more wind turbines

[ywindythesecond]

A bit of a contradiction there, the raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change.

The alleged raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change, the real reason is to make money from us, the consumers.

But Reggy did you notice that Hansard records that:

Baroness Vadera, (who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) said "wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind."

Go on Reggy, tell me Hansard got it wrong. (Of course it is entirely possible that Baroness Vadera got it wrong.)

[Rheghead]

The alleged raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change, the real reason is to make money from us, the consumers.

But Reggy did you notice that Hansard records that:

Baroness Vadera, (who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) said "wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind."

Go on Reggy, tell me Hansard got it wrong. (Of course it is entirely possible that Baroness Vadera got it wrong.)

They were making money from us anyway. Conventional power needs replacing anyway, we have aging plants. I didn't realise the extent to which wind energy could intrude into the baseload capability. It is even more than I first realised.

So lets go back to my question.

Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.

Fluctuating Unpredictable Output and Standby Capacity
The output of some renewable technologies, such as wind, wave, solar and even some CHP, is naturally subject to fluctuation and, for some renewable technologies, unpredictability relative to the more traditional generation technologies. Based on recent analyses of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the expected intermittency of the national wind portfolio would not appear to pose a technical ceiling on the amount of wind generation that may be accommodated and adequately managed. However, increasing levels of such renewable generation on the system would increase the costs of balancing the system and managing system frequency.

It is a property of the interconnected transmission system that individual and local independent fluctuations in output are diversified and averaged out across the system. Moreover, the interconnected system permits frequency response and reserves to be carried on the most cost effective generation or demand side service provider at any particular time. These properties of the transmission network permit intermittent/variable generation to be used with lower standby and frequency control costs than would otherwise be the case.

The proportion of conventional generation needed to be retained in the electricity market, given the variable and unpredictable nature of some renewable technologies such as wind, such that current levels of security of supply are not eroded is the subject of the published paper: “A shift to wind is not unfeasible”, by Dale, Milborrow, Slark & Strbac, Power UK Issue 109, March 2003.

For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW 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 25GW of wind only 5GW (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”.

[ywindythesecond]

They were making money from us anyway. Conventional power needs replacing anyway, we have aging plants. I didn't realise the extent to which wind energy could intrude into the baseload capability. It is even more than I first realised.

So lets go back to my question.

"Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW. "

OK
Less than 10% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand at proposed EU levels, and even 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.

[Rheghead]

"Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW. "

OK
Less than 10% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand at proposed EU levels, and even 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.

I don't know where you get your figures but this is from the National Grid.....again.

For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW 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 25GW of wind only 5GW (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

Even Hansard say they are good for climate change.

Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market??

[Rheghead]

E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/u...from%20Eon.doc

E.ON are a German company who are one of (if not the largest) operaters of coal fired energy plants in the UK, AND they are one of the largest developers of wind farms in the country.

It is harder to get planning permission for a coal fired plant than for a windfarm and they have squeezed the level at which wind can provide, at odds who really know, the National Grid.

So they would say that, they want two bites at the cherry, this is just commercial manouvering to expand into a field of interest that they know best.

[ywindythesecond]

Reggy Quote:
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW 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 25GW of wind only 5GW (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

Am I missing something here? It seems that everything Reggy quotes to me supports what I am saying.

"Even Hansard say they are good for climate change."
Hansard reports. Politicians do the talking.

"Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market?? "

Listen to this:

Subject: BBC RADIO 4 PROGRAMME - INVESTIGATION - 4TH SEPTEMBER -


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/

[Rheghead]

Am I missing something here? It seems that everything Reggy quotes to me supports what I am saying.

Not really, I'm saying that 20% can be relied upon for large intrusions of wind, 37% for 8GW, (we currently have 2.5GW), if they are properly placed diversely in good windy areas then I think that could be higher as studies have shown. You started with 10%, then it seemed to go smaller on the basis of E.ON who have a interest in making that claim.

"Even Hansard say they are good for climate change."
Hansard reports. Politicians do the talking.

"Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market?? "

Listen to this:

Subject: BBC RADIO 4 PROGRAMME - INVESTIGATION - 4TH SEPTEMBER -


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/

I have listened to that and there isn't anything that I didn't know already except that I agree with Sir David King's assessment that 20% of all renewables is impossible by over doing it with wind. 20% by wind for just electricity production is achievable both technically and financially, nothing more than that as it would be an absolute eyesore over the UK, not least in Scotland.

I take the point about building more gas but there are alternatives, the programme failed to mention nuclear plants that are capable of load following wind and the ambitious tidal and wave programs.

[rupert]

Aren't they being a bit presumptive if they are building a road to the proposed Camster wind farm site? As far as I am aware this hasn't been before a planning committee yet.

For those who are threatened with wind turbines very close to their homes - a family in Lincolnshire have just won a valuation tribunal hearing which acknowledged the wind farm near them was a nuisance and had reduced the value of their home - this at least goes someway to counter the constant spin from wind farm developers that people and house values are not effected.

If the powers that be took up the Scottish Governments policy of a 2km distance between wind farms and homes a lot of these turbines up here would be kicked out.

[Welcomefamily]

This is a negative post for wind farms in general or just having them within 2km of a house.

[Rheghead]

For those who are threatened with wind turbines very close to their homes - a family in Lincolnshire have just won a valuation tribunal hearing which acknowledged the wind farm near them was a nuisance and had reduced the value of their home - this at least goes someway to counter the constant spin from wind farm developers that people and house values are not effected.

That is an interesting one because despite a report submitted by investigators (who were sent by the tribunal) that said there were no problems associated with the proximity of the wind farm, the tribunal still ruled that the wind farm had a detrimental effect on the family's property.

[silverfox57]

have three wind turbines behind house,as the are one small field from my house must find out want distance they are,as was told long before they got planning consent that we would only see the tip of the third one and other two would not be seen for woods, we could not believe ,you can see them from half of east of country,so why was we told they would be not be seen from house ,

[pat]

if you were told - have you any proof of what was said - they can say anything but it is whether you believe it.

Believed a neighbour when given the neighbours notification (the day after it expired for complaints) and said was building a small garage - it is a garage - for at least six cars and has kitchen, bathroom, lounge and bedrooms upstairs!!! This person works in the department where plans are passed and buildings inspected - one of the inspectors!!!

This building does not really affect me (other than an eyesore!) but other neighbours did the same as I did and did not check - this building now completely blocks the views of at least three of my neighbours and completely shadows anothers house.

Always examine plans carefully and ask questions if in doubt or double check. I certainly do not believe what is said to me now I question everything.

[Rheghead]

have three wind turbines behind house,as the are one small field from my house must find out want distance they are,as was told long before they got planning consent that we would only see the tip of the third one and other two would not be seen for woods, we could not believe ,you can see them from half of east of country,so why was we told they would be not be seen from house ,

If you can prove what they said was incorrect then I would say you had a case for compensation.

[silverfox57]

all households in area had developer, with drawings and pictures of what view would look like,and asked if we would object to plan,as drawings only showed tips of third turbine,we all agreed not to object.was all done by word of mouth, no paper work,so no proof.

[rupert]

That is an interesting one because despite a report submitted by investigators (who were sent by the tribunal) that said there were no problems associated with the proximity of the wind farm, the tribunal still ruled that the wind farm had a detrimental effect on the family's property.

Do you have a link to this report? I can hardly believe they concluded there were no problems as this family had complained about the noise problems and the DTI had been investigating there. Their residental amenity had been ruined by noise and they had moved into rented accomodation.

A quote from the tribunal report -

'It was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwellings had had a significant detrimental effect on the Appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties. The tribunal therefore found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have some effect upon the potential sale price of the appeal dwellings'.

[Rheghead]

Do you have a link to this report? I can hardly believe they concluded there were no problems as this family had complained about the noise problems and the DTI had been investigating there. Their residental amenity had been ruined by noise and they had moved into rented accomodation.

A quote from the tribunal report -

'It was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwellings had had a significant detrimental effect on the Appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties. The tribunal therefore found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have some effect upon the potential sale price of the appeal dwellings'.

A BBC report said it was the construction not the operation of the windfarm that was at fault.

Although investigators sent by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal to measure noise levels did not find any problems, the panel conceded the construction of the windfarm "had had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties.

In a statement, the developer Wind Prospect Group said: "After a review of recordings obtained and their own observations on site, the opinion of the environmental health professionals was that at no time did the noise experienced or recorded amount to a statutory noise nuisance."

[Cinderella's Shoe]

OK I'm obviously not as up top speed with wind turbines as you experts posting forever, but as I understand it....

(1) There is a huge drive by Westmister and Hollyrude (sic) to cover the Highlands in wind turbines

(2) There is a far lower population density in areas of the highlands compared to anywhere else in the UK

(3) even despite the fact that most of the power produced in the Highlands, would be (on paper) used well south of the border, its still viable as THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCERS ARE GUARANTEED OBSCENE £ RETURNS and

(4) The highlands still have vast chunks of unused land

......so why can't they be used for windfarms when away from occupied areas?

As far as I can see, the key point is that developers - who are guaranteed obscene amounts of money via the ROC system - are not moving to develop in areas away from population (ie away from the very sensible 2km distance from dwellings suggested earlier in this thread). That is the key to the problem. They targetting areas where grid connections exists to save them money, despite the fact that they will make millions from any one scheme should it go ahead.

There are vast areas of the Highlands where truly no-one lives. Unfortunately they don't have current grid connections. Pay for them and away you go.

[rupert]

A BBC report said it was the construction not the operation of the windfarm that was at fault.

Well the BBC have got it wrong and if you had bothered to read up on the case it would have been quite obvious that it is the operation of the windfarm that is causing problems.

A quote from Mrs Davies herself published in the Daily Telegraph on July 26th -

'We have suffered such extreme sleep deprivation because of this, to the extent that we have had to abandon our home. My daughter had AS-levels coming up and she wasn't getting enough rest, we had no choice but to move out of the place we love. We are effectively in exile. We can't sell it because of the noise, it is like torture. But we don't want to sell it either, it is the home we love'

[MadPict]

Och moaning minnies - what is the torture inflicted on a minority compared to the greater good bestowed upon the many (and the millions of pounds pouring into the landowners/developers bank accounts) - at least the planet will be saved.

I am sure the prowindies will come back with some such reasoning....

[Rheghead]

Well the BBC have got it wrong and if you had bothered to read up on the case it would have been quite obvious that it is the operation of the windfarm that is causing problems.

The BBC haven't got it wrong, the investigators who were sent by the tribunal found no problems with the operation of the windfarm. Why did the tribunal ignore the findings of their own investigation team?

The difficulty for the tribunal was the determination of what effect the wind farm had had in real terms.