bird strikes & wind farms

[nirofo]

Quote: KittyMay:
As to your remarks about peat. Maybe the government will use the same process for the development of peat as a fuel as for wind. Offer large subsidies to the biomass industry and let landowners decide if they want to sell off their bogs. This might seem lunacy, given the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, but it hasn't been a problem for the wind industry. (Fortunately, peat bogs are protected and SNH and RSPB would have apoplectic fits if this ever came to pass)

The fact that many areas where windfarms have been built and are proposed to be built are in legally protected areas, where it is illegal to disturb the Schedule One protected species that live and breed there has not stopped the steady onslaught of the insidious windfarm so far. Why then will the protected peat bogs pose a threat to these people who care little if anything for our fragile environment and beautifull places.

nirofo.

[KittyMay]

Its great that the WINDIES are also quoting how many homes the electricity from these useless machines are suppose to cater for ,but they never answer the question WHEN...Thats WHEN is the power available
Can the turbine provide BASE LOAD ......NO
Can they provide for DEMAND...............NO
You must agree that we are a supply and demand society and Turbines can't supply it ,when we demand it ...
I gave a challenge to a few Councillors and Windies. That i would supply a device that would only allow electricity to flow in their homes when the Turbines on the Causewaymare was turning......So NO wind.... No power ...None would take it up ..I wonder why .....

Dozy - This should be mandatory. Every household (especially those poor deluded folk who believe that by switching to a 'green' tariff they are using only renewable electricity and those who worship wind because it's a 'start' or because they believe that wind can replace conventional generators) should hook up to one of these devices you refer to above. Think of the carbon savings and we'd be awash with surplus generating capacity.

OK there would be a tiny downside - we'd very, very rarely have any electricity but other than that the benefits would be awesome.

The wind industry states that Caithness now easily generates enough wind energy to supply all households in Caithness and Sutherland so we'd be OK - wouldn't we??

[KittyMay]

The fact that many areas where windfarms have been built and are proposed to be built are in legally protected areas, where it is illegal to disturb the Schedule One protected species that live and breed there has not stopped the steady onslaught of the insidious windfarm so far. Why then will the protected peat bogs pose a threat to these people who care little if anything for our fragile environment and beautifull places.

nirofo.

Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?

[nirofo]

[quote=KittyMay;188155]Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?[/quote]


It's the same old story, it's one rule for us and another specially made or ignored for them ??

nirofo.

[Rheghead]

Put facts and figures together and lets have a look at your findings. The windturbines recoup their energy of installation within a few months.

Can you explain how peat cutting is not green? It can be argued that peat for fuel is renewable, in fact the Fins reckon they can cut peat for energy sustainably.[/quote]

You obviously do too much talking to find out what you're talking about, search the web, do a bit of googling, it's all there if you care to look for it, all the information you can imagine about windfarms, CO2 emissions, load factors, footprint, etc, etc. Anyway don't you know CO2 is naturally trapped in the ground in massive amounts nearly everywhere, especially in a biomass like peat. When peat is cut, dug or burned it releases large amounts, (for it's volume) of CO2. Peat is a non renewable fossil fuel which if used for powering power stations will give off more CO2 per tonne than it's equivalent in coal. No one is contradicting the fact that peat can be burned for energy production, but can you imagine the huge amounts that would be needed to supply all our energy needs, even forgetting the huge CO2 emissions that would result.

Incidentally, there's a forum on the internet discussing the pros and cons of windfarms going back about 2 years, it's part of Bird Forum and has many genned up people posting there. If you want a real insight into this topic I suggest you log on to the following web address and browse for a while, should take you several weeks. Keep you quiet for a while anyway !!

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=27198

nirofo.

As I thought, you can't put any facts and figures together that suggests that windfarms have a negative energy balance, iow your post is all bluff.

I have looked at the facts and figures available with a google search and nothing convinces me otherwise, it can't because there isn't any evidence at all.

btw, I have already posted on the birdforum.net forum and particularly in that thread, in fact, I have posted in that thread quite a lot!

[Rheghead]

Sorry to disappoint you but I lack the necessary knowledge on carbon footprints that allows for comment. However, I have read, probably about a hundred differing views on this subject and am extremely confident in my decision to ignore any figures produced by the wind industry.

Well what is the point in coming on here spouting about windfarms when you yourself are not prepared to listen and digest properly researched papers on this subject and hope to make anyone listen and digest your opinion when you yourself never put any facts and figures together?

I respect your right to ignore researched facts at the same time I reserve my right to ignore claptrap.

[Rheghead]

Its great that the WINDIES are also quoting how many homes the electricity from these useless machines are suppose to cater for ,but they never answer the question WHEN...Thats WHEN is the power available
Can the turbine provide BASE LOAD ......NObut do they need to?
Can they provide for DEMAND...............NO but do they need to?
You must agree that we are a supply and demand society and Turbines can't supply it ,when we demand it ...
I gave a challenge to a few Councillors and Windies. That i would supply a device that would only allow electricity to flow in their homes when the Turbines on the Causewaymare was turning......So NO wind.... No power ...None would take it up ..I wonder why .....

I take it then that you are against solar, tidal, wave and hydro power then?

I take it that if/when they sort out the energy storage problem you will love the wind?

[KittyMay]

Well what is the point in coming on here spouting about windfarms when you yourself are not prepared to listen and digest properly researched papers on this subject and hope to make anyone listen and digest your opinion when you yourself never put any facts and figures together?

I respect your right to ignore researched facts at the same time I reserve my right to ignore claptrap.

So tell me, have the upgrades and replacements to transmission lines been factored into the equation? To the payback period you know without any doubt to be correct.

I'll repeat myself yet again -

We're obliged to substantially reduce our carbon emissions
We must replace/update much of our conventional generators
RESPONSE - set a target for renewable energy generation

The response cannot meet either of the objectives now or in the near future.

Let's greatly simplify matters -

I need to stop smoking and lose weight. The answer is to chuck the fags and eat less. But this is rather painful so I decide my response will be to make a 'start' by taking a little exercise.
The result - a slightly fitter fat smoker.
Failed.

Now. Replace smoking with carbon and weightloss with security of supply. Potentially very politically painful. So response is to introduce a renewable target.
The result - no meaningful reduction in carbon, no security of supply and, oh yes, windfarms.
Failed.

Wrong target. Wrong result.

[nirofo]

As I thought, you can't put any facts and figures together that suggests that windfarms have a negative energy balance, iow your post is all bluff.

I have looked at the facts and figures available with a google search and nothing convinces me otherwise, it can't because there isn't any evidence at all.

btw, I have already posted on the birdforum.net forum and particularly in that thread, in fact, I have posted in that thread quite a lot!

Why should I do all the hard work for you when you obviously know all about it already, you are so confident that there are no facts available on the web to counteract your claims. Use your loaf man, (sorry, or woman), there's tons of stuff available out there, go and find it, then let us know what gems you have come up with. Why don't you call my bluff, if it is bluff ?

If you have posted on the Bird Forum windfarm thread I'm afraid it didn't leave much of an impression or I'd have remembered it ??

nirofo.

[golach]

Nirofo - to be honest I can't get my head around this one, am stunned. We're forbidden to drive our four wheel bike through areas of peatland on our farm and we've 'foolishly' adhered to that ruling. Yet, it's OK to dig up foundations for turbines and possibly dig up the peat itself for fuel and that's leaving aside the over riding issue of carbon release. What can you say?

Hmmm, as I thought origionally a clear case of nimbyism

[Rheghead]

Why should I do all the hard work for you when you obviously know all about it already, you are so confident that there are no facts available on the web to counteract your claims. Use your loaf man, (sorry, or woman), there's tons of stuff available out there, go and find it, then let us know what gems you have come up with. Why don't you call my bluff, if it is bluff ?

If you have posted on the Bird Forum windfarm thread I'm afraid it didn't leave much of an impression or I'd have remembered it ??

nirofo.

You are in denial as well as others. Please supply facts and figures if you know about the true situation on the energy balance. I have already stated that there is nothing. Just saying that windfarms are rubbish means nothing unless you can prove it.

I guess you know more about it than a load of boffins eh?

Still waiting....again....

[Rheghead]

So tell me, have the upgrades and replacements to transmission lines been factored into the equation? To the payback period you know without any doubt to be correct.

Lots of windfarms will share the joint energy burden for the upgrade. The Dounreay to Denny(or is it Beauly) length will only need stringing of additional cables to increase transmission capacity.

[KittyMay]

Lots of windfarms will share the joint energy burden for the upgrade. The Dounreay to Denny(or is it Beauly) length will only need stringing of additional cables to increase transmission capacity.

A simple 'No', as answer to the question, would have sufficed. What about the transmission/heat losses over such long distances?

I think the Beauly to Denny line requires a little more than a bit of additional stringing.
The Orkney to Caithness submarine cable?
The Lewis to 'wherever' submarine cable?
The Scotland to England Interconnector?

That's for starters.

You're quite right though it's going to require development of a fair few wind turbines to drive and finance this little package.

Of course, we could reign in the over-development of wind energy and none of these upgrades would be required.

[Rheghead]

A simple 'No', as answer to the question, would have sufficed. What about the transmission/heat losses over such long distances?

I think the Beauly to Denny line requires a little more than a bit of additional stringing.
The Orkney to Caithness submarine cable?
The Lewis to 'wherever' submarine cable?
The Scotland to England Interconnector?

That's for starters.

You're quite right though it's going to require development of a fair few wind turbines to drive and finance this little package.

Of course, we could reign in the over-development of wind energy and none of these upgrades would be required.

Do you honestly believe that all those upgrades would put the energy balance of windfarms/renewable energy schemes in the North(because any Pentland firth tidal scheme will need this upgrade as well as windfarms)into the red? If you do then I think you are severely mistaken.

[KittyMay]

Do you honestly believe that all those upgrades would put the energy balance of windfarms/renewable energy schemes in the North(because any Pentland firth tidal scheme will need this upgrade as well as windfarms)into the red? If you do then I think you are severely mistaken.

You stated, rather rudely I might add, that I should refrain from posting comments on wind energy if I was not willing to accept that your chosen formula (whatever that is) for the calculation of the carbon footprint of wind was the correct one. I am still in the dark as to which calculation is correct.

I simply asked if upgrades to the gird had been included in this calculation - the one you know without doubt is correct.

I would have thought and hoped that given the potential output from a tidal scheme in the Pentland Firth it is highly unlikely that the electricity will come ashore at any distance from an area of high consumer demand.

I think it's time to acknowledge that we're attempting to debate/argue two very different issues.

You're arguing the case for wind energy as an additional source of energy production, an add-on, in isolation of the wider energy challenge we face. You also argue that wind is the way forward in meeting the renewable energy target and that the target itself is worthy of achieving.

I question the role for large scale commercial wind energy in securing our electricity supply, as part of Scotlands (or indeed the UK's) generating mix. As we don't have an energy strategy for either Scotland or the UK it's impossible to identify that role.
I argue that wind energy is not the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions and I firmly believe that if the priority was reducing carbon emissions then the wrong target was set.

Thanks anyway, I enjoyed the discussion - most of the time.

[Rheghead]

You stated, rather rudely I might add, that I should refrain from posting comments on wind energy if I was not willing to accept that your chosen formula (whatever that is) for the calculation of the carbon footprint of wind was the correct one. I am still in the dark as to which calculation is correct.I haven't come up with a formula bar from suggesting that you take a look at the published papers on the subject of energy balance of windfarms. I was rather hoping that you came up with a formula to prove they are energy inefficient so I could examine it, but no. I haven't been rude btw.

I simply asked if upgrades to the gird had been included in this calculation - the one you know without doubt is correct.What calculation?



I question the role for large scale commercial wind energy in securing our electricity supply, as part of Scotlands (or indeed the UK's) generating mix. As we don't have an energy strategy for either Scotland or the UK it's impossible to identify that role.The HRES was an effective strategy that ensured that the windfarms went up in areas close to the main transmission lines and in areas where the topography was suitable for build. On that skeletal strategy we could go forward in discussing each application. I am sure the existing generators weren't subject to such planning scrutiny and a strategy but they still secure our energy supply.
I argue that wind energy is not the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions and I firmly believe that if the priority was reducing carbon emissions then the wrong target was set.Again, I have mentioned this before, each unit of wind energy will mitigate 2.5 units of carbon chemical energy due to thermal losses at generation source. How can this be inefficient?

Thanks anyway, I enjoyed the discussion - most of the time.

Thank, same for me.

[golach]

Well done Scotland, we are doing some thing to save the planet at last. This IMO is showing others it can be done, and should continue to be done, until we find a better method.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6344215.stm

[Riffman]

I admit I have not read the whole thread, but at 45RPM (most windmills (they are not turbines in the proper sense of the word)) maximum rotational speed) the tip speed is a shade off 300mph for the caithness sized turbines.

That is quite hard to dodge.....

Oh and the effiency of a windmill (turbine thingy) is 10%.... so a 2MW will actually be 20KW....

..which means that all the claims to generate enough power for 6,000 houses means in reality that it is enough for 600 houses.

You may have guess that I am not a fan of them. They are just a poor excuse for renewable energy. Real power comes from biomass and wave energy. Both of which don't make a mess of the landscape.

[Rheghead]

Oh and the effiency of a windmill (turbine thingy) is 10%

It depends where they are sited, a badly sited windturbine will of course have a bad load factor, however, if they are sited in good sites they they do quite well.

BTW, you figure is a bit off from all the official figures that I have read, the DTI had the national average figure at 24.1% 2 years ago.

[Riffman]

It depends where they are sited, a badly sited windturbine will of course have a bad load factor, however, if they are sited in good sites they they do quite well.

BTW, you figure is a bit off from all the official figures that I have read, the DTI had the national average figure at 24.1% 2 years ago.

Well I was given my figure by a chap who sells them, make what you will of it.