- windfarm lobbies force each application into a downsized version of the original then Windup will need to apply for siting windfarms elsewhere to make up for the loss of capacity on the original application.
This will have the effect of failing to take advantages of scale in terms of maintenance tracks, sub-stations, and power cables etc etc . IOW, you will see more power lines than if the anti wind lobby had left them alone in the first place. The anti-wind farm group will claim a minor victory but only in terms of a NIMBY one, they will have failed to look towards the bigger picture as you might expect with them being NIMBYs. A compounding fact will be that more windfarms will need to be built to make up for the extra energy needed to create all the extras and their reduced energy balance.
The net arguement is that, in terms of windfarm proliferation and unsightliness, the anti-windfarm lobby is as part of the problem as the wind companies!!
Thank you Rheghead - much clearer now and most interesting. I was completely oblivious of this so-called victory for the nimbys.
Which windfarm developments in Highland have been scaled down as a direct result of anti wind pressure or 'nimbys' as you prefer to call them?
I believe 2 turbines have been knocked off the Dunbeath proposal but I think due to SNH/RSPB.
Lieurary was refused permission by our local council, the reporter and Scottish Ministers for 3 turbines but have bounced back with a new application for 2.
The number of turbines in the planning application for the development at Yarrows has been reduced from the number originally proposed during the scoping opinion - objectors have zero input at this stage so we can't claim victory on this occasion I'm afraid.
I think some developers/landowners have had some trouble perusading their nimby neighbours to join in the fun and host a turbine or two so have decided to reduce the numbers - but again this takes place during scoping prior to the period in which objections can be submitted.
The nimbys in Lewis will be devastated when they find out if they'd been a bit more nimby they might only be faced with a dozen turbines instead of nearly 200.
Golach - you go for it boyo!! Between yourself and Rheghead you can't fail to save this planet.
Found just the thing for Rheghead's Christmas pressie....
http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/?news/news_story.php?id=105339
:D
ywindythesecond
24-Feb-07, 01:01
I would have thought that smaller numbers of large windfarms is better than larger numbers of small windfarms?:roll:
Reggy, Risking another double post, have you actually read OFGEM's response to the Government Consultation on the Future of the Renewables Obligation?
www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/18363_ROrespJan.pdf
Reggy, Risking another double post, have you actually read OFGEM's response to the Government Consultation on the Future of the Renewables Obligation?
www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/18363_ROrespJan.pdf
I've tried to copy and paste that url and to no avail, what are the key points? And how does the response shed any light on how windfarms should take advantage of factors of scale??
:D
And before you ask - I am pedaling like Lance Armstrong on speed... (http://www.econvergence.net/electro.htm)
You are indeed mad, MadPict. But many thanks for the above. Priceless! I have absolutely no idea what on earth I'm doing wasting precious time banging on about turbines when the chance of influencing the outcome is nil.
I think I'll invest in the marvelous Pedal-a-Watt and burn off energy, whilst generating energy, each and every time the county is hit with a new windfarm application. Imagine, achieve an enviable level of fitness and recharge my batteries at one and the same time. What more could an energy conscious person ask for.
I've tried to copy and paste that url and to no avail, what are the key points? And how does the response shed any light on how windfarms should take advantage of factors of scale??
It worked OK for me. Try this.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/18363_ROrespJan.pdf
Yeah so? What has that got to do with factors of scale?:confused
The net arguement is that, in terms of windfarm proliferation and unsightliness, the anti-windfarm lobby is as part of the problem as the wind companies!!
Can you give examples or pointers to the evidence which substantiates this claim?
Oh heck Reghead, don't tell me I have to add your name to the Fallacious Misinformers List?
That'll only leave the wind industry and Golach on the Providers of True Facts List.
I'm ashamed to admit it but I might be classed as a serial nimby. My initial (and, I must add, only other) foray into the world of nimbyism took place quite a few years ago when I got hot and bothered about Caithness being viewed as a suitable location for a respository for nuclear waste. I accept we should be responsible for storing waste generated in Caithness but I wasn't going to relinquish Caithness to the hands of Nirex - at least not without a fight.
This is similar to how I feel about commercial windfarms - I accept we should be responsible for our share of wind developments but Caithness is not a dumping ground to be abused in order to meet a government target - especially a target I believe to be fundamentally wrong.
The same with nuclear power - though I may gulp a little - if there was a decision to build new nuclear on or near the Dounreay site I wouldn't be able to argue against what is a reliable source of electricity generation that will replace existing generators and greatly reduce carbon emissions.
The same with wave and tidal, biomass, solar - I wish them the best of luck with their research - in fact I wish they'd hurry up.
However, if the approach to development of the alternative renewables or nuclear is handled similarly to wind and it's a free for all with entire coastlines up for grabs, or multiple nuclear/biomass stations or solar panels all over the countryside - that's a very different matter.
Can you give examples or pointers to the evidence which substantiates this claim?
Come on, it is common sense. If wind companies are forced into a downsized version of what they really want then they are not taking advantage of factors of scale because they still have to provide all the substations, tracks and extras for each windfarm, thus affecting each windfarm's energy balance and causing more visual impact. I feel that the anti wind farm lobby should be working towards allowing wind farm companies achieve their greater goals inorder to reduce visual impact on the bigger picture.
I accept we should be responsible for our share of wind developments
BTW, can you give me any examples where CWIF have actually supported a windfarm in Caithness? And what installed capacity is that across the county?
Come on, it is common sense. If wind companies are forced into a downsized version of what they really want then they are not taking advantage of factors of scale because they still have to provide all the substations, tracks and extras for each windfarm, thus affecting each windfarm's energy balance and causing more visual impact. I feel that the anti wind farm lobby should be working towards allowing wind farm companies achieve their greater goals inorder to reduce visual impact on the bigger picture.
BTW, can you give me any examples where CWIF have actually supported a windfarm in Caithness? And what installed capacity is that across the county?
Shucks - I've no option but to put you on the list now.
Where windfarm developments are concerned common sense is absent without leave.
Now that you're one of the Fallacious Misinformers can you advise a fellow member of this elite club how on earth the anti wind lobby can influence anything to do with proposals for windfarms. Coz I surely would like to know the answer to that.
The only thing the 'non believers in the benefits of wind' can do is object to a development after it has gone through years in the planning system in pre-scoping and scoping.
Don't know the answer to your question about CWIF having supported any windfarm developments in the county (please note I answer ALL your questions and don't just select the bits I like).
You could contact them and ask of course.
Personally, I haven't actively supported any because I simply don't have the skills or the qualifications required to distinguish suitable from unsuitable sites. Have you seen some of the guidelines??
The proposals (numbers, sites, etc) in the system at both application and scoping stage are the developers'. They decide Rheghead.
So you tell me -
Why Caithness has attracted 20/30 proposals and Lewis 2?
Why counties in England have targets for RE/wind and counties in Scotland don't?
I've noticed, (my observations only, do not read as fact, apologies, etc, etc) in the main, the people who actively support (as in submitting a letter of support) a development appear to do so because they're involved at some level or they believe turbines stop nuclear. Whether a windfarm development is approved or not doesn't get determined on the back of that.
If a community - the supposed benefactors - object en masse then the job of the 'robust' planning process is to take note of this community objection and respond as required - be it refusal of planning permission at local level, mandatory appeal by huffy developers, public inquiry etc, etc. Or alternatively ignoring the community and approving it anyway.
That's what makes this so exciting (joke) you just never know how it's going to turn out. Depends on the day, the weather, the time of year, what's for dinner that night..........
By the way, everyone in the district got a little montage of the turbines in an "information" booklet last week. Although most of the turbines on the map are pretty near the top of the Yarrows/Warehouse hill, the montage makes them look as if they are planted at the bottom. They need to be challenged on their bogus or misleading information.The map very carefully manages to avoid showing how intrusive it will be to the archaeological sites in that area and also carefully avoids giving any map references.
A great deal of fuss is made about this area and it’s unemployment problems. This will all be solved by the vast number of long term jobs the site will provide, both of them! The booklet is nothing more than a PR exercise and a poor one at that. I’ve seen more honest and convincing soap powder adverts on the TV.
The bribes, the Community Benefits, are amounts that are so small that if they were twenty times as large the Companies wouldn’t even notice the difference. In total they will hardly be worth a mention in the Companies Annual Reports.
A lot of small Wind Farms instead of a small number of large ones? What is intended is a massive number of large ones, not a small number. Many years ago I kept wondering why there was so much work being done to the sub-station on the Causewaymire especially as there seemed to be nothing happening and no mention of anything in the pipeline. This was long before there was any suggestions of Windfarms being built anywhere near Caithness. Strange how all that work just conveniently happened to come in useful for connecting a Windfarm, which hadn’t even been thought of at the time, to the National Grid. Weren’t the lucky in the way it worked out for them?
This fantastic community benefit that seems to turn everyone's heads into mush - has anyone anywhere actually seen any of it? Halkirk's got about £430,000 I believe. Only a few crumbs, of course, from the developer's point of view, but as far as I understand it they haven't actually got the money, and won't get it until they spend an equal or greater sum of their own. That's if they could figure out how to administrate it. There was a meeting last November which was bizarre and quite incomprehensible. One director stood down and the remaining ones decided they didn't need to be elected and could be directors for life, sort of like the Pope. This caused a row and brought a grinding halt to the proceedings, and nothing seems to have happened since.
Not that it makes any difference. The funds can't be used for anything I'd consider worthwhile, i.e., compensation for those suffering from the effects of a too-close windfarm on their lives or businesses. I naively thought the money could be used to some good, e.g., university scholarships for deprived youngsters, triple glazing for residents suffering from noise from the turbines, compensation even for cleaning the muck from your house or damage to your frontage caused by vehicles moving the enormous turbines to the site. Even a bit of free electricity wouldn't go amiss, or money towards micro-renewables or energy efficiency - ground heating pumps, wall and loft insulation, solar panels - anything. Or just give everyone a few grand. Why not? They're the ones putting up with the turbines. But no, none of the money can go to individuals. And if you want something for your community, the community has to stump up 50% of the money for small stuff or 75% for larger projects. And if the community gets a 25% grant for something, does that mean they won't get it from Europe?
I think it's all totally stupid.
ywindythesecond
25-Feb-07, 02:10
I've tried to copy and paste that url and to no avail, what are the key points? And how does the response shed any light on how windfarms should take advantage of factors of scale??
Sorry Reggy, don't understand "factors of scale"?
Shucks - I've no option but to put you on the list now.
I was always under the impression that I was on your list from the outset so no loss there.
if there was a decision to build new nuclear on or near the Dounreay site I wouldn't be able to argue against what is a reliable source of electricity generation that will replace existing generators and greatly reduce carbon emissions.
.
Well, I think you are overlooking one of the same reasons to object at a nuke power as for wind farms. The one where they should be built near to where the energy will be used. If that isn't one of the reasons to object then it is lame duck.
Well, I think you are overlooking one of the same reasons to object at a nuke power as for wind farms. The one where they should be built near to where the energy will be used. If that isn't one of the reasons to object then it is lame duck.
This is how I read the situation but it could very well be wrong - it's just my interpretation and I might be mistaken. Don't want to be accused of spreading misinformation again as that's not the intention.
When government announce the go-ahead for new nuclear the power stations have to be sited in someone's back yard. And every day that passes we're getting ever closer to 'the lights going out' - whether they continue banging up turbines or not.
Will the new generation nimbys be in a position to use the argument against generating electricity in remote locations due to loss of transmission for nuclear while they support wind located in the most remote locations in the country?
When the existing nuclear stations reach the end of their life what do we replace them with? Coal fired stations are also due to be retired what do we replace them with?
I didn't say I'd support nuclear I said I personally wouldn't be able to justify objecting. I didn't say I like it either.
The priority for me is real and measurable reductions in carbon emissions (whilst retaining a secure supply of electricity) and nuclear will make a far greater impact than any amount of wind - in the immediate future.
We need some form of generation that's 'clean' to fill the gap between now and our renewable future. Unfortunately we've wasted years and millions (or is it billions) of pounds trying to meet the wrong target.
IMHO - The mix of renewables that might have succeeded in replacing our existing generation is still too far away - due to onshore wind hi-jacking the system.
But we'll have to wait and see what's proposed and how it fits into an energy strategy.
The priority for me is real and measurable reductions in carbon emissions (whilst retaining a secure supply of electricity) and nuclear will make a far greater impact than any amount of wind - in the immediate future.
Wind and Nuclear energy generation have very similar carbon profiles.
I would have thought that at least nuclear would be more 'efficient' than wind bearing in mind the limits on when a windturbine can actually be used (no wind it just sits there - too high a wind speed [50+ miles/hour] they have to shut them down). And we all know that the existing power generation systems are not able to take up the slack straight away.
Maybe we'll suffer more black outs with more reliance on wind power?...
With the likelihood that we will experience even stormier weather due to GW I have to ask just how efficient wind farms will be in the next few years.
[QUOTE=Tilter;194616]This fantastic community benefit that seems to turn everyone's heads into mush - has anyone anywhere actually seen any of it?
If you want a slice of the community benefit, then go for it BEFORE planning permission is granted - it is simply a bribe to enable that hurdle to be crossed.
Another example - Houstry - sold to people as the small, community-based scheme, and lots of nice things promised. Nothing signed, though, and the guy sold up his interest and moved on, leaving his successor no obligation to cough anything up.
Wind and Nuclear energy generation have very similar carbon profiles.
Your point is..........?
An observation, perhaps?
A simple statement?
A 'thought for the day'?
Do you want us to guess what you mean? OK - if that's what you want.
Your point is..........?
My point is as much of a point as pointing out that wind is unreliable or rather intermittent when intermittence isn't currently a problem.;)
I would have thought that at least nuclear would be more 'efficient' than wind bearing in mind the limits on when a windturbine can actually be used (no wind it just sits there - too high a wind speed [50+ miles/hour] they have to shut them down).
How many times do winds go above 50mph?:roll:
Quite often if you watched Britains Worst Weather the other night - he was in the Outer Hebrides which are supposed to be the stormiest place in the UK (typically though the wind was hardly above a light breeze).
Funny that they should choose Lewis for such a large wind farm - will be interesting to see how much power they actually produce against the speculated figures....
My point is as much of a point as pointing out that wind is unreliable or rather intermittent when intermittence isn't currently a problem.;)
Ok then. I can't be bothered arguing this particular point as you know exactly what I'd say anyway.
Will you help me out with a bit of maths? I promise I'll take you off the Fallacious Misinformers list if you do. Please?
Honest to goodness I can't figure it out.
The BWEA state (Oct 2005) that Wind energy’s key role in delivering the UK’s renewables policy means that the sector is expected to supply three-quarters of the 10% by 2010 target, equivalent to some 8,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity. This is expected to be split roughly equally between developments onshore and offshore.
They go on to give a rough breakdown – turbines onshore around 3000 (approx 4000MW) and offshore about 1300 (approx 4000MW).
How do they calculate 8000MW will meet 7.5% of UK 2010 target?
I thought electricity consumption in the UK was approx 50GW.
7.5% of 50GW = 3750MW
Using wind energy with load factor of 30% (I’m feeling particularly generous probably should be around 25 – 27%) you’d need to install 11250 MW of wind capacity.
So where does the 8000MW come from? I’ve found this figure quoted by the DTI, the National Grid Co. and the Wind Industry – it must be correct but nowhere can I find how it was calculated.
I’ve probably made a stupid error – maths not being a strong point.
Just for interest - someone might be interested?
I’ve pulled the following figures from BWEA which show that Scotland are way out in front in the battle of the turbines – England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not even close. We might be rubbish at football (and rugby after yesterdays performance) but we’re at the top of the turbine championship league – we can’t be touched!!
Total Onshore Wind - Operational and Under Construction
England - 451.12 MW
Scotland - 1480.54 MW
Wales - 301.35 MW
Northern Ireland - 140.95 MW
TOTAL 2373.96 MW
Consented (approved but not yet built)
England - 502.4 MW
Scotland – 877.65 MW
Wales – 47.7 MW
Northern Ireland – 82.85 MW
TOTAL 1510.6 MW
In Planning
England - 1250.75 MW
Scotland - 5316.1 MW
Wales - 367.18 MW
Northern Ireland - 1074.55 MW
TOTAL 8008.58 MW
ywindythesecond
25-Feb-07, 23:24
Yeah so? What has that got to do with factors of scale?:confused
Sorry Reggy
You seem to have missed my question. What are "factors of scale"?
KittyMay, the figures are quite easy to understand. First you decide the answer you wish to achieve then you work at the figures until you find the ones which give that answer.
It's standard bovine excretor procedure, doubly so with respect to any Government's wish-lists which might require fulfilling.
Ok then. I can't be bothered arguing this particular point as you know exactly what I'd say anyway.
Will you help me out with a bit of maths? I promise I'll take you off the Fallacious Misinformers list if you do. Please?
Honest to goodness I can't figure it out.
The BWEA state (Oct 2005) that Wind energy’s key role in delivering the UK’s renewables policy means that the sector is expected to supply three-quarters of the 10% by 2010 target, equivalent to some 8,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity. This is expected to be split roughly equally between developments onshore and offshore.
They go on to give a rough breakdown – turbines onshore around 3000 (approx 4000MW) and offshore about 1300 (approx 4000MW).
How do they calculate 8000MW will meet 7.5% of UK 2010 target?
I thought electricity consumption in the UK was approx 50GW.
7.5% of 50GW = 3750MW
Using wind energy with load factor of 30% (I’m feeling particularly generous probably should be around 25 – 27%) you’d need to install 11250 MW of wind capacity.
So where does the 8000MW come from? I’ve found this figure quoted by the DTI, the National Grid Co. and the Wind Industry – it must be correct but nowhere can I find how it was calculated.
I’ve probably made a stupid error – maths not being a strong point.
As far as I can see, your maths isn't wrong, the average national power usage is actually ~44GW so that will mitigate the calculation a wee bit. Also, the capacity factors for offshore will be higher than the 30% or the agreed 25% figure. I am guessing that they are projecting an increase in performance from wind as the move goes more towards offshore.
But I do agree the 8000MW does look a tad optimistic.
As far as I can see, your maths isn't wrong, the average national power usage is actually ~44GW so that will mitigate the calculation a wee bit. Also, the capacity factors for offshore will be higher than the 30% or the agreed 25% figure. I am guessing that they are projecting an increase in performance from wind as the move goes more towards offshore.
But I do agree the 8000MW does look a tad optimistic.
Thanks Rheghead - appreciate that. You're off the list. However, the wind industry are now in the top spot.
I may be pushing my luck here but do you also agree that National Grid's statement that - 8000MW of wind would allow around 3000MW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) to be retired - might also be considered a little optimistic? (I wouldn't label it 'optimistic' myself - so am biting my tongue)
Where Scotlands concerned these figures are irrelevant anyhow.
Scotlands 2010 target was for 18% renewable - includes approx 12% hydro leaving an additional 6% from wind.
Has Scotland officially met this target now?
More worryingly - the SE target of 40% for 2020 is for 6GW (installed net capacity of 2.1 GW) (Based on projected output as proportion of demand)
Forum for Renewable Energy Developments Scotand
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/09/09144010/40120
There's over 8GW of onshore wind in the system for Scotland. The executive has stated time and again that the 2020 target will be met with the 'mix' of renewables. We know the technologies that make up the mix are not yet available.
The only tool we have available to prevent Scotland actually hosting 8GW of onshore wind energy is the Planning System. The government and the wind industry are trying to change the system to speed up the planning process for onshore wind.
We've got that numpty Nicol Stephen spouting about a 100% renewable Scotland - no detail mind, on how we're to achieve that. Remember only wind is available and though there's offshore wind in England, there's little happening in Scotland offshore.
Let's not forget the crazy onshore wind targets for Highland - HRES.
Do we sit back and watch Scotland being blitzed by turbines? It's a nonsense. There's absolutely no need for it.
Rheghead, can you understand the concern? Or do you regard this as nimbyism?
Thanks Rheghead - appreciate that. You're off the list. However, the wind industry are now in the top spot.
I may be pushing my luck here but do you also agree that National Grid's statement that - 8000MW of wind would allow around 3000MW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) to be retired - might also be considered a little optimistic? (I wouldn't label it 'optimistic' myself - so am biting my tongue)
I haven't the foggiest idea how they make that statement to be accurate/relevent but I suspect it has something to do with probabilities that the wind is going to blow somewhere in the UK at any one time.
Do we sit back and watch Scotland being blitzed by turbines? It's a nonsense. There's absolutely no need for it.
Rheghead, can you understand the concern? Or do you regard this as nimbyism?
I can understand your concern. But I also think you may understand the concern that I have if we all (And I mean 'we' in the sense of humans globally) take more seriously the needs the local/nimby views over the Global need to control climate change.
For example, what if 2 billion chinese decide to be anti windfarm? What if yachtsmen start successfully stopping offshore developments? What if anti nuclear campaigners stop nuke generators? What if country planning fundamentalists stop all solar panels being put up in National Parks? What if Welsh farmers stop hydro-electric schemes being put up? What if 'the save the whale brigade' stop tidal power schemes being put up in the Pentland Firth? What if anglers stop micro hydro electric schemes?
The list is endless, I could go on.
We have a hard choice to make, do we want to combat climate change or no? And if we don't then who will pay for the fines that the EU will impose on the UK if she doesn't meet its targets? The Government without passing it onto us all in the form of a stealth Tax??:roll: The fines could make any ROC scheme seem almost paltry.
Why do I get the feeling that any contribution the UK might make in the drive to slow down/stop GW is being undone by the bucket full by the developing industrial nations (like China). They see the west has become prosperous and they want a slice of the cake, but their attitude is "Well you did it that way, so we can as well".
We could go completely green tomorrow and become a carbon neutral nation but China would still be adding to the problem. Until that problem (of pollution from developing nations) is tackled hard we are just making a gesture IMO. The planet will still overheat and we'll still die and our beloved wind turbines will stand as a monument to our gullibility.......
I haven't the foggiest idea how they make that statement to be accurate/relevent but I suspect it has something to do with probabilities that the wind is going to blow somewhere in the UK at any one time.
See, that makes me really edgy. There's so much misinformation it's impossible to make a judgement with any confidence. There are hundreds of very optimistic, questionable and false statements being made by government, SE, DTI, the wind industy, the greens etc about the performance of wind energy.
Is it any wonder there's so much doubt? Is it really that complex a technology? It's just a turbine that generates electricity, with a varied level of output depending on the available wind resource. Is it not?
How is it possible to produce differing levels of 'efficiency', load factor, capacity factor, generating capacity, TWh's, MWh's for say a 2 MW turbine all depending on whether you're for or against wind?
I can understand your concern. But I also think you may understand the concern that I have if we all (And I mean 'we' in the sense of humans globally) take more seriously the needs the local/nimby views over the Global need to control climate change.
I do understand your concern but are you not being a tad idealistic. I have similar concerns. In the real world Caithness, Highland, Scotland, the UK covered in wind turbines is NOT going to influence global populations.
We need to take this one step at a time - starting with our own back yard. Step One - drop the ridiculous target and get on with the job of reducing carbon.
How can we tackle global problems when we can't even agree on the electricity generated by a 2 MW turbine.
We have a hard choice to make, do we want to combat climate change or no? And if we don't then who will pay for the fines that the EU will impose on the UK if she doesn't meet its targets? The Government without passing it onto us all in the form of a stealth Tax??:roll: The fines could make any ROC scheme seem almost paltry.
The hard choices we have to make are the decisons on how best to reduce our carbon emissions, now. Not with token gestures, not with repeatedly saying that wind is the only way, the best way, a start. Government have more or less admitted they're not going to meet the 2010 target.
Yesterday the Observer reported 'experts claim there is no hope the government will meet its pledge to have 10 per cent of the UK's electricity powered by renewable energy by 2010; currently the figure is about 2 per cent and the vast majority of that is from wind farms.'
I also read yesterday (can't remember where) that government will soon be announcing that carbon emissions are still rising (not falling, as predicted) in the UK.
It's hardly a surprise - electricity production accounts for only around 30% of UK's carbon emissions and were we to meet the 2010 target for 10% renewable generation we would have reduced our emissions by 3%.
How many alternative ways could we have chosen to reduce our emissions by 3% that didn't include thousands of turbines?
Has everybody been sent a copy of the blurb from "Lets Talk Renewables"? It's typical of the sort of deliberate confusion causing misinformation. “The National grid”, it announces, “was built more than 30 years ago with a 40 year life span.” And that is the reason given for swamping the Highlands with massive new pylons.. Well, I’m glad to know that I have been rejuvenated to around 30 years of age because I can never remember the #National Grid not bring in existence.
Under Sea Cables are not an alternative! Why? “Because much of the power generated will be needed locally”. I wonder exactly what they mean by “locally” because the 13 planned turbines at the Yarrows will produce enough electricity for over 28,000 homes. That’s enough for every single person in Caithness to have a home completely to themselves with some left over and that is without any of the other sites either planned or already in existence. Added to that, only 20% of Electricity in Scotland goes to either England or Ireland.
This is typical of the methods, excuses and misinformation used to try to confuse the situation so they can do as they wish. The 20% they speak of is what is happening now, it carefully avoids mentioning where most of the electricity which will be produced by current and future Wind Farms will be going when they are in full production. It will obviously be going outwith the area and not only to the Central Belt. The massive excess which the Highlands, especially when you include Lewis, will be going somewhere. If it isn’t then there is no need for the Wind Farms.
58% of energy use in Scotland is to provide heating and only 27% on all forms of transport yet we are led to believe car use is the major problem. Surely money spent on cutting the 58% used for heating by improving the insulation of buildings would be money better spent. Think how much power would be save by halving that.
43% of current power production in Scotland is already from non-carbon producing sources. Isn’t that already far in excess of the figures the Government says it wishes to achieve eventually?
That’s only a small sample of the most obvious contradictions, I have no doubt that a careful study would reveal far more.
My main complaint is that they are simply pumping out propaganda dressed up as facts. If they would stop doing that and, even though the idea is completely objectionable to them, tell the truth then I might even be convinced to change my mind.
Jaws - I haven't seen that little beauty. Probably just as well as by the sounds of it my blood would boil. Where did it come from?
This wind energy for 'local use' is currently a very trendy phenomenon. I've asked SE about this and about levels of 'local' wind energy but their response concentrated on the need for renewable energy with vague reference to the question. I'm no further on.
How do you get to the truth of this? Who, of those that know, would tell?
Could this constant reference to 'local use' be a sort of back up technique - if the community bribery isn't doing the job of persuading the G-imbys (gimme -in my back yard) to embrace a development then the benefits of generating our own electricity makes it much more acceptable - regardless of the fact that we would end up swimming in excess electricity when the wind was blowing at the right speed.
Mind you - this might not be so crazy. The target is to generate a percentage of renewable energy. There's no target for actually using it.
Have I got this right. We need to upgrade the grid to take the electricity from windfarms in the north but the windfarms in the north will be generating electricity for local use and will therefore not require the major upgrades to the grid.
That makes sense now!!
ywindythesecond
27-Feb-07, 00:44
Jaws - I haven't seen that little beauty. Probably just as well as by the sounds of it my blood would boil. Where did it come from?
This wind energy for 'local use' is currently a very trendy phenomenon. I've asked SE about this and about levels of 'local' wind energy but their response concentrated on the need for renewable energy with vague reference to the question. I'm no further on.
How do you get to the truth of this? Who, of those that know, would tell?
Could this constant reference to 'local use' be a sort of back up technique - if the community bribery isn't doing the job of persuading the G-imbys (gimme -in my back yard) to embrace a development then the benefits of generating our own electricity makes it much more acceptable - regardless of the fact that we would end up swimming in excess electricity when the wind was blowing at the right speed.
Mind you - this might not be so crazy. The target is to generate a percentage of renewable energy. There's no target for actually using it.
Have I got this right. We need to upgrade the grid to take the electricity from windfarms in the north but the windfarms in the north will be generating electricity for local use and will therefore not require the major upgrades to the grid.
That makes sense now!!
Kitty May
A thought going round my head for a while now but only just surfaced is when does a windmill get its ROC? Is it when it generates its MW, or when it delivers a MW for someone to use (apologies to techy purists on use of terminology)?
KittyMay, it's a madazine of about a dozen pages published by HIE and came with today's post. It could just have been sent to the area surrounding the Yarrows Wind Farm.
If it hasn't been delivered to the rest of the area then I suspect it is just an additional piece of indoctrination to persuade people they must accept these monstrosities or be condemned as the Devil Incarnate and responsible for the end of civilisation as we know it.
Seeing there are those who already believe I have cloven hooves, horns and a tail, which doesn't bother me in the least, they are on wasting their time trying that one. :roll:
Kitty May
A thought going round my head for a while now but only just surfaced is when does a windmill get its ROC? Is it when it generates its MW, or when it delivers a MW for someone to use (apologies to techy purists on use of terminology)?
Ah, very grey area. There's disagreement between the pro's and anti's over this. There's no information/stats available from the conventional generators to prove that displacement of fossil fuel by wind equals generated ROC's.
If it's true, the financial implications of this are one thing but more importantly is the impact on carbon reductions.
Is it possible for wind energy to be generated but not delivered? Am way out of my depth on this one.
KittyMay, Seeing there are those who already believe I have cloven hooves, horns and a tail, which doesn't bother me in the least, they are on wasting their time trying that one. :roll:
How did you get to the point of acceptance of your position as Devil Incarnate? I'm still valiently trying to justify and defend my position - I'm embarrassingly naive.
Will give HIE a ring and request a copy. I've read some of HIE's responses to various consultations on the subject of wind - scary stuff - it's all exploitation of our wind resource, upgrades of grids, pack in those turbines, employment for thousands, major economic growth, community benefit rules, attraction of heavy industry, solving fuel poverty. Naturally, there's no detail on how this'll be achieved.
I m not sure exactly how ROCs work but, as usual, in the Governments haste to prove it’s green credentials they dealt with them according to the Rules whilst many other Countries involved in the system handed them out like confetti.
From what little information I have seen the whole system has been rushed into being before it has been given proper consideration. As a result the whole set-up is in a complete mess, but we have done it before the rest of the World to show them the way.
Sorry, KittyMay, the Devil Incarnate comment was just a throw away line.
I suspect the HIE along with various other organisations with a vested interest are suffering more from self-interest than hard facts.
The size of the Turbines are played down as is the size of the new pylons needed to upgrade the National Grid, many of which, in other areas, will be going through unspoiled tourist areas. That would explain the haste to rubbish the sub-sea cables. Pylons are initially cheaper and are very visible. People won’t be able to see a sub-sea cable so you can’t point to it to show people how wonderful you are for “Saving the World”.
The same thing applies to the fallacy that tourists will love them and will flock to see them . Not when the monstrosities are all over the Country they won’t. “Let’s spend our holidays in the Highlands to see if their Turbines are any nicer than the ones we can see from our house!” The blurb for the Yarrows says tourist love them and will like them being there.
N-Power played the "Employment" card in their information weeping Crocodile Tears about the massive amount of unemployment in the area and how they will be helping solve it. A many jobs created as a result of the preparation, delivery, transport and building phases, not mentioning they are all very short term, and glossing over that the whole thing will only create a couple of long term jobs. In view of the fact that all the high-teck controls etc. will be placed outwith the area you can guarantee that the two jobs mentioned will be low paid ones.
That’s not simply Nimbyism, the same thing goes for any sensitive area. Can you imagine the uproar if somebody suggested putting one right next to Stonehenge or on the “Bonnie, Bonnie Shores of Loch Lomond and claimed they would be a tourist attraction?
“Dump them in the Far North, we can get away with it there, nobody will notice until it's too late! Besides, they're daft up there, they'll believe anything we tell them, just pretend we are doing them a favour, works every time.”
Sorry, KittyMay, the Devil Incarnate comment was just a throw away line.
No apology required, you misunderstood me. I envy your acceptance of the title - I'm so naive I still believe I can persuade others that I'm really not a nimby and there's justification for my stance. I know - pathetic.
“Dump them in the Far North, we can get away with it there, nobody will notice until it's too late! Besides, they're daft up there, they'll believe anything we tell them, just pretend we are doing them a favour, works every time.”
Aided and abetted by our very own enterprise company and council. Folk don't have a clue that what's being proposed for up here is on a scale far in excess of anything else throughout the country. Similarily, folk are unaware that Scotland has been targeted for the bulk of onshore wind developments or they believe it's down to our 'unique' wind resource.
Ah, very grey area. There's disagreement between the pro's and anti's over this. There's no information/stats available from the conventional generators to prove that displacement of fossil fuel by wind equals generated ROC's.
If it's true, the financial implications of this are one thing but more importantly is the impact on carbon reductions.
Is it possible for wind energy to be generated but not delivered? Am way out of my depth on this one.
Why would the electric companies pay for something that is not delivered? Would you?:roll:
KittyMay, they are working on the principal that if they did it to the same extent near larger areas of population the outcry would be too large for them to ignore.
People do not pass through the Highlands when they travel between the main centres of population so the desecration of the area will be less noticeable until it’s too late to do anything about it.
We are not on anybody’s doorstep so we don’t exist. Nobody’s Sunday afternoon out is going to be ruined by having their favourite beauty spot overshadowed by turbines.
Why would the electric companies pay for something that is not delivered? Would you?:roll:
Sorry but I don't quite get your question - electricity companies only pay for what they receive from the grid - don't they?
I can summarise the argument but don't accuse me of misinformation if it's proves to be fallacious anti propaganda. (There's plenty of it about) You're in a better position to deduce if it's likely or not - to be honest I think it's a bit far fetched. Not even the wind industry would get away with this one.
The argument is that at certain lower levels of wind speed, electricity produced is so minimal that the turbines are shut off from the grid. That's pretty straight forward. However, it's been whispered that metering for ROC's continues while the turbine is not connected to the grid.
Is this possible?
ywindythesecond
28-Feb-07, 00:32
Sorry but I don't quite get your question - electricity companies only pay for what they receive from the grid - don't they?
I can summarise the argument but don't accuse me of misinformation if it's proves to be fallacious anti propaganda. (There's plenty of it about) You're in a better position to deduce if it's likely or not - to be honest I think it's a bit far fetched. Not even the wind industry would get away with this one.
The argument is that at certain lower levels of wind speed, electricity produced is so minimal that the turbines are shut off from the grid. That's pretty straight forward. However, it's been whispered that metering for ROC's continues while the turbine is not connected to the grid.
Is this possible?
However, it's been whispered that metering for ROC's continues while the turbine is not connected to the grid
Sorry Kitty May, Think you are wrong on this one.
However recommended reading re OFGEM's response to the Government's consultation on rocs is to be found by Googling "OFGEM RESPONSE."
You will find it interesting Jaws, regarding understanding rocs.
Reggy, why are you resisting reading it? It answers lots of your questions.
Could save you a lot of time.
The argument is that at certain lower levels of wind speed, electricity produced is so minimal that the turbines are shut off from the grid. That's pretty straight forward. However, it's been whispered that metering for ROC's continues while the turbine is not connected to the grid.
Is this possible?
Very unlikely, unless the system is different from small scale windturbines that are connected to the Grid. I know of one turbine owner in Caithness who only receives ROCs as per the outgoing meter.
Since the idea is only a suspicion and one based on the idea that someone is getting something for nothing then I believe it to be false unless there is direct evidence to suggest otherwise. Have you been whispering to yourself Kitty?
Thanks windy and reghead.
Rheghead, you give me too much credit, I could never have thought of that myself.
I found reference to it on a blog, I think, for engineery types, about a year ago (it was rather more complex than my interpretation) - it caused quite a heated debate, most of which was way over my head and I didn't partake in the debate, as I know nothing about electricity transmission. It didn't seem at all likely that turbines could be shut off from the grid and still generate electricity for ROC's.
I'm actually pleased to hear it's not possible.
But I'm really confused about all this wind generated electricity for 'local' use. How does that work? When the wind blows and generates 5 times more electricity than we use/need what happens to the excess?
How many times do winds go above 50mph?:roll:
Today? Gales of 50, 60 and even 70 MPH across the UK........:eek:
Today? Gales of 50, 60 and even 70 MPH across the UK........:eek:
There is not a breath of wind up here! Gosh these wind turbines are a major waste of time and money![lol]
Just wait until tonight - the weatherman said gales of 70MPH would hit the far north this evening/tonight....
Just wait until tonight - the weatherman said gales of 70MPH would hit the far north this evening/tonight....
Are these wind turbines not working? 70mph winds to an owld seadog is nothing, I thought these turbines would have generated more wind than that, I could heat my house with the hot air thats generated on these boards, if I only knew how to harness it [lol]
Anything over 50 mph and the turbines shut down. So if the farm was up and running on the Isle Of Lewis it would have to be turned off and all that luverly wind would blow past and not a single watt of energy would be produced.
If the far north gets these high winds tonight it would be interesting to find out if the existing turbines in Caithness are turned off. But then I guess the owners won't release such sensitive information about the operation of their beasts...
Any volunteers to nip out and observe their nearest turbine in the high winds?
Oh and yes - if we could harness the hot air generated here we'd be onto a good thing.
Anything over 50 mph and the turbines shut down.
I thought the Turbines produced 'e wind, well ye live an learn :eek: :roll:
I thought the Turbines produced 'e wind, well ye live an learn
Well i thought there were a few fans of wind power about but that was taking it a stage further! :)
Did anyone catch the item on the BBC news at 6 about the micro energy systems? Some user of the Windsave domestic wind turbine was reporting that in the time he had this device installed (several months?) he had generated 7kw of energy. His wood burning stove produced 5 kw in a few hours.
The claim that these micro systems could cut consumption by a quarter were dismissed as incorrect - it was more like a tenth. Windsave claim they would never install a turbine in an unsuitable location - but if the customer has the money to spend would less scrupulous firms be so honest?
Is green energy the 21st century equivalent of double glazing?
Anything over 50 mph and the turbines shut down. So if the farm was up and running on the Isle Of Lewis it would have to be turned off and all that luverly wind would blow past and not a single watt of energy would be produced.
If the far north gets these high winds tonight it would be interesting to find out if the existing turbines in Caithness are turned off. But then I guess the owners won't release such sensitive information about the operation of their beasts...
Why would they be shut off when little individual ones carry on producing...seems bad design to me?
Granted the wee ones have a wind speed where the blades adjust and output levels off but they don't stop.
Sorry but I don't quite get your question - electricity companies only pay for what they receive from the grid - don't they?
I can summarise the argument but don't accuse me of misinformation if it's proves to be fallacious anti propaganda. (There's plenty of it about) You're in a better position to deduce if it's likely or not - to be honest I think it's a bit far fetched. Not even the wind industry would get away with this one.
The argument is that at certain lower levels of wind speed, electricity produced is so minimal that the turbines are shut off from the grid. That's pretty straight forward. However, it's been whispered that metering for ROC's continues while the turbine is not connected to the grid.
Is this possible?
Dunno about off-grid turbines............but the 2.5kw one here produces a total output...which is either used here onsite or exported. The ROCs apply to the total output.
Depending on how the Electricity board has set up their metering, though, the turbine can be producing more than they meter as useable....which is an ongoing discussion with them at present as it is presently too high, and this has been acknowledged and is being worked on.
So technically, ROCs are applied to units not metered into the grid by the Electricity Company, but this is because of the levels their equipment cuts in at, not because the electricity isn't going there.
The assumption is that what you don't export, you use onsite...so since getting grid connected, electricity usage here has apparently increased twofold!
Roll on the Electricity Company getting its equipment fit for the purpose it was meant to have been designed for!
Why would they be shut off when little individual ones carry on producing...seems bad design to me?
Granted the wee ones have a wind speed where the blades adjust and output levels off but they don't stop.
I would imagine it is to prevent damage to the turbine - either blades, drive shafts or actual generator. When you consider the speed that the blade tips achieve even under normal operating conditions then allowing them to rotate at very high speeds could be a potential disaster.
I guess this could be the result -
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/327
Some more failure pics -
http://www.knolltowindfarm.org.uk/
ywindythesecond
01-Mar-07, 01:08
Anything over 50 mph and the turbines shut down. So if the farm was up and running on the Isle Of Lewis it would have to be turned off and all that luverly wind would blow past and not a single watt of energy would be produced.
If the far north gets these high winds tonight it would be interesting to find out if the existing turbines in Caithness are turned off. But then I guess the owners won't release such sensitive information about the operation of their beasts...
Any volunteers to nip out and observe their nearest turbine in the high winds?
Oh and yes - if we could harness the hot air generated here we'd be onto a good thing.
I had a very interesting visit to a Causeymire turbine last year in an organised visit, and had a few cherished conceptions dispelled by the chap who maintains them. He had been delegated to answer questions, which he did very competently. I spoke to him on leaving to find he had never done this sort of thing before and he had been terrified of possible aggro from windies.
The cherished conceptions dispelled were:
1. Only a part of a person works full time on Causeymire. Answer is three.
2. It needs electricity to start up from scratch. Answer is no.
3. It blows so much wind in Caithness that Causeymire shuts down frequently. Answer was that it hadn't happened in an impressively long period covering what had been very stormy periods.
Re not shutting down in high winds, this chap explained that in Denmark where CMWF is monitored from, the 15 minute average wind speed is used to monitor turbines and guage response.
So the turbines don't shut down in high winds?
If the answer to that is "correct", then BWEA don't even know how their turbines work.....
Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 meters/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down. For more information, see the BWEA factsheet on wind energy technology.
Any volunteers to nip out and observe their nearest turbine in the high winds?
I'm gonna tell you a little secret but don't be jealous. I don't need to nip out to see the turbines - all 21 of them. And - I'll have you know - I didn't object.
That was in the good old days when I was a proponent of wind - thought it a darn good idea. The shame of it. But, I know better now.
I also hadn't realised that we were talking 'exploitation' of the wind resource. Back then, I didn't know what the SE had in mind for Scotland or what HC had in store for Highland.
BTW - they do shut down in high winds or maybe it's coincidence and they just happen to be doing maintenance work during high winds.
Well, I don't know whether to be jealous or offer sympathy - 21? Care to post a pic of your view?
Well, I don't know whether to be jealous or offer sympathy - 21? Care to post a pic of your view?
Sorry, have never been inclined to take photo's of industrial developments - not going to start now. However, I might post a pic of the surrounding gorgeous view - minus the turbines - and let you use your imagination.
According to Fact 10 of the BWEA,s top myths, I should be a wind worshipper.
10 Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
Fact: …..Surveys conducted since the early 1990's across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
I've gone wrong somewhere. I've failed to appreciate the new dimension of my landscape.
ywindythesecond
01-Mar-07, 23:27
So the turbines don't shut down in high winds?
If the answer to that is "correct", then BWEA don't even know how their turbines work.....
No Madpict, the answer was that they hadn't had to shut down for some considerable time. I was in no doubt that the lad was telling the truth, and my supposition was that they hadn't had to shut down because of remote monitoring from Denmark. If you were sat on the Causeymire and had a 70mph gust, you would shut down pdq. If you were a machine in Denmark, and recorded an average speed of 30mph over the last 15 minutes, you might be quite relaxed about it.
ywindythesecond
01-Mar-07, 23:29
Sorry, have never been inclined to take photo's of industrial developments - not going to start now. However, I might post a pic of the surrounding gorgeous view - minus the turbines - and let you use your imagination.
According to Fact 10 of the BWEA,s top myths, I should be a wind worshipper.
10 Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
Fact: …..Surveys conducted since the early 1990's across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
I've gone wrong somewhere. I've failed to appreciate the new dimension of my landscape.
Seems you are a statistical glitch Kitty May
According to reuters, the UK has caved in under pressure from Europe, into accepting a binding target to increase renewable electricity production to 20% by 2020, in an effort to meet the EU’s 20% carbon reduction target.
Some countries are still holding out due to concerns that this action might lead to very limited reductions in carbon emissions and the costs for reducing carbon through the production of renewable electricity are far greater than for alternative methods such as combined heat and power, clean coal and energy efficiency.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-28T111219Z_01_L28114294_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ENERGY-EU-BRITAIN.xml (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-28T111219Z_01_L28114294_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ENERGY-EU-BRITAIN.xml)
Without development of firmer alternative renewables, this would necessitate a UK installed wind capacity of around 24GW (give or take a GW or 2).
Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the wind industry can be ‘persuaded’ to take a cut in profits and start developing offshore. But, how grid management problems will be overcome with an injection of wind at that level is a complete mystery.
Seems you are a statistical glitch Kitty May
It is a general principle in scientific thought that small, insignificant statistical glitches can be safely ignored, sorry I couldn't resist that one :)
It is a general principle in scientific thought that small, insignificant statistical glitches can be safely ignored, sorry I couldn't resist that one :)
Ha, ha - very funny. You may mock but you'll be hard pressed to ignore 24 GW worth of wind turbines!! Any input from me is insignificant, yes, absolutely, I've no problem with that. Continuing blindly with this wind nonsense will have a very significant impact.
ywindythesecond
04-Mar-07, 01:43
It is a general principle in scientific thought that small, insignificant statistical glitches can be safely ignored, sorry I couldn't resist that one :)
Where can I read about the "general principle in scientific thought that small, insignificant statistical glitches can be safely ignored"?
Who decides when they are small or insignificant? or indeed if they are just glitches?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.