View Full Version : The sleazy economics of Wind energy should benefit Caithness
I am now going to blow the lid on this Country’s Green Energy strategy and the tactics employed to meet the targets of the Kyoto Agreement. The sordid secret is that Fat Cats will get rich at the expense of local people’s quality of life.
The Government target is to have 15% of the UK energy produced by renewable sources. This is a worthy goal that deserves credit.
The most proven method of generating electricity by renewable sources and in the shortest time possible is by onshore and large scale windfarms.
Let me take you through the calculation.
The Causewaymire windfarm has a maximum power output of 48 MegaWatts which at full power will provide enough power for approximately 25,000 homes.
However, a windfarm does not produce power at maximum all year round, the accepted efficiency is about a quarter of maximum. The efficiency is on average 24.1%.
According to StopCambridgeWindfarm and The Royal Academy of Engineering, the Windfarm Companies sell energy to the National grid company at 5.4p per Kilo Watt hour or kWh.
So a simple calculation reveals that the Annual income that Causewaymire Windfarm receives from the sale of electrity is:-
48 MegaWatts X 24.1% X 24 X 365 X 0.054p = 5.47 million pounds.
In addition to to this income the Causewaymire will receive a Government subsidy in the form of a ROC or Renewable Obligation Certificate. A ROC will be awarded for every MegaWatthour produced. In the Causewaymire’s case the number of ROCs awarded will be :-
48 MW X 24% X 24 X 365 = 101,336 ROCs.
The StopCambridgeWindfarm lobby group states that the proposed Cambridge windfarm will receive an annual income of 4.4 million pounds in ROCs though it fails to mention the power output of the farm.
Cambridge Windfarm is a 16 turbine windfarm that produces electricity for approximately 20000 homes (Figures from the Cambridgeshire News) which means that the power output of the windfarm is 36 MegaWatts.
The number of ROCs awarded is directly proportional to the income from the sale of electricity.
Therefore Causewaymire windfarm receives:-
48MW / 36MW X 4.4 million pounds = 5.87 million pounds.
The Gross Annual Income for Causewaymire windfarm is 5.47million +5.87 million pounds = approximately 11.3 million pounds!? Less its costs of 2-3 million pounds.
This level of income is what I would loosely describe as a Gravy Train.
StopCambridgeWindfarm’s strategy has been to claim that Cambridge windfarm receives more ROCs than it receives in the sale of electric. (1.3 million pounds) Thus giving the impression that the UK tax payer is subsidising rather disproportionately the generation of Wind Energy.
Their tactic has one big flaw in it, using the above calculation, the real figure from the sale of electricity should be 4.1 million pounds. The attempt at misleading the readers of their report has discredited their cause by me who really reads it.
But the plot thickens.
StopCambridgeWindfarm’s report has a tariff of energy costs (or prices) per kWh on page 5. Coal energy is 2.7p, nuclear energy is 2.3p, so as you can see, onshore wind companies sell energy at a higher cost to the National Grid while other generators have their prices capped at much lower levels.
In other words they are playing the same game but not on a level playing field!
In effect what happens is that as more energy is generated by renewable sources the National Grid company will have to raise their prices and so pass on the extra cost to us.
So, as I see it, we as residents of Caithness have 2 courses of action..
1. Object as StopCambridgeWindfarm are doing, on every possible reason going.
2. Play the system, if these windfarm operators are making money hand over fist without any input into the local economy then they should be made to change the way they do business. Each windfarm should transfer a percentage of their profit back into the local area where the windfarm is situated.
This way, the Government will reach its green targets, the Windfarm companies will prosper with less planning objections and millions will pour into good local causes like Wick maternity unit.
StopCambridgeWindfarm report
http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk/documents/REASONS%20WHY%20NO%20TO%20THE%20WINDFARM.pdf
That's great... and if money is all that motivates you then congratulations. You should grab this bull by both horns and ride it until your backside bleeds...
Personally, I prefer:
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/weydale/w3.jpg
would be nicer if we could just get rid of those obtrusive telegraph poles, they look just like wind turbines viewed from a distance... :'|
Green_not_greed
02-Dec-04, 17:07
Well I don't believe it but I am almost completely in agreement with Rheghead regarding the complete scam that is the current UK government renewables policy, the way it works, and the way is is completely geared up to support the wind industry at the expense of other renewable technologies. Everything is geared up to massive profits for developers and nothing for the poor sods who have to put up with turbines right on their doorsteps. I'd support jjc's views of Caithness any day. Even with the offers of "community benefit", there is no mechanism for individuals to get back something for their inconvenience in having to put up with noise and reduction in house prices. Community benefit is nothing more than a bribe which, once accepted, simply results in in-fighting between community groups about who should get what and how to spend it. This is happening right now with the Community benefit from the Causeymire development.
Personally, I believe that individuals living within about 5km of wind turbines should be paid compensation or offered to be bought out - at a fair offer - if they really don't want to live there because of the development. Further finding should be used for sensible community projects including improved village halls and community facilities. Perhaps to provide free improved insulation for homes and free long-life bulbs?
I think Rhegheads answer to use it to fund Wick's maternity unit is brilliant - and well-intended - but flawed. The flaw is not his - it is with the Government having the funds to keep Wick maternity unit viable (and decent hospitals and other facilities in the County) but using those funds for projects which few, if any, local people want nor need. The deal the Government seem to be offering is little more than a bribe - i.e. "have some large windfarm developments and perhaps we'll keep your hospitals open".
Naefearjustbeer
02-Dec-04, 17:47
If that first photo had been taken at a slightly different angle you could probally see the blades of the Causewaymire wind farm
George Brims
02-Dec-04, 18:35
I have to say I do see some progress here. A few years ago the Government was handing out subsidies to people wanting to cover the Flow Country in trees. Renewable energy is beyond a Good Thing, it's essential. The big question is what kind and where do you do it.
jjc, perhaps a wee bit of work with Photoshop or similar could provide us a side by side comparison of those views with and without wind turbines?
Another scenario could be is that the Government could nationalize the renewable fuel industry like it has done with the nuclear energy company, we could have a company called BRFL, British Renewable Fuels Limited.
This company could then set up a manufacturing base in Wick bringing jobs and prosperity to the area as well.
There would be no ROCs, the Government will make money and reach its targets and break the Danish monopoly on turbine manufacturing.
jjc, perhaps a wee bit of work with Photoshop or similar could provide us a side by side comparison of those views with and without wind turbines?
Sadly I haven't a creative bone in my body. However...
http://www.omninet.net.au/~irhumph/photos/windfarm.jpg
A windfarm in Albany, Western Australia.
http://craig.dynup.net/photography/hawaii2002/slides/08_windfarm.jpg
A windfarm in Hawaii.
http://architecture.mit.edu/~carlo/windfarm.jpg
http://www.cyclades-accommodation.com/andros/windfarm.jpg
http://www.winrock.org/reep/WINDFARM.GIF
http://stdw.tourism.nsw.gov.au/Multimedia/TNSW/o200365a.jpg
Pretty, ain't they? :(
Pretty, ain't they?
They sure are some phantastic photos of majestic money making machines. Look a lot better then the Angel of the Motorway anyday.
Green_not_greed
03-Dec-04, 11:42
How about these fine examples of tried and tested engineering?
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/kirby4.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/kirby3.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/kirby2.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/bladerunner.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/collapse.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/crash6.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/crash1.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/crash7.jpg
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/banna1.JPG
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/images/banna2.JPG
Safety issues are never discussed by the wind industry
I feel kind of sorry for that last one. It just looks so depressed... :(
ok green, where's the info on these photos?
Where are these broken turbines and how long had they been there for before they broke down. Also, what country/company was responsible for the upkeep?
Look a lot better then the Angel of the Motorway anyday.
Can't argue with you there… but then what does it matter how a windmill might compare to the Angel of the North?
The choice was never between this:
http://web.nmsu.edu/~matt/germany1/windmill.jpg
and this:
http://www.ejr.ndo.co.uk/angelbb.jpg
----------------------
It is a choice between this:
http://www.omninet.net.au/~irhumph/photos/windfarm.jpg
and this:
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/murkle/murkle1.jpg
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems a fairly straightforward decision to me.
Green_not_greed
03-Dec-04, 16:10
Zael
Check out
http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/gallery.html
A good number are in the UK - the collapsed turbine is at Lichtenau in Germany on Dec 12 1999. 60m high turbine mast broke 10m above the ground. Rotor parts travelled up to 200m.
A whole turbine "toppled" from the tower at Burgar Hill in Orkney in Dec 2000.
As well nothing was in the way.[/url]
George Brims
03-Dec-04, 18:32
As I said before it's a question of *where* you site the things. The picture above of the row of turbines in Hawaii is a perfect example. I regularly drive by those very turbines, and where they are situated they are pretty unobtrusive. They are in a broad valley between large mountains, and the valley floor undulates a bit too, so they don't stick out. Some miles to the south, there is a row of similar ones next to Ka Lae, or South Point, the southernmost tip of the island (and of the USA). They are a complete eyesore. Same turbines, different location.
The Godfather
03-Dec-04, 19:09
Green, those photos you put up are of just three accidents, just from different angles. :confused
I've had a look at the photos on the original website. The antiwindfarm website states
One of the turbines on top of nearby Kirby Moor failed in spectacular fashion following a lightning strike, the blades disintegrated hurling debris across the moor. From accounts emailed in it seems that this is not an uncommon means of failure of wind turbines. Tattered remains of the glassfibre coating are allthat remain on the blade tips. The nose cone has also been blown off by the lightning strike. These turbines have been erected a good distance from public roads; the recently constructed PowerGen Renewables windfarm at Far Old Park Farm is adjacent to a frequently used public road and should failure occur to one of those turbines it is much more likely that debris will be thrown onto the road, causing a potential safety hazard for road users of all kinds.
So, they are remote from public areas, the damage is caused by lightening, so the chances of being hit by debris is less than being struck by lightening.
If you remember I mentioned that I lived down in Englandshire? Well, this is one of the turbines that is placed near my old house.
The turbine that has collapsed is in Germany .
Rheghead, yet again you are missing the point (whether deliberately or not). I think what GREEN is trying to point out that proposed turbines sites in Caithness are within 400/500/600 meters of peoples houses.
The incidents that GREEN has highlighted have not maimed or killed anyone, but if these accidents happen with 500m of someones house, surely it could pose a safety issue!?! Put it this way, would you want to live that close to a wind farm?
zeus wrote
Rheghead, yet again you are missing the point (whether deliberately or not). I think what GREEN is trying to point out that proposed turbines sites in Caithness are within 400/500/600 meters of peoples houses.
The incidents that GREEN has highlighted have not maimed or killed anyone, but if these accidents happen with 500m of someones house, surely it could pose a safety issue!?! Put it this way, would you want to live that close to a wind farm?
It is quite a simple calculation (though I must stress that I am not a ballistics expert) to determine how far a windturbine blade or parts thereof (a known mass) can travel while the wind turbine is at full capacity(a known tangental velocity).
Don't you think that the HSE will have taken this into account with any windfarm planning application?
GNG,
Thanks. I had been pondering what picture to put on my recycled paper Xmas cards this year and the Shattered Turbine image will do just fine!
Photoshop some holly and tinsel on it and they'll look grand ;)
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
Isambard Kingdom Brunell or George Stephenson would look at the these and say,
"Mankind has harnessed the Lord's Power and he now basks in the light of his own Ingenuity . Let us forever strive forward in the name of PROGRESS!"
http://www.windturbinewarehouse.com/img1.gif
Green_not_greed
04-Dec-04, 10:01
Rheghead
HSE are not statutary consultees during a wind farm planning application. Safety is never addressed or is paid lip service in developers Environmental Statements, and then its only safety during construction and not during operation.
With the Baillie Hill turbines proposed to be 400m to housing, and the Borrowston turbines proposed to be in a parallel line 600m from one of the busiest roads in the county, unecessary risks are being introduced by siting turbines in these locations. I suggest 5km from housing is totally acceptable, 500m is not.
The biggest risks are not from whole blades dropping off or towers collapsing (and I have a stack of details on both), but on accidents where blades throw ice or blades disintegrate, scattering debris over large areas hundreds of meters from the turbine. With blades weighing over 1.5 tonnes, pieces weighting tens of kilograms can travel a long way. A large scatter area increases the risk to the public.
Ice throw has been reported up to 550m with pieces landing at up to 170 mph, from smaller turbines than are proposed across Caithness. Models exist to predict ice throw from turbines, but have only been done for much smaller turbines than those propoosed across the county. Additionally, no account of wind speed which may add to the ice throw appears to be taken into account by the models. If in the right direction, wind behind ice thrown from blades will increase the ice flight distance. As Caithness is subject to some of the highest wind speeds in the country, with a typical once-per-year wind of over 120mph, ice throw from tall turbines is potentially further than from smaller turbines at lower wind speeds. So its well up on the 550m already achieved.
Regarding blade failure, blade pieces are recorded as travelled up to 500m but from turbines far smaller than those proposed for Caithness. For example, pieces thrown over 400m from a 300kW turbine in Germany, pieces thrown up to 500m from a 600kW turbine in Germany. I have full details on these and many other accidents, including dates, locations, turbine types, etc. In 1997, 8% of all German wind turbine accidents were attributable to blade failure. As above, I would concur that they could easily reach housing from several of the proposed Caithness developments, and certainly the Thurso - Dounreay road from the proposed Borrowston development.
If you want more pics, please let me know!!!
If you can calculatethat a realistic lump of ice (10kg) can travel enough to be a danger to housing then I will believe you. Otherwise I will not, work it out don't ramble on about windspeeds, lumps of ice, distances and dangers. Calculate it.
Lets be right, in winter how long will the blades stay still enough for harmless snow to accumulate and change to hard ice ?
I think you are scaremongering.
I'm sure someone with a knowledge of trajectories and velocities can come up with a model on how far a 10kg lump of ice, which will be flat and thick as opposed to a cube, will travel when launched from the tip of a blade travelling at xmph.
In fact I feel an experiment coming on - although I will have to wait for the right air conditions to be present - I'm off into the shed to build me a scale model of a wind turbine. Now where did I put that fan?.....
OK, lets look at the "flying debris" problem.
First some conversions:
1 Turbine = 208 Feet High
1 Foot = 0.3048 Meters (m)
1 Mile per Hour = 0.4475 Meters per Second (m/s)
therefor:
1 Turbine = 63.3984m (we'll say 64m for sake of easy counting)
200 MPH = 89.5 m/s
First off we calculate how long it would take an object to fall straight down from 64m taking the accelerating force of gravity to be 9.81 m/s/s (meters per second per second)
To find the time, we must first calculate the speed that the object will reach before it hits the ground:
Note: ^2 = squared.
FinalVelocity^2 = InitialVelocity^2 + (2 * Acceleration * Distance)
FinalVelocity^2 = 0^2 + (2 * 9.81 * 64)
FinalVelocity^2 = 1255.68
so the final vertical velocity of the object is the square root of 1255.68 which is 35.4355 m/s.
Now we can work out the time:
Time = (FinalVelocity-InitalVelocity)/Acceleration
Time = (35.4355-0)/9.81
So the time the object will take to hit the ground is 3.6122 Seconds.
This means that whatever the horizontal speed the object will only be in the air for 3.6122 seconds so we can use this figure to calculate how far it can travel at 200MPH in that time.
Distance = (InitalVelocity * Time) + (0.5 * Acceleration * Time^2)
If we assume no air resistance slowing the object down (will give the maximum distance) this sets the horizontal acceleration to be zero.
so
Distance = (89.5 * 3.6122) + (0.5 * 0 * 3.6122^2)
Therefor the maximum distance an object can travel at 200MPH is 323.2919 meters.
This basically covers any object of any weight, the only other factor that will affect this is air resistance and that will only slow the object down. The bigger the object the more it will decelerate due to air resistance. So a chunk of ice is more likely to reach our maximum distance of 323.2919 meters than a bit of blade.
Don't believe me? ask any high school kid doing physics beyond third year (although they might tell you that the value for gravity should be 10).
400 meters sounds more than safe to me.
Ye canny change the laws of physics Captain....
Part one of my experiment is ready.
One floor standing fan with a height to the top of the blades 48"
Now just have to detach the blades and stick them in the freezer with water on them.
Zael,
You shame me with your calculations - hard to believe I got an O level in Physics. Guess the passage of time and not needing to use the principles of Physics daily has dulled me. :( :(
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/images/crash1.jpg
nice attempt zael!
Though if the blades are covered with ice then the angular velocity wil be less due to the laws of conservation of momentum. Thus the scaremongering is even more unfounded!!!
GNG wrote
Additionally, no account of wind speed which may add to the ice throw appears to be taken into account by the models. If in the right direction, wind behind ice thrown from blades will increase the ice flight distance. As Caithness is subject to some of the highest wind speeds in the country, with a typical once-per-year wind of over 120mph, ice throw from tall turbines is potentially further than from smaller turbines at lower wind speeds. So its well up on the 550m already achieved.
You haven't realised that when a turbine rotates it faces into the wind. Therefore the direction of flying debris will be perpendicular (at 90 degrees) to the direction of the wind.
So the high winds will not act to increase the distance of flying debris but will merely deflect the trajectory.
When the only force acting on a particle in motion is the gravitational force, the particle will (near the surface of the earth) have a component of uniform acceleration toward the center of the earth and a component of uniform velocity parallel to the ground. The kinematic equations of motion in the two directions are:
x=vx0t + x0, and y= 0.5at^2 +vy0 +y0
and where x0 , y0 are the coordinates of the particles location at time, t = 0 , vx0 , vy0 , are the components of the particle’s initial velocity, and a = –g is the gravitational acceleration directed toward the ground.
One of the more important aspects of windpower generation that we have to consider is the balance of energy.
I often have read and heard from anti windfarm people that the amount of energy required to manufacture a turbine is very significant to the amount of energy that will be generated.
So lets calculate again.
I propose to lay 20 tons of concrete for a pile into the ground and then drive the tower into the ground that has the following dimensions.
OD=4.00m, ID=3.91m, length= 75m.
From my research I have discovered that to produce 1 ton of steel =60GJ and concrete=6.25GJ
So the energy required to produce the tower and piling is
(((4.00m-3.91m)/2) X 3.14 X 4.00m X 75m X 7.86g/cc X 60GJ) +(20 X 6.25GJ) = 2.0E13J
I would estimate that the tower and piling will be the most energy intensive components of a windturbine but to encompass the rotor,blades and transport costs I will double that energy. So a turbine will require 4E13 GJ of energy to manufacture.
The annual energy production of 1Causeymire windturbine is
48 MW x 0.241 x 24 x 365 x 3600/21= 1.74E13 J
So the energy balance is over the life expectancy (25yrs) is
4/(1.74 x 25)x 100 = < 9%
So, windfarms produce over 10 times the energy over their term than it takes to manufacture them.
The next 25 years will be even more energy balanced towards energy generation because only the rotor and blades will require refurbishment, not the whole thing.
Just do one thing for me Rheghead - promise you will not ask questions at the end of this lesson, oops sorry, thread [lol]
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
Ok! just for you I won't then! :D
Boys and girls!!!!
Wanting to beat each other to death with mathematics and Physics is all very well and good, howver i scraped an o level in maths over 20 years ago and anything with more than one set of brackets or more than one letter in it is just too confusing. I am interested in this debate but its all getting a bit technical for me!!!
Can we have a summary of the points being made by someone who understands them please
Ok, in summary
1. Windfarms over 25 years produce over 10 times the energy than that which takes to make them.
2. To meet the obligations of the Kyoto agreement, the affected percentage of area of the UK by windfarms will only be about 2%. The affect on actual people will be much less because wind turbines will be situated in sparsely populated areas.
3. Windfarm Companies are making lots of of money due to the double whammy on the tax and electricity bill payer. They are allowed to site their windfarms in local areas without a 'Visual Impact Levy' that should be paid into the local communities.
4. The risk of mechanical damage to passersby and residents will be minimal if they are situated over 400m away.
5. To object to windfarms purely on one aspect e.g. aesthetic appeal would be unreasonable to the other benefits.
Caledonia
05-Dec-04, 00:34
"To object to wind farms purely on one aspect e.g. aesthetic appeal would be unreasonable to the other benefits."
A very scientific argument, much applause.
I think this debate is a great argument against anonymous postings. There are obviously vested interests involved here, and they should at least name themselves.
Meanwhile, the rest of us keepers of the open skies, the only damn thing we have worth protecting, should get up and fight these ill considered idiots with every fibre of our being.
What you have not taken account of, misc. wind farm supporters, is that there is an expertise on energy production and its environmental effects here in Caithness. We don't need Physics lessons from mouthpieces for the Wind Energy Lobby, your argument is specious. There are real physicists here, and energy experts.
For every wind turbine there is a backup fossil fuel station running at low efficiency for when the wind stops. Your arguments for wind power are farcical.
You don't live here, so go home.
Take your ivory towers with you.
When the only force acting on a particle in motion is the gravitational force, the particle will (near the surface of the earth) have a component of uniform acceleration toward the center of the earth and a component of uniform velocity parallel to the ground. The kinematic equations of motion in the two directions are:
x=vx0t + x0, and y= 0.5at^2 +vy0 +y0
and where x0 , y0 are the coordinates of the particles location at time, t = 0 , vx0 , vy0 , are the components of the particle’s initial velocity, and a = –g is the gravitational acceleration directed toward the ground.
Rheghead, your solutions to the equations of motion aren't quite right -- you missed out a "t" after the "vy0". They should read:
x = vx0 t + x0, and y = 0.5 a t^2 + vy0 t + y0
Another typo I guess?
I'll try to give a better estimate of the range of ice-throw from wind turbines tomorrow. I'm too "tired" to do sums tonight. I don't know where the initial-velocity figure of 200mph comes from, but I'll check it out. Zael's calculation is correct if the ice is projected horizontally. The maximum range will be greater than his 323 metres.
Caledonia makes some interestiing points. There are indeed real physicists "here" and at least some of us have no vested interest in the wind debate. I don't live in Caithness and I dare say I have biases and prejudices, but who doesn't? I will also admit to being prone to posting with my tongue inserted into my cheek, and I occasionally masquerade as a firm advocate of the hoofed and horned one.
The backup station doesn't have to be fossil. It could be nuclear, but that seems kinda daft, not to mention inefficient. Maybe buying nuclear from France ain't so crazy after all. The backup could also be hydro or perhaps even "flywheel" but I suspect that ain't gonna backup very much, and I would be happy to be proved wrong there.
Take your ivory towers with you
I assume you are referring the wind turbines? [lol]
DRSzin,
the necessary info that you need is here
http://mas.adeptscience.co.uk/worksheets/proj%20motion%20sol.mcd
Caledonia wrote
Meanwhile, the rest of us keepers of the open skies, the only damn thing we have worth protecting, should get up and fight these ill considered idiots with every fibre of our being. We don't need Physics lessons from mouthpieces for the Wind Energy Lobby, your argument is specious. There are real physicists here, and energy experts.
For every wind turbine there is a backup fossil fuel station running at low efficiency for when the wind stops. Your arguments for wind power are farcical.
You don't live here, so go home.
Take your ivory towers with you.
How can you claim to protect the skies when you advocate using fossil fuels to replace windpower? Surely the pro-wind lobby have a more rightful claim to being the Guardians of the Skies?
You say that you don't need physics lessons? Are you suggesting that education is a bad thing? The Taliban thought that! If my arguement is specious then you point out the errors in my calculations,if you can't, are you suggesting that maths is a falsehood?
It looks as if you are losing your arguement when you deny knowledge. You must be a blend of Bush and Bin laden.
To put you right on a few things, I live in Caithness and I am not linked in anyway to the wind energy industry.
What I do try to do is not listen to people who have already got a hidden agenda, like anti windfarm activists (or any activists for that matter) , speculators on unfounded assumptions, pro-windfarm rhetoric, verbal rubbish that can't be backed up and other such like.
I am a great believer in looking into the facts behind the popular facadal bu*****t and making my own mind up as best as I can.
Oh, and another thing, to explain my reliance on a mathematical approach to windfarms, has its origins in the ' Bellamy talks windfarms' thread where I was accused of making pro-windfarm remarks without proving the facts. I had made a 'rod for my own back' by stating I had a degree. So this was the only way acceptable (I assumed) of getting a more balanced discussion going. And I actually think it has been a good exercise for me to get the old grey matter going again.
And I actually think it has been a good exercise for me to get the old grey matter going again.
Having just checked my 'grey matter' it now resembles the inside of an Aero bar so carry on doing the 'sums'!!! [lol]
Green_not_greed
06-Dec-04, 12:23
You go away and it all gets interesting again....
All turbines proposed for the County are around 100m to blade tip. (Causeymire = 102m). I make it that, given the arguments & assumptions already used by Zael, the throw distance for a 10kg chunk of whatever will be up to 403.6m from a turbine of that height.
BTW, ice forms on moving blades
GnG wrote
All turbines proposed for the County are around 100m to blade tip. (Causeymire = 102m). I make it that, given the arguments & assumptions already used by Zael, the throw distance for a 10kg chunk of whatever will be up to 403.6m from a turbine of that height
As far as I understand it, the maximum distance that an object is thrown is only dependant on initial velocity and angle of throw, it is independent on the mass. If air resistance is ignored.
http://mas.adeptscience.co.uk/worksheets/proj%20motion%20sol.mcd
BTW this discussion for me has less to do with Wind turbines, ice , energy or anything else but it has more to do with seeing if people are prepared to overturn their deep rooted misconceptions when given evidence to the contrary, without losing face.
I am, are you?
That's great... and if money is all that motivates you then congratulations. You should grab this bull by both horns and ride it until your backside bleeds...
Personally, I prefer:
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/weydale/w3.jpg
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/morvenmaidenpap/mothermorven.jpg
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/murkle/murkle1.jpg
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/noss/n3.jpg
I love those pictures of Caithness, but consider this photo below
http://www.yes2wind.com/i/windpics/Rusholmelg.jpg
Do the wind turbines get in the way of the beautiful view of the conventional power station?
Rheghead, you say that, for you, this discussion has less to do with Wind turbines, ice , energy or anything else but it has more to do with seeing if people are prepared to overturn their deep rooted misconceptions when given evidence to the contrary, without losing face.
OK then. You have said that you believe windfarms should not be sited in areas considered beautiful. Who makes that decision and who decides what is beautiful and what is not?
You say Caithness should benefit from wind energy developments by receiving a bigger slice of the pie. How do you intend to achieve this?
These developments are driven and determined by landowners, developers and the planning process. There is no opportunity for discussion, there are no structured planning guidelines, there is no national or regional strategy nor are there any local targets.
How many turbines would you like to see sited in Caithness?
Do you believe that the current applications are sited in the most sensitive places?
To date only a minority of landowners/farmers have succumbed to tempation. Should all landowners, farmers and people with large gardens now be banging in their applications?
Should we all cast aside our concerns for the county, residents, friends and neighbours and jump aboard this gravy train? Should we have no concerns at all (as long as we don't go closer than 400m to our neighbours)?
If Highland Council is successful in getting our grid line upgraded we could have thousands of turbines - is that acceptable to you??
If not how do you intend to stop it?
1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Rambler's idea of beauty maybe different to someone's idea of beauty who never leave the town. I cannot make that judgement but I personally fall into the rambler's idea of beauty.
2 The people of Caithness should have realistic benefits from windfarms, Camelot donate 12.5% to good causes,why shouldn't windfarms donate 12.5% of their profit to the local community. It could buy a new sportscentre or save Wick maternity unit for example, or the council should be able to make a deal with the wind companies and subsidise the council tax?. I didn't make up the rules, but they should be changed.I am highly critical of how they do business, but lobbying John Thurso would be a good start to get the rules changed.
3. The number of windturbines should be based on the power needs of the percentage of Caithness area against the UK area and of that percentage of the UK population under the terms of the Kyoto Agreement.i.e
3152 sq km / 244110 sq km X 55,000,000 X 755 W X 0.15= 80.4 MW
So if the power was to be generated by 2MW turbines then the number will be
80.4/(2 X 0.241)= 167 turbines. which approximates to 8 windfarms.
This number should be a maximum because other renewable forms will mitigate the 167 number.
4. No, I don't think current applications are sited in the most sensitive areas, Forss,Dounreay etc
5. No I do not think we should jump on the gravy train, only that we should see our fair share of the gravy.
6. If the grid gets upgraded then I would object to any windfarm planning application that puts our wind generating total to over 80.4 MW in real terms. The number will not run into the thousands just 167 if they are all 2MW each.
I love those pictures of Caithness, but consider this photo below
http://www.yes2wind.com/i/windpics/Rusholmelg.jpg
Do the wind turbines get in the way of the beautiful view of the conventional power station?
Once again, you are being a little disingenuous. You're right, the turbines are less imposing than the chimney stacks, but let's not muddy the waters with unreal comparisons. It would be equally viable to put a picture of a windfarm side-by-side with a picture of the Tokyo skyline.
Nobody is suggesting that the choice for Caithness is between building turbines or building skyscrapers and nobody is suggesting that the choice is between turbines and a conventional power station.
I believe you'll find the choice is between windfarms or not a windfarms.
I love those pictures of Caithness, but consider this photo below
http://www.yes2wind.com/i/windpics/Rusholmelg.jpg
Do the wind turbines get in the way of the beautiful view of the conventional power station?
Once again, you are being a little disingenuous. You're right, the turbines are less imposing than the chimney stacks, but let's not muddy the waters with unreal comparisons. It would be equally viable to put a picture of a windfarm side-by-side with a picture of the Tokyo skyline.
Nobody is suggesting that the choice for Caithness is between building turbines or building skyscrapers and nobody is suggesting that the choice is between turbines and a conventional power station.
I believe you'll find the choice is between windfarms or not a windfarms.
I concede that I was being a little disingenuous, but I think the choice between windfarms or no windfarms is being a little too ingenuous!
I concede that I was being a little disingenuous, but I think the choice between windfarms or no windfarms is being a little too ingenuous!
How so? Has anybody suggested that refusal to accept turbines (167 of them, you say?) across the Caithness landscape will result in an alternative (be it hydro, solar, nuclear or conventional) being built in their place?
I meant it was an ingenuous choice between windfarms or unspoilt Caithness countryside when we have to consider our obligation to the Kyoto agreement and ultimately the health of our planet while Caithness has a good wind resource.
The wind also blows 12 miles offshore... choosing to site windfarms in Caithness (and similar areas of natural beauty as yet unspoilt by the encroach of urban life) is a matter of financial convenience, not a lack of alternative options.
Rheghead you are a rascal.
Do you agree given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder identifying a suitable site might prove rather complicated?
I would suggest that any additional benefit to be realised from windfarm developments be put to work to further reduce our CO2 emissions and our consumption of electricity by funding domestic and business measures to achieve this - eg. mini turbines, photovoltaics. Biomass has a great potential for localised community schemes. (I believe what we don't use from the grid is also eligible for ROC's)
Why must the number of turbines for Caithness be based on the area of the county and not the population? NWP boast that the Causewaymire windfarm generates enough clean electricity to meet the annual domestic electricity needs of Caithness twice over. Add the 3 turbines at Forss and the Dunbeath lot and we in Caithness are doing rather well.
If you agree that the current applications are not sited in the most suitable places you will have no option but to join the rest of us who believe this and therefore be labelled as anti windfarm!!
I am delighted with your optimism re the numbers of turbines in Caithness being capped at 167 (which I still believe to be too many but that's irrelevant at this point). Do you have some inside information that you could share with us? Highland Council have most certainly changed their tune if they are in agreement with setting a target. Certain local councillors have suggested that 20 windfarms the size of Causewaymire is quite acceptable. The Scottish Executive (who will make the final decision on the over 50MW developments for Caithness) are certainly not in favour in putting any controls in place - the more the merrier. MSP's (with the exception of the Tories) believe wind energy is the answer and believe the current planning process to be 'robust' enough to determine suitable sites - no controls required. John Thurso is hitting his head off the same brick wall as the rest of us. The status quo will remain unless the objectors are taken seriously.
Finally you say you would object to any application that exceeds a wind generating total of 80.4MW.
So do we all sit and wait until this figure becomes a reality before we do anything? It really is just a free for all - first come, first served??? It doesn't matter where the existing applications for developments are sited? It doesn't matter if instead of about 8 windfarms of 20 turbines we end up with 20/30 windfarms with 3 or 8 or 10 turbines scattered all over the country. It doesn't matter if the county benefits not at all from this feeding frenzy. We just sit quietly and wait???
I'd be interested to know on what grounds you think you would object (if the county had met what you consider fair (167 turbines). It is not permitted to object to the current lack of strategy/policy for wind energy developments. You must object through the planning process on health issues, safety issues, cumulative effect etc, etc etc. OR your objection is not considered valid.
It's a total stitch up!!!!
I have a vision. That of homeowners being given the subsidies currently being raked in by the Wind Power companies.
They are encouraged to install small 7.5 - 10kW wind turbines on their properties to produce the necessary energy needs for their homes. Surplus energy can be sold to the Power Companies thereby offsetting the initial installation costs (about $29,000 according to the www.windturbinewarehouse.com/ site)
A landscape with small lattice towers of maybe 18m with 7m blade diameter, in the back gardens of Caithnessians, would certainly be less of an eyesore than your 167 100m monsters.
And you would be guaranteed that the people benefit and not some faceless company with their 'true' power base in some offshore tax haven.
Even smaller turbines are probably available for single property use just as solar panels are available to the homeowner for self sufficency.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
If Caithness can generate 80.4MW of power from renewable sources without the need for more onshore large scale windfarms then I welcome it. However, I am also a realist and I don't think offshore wind, tidal and solar power is a feasible in Caithness. The tides are too strong and we don't get enough light in the winter when we need the energy.
If domestic users can explore ground source pumps, small scale wind turbines and solar heating then I welcome it,but there is no way it will scratch into the 80.4MW that our county should be producing from renewables.
If we export biomass to the rest of the UK then we are guilty of destroying the flow country so where can we make a difference?
The Government today has announced that it has failed to cut enough CO2 emissions to date. I recognise that this is largely due to failing to cut traffic problems but I thought there was a 'rush for wind' going on? If so why hasn't it not reached its interim target? I'll tell you my opinion, it is because other renewable forms of energy generation is in the prototype stage and is unrealistic, and because planning applications for large scale windfarms are being refused. They are being refused because they are applied for by absent money grabbing fat cats. If they are community owned then I am sure less objections would be submitted.
We still have till 2015 to make up for lost time....haven't we?
Caledonia
09-Dec-04, 04:12
How can you claim to protect the skies when you advocate using fossil fuels to replace windpower?
You say that you don't need physics lessons?
Try reading my post.
There is not even an inference that I advocate the use of fossil fuels to replace windpower.
I said, “We don't need Physics lessons from mouthpieces for the Wind Energy Lobby”.
The disregard you show for the content of the posts you rebuke indicates that any type of debate with you is pointless.
It is heartening that you enjoy maths, but I would hope that as a teacher you would attempt to enhance your communication skills by listening now and then.
;)
Caledonia wrote
For every wind turbine there is a backup fossil fuel station running at low efficiency for when the wind stops. Your arguments for wind power are farcical.
There are thousands of turbines up and down the country are you suggesting there are thousands of fossil fuel power stations?
You say my arguements for windpower are farcicle, so I gather you disapprove of them, so when the wind stops or if you would get rid of them you infer that you would replace them with fossil fuels as a backup!
I think my understanding of your post was accurate.
BTW I also find it heartening that you appreciate mathematics, but you have not come up with a refutation for my calculations in the 'Language' of maths rather than a verbal subjective rebuke!
:o) Nothing personal you understand?
Caledonia wrote
For every wind turbine there is a backup fossil fuel station running at low efficiency for when the wind stops. Your arguments for wind power are farcical.
There are thousands of turbines up and down the country are you suggesting there are thousands of fossil fuel power stations?
You say my arguements for windpower are farcicle, so I gather you disapprove of them, so when the wind stops or if you would get rid of them you infer that you would replace them with fossil fuels as a backup!
I think my understanding of your post was accurate.
I hate to interject, but I disagree.
My understanding of Caledonia's post is simply that, as things stand now, wind turbines are not sufficiently reliable and therefore require underpinning by fossil fuel stations.
This is not advocating the use of fossil fuels, merely pointing out the way things are.
Windfarms over 25 years produce over 10 times the energy than that which takes to make them.
Does your calculation include the energy that will be expended to maintain them for 25 years?
To object to windfarms purely on one aspect e.g. aesthetic appeal would be unreasonable to the other benefits.
Why? Because you say so? How about we situate them in a nice little circle around your house. Sound like a plan to you?
Your interest here is money. That's nice for you. But just because you would rape the natural beauty around you for a 'quick buck', don't presume that 'aesthetic appeal' is an unreasonable concern for the rest of us.
Caledonia wrote
For every wind turbine there is a backup fossil fuel station running at low efficiency for when the wind stops. Your arguments for wind power are farcical.
There are thousands of turbines up and down the country are you suggesting there are thousands of fossil fuel power stations?
You say my arguements for windpower are farcicle, so I gather you disapprove of them, so when the wind stops or if you would get rid of them you infer that you would replace them with fossil fuels as a backup!
I think my understanding of your post was accurate.
I hate to interject, but I disagree.
My understanding of Caledonia's post is simply that, as things stand now, wind turbines are not sufficiently reliable and therefore require underpinning by fossil fuel stations.
This is not advocating the use of fossil fuels, merely pointing out the way things are.
Windfarms over 25 years produce over 10 times the energy than that which takes to make them.
Does your calculation include the energy that will be expended to maintain them for 25 years?
To object to windfarms purely on one aspect e.g. aesthetic appeal would be unreasonable to the other benefits.
Why? Because you say so? How about we situate them in a nice little circle around your house. Sound like a plan to you?
Your interest here is money. That's nice for you. But just because you would rape the natural beauty around you for a 'quick buck', don't presume that 'aesthetic appeal' is an unreasonable concern for the rest of us.
Who says that fossil fuel power is needed to underpin windpower, biomass would do the job just as well, in fact the Drax plant uses biomass in conjunction with fossil fuels.
To suggest that it would be a good plan to encircle my house with turbines just because I think there is a valid reason for their use seems to me that you are very immature. Or are you muddying the waters or being disingenuous?
My interest is not money for myself (I thought I have gone over this point before) but for the community in which they are situated. If your only gripe is about the raping of the landscape then keep to that gripe and don't stray onto other reasons for not having them. If you disagree with money going to the community then I assume you condone absent fat cats getting richer?
The maintenance cost in energy terms will be negligible when compared to the energy intensive production of the concrete and steel, also they are relatively maintenance free compared to other energy generation methods.
Who says that fossil fuel power is needed to underpin windpower, biomass would do the job just as well, in fact the Drax plant uses biomass in conjunction with fossil fuels.
Goodwill earlier said that the Causewaymire windfarm generates enough electricity to meet the annual domestic need of Caithness twice over.
At this exact moment in time, could we connect Caithness to only those turbines and guarantee electricity supply?
If your only gripe is about the raping of the landscape then keep to that gripe and don't stray onto other reasons for not having them.
I wasn't aware that I had. As I said, if you wish to line your pockets then that's your business.
If you disagree with money going to the community then I assume you condone absent fat cats getting richer?
I wonder if anybody has done a study into the effects that a couple of hundred wind turbines would have on the tourism industry?
I don't particularly have a problem with 'absent fat cats getting richer'. If you look carefully you'll find I object to windfarms regardless of who rakes in the money.
The maintenance cost in energy terms will be negligible when compared to the energy intensive production of the concrete and steel, also they are relatively maintenance free compared to other energy generation methods.
Come come, Rheghead. You've been quite free and easy with your figures. Don't stop now. How much will it cost to maintain a single turbine for 25 years?
To suggest that it would be a good plan to encircle my house with turbines just because I think there is a valid reason for their use seems to me that you are very immature. Or are you muddying the waters or being disingenuous?
So, that would be a 'no' from you then?
Why not? You could reap the financial whirlwind that the turbines would bring and you clearly don't think that the aesthetics of windfarms is an issue. You don't have a problem with the health concerns. The noise isn't a problem.
*gasp* - you aren't a NIMBY are you?
Who says that fossil fuel power is needed to underpin windpower, biomass would do the job just as well, in fact the Drax plant uses biomass in conjunction with fossil fuels.
Goodwill earlier said that the Causewaymire windfarm generates enough electricity to meet the annual domestic need of Caithness twice over.
At this exact moment in time, could we connect Caithness to only those turbines and guarantee electricity supply?
If your only gripe is about the raping of the landscape then keep to that gripe and don't stray onto other reasons for not having them.
I wasn't aware that I had. As I said, if you wish to line your pockets then that's your business.
If you disagree with money going to the community then I assume you condone absent fat cats getting richer?
I wonder if anybody has done a study into the effects that a couple of hundred wind turbines would have on the tourism industry?
I don't particularly have a problem with 'absent fat cats getting richer'. If you look carefully you'll find I object to windfarms regardless of who rakes in the money.
The maintenance cost in energy terms will be negligible when compared to the energy intensive production of the concrete and steel, also they are relatively maintenance free compared to other energy generation methods.
Come come, Rheghead. You've been quite free and easy with your figures. Don't stop now. How much will it cost to maintain a single turbine for 25 years?
To suggest that it would be a good plan to encircle my house with turbines just because I think there is a valid reason for their use seems to me that you are very immature. Or are you muddying the waters or being disingenuous?
So, that would be a 'no' from you then?
Why not? You could reap the financial whirlwind that the turbines would bring and you clearly don't think that the aesthetics of windfarms is an issue. You don't have a problem with the health concerns. The noise isn't a problem.
*gasp* - you aren't a NIMBY are you?
I went out to the Causeymire windfarm this morning to walk my dog. My dog was not scared by them, they were not audible from the cottage by the road, I would not mind living there cos' there is a great view of the mire and windturbines.
And yes, Caithness was getting all of its electricity from Causeymire today!!
I cannot see how a couple of maintenance guys going out to the Causeymire windfarm once a week can affect the energy balance of them.
Again I am not lining my pockets, can you not read?
If I was a tourist and there were 200 turbines in Caithness, I doubt very much if they would put me off coming here!!!
But as Caithness has already neglected its tourist industry there is no loss there I suppose?
I went out to the Causeymire windfarm this morning to walk my dog. My dog was not scared by them, they were not audible from the cottage by the road, I would not mind living there cos' there is a great view of the mire and windturbines.
So what's your problem with my suggestion that we plant all the turbines in a neat little ring around your house? Joking aside, it seems that you might actually be a nimby!
And yes, Caithness was getting all of its electricity from Causeymire today!!
And that could be guaranteed all day, every day without need to fallback on the National Grid ever?
I cannot see how a couple of maintenance guys going out to the Causeymire windfarm once a week can affect the energy balance of them.
So long as we're clear then. You claim that over 25 years a windfarm will produce 10 times more energy than it took to make them is unfounded because you have no idea how much energy will be expended to keep them (and the associated infrastructure) maintained during those 25 years.
Oh, and whilst I'm thinking about it, you forgot to factor in the energy costs of building the road to the site for the construction crew/equipment, and I guess there's going to need to be some kind of cabling to get the electricity out.
If I was a tourist and there were 200 turbines in Caithness, I doubt very much if they would put me off coming here!!!
Being as you have scant regard for the scenery that attracts tourists here, I can well believe that your statement is true.
I wouldnt mind living in the cottage that is close by, its back yard is only 30 meters long so yes I would be a NIMBY then if they were all in the yard.
For 2 guys to drive to the Causeymire to maintain the windfarm for 25 years once a week would use up the following in Joules of Energy.
(25 X 52 X 16km X 0.69g/cc X 5470kJ/mol) / (18km/lt X 0.114g/mol) = 3.82E10 Joules
Which is hardly a scratch on the net energy that they produce.
If you think that a few windturbines is going to spoil your view then I pity you because more is on the way.
For 2 guys to drive to the Causeymire to maintain the windfarm for 25 years once a week would use up the following in Joules of Energy.
(25 X 52 X 16km X 0.69g/cc X 5470kJ/mol) / (18km/lt X 0.114g/mol) = 3.82E10 Joules
Which is hardly a scratch on the net energy that they produce.
Drive from where? Is their vehicle really going to maintain a standard rate of fuel consumption over 25 years? Are they only to have one vehicle (between them) for this job throughout the 25 years (and if not, what about the energy required to build their new vehicles and dispose of their old)? Are they going to strap replacement blades (should they be needed) to the roof of their vehicle or might they need a lorry? Are the spare parts that they will need going to magically appear or will they need to be manufactured? What about the energy consumption of that process? What about the energy consumption required to deliver the spare parts to them? Will the road to the windfarm be laid once and left for the next 25 years or, as I suspect is more likely, will it need to be relaid a few times? How much energy will be lost through non-productivity whilst these two engineers repair/maintain turbines?
It's all very impressive, throwing numbers down on the screen. But your calculation doesn't really mean that much, does it.
If you think that a few windturbines is going to spoil your view then I pity you because more is on the way.
Ah, the 'like it or lump it' argument. Wins me over every time :roll:
For 2 guys to drive to the Causeymire to maintain the windfarm for 25 years once a week would use up the following in Joules of Energy.
(25 X 52 X 16km X 0.69g/cc X 5470kJ/mol) / (18km/lt X 0.114g/mol) = 3.82E10 Joules
Which is hardly a scratch on the net energy that they produce.
Drive from where? Is their vehicle really going to maintain a standard rate of fuel consumption over 25 years? Are they only to have one vehicle (between them) for this job throughout the 25 years (and if not, what about the energy required to build their new vehicles and dispose of their old)? Are they going to strap replacement blades (should they be needed) to the roof of their vehicle or might they need a lorry? Are the spare parts that they will need going to magically appear or will they need to be manufactured? What about the energy consumption of that process? What about the energy consumption required to deliver the spare parts to them? Will the road to the windfarm be laid once and left for the next 25 years or, as I suspect is more likely, will it need to be relaid a few times? How much energy will be lost through non-productivity whilst these two engineers repair/maintain turbines?
It's all very impressive, throwing numbers down on the screen. But your calculation doesn't really mean that much, does it.
If you think that a few windturbines is going to spoil your view then I pity you because more is on the way.
Ah, the 'like it or lump it' argument. Wins me over every time :roll:
If you actually read my original calculation then you will see that I included a factor of 2 to reflect the peripheral components of a windturbine so you are losing the arguement before you start typing.
The engineers are from Thurso as I know of one of them.
Over the next 25 years then fuel consumption will get better, the energy balance of car manufacturing is irrelevent.
You are just trying to play with me and you are not doing your debate any favours by trying to bring in such hazy points!!
jjc wrote
It's all very impressive, throwing numbers down on the screen. But your calculation doesn't really mean that much, does it.
Oh? Not the 'These fangled numbers prove nothing' arguement? That wins me over every time! :roll:
If you actually read my original calculation then you will see that I included a factor of 2 to reflect the peripheral components
And '2' came from .... ???
Unless you can show the energy cost of every part of the build and maintenance of each turbine, 2 is nothing more than an arbitrary figure you’ve plucked out of thin air. It has no validity and, therefore, neither does your calculation.
You are just trying to play with me and you are not doing your debate any favours by trying to bring in such hazy points!!
So you recognise that many of the points you are using as facts are, at best, hazy?
jjc, at least there has been an attempt to show some kind of factual information, rather than the rubbish we hear from the "anti" camp every time they open their mouths. Where are their calculations that we can have a good look at. Where are the bodies of the dead birds and the hospital admissions for the "light sensitive epileptics", come to think of it, where are the objections from anyone who lives out of sight of any proposed wind farm. nimby nimby nimby etc etc etc... The anti camp just seems to whine on like someone trying to convince you that red is an evil colour and blue is not. No real substance, just whine.
the 2 creates an overestimation on the energy used to make a turbine, it is not absolute figure but is designed to give an approximate figure. I suspect the real energy balance is a lot less.
The scientists cannot count the exact number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, does this invalidate the whole global warming theory? And so does this mean that there is no increase in levels of CO2?
You are now showing your true colours (blinkered). You should make your own arguements more plausible rather than picking small holes in mine. A negative campaign does nothing for anyones arguement.
jjc, a bit of advice, do not compare a bluebottle to an elephant just because they are both bigger than a fly!!
the 2 creates an overestimation on the energy used to make a turbine, it is not absolute figure but is designed to give an approximate figure. I suspect the real energy balance is a lot less.
How do you know that, Rheghead? What you have done is take your initial calculation, multiply it by two and say, “There. That’ll do”. Your saying that it is an overestimation doesn’t make it true.
I have nothing against you using 2 as your factor. I would have nothing against you using 3, 4, 5 or 100. But it just seems a little honesty is in order. Instead of using it as ‘fact’, simply admit that it is a meaningless figure you plucked out of the air. It’s not a complex notion, surely?
The scientists cannot count the exact number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, does this invalidate the whole global warming theory? And so does this mean that there is no increase in levels of CO2?
No. But then the equivalent of your arbitrary 2 would be for a bloke in a white coat to open a window, lick his finger, stick it outside and say “Hmm.. CO2’s on the increase”.
You should make your own arguements more plausible rather than picking small holes in mine.
I’m not sure how plausible an argument you want. Look back at the pictures of Caithness without windfarms. Look at the pictures of windfarms. That’s it. That’s my argument.
jjc, a bit of advice, do not compare a bluebottle to an elephant just because they are both bigger than a fly!!
Hmmm… sounded like sage and meaningful advice. Then I looked back and wondered what you could possibly be referring to. This little gem is about as random as your use of 2.
come to think of it, where are the objections from anyone who lives out of sight of any proposed wind farm.
You're reading it. Do try to keep up.
I calculated the energy used to make the concrete base and tower. These are the most energy intensive items and they certainly make up the bulk of a turbine.
So when I introduced the X2 factor then my energy estimates are not accurate, they err on the most pessimstic side of the energy balance. IOW I wanted to show that even with an over estimation of energy expenditure they still produce at least ten times the energy than they need for manufacture.
If I had just guessed the energy required to produce the nacelle and blades etc then yes I would have to agree with you that there was a possibility that my estimate on the energy balance may be wrong or at worst optimistic. However the'fact' is that it is a pessimistic estimate so the true energy balance of is probably a lot lower.
My estimate is the bluebottle, the real unknown figure is the fly, you are trying to make out that they are different and subsequently it is totally wrong, like an elephant.
jjc,surely you understand that or do you need me to go over my calculations with you in the remedial forum?
Zael
jjc, at least there has been an attempt to show some kind of factual information, rather than the rubbish we hear from the "anti" camp every time they open their mouths. Where are their calculations that we can have a good look at. Where are the bodies of the dead birds and the hospital admissions for the "light sensitive epileptics", come to think of it, where are the objections from anyone who lives out of sight of any proposed wind farm. nimby nimby nimby etc etc etc... The anti camp just seems to whine on like someone trying to convince you that red is an evil colour and blue is not. No real substance
My goodness - how patronising can you get?
The following rubbish (lots more where that came from) provides some very useful and informative dialogue and conclusions-
Energy Appraisal of PIU Energy Review by Royal Academy of Engineers
The Renewable Energy Debate - Article by Henry Thoresby, Chairman LSE Environmental Initiatives, Sept
DTI Energy White Paper - The Low Carbon Economy, Feb 2003
EUROPA - New and Renewable Energies
Why do you want to see evidence of minced birds and folk in hospital? Would that prove something?
Here is one objection to a massively flawed energy 'policy' from someone not affected. Unless the fact that I live in this spendid county means I'm nimby!!!
It is condescending in the extreme to suggest that unless an individual has the ability to mathematically prove that the UK Energy Policy is flawed their opinion should be discounted.
I calculated the energy used to make the concrete base and tower. These are the most energy intensive items and they certainly make up the bulk of a turbine.
No, you didn’t.
You calculated the energy required to produce the tonnage of raw materials (concrete and steel) required to make the tower and piling.
The factor of 2 was a complete guess that you assumed would encompass all additional energy expenditure involved in taking those raw materials from producer to turbine manufacturer, turning them into the correct parts, transporting them to the site, preparing the site, installing the infrastructure and assembling the turbine.
You can state that 2 is pessimistic estimate until your fingers turn blue. The fact remains that neither you nor I know whether it is or it isn’t. It therefore remains a pointless and random number that invalidates your assertion.
From my calculations into the energy used by the 2 maintenance guys it shows that the fuel to transport the raw materials to the turbine manufacturer and the one off siting operation is insignificant.
The thing that you haven't realized is that putting the tower and concrete in is a one off operation. When the lifetime of the nacelle and blades expire, they will just simply replace them thus reusing the tower, base and probably most of the other immobile gubbins that goes with it.
So on the glorious '25 More Years' they will be even more energy efficient.
From my calculations into the energy used by the 2 maintenance guys it shows that the fuel to transport the raw materials to the turbine manufacturer and the one off siting operation is insignificant.
How can you possibly equate the fuel consumption of two blokes driving a van 16km and the fuel consumption of a lorry transporting tons of concrete and steel hundreds of miles? Tell me again about the bluebottle and the elephant?
The thing that you haven't realized is that putting the tower and concrete in is a one off operation
So what if it is? Just because the energy expenditure of building them is in the initial stages of the project, doesn’t mean you can just pretend it doesn’t exist.
If you are going to state that turbines produce ten times more energy over 25 years than they took to build then you need to know how much energy they took to build.
Lest we forget, in your opening post on this thread one of your complaints about the tactics of the StopCambridgeWindfarm lobby group was their inaccurate use of statistics. You said “The attempt at misleading the readers of their report has discredited their cause”.
If you’re intent on quoting more words of wisdom there’s one that begins “He who casts the first stone…”. You know the one I mean?
jjc wrote
Lest we forget, in your opening post on this thread one of your complaints about the tactics of the StopCambridgeWindfarm lobby group was their inaccurate use of statistics. You said “The attempt at misleading the readers of their report has discredited their cause”.
The essential difference being the SCW is that they were stating facts that backed up their arguement in an exaggerated way, I am using figures that would otherwise condemn my arguement.
eg. the 24.1% intermittency/efficiency, that is Bellamy's pessimistic figure, I know someone in Caithness who supplies Wind energy to the Grid. He has 2 meters, output and input, he sells power to various customers and depending on the time of year the efficiency varies between 30-50%!
The essential difference being the SCW is that they were stating facts that backed up their arguement in an exaggerated way, I am using figures that would otherwise condemn my arguement.
I was referring specifically to your claim that over 25 years turbines produce 10 times the energy than was required to produce them. This was calculated using a 'statistic' you made up to suit your argument.
The essential difference being the SCW is that they were stating facts that backed up their arguement in an exaggerated way, I am using figures that would otherwise condemn my arguement.
I was referring specifically to your claim that over 25 years turbines produce 10 times the energy than was required to produce them. This was calculated using a 'statistic' you made up to suit your argument.
Again it was designed to condemn my arguement so it didn't seem I was hoodwinking you!
Again it was designed to condemn my arguement so it didn't seem I was hoodwinking you!
Really?
I often have read and heard from anti windfarm people that the amount of energy required to manufacture a turbine is very significant to the amount of energy that will be generated.
[…]
So, windfarms produce over 10 times the energy over their term than it takes to manufacture them.
The next 25 years will be even more energy balanced towards energy generation because only the rotor and blades will require refurbishment, not the whole thing
Not quite sure where you think this was condemning your own argument. Seems very much as though you ‘calculated’ the figure in order to debunk ‘anti windfarm people’. :roll:
jjc wrote
Not quite sure where you think this was condemning your own argument. Seems very much as though you ‘calculated’ the figure in order to debunk ‘anti windfarm people’.
Too right kidder!
Because if the blurb that they listen to is from Bellamy and co then I thought it only proper to give a balanced arguement. It just so happens that I did not need to twist any facts I just calculated a worst case scenario and proved that windpower was a viable option under a whole spectrum of alternatives to fossil fuels. If you think that any windfarm is a violation on this land then I must grudgingly respect your views.
You are obviously not going to change your opinion, but if you could prove beyond all doubt that windfarms will not have a significant impact on climate change so debunking the notion of encouraging the proliferation of such then I would change my opinion.
Do you want me to quote or copy and paste the number of misconceptions that I have debunked just in this forum alone?
kind regards
Rheghead
However lets have the debunking in a form that I understand....Numbers!!!
However lets have the debunking in a form that I understand....Numbers!!!
'understand', 'make up'... you say potato, I say potAto...
The Royal Academy of Engineering in their appraisal of the PIU Energy Review states that
"
intermittent generation provides energy over time, but in the UK system does not replace the need for conventional generation capacity. Detailed engineering studies should be undertaken urgently before policy decisions relying on high levels of intermittent renewable generation are taken.
The study should determine the full costs of employing high levels of intermittent renewable energy sources including the provision of standby plant, energy storage, upgrading of the transmission and distribution systems and identify the impact on the electricity prices"
The government chose to ignore this advice!!
The RAE also argue that there are two problems to be resolved Global Warming and Security of Supply but the Energy Review focuses mainly on electricity generation.
It concentrated on a small number of large generators of electricity or emitters of Carbon Dioxide and not the task of amending the habits of millions of home and road users yet the effect on the environment of one gram of Carbon Dioxide is the same irrespective of its origins.
Henry Thoresby, Chairman of LSE Environmental Initiatives Network states
less than one thousandth of the global annual load would be saved by our generating 10% of our electricity from wind , a figure that will diminish as the economics of China and India get into gear.
The 2003 Digest of Energy Statistics gives UK windpower a load factor of 24.1% which means that it is a highly unreliable source of power incapable of providing the baseload that is essential to our economic well-being... The question must now be asked, is wind the most efficient, economical and generally benign form of renewable energy available and would the subsidies we now pay to the wind industry be better employed elsewhere? Biomass, geothermal, wave, tidal, micro-hydro, hydrogen and solar power all have a contribution to make and advocates of these technologies believe they are more reliable than wind, more benign and far better at creating long term employment.
The DTI Energy White Paper – The Low Carbon Economy
UK has a Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12 and a national goal to move towards reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.
The cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives is to use less energy.
Our legal obligation is to reduce CO2 emissions NOT the current renewable target. (Renewable generation is in response to the Security of Supply issue NOT the climate change issue)
A less blinkered government might have considered addressing the most urgent problem first – reducing CO2 emissions - and then with the advantage of time on their hands (no short term target to meet) they could have fully explored the options and undertaken the necessary engineering studies to provide a long term solution to our energy problems. It would be comforting to think that the energy requirements of the UK were considered worthy of a Strategic Policy.
Domestic renewables would reduce stress on the grid and reduce CO2 emissions.
Reduction in consumption through conserving energy reduces CO2 emissions.
Biomass (a proven technology) provides a constant supply – not intermittent – and could be independent of the grid.
There have been reports (which I just can’t locate at the moment) which state that the cost of 2000 wind turbines is £9 billion and to introduce clean coal technology to existing coal generators which would reduce CO2 emissions by around 50 – 60 % (equivalent of 7000 – 10,000 turbines) would cost £6 billion.
Finally, MY calculations –
167 = Quota of turbines for Caithness (as calculated by Rheghead)
500+ = proposed number of turbines
500+ - 167 = 333+
= 333+ too many turbines
OR
50 = Number of turbines required to humour the Scottish Executive/Government
500+ = proposed number of turbines
= 500+ too many turbines
Either way I forsee problems!!!
Can we now discuss options for Caithness to reduce CO2 emissions by domestic and small scale renewable generation and reduction in consumption? What percentage of renewable electricity could Caithness generate for itself, independent of the grid?
The Royal Academy of Engineering in their appraisal of the PIU Energy Review states that
"
intermittent generation provides energy over time, but in the UK system does not replace the need for conventional generation capacity. Detailed engineering studies should be undertaken urgently before policy decisions relying on high levels of intermittent renewable generation are taken.
The study should determine the full costs of employing high levels of intermittent renewable energy sources including the provision of standby plant, energy storage, upgrading of the transmission and distribution systems and identify the impact on the electricity prices"
The government chose to ignore this advice!!
The RAE also argue that there are two problems to be resolved Global Warming and Security of Supply but the Energy Review focuses mainly on electricity generation.
It concentrated on a small number of large generators of electricity or emitters of Carbon Dioxide and not the task of amending the habits of millions of home and road users yet the effect on the environment of one gram of Carbon Dioxide is the same irrespective of its origins.
Henry Thoresby, Chairman of LSE Environmental Initiatives Network states
less than one thousandth of the global annual load would be saved by our generating 10% of our electricity from wind , a figure that will diminish as the economics of China and India get into gear.
The 2003 Digest of Energy Statistics gives UK windpower a load factor of 24.1% which means that it is a highly unreliable source of power incapable of providing the baseload that is essential to our economic well-being... The question must now be asked, is wind the most efficient, economical and generally benign form of renewable energy available and would the subsidies we now pay to the wind industry be better employed elsewhere? Biomass, geothermal, wave, tidal, micro-hydro, hydrogen and solar power all have a contribution to make and advocates of these technologies believe they are more reliable than wind, more benign and far better at creating long term employment.
The DTI Energy White Paper – The Low Carbon Economy
UK has a Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12 and a national goal to move towards reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.
The cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives is to use less energy.
Our legal obligation is to reduce CO2 emissions NOT the current renewable target. (Renewable generation is in response to the Security of Supply issue NOT the climate change issue)
A less blinkered government might have considered addressing the most urgent problem first – reducing CO2 emissions - and then with the advantage of time on their hands (no short term target to meet) they could have fully explored the options and undertaken the necessary engineering studies to provide a long term solution to our energy problems. It would be comforting to think that the energy requirements of the UK were considered worthy of a Strategic Policy.
Domestic renewables would reduce stress on the grid and reduce CO2 emissions.
Reduction in consumption through conserving energy reduces CO2 emissions.
Biomass (a proven technology) provides a constant supply – not intermittent – and could be independent of the grid.
There have been reports (which I just can’t locate at the moment) which state that the cost of 2000 wind turbines is £9 billion and to introduce clean coal technology to existing coal generators which would reduce CO2 emissions by around 50 – 60 % (equivalent of 7000 – 10,000 turbines) would cost £6 billion.
Finally, MY calculations –
167 = Quota of turbines for Caithness (as calculated by Rheghead)
500+ = proposed number of turbines
500+ - 167 = 333+
= 333+ too many turbines
OR
50 = Number of turbines required to humour the Scottish Executive/Government
500+ = proposed number of turbines
= 500+ too many turbines
Either way I forsee problems!!!
Can we now discuss options for Caithness to reduce CO2 emissions by domestic and small scale renewable generation and reduction in consumption? What percentage of renewable electricity could Caithness generate for itself, independent of the grid?
The first part of your post rightfully points out the problems of unreliable windpower and how increased dependency may pose problems to supply on the grid. This problem is not new and is certainly not unique to the renewable sector. Nuclear, coal and gas have unexpected outages of power supply. Can you guarantee that the Drax plant can supply power on 27th October 2005 for example? The answer is no of course. In fact unexpected outages of fossil fuel plants pose more problems to the grid because they produce more power!!!
Henry Thoresby's comments were puzzling, the UK is not alone in trying to reduce CO2 emissions for the whole globe, it is responsible for its own not China's. Other Kyoto signataries will have their own strategy.
From my friend (who generates power to the grid from his own turbine) he reliably states that in Caithness and depending on the time of year, the load factor is 30-50%.
I share all your comments on Energy conservation, other forms of renewable energy, I fully realise there are other ways to reduce the load from the grid.
The secure nature of supply from renewables is a secondary aspect though still a valuble one.
Imagine if the Poles started a coal price war with other countries? What would that do to our economy? The same thing happened with OPEC and we are still paying through the nose every time there is a middle eastern skirmish!
I can't comment on this clean coal technology as I don't know how it works but it does sound interesting.
Oh and BTW I have been working on how jjc's windfarm in Albany, Australia might look like after windfarms are not needed in 2300 AD when we get all our energy from clean safe nuclear fusion.
http://www.members.aol.com/sabbytut/lesswind.jpg
Marks out of 10? Compared with...
http://www.omninet.net.au/~irhumph/photos/windfarm.jpg
10
:D
And a job well done...
The first part of your post rightfully points out the problems of unreliable windpower and how increased dependency may pose problems to supply on the grid. This problem is not new and is certainly not unique to the renewable sector. Nuclear, coal and gas have unexpected outages of power supply. Can you guarantee that the Drax plant can supply power on 27th October 2005 for example? The answer is no of course. In fact unexpected outages of fossil fuel plants pose more problems to the grid because they produce more power!!!
For goodness' sake Rheghead, the last sentence of your argument is a complete and utter non-sequitur (at best) for two reasons:
The electricity supply from conventional power stations is extremely reliable, so outages don't happen very often.
Outages at conventional stations aren't correlated. An outage at Drax won't be causally connected to an outage at Torness., and the Grid is designed cope with such situations anyway. Contrastingly, there are many days in the UK when there is barely a breath of wind over the whole country, so very few windfarms would produce any significant energy whatsoever, and hence an economy based on wind-power would collapse, at least temporarily. Your argument has some relevance to the case of a few windfarms, in which case the effect of outages would be small because the total power production by the set of all windfarms would be small! You are in danger of alienating those (few?) of us who may remain open-minded about wind (as it were) .
(Hmm, I'm not overly impressed with BBCode's "list" formatting. I tried an HTML ordered list (using ,,, etc) but it didn't work despite the fact that I seem to have the HTML option turned on. Any idea why?)
----------------------------------
Formatting fixed -- thanks to MadPict and the BBCode help info on here. The info I gleaned from the BBCode website I consulted the other day wasn't very helpful.
DrSzin wrote
[1] The electricity supply from conventional power stations is extremely reliable, so outages don't happen very often.
[2] Outages at conventional stations aren't correlated. An outage at Drax won't be causally connected to an outage at Torness., and the Grid is designed cope with such situations anyway. Contrastingly, there are many days in the UK when there is barely a breath of wind over the whole country, so very few windfarms would produce any significant energy whatsoever, and hence an economy based on wind-power would collapse, at least temporarily. Your argument has some relevance to the case of a few windfarms, in which case the effect of outages would be small because the total power production by the set of all windfarms would be small!
The grid is designed to cope with outages is it? Nothing is reliable in this world,at least nothing manmade that is.
Remember not so long ago, all the blackouts in the US? All due to failures and they rely heavily like us on fossil/nuclear fuels.
It won't happen here we cried, and yet in the same month there were complete blackouts which closed down central London.
My point being that wind power has the advantage of at least 24 hours notice of an outage through weather forcasting which conventional power does not have the luxury.
And outages due to windless conditions are no different to an outage in conventional power. There should always be some form of back up to wind whether it is from fossil fuels or not. AND a back up to nuclear, coal and gas.
Decentralization would be a result of more windfarm generation which will reduce power outages in outlying areas like Caithness and Sutherland providing of course that the wind is blowing. We had 6 blackouts in west Caithness this year, some lasting several hours, if there was a windfarm nearby I don't think we would of had one.
If power generation came from smaller plants then the grid would be less stressed and more reliable through safety in numbers.
Oh Rheghead, youu are sooooo funny sometimes. It's a case of one non-sequitur after another. I enjoy your posts because you have an amazing ability to go off on tangents and then throw in one marginally-relevant fact after another. You never give up, and you do make some interesting points, and I am impressed by that.
The US and London blackouts I think you are referring to were both due to power-line and/or grid failures not power-station failures. Having said that, it would be interesting to know how much the problems would have been alleviated by a distributed-generation network.
I didn't know about the multiple blackouts in west Caithness. Any idea what the causes were? Contrastingly, I can't remember having a single blackout in the last decade where I live in the land of szin. Maybe that's because I have a large coal-fired power station on my doorstep and an equally-large nuclear one not far away. That was a tangential joke btw :)
I hadn't thought about the 24-hour warning -- that's neat. At least you would know when you have to light the coal or gas fire and turn the uranium dial up past critical. Very neat indeed.
But now my tangents are growing longer than yours...
Your comment about the grid being less-stressed with a lot of smaller plants is interesting. The "wind expert" I talked to recently claimed that the current grid was inappropriate for such a distributed network -- you can tell I don't know much about this subject because I have to keep quoting him! Apparently, the design of such a network is a very interesting (and therefore difficult) problem. He reckons there is much work to be done, and much money to be made, in designing and writing completely-new software to control such a flexible distributed network.
Maybe the distributed-network guys had better get on with it before the big thermonuclear boys blow them out the water in a few decades. But then our fission friends said similar things half a century ago. Remember "electricity that's too cheap to meter"? Maybe wind has an advantage over fission -- it'll never be claimed to be too cheap to meter :cool:
DrSzin wrote
The US and London blackouts I think you are referring to were both due to power-line and/or Grid failures not power-station failures. Having said that, it would be interesting to know how much the problems would have been alleviated by a distributed-generation network.
So in the light of the shortfalls of the grid, do you think the proposed upgrades to the grid has less to do with windfarms and more to do with a centralized fossil fuel dependancy?
DrSzin wrote
He reckons there is much work to be done, and much money to be made, in designing and writing completely-new software to control such a flexible distributed network.
Funny?, I would have expected the response from your source to this effect...
He reckons there is much work to be done, and much money to be SPENT, in designing and writing completely-new software to control such a flexible distributed network.
Does your source work for Powergen perhaps? Someone's cost is another's price that is the essence of an economy.
I enjoy your posts because you have an amazing ability to go off on tangents and then throw in one marginally-relevant fact after another. You never give up, and you do make some interesting points, and I am impressed by that.
What a relief! I thought I was thumping my head against a brick wall! :lol:
DrSzin wrote
I didn't know about the multiple blackouts in west Caithness. Any idea what the causes were? Contrastingly, I can't remember having a single blackout in the last decade where I live in the land of szin. Maybe that's because I have a large coal-fired power station on my doorstep and an equally-large nuclear one not far away
It just goes to show that the politicians have a more centralized view on who needs energy in this country , they forget that there are fellow Scots that live in the back o' beyond!
BTW Caithness people are largely ignorant of the visual impact of conventional power stations (obviously excluding Dounreay) that you townies have to endure everyday, so I guess everthing evens up in the end on that front?
BTW Remember of the photo of the turbines in front of the Drax powerstation? Yes, it beggers belief but people did object to that wind farm on visual impact reasons!!!
I do not know why we had so many power failures, but according to the local shop owner it is nothing new.
So I have committed my ultimate sin and bought a wee genny for emergencies at Allans at Gillock.
But seeing as I heat my house with locally produced wood and I have replaced all my lightbulbs, fridge and washer/dryer in recent years and my computer to a laptop means that I am a lot greener than I was before so I am allowed the odd luxury!
Rheghead says
The secure nature of supply from renewables is a secondary aspect though still a valuable one.
If you mean reducing emissions is the primary aspect then I agree. Unfortunately the government have made security of supply the primary and only aspect.
Henry Thoresby's comments were puzzling, the UK is not alone in trying to reduce CO2 emissions for the whole globe, it is responsible for its own not China's. Other Kyoto signataries will have their own strategy.
I’m surprised you find Thoresby’s comments puzzling. I’ll explain. A few weeks ago you posted the following
It sounds to me as if the anti wind energy lobby has their way, then we will have a runaway greenhouse effect. The seas will rise, the ice caps will melt, the flora will change,floods will occur, the air will choke up with fumes, wild storms will destroy our homes, the gulf stream will change course, we will all freeze
Why, when we are faced with a global disaster of this magnitude, are we faffing about with wind energy which will only reduce our CO2 emissions by less than one thousandth of the global annual load? If the government were serious in their intent to make a tangible impact on reducing emissions, wind energy comes way down the list of priorities.
My point being that wind power has the advantage of at least 24 hours notice of an outage through weather forecasting which conventional power does not have the luxury.
I’m not rising to that!!!!
From my friend (who generates power to the grid from his own turbine) he reliably states that in Caithness and depending on the time of year, the load factor is 30-50%.
I’m not doubting your friend and his turbine but what’s the average for the year?
If it is your intention to persuade those of us who are deeply sceptical of wind energy being the most effective way of combating global warming (as we are being led to believe) then so far you have failed.
I realise that it is not your responsibility to persuade or educate us ‘anti-windfarm activists’ but I would really appreciate it if you or anyone else out there would comment on the following.
-Why has the UK response to the EU Directive which aims to reduce CO2 emissions led only to development of ‘windfarms’?
-Why if we are genuinely concerned about ‘climate change’ are we not pro-actively implementing measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
-Where are the strategies for Reducing CO2 emissions and maintaining Security of Supply?
-How does the Scottish Executive intend to meet the renewable target for 2040 of 40% when all investment is currently directed at wind development?
-Why are we ignoring advice from the EC (Energy for the Future, White Paper), Council of Europe, DTI (The Low Carbon Economy), DEFRA (UK Climate Change Programme), National Energy Foundation, British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering – to name but a few???
Goodwil wrote
Why has the UK response to the EU Directive which aims to reduce CO2 emissions led only to development of ‘windfarms’?
-Why if we are genuinely concerned about ‘climate change’ are we not pro-actively implementing measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
-Where are the strategies for Reducing CO2 emissions and maintaining Security of Supply?
-How does the Scottish Executive intend to meet the renewable target for 2040 of 40% when all investment is currently directed at wind development?
-Why are we ignoring advice from the EC (Energy for the Future, White Paper), Council of Europe, DTI (The Low Carbon Economy), DEFRA (UK Climate Change Programme), National Energy Foundation, British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering – to name but a few???
To tackle 'climate change' the Government needs to address transport use and energy use and production. We have only discussed windfarms on this and previous threads, i am happy to discuss reducing carbon emissions on another thread.
Windpower seems to be the option of choice because there are plenty of companies that build the turbines so it is i suppose an easy 'off the shelf' option?
I don't know if the government is ignoring advice from those bodies. Are they saying the same thing or are they giving differing advice?
It just seems that there is a 'rush for wind' to the exclusion of other forms of renewables because they are more high profile, but if you remember in the Groat recently, they were trying again with tidal and wave power in the Pentland firth.
You can get grants up to 30% off the cost of ground source heat pumps if you apply.
If you contact http://www.cref.co.uk they will be only too happy to send you an information pack on all the options to reduce your dependancy on the grid and fossil fuel heating. It will also give you info on where to apply for grants.
CREF is not a pro windfarm group but a pro domestic scale renewable energy body.
(Hmm, I'm not overly impressed with BBCode's "list" formatting. I tried an HTML ordered list (using ,,, etc) but it didn't work despite the fact that I seem to have the HTML option turned on. Any idea why?)
Try
(list) (/list) replacing the () with [] and placing a (*) before each item enclosing them in [] as well.
The electricity supply from conventional power stations is extremely reliable, so outages don't happen very often.
Outages at conventional stations aren't correlated. An outage at Drax won't be causally connected to an outage at Torness., and the Grid is designed cope with such situations anyway. Contrastingly, there are many days in the UK when there is barely a breath of wind over the whole country, so very few windfarms would produce any significant energy whatsoever, and hence an economy based on wind-power would collapse, at least temporarily. Your argument has some relevance to the case of a few windfarms, in which case the effect of outages would be small because the total power production by the set of all windfarms would be small!
Is that what you were trying to do?
Apologies. I thought we were discussing the UK's pathetic effort (developing windfarms)at reducing CO2 emissions, in order to meet their legal obligation to Kyoto.
No? What's the point of this thread then?
Apologies. I thought we were discussing the UK's pathetic effort (developing windfarms)at reducing CO2 emissions, in order to meet their legal obligation to Kyoto.
No? What's the point of this thread then?
We weren't discussing the UK's pathetic effort at reducing CO2 emissions, we were discussing windfarms in general from their efficiency, visual impact to their role in the UK's energy strategy.
The discussion of windfarms and climate change are linked but they are not the 'be all and end all' of the UK's strategy to tackle carbon emissions. Windfarms are not a quick fix to climate change, they are a small facet in the broad, long term spectrum of options.
I know what you antis are saying to yourselves right now, if they are just a small player then why have them in the first place?
My answer would be this, the spectrum of options to tackle climate change would not be as broad if windfarms (the present main player)were excluded.
If we were discussing tackling climate change then I would like to discuss subjects like transport, domestic energy generation, energy conservation, and the carbon cycle.
I agree with Goodwill, the UK's efforts to reduce CO2 emissions is pathetic, but it is more pathetic in other countries.
How effective are windfarms at tackling climate change? And if they cause more damage than they do good should we advocate their proliferation?
Well here are my calculations, you can pick the bones out of them, if you find a fault then it is up to you to recalculate my results. What I do not want is any more unscientific 'blurb'.
Since 1959 there has been a steady increase of CO2 concentration of 1.23ppm by volume each year.
How does that equate in terms of tonnes?
According to my reference(The Chemistry and Physics Handbook 1996) the mass of the atmosphere is 5.1236 x 10^18 kg, a ppm by volume of CO2 is 1.83ppm by mass, so the calculation to find out the cuts in CO2 emission to halt global warming is thus,
1.23ppm x 1.83 x 5.1236 x 10^18 kg = 1.15 x 10^13 kg
In the Governments 'Energy in Brief' pdf file that is obtainable on the net it gives fossil fuel consumption for 2003,
Petroleum products = 67.3 million tonnes
Coal consumption = 62.4 million tonnes
Gas consumption = 1104.1 TWh. (44.7 million tonnes)
I calculated the tonnage of gas to be
(1104.1 x 10^12 x 3600/ 890 kj/mol ) x 10^-6 = 44.7 million tonnes
To calculate these figure into CO2 emissions, I calculate as such where 1 unit mole of petroleum is -CH2- or 14g/mol, coal is C 12g/mol, gas is CH4 16g/mol and CO2 is 44g/mol
thus calculating the total UK CO2 emissions are,
(67.3 x 10^9kg x 44g/14g) + (62.4 x 10^9kg x 44g/12g) + (44.7 x 10^9 x 44g/16g) = 5.63 x 10^11 kgs of CO2
So the UK is responsible for (5.63 x 10^11 / 1.15 X 10^13) x 100 = 4.9% of the Global increase in CO2
Large scale windfarms only produce electricity through the grid, the 'Energy in Brief 2004' tells us that 29 million tonnes of oil equivalence is consumed to give give 379TWh of energy. The Government's goal is to provide 15% of energy by renewables by 2015.
So the CO2 displaced from the atmosphere is calculated as
0.15 x 29 x 10^9 x 44g/14g = 1.36 x 10^10 kg
That is 0.12% of the required amount to stabilize Global warming!!!!
So I have calculated in hard facts and figures that windfarms are useless at tackling Climate change!
:eek: that seems like an awful lot of work just to say that it aint needed :confused :confused
:eek: that seems like an awful lot of work just to say that it aint needed :confused :confused
I have been too pro windfarm on previous posts so I thought I would be a bit anti windfarm for a change!!
:eek: that seems like an awful lot of work just to say that it aint needed :confused :confused
I have been too pro windfarm on previous posts so I thought I would be a bit anti windfarm for a change!!
ok i see i was not having a go or anything just thought you had done alot to prove it, it was all a bit to complicated for me but it is good to see that you have taken time to look into it all so that you are just not saying you are for or against it, you have actually looked in to it, keep up the good work :)
What I do not want is any more unscientific 'blurb'.
Well, I’m not sure if this is at all scientific… but then I’m not sure if I care either.
I thought I’d share a little photo I took at the weekend.
http://www.imagevenue.com/loc86/0fd95_windfarm.jpg
I can’t speak for anybody else, but it seems to me as though there’s something drawing my attention away from the fantastic view of Morven. I can’t quite put my finger on what that might be… but don’t worry, if we make sure that the tourists only travel the A9 at night they’ll be none the wiser. [disgust]
:eek: that seems like an awful lot of work just to say that it aint needed :confused :confused
I have been too pro windfarm on previous posts so I thought I would be a bit anti windfarm for a change!!
ok i see i was not having a go or anything just thought you had done alot to prove it, it was all a bit to complicated for me but it is good to see that you have taken time to look into it all so that you are just not saying you are for or against it, you have actually looked in to it, keep up the good work :)
Saying that windfarms are rubbish is easy, proving it takes a bit more time and effort! :lol:
jjc,
Remember my work on your Australian windfarm photo? Hmm, are you challenging me to do the same with Causeymire? :o)
Good to see you back Rheghead. I admit to being impressed by THAT calculation. Don't understand it but it looks pretty good to me and I take my hat off to you.
So I have calculated in hard facts and figures that windfarms are useless at tackling Climate change!
You stressed that you don't want to see any more unscientific blurb but do you accept that many of us non scientists are not in a position to reproduce these marvelous theories and calculations? Luckily there are experts out there who have already undertaken the research and the results are available in a form we understand (eg. your very succint summarised version of your calculation).
So we have ascertained that covering the Highlands in wind turbines (latest figures for the Highlands now sees the total proposed turbines breaking the ONE THOUSAND barrier) is going to have little or no effect on reversing climate change.
As an alternative source of energy generation wind energy may have a minor role to play but large scale proliferation cannot be supported due to intermittancy problems and supply to the grid.
That leaves - the money!!! and over 500 turbines proposed for Caithness.
Maybe we anti-windfarm activists do have our facts right?? Maybe we're not shouting about 'views'? Maybe we do genuinely want to see a sustainable renewable energy policy to benefit this county? Maybe we should be supporting those people who are currently lobbying the Scottish Executive and Highland Council in an effort to protect us from current renewable policy which is unarguably concentrated on windfarm developments to the exclusion of all other alternatives.
I may have had a 'on the road to Damascus rethink' on wind energy.
Curiously, we have 2 arguements for wind energy going on here.
a. Can onshore wind power be justified in terms of climate change?
b. Can onshore wind energy be justified in terms of providing benefits to a local community that owns the windfarm (provided that it is sited appropriately)?
Ironically, the answer to (a) is NO
the answer to (b) could be YES?
It took me 6 months of quite intensive research and endless communication with various bodies to get to the point at which you have now arrived. You must be congratulated for your persistence and dedication in your quest for the 'truth'.
Community Windfarms - the Highland Council's Community Toolkit "Can Your Community Benefit from Renewable Development" makes for interesting if confusing reading.
What we require is a Council (locally & regionally) with sufficient backbone to stand against the Scottish Executive? A sustainable environmental audit of the county which identifies suitable areas for wind development. Local targets for renewable energy generation which detail the 'mix' of renewables we hear so much about but see no evidence of. A moratorium on all wind developments in the Highlands until the necessary studies have been undertaken.
There would be little objection to a community owned windfarm development if it was suitably sited and if it replaced all the current applications!!! But at the moment with proposals for 500 turbines in the pipeline the opportunity to fully investigate this possibility is not an option. All time and energy is being wasted on objecting to current policy - very time consuming, frustrating and depressing it is too!!
As a convert, can you see a solution?
Goodwill
I guess this is the document you are referring to?
http://www.highland.gov.uk/cx/community-benefit/community_benefit.pdf
It takes a while to load if you are on dial up.
Rheghead - hadn't seen that one. Not very encouraging is it? And not quite up to date with proposals either, I see.
I was referring to the Draft Community Toolkit " Can your Community Benefit from Renewable Energy Development" - HC Renewing Democracy and Community Planning Select Committee dated 5th November 03. I have a copy but can't locate it on HC website - anyone help??
There's also the following report - http://www.highland.gov.uk/minutes/headquarters/sustainable/reports/2004/15sep04/sd17.pdf
HC Sustainable Development Select Committee dated 15 Sept 04.
Sadly these don't offer any hope either.
We're still faced with proposals for 500 turbines and the only chance of stopping/stalling them is to object on the following grounds -
Migrating geese - flight path or feeding ground (or similar)
Evidence of rare example of flora or fauna
Landscape/View
Evidence of archaeological remains (but only if turbine is planted directly on top of cairn, hut circle, broch)
Safety issues
Noise
Flicker
The first 2 are the most likely to be taken note of - the rest?? Interesting that these particular issues determine both the future energy requirements of the country and our ability to reduce our CO2 emmissions in an attempt to save the planet - we're supposed to believe that??
If the council object and refuse permission the developers just appeal to the Scottish Executive and the whole process begins again with an Inquiry. The developers roll out the big guns and the residents of this county are forced into a lengthy and unfairly represented legal battle.
Should we just give up and let our Highland Council and Scottish Executive have their wicked way with Caithness?
I read through the report and I was staggered to see the recommended level of community benefit by the Highland council to be £4-5000 per MW per yr.
And I was even more staggered to see that local communities were accepting figures well below this recommendation, around £1500 per MW per yr!!
Each MW is worth about £800,000 in sales of electricity per year!!!
If there is no stopping these turbines then we must get some benefit that realistically reflects the profits being made?!
Canny now Rheghead. All's not as it seems. There is no requirement for developers to offer a red cent of goodwill payments/community benefit. Highland Council are forbidden to allow financial benefit to influence their decision on any planning application.
The community involved would have to be united in their decision to embrace the development, otherwise a very unhealthy situation would develop with divisions in communities.
We have ruled out windfarms as being productive in reducing CO2 emissions and as a realistic alternative to replace our existing fossil fuel generators.
Are we willing to trade our priceless and unique landscape for nothing more than pounds and shillings?
It seems we are stuck between a rock and a hard place?
Hi guys
I have been reading this and was interested to see on the news the other night people in Forth discussing ways in which wind farms could help their community grow
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4100077.stm
This is the link to the news item...Is this what you are talking about when you are talking about money coming to the local area?
dougleith
21-Dec-04, 22:38
For a topical perspective on a potential tragic danger of wind farms, see the front cover of the current issue of Private Eye at.....
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/1122/1122pe.jpg
D
A wee crimbo prezzy for jjc
http://members.aol.com/sabbytut/morven.jpg
Awww. That's brill (and a much nicer view!). Thanks. :D
Aha - stealth technology (ala Predator) in use by Wind Farmers.....
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
The results to my windfarm was 43 votes in favour of large scale windfarms in Caithness, 133 votes against.
I am going to change the vote to another subject. any ideas? I thought no smoking vote would be a possibility?
How about the following for your new poll -
Would you be happy to have a 100 metre turbine situated 400 metres from your home?
Happy Christmas!!
Rheghead
How low can you go? Apart from being a Sun reader, you are also attempting to discredit a great man.
In the 1960's drugs were part of the culture, much as alcohol and ecstacy are today. Most people tried it. It's no big deal. Prime Ministers and US Presidents even did it!
The only person who appeared to be on any drugs at the presentation was the bowtie and earing clad man who stood up, made some very strange quotes, then sat down again. Now what was HE on, I wonder?
PS You're still avoiding the question.......
Hi! I'm a supper guest of Rheghead, and also the bowtie-earring-druggy (you missed out on speccy git) at the meeting you couldn't hear muttering sundry stuff. You may also call me Peter Darmady. I'm genuinely sorry you couldn't hear what I had to say. To recap, when I was expeditioning in Greenland, I found that the glacier I was traversing was a full 1000 ft below the given map height as of 1934. Also visible was a corresponding "tide mark" on the mountains. This ties in with the shrinking of glaciers I've seen in Austria, Switzerland and France. We also observed the reversal of a glacier (as shown by the morraine loop). It is the most convincing evidence of global warming I have yet come across.
My own stance is
* that the Hibbert limit is upon us (ie we've used half of our fossil fuel reserves)
* that renewables are essential and inevitable if we are to avoid a 100% nuclear future
* that windpower is part of the solution, not the entire answer. By beginning to address the real incipient energy crisis sustainably now, we will move onto more acceptable solutions. We will never, however satisfy all of the people all of the time......
* that windpower must be sited sensitively, taking into account flicker, local residential proximity (I suggest that a useful distance from windfarms to nearest home should be 10 times rotor diameter times squareroot of number of turbines. ie if you have 25 turbines with blade length 50 m, then the distance to the nearest home should be 10 x 100m x root25 = 5km. To check this out, stand 1km (voluntary arbitrary industry guideline distance) and then 5km from a Causeymire turbine and see what you think)
* that real downsides eg TV interference should be compensated. The windfarms will be producing enough cash for this.
* that Bellamy has his own agenda and that the rehearsed soundbites he used at the meeting were cheered to the rafters because he said them rather than their truth/relevance/clarity. Despite his levity wrt midge mortality on the blades of windturbines, midges are an important level of the food chain. You ask any trout.
* that I was not any drugs other than adrenaline (due to the intensely onesided nature of the meeting)
I have also put money where mouth is. Our turbine is up and running and may be viewed from the Camster road....
Green you may be, but I'm afraid that you will have to accept that greed is also going to have to part of the answer, as it is only by spending larges wodges of dosh that we will be able to finance the baseload solutions.
please be aware that peter is not me and we agree on loads of things not necessarily on everything!
To recap, when I was expeditioning in Greenland, I found that the glacier I was traversing was a full 1000 ft below the given map height as of 1934. Also visible was a corresponding "tide mark" on the mountains. This ties in with the shrinking of glaciers I've seen in Austria, Switzerland and France.
...and no doubt you got to all these far flung places by sailing ship? Or maybe by one of the most polluting devices when we come to talk about greenhouse gases!!!
Commercial jet airliner.... :roll:
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
I make no apology for my guest (peter) who has since left my house.
But he has at least had the reproductive organs to put his money where his mouth is.
He is very bold and very principled, he actually may be able to mitigate his expedition to Greenland on account that he is producing clean energy!!!
I make no apology for my guest (peter) who has since left my house.
By bicycle, one presumes? ;)
I make no apology for my guest (peter) who has since left my house.
But he has at least had the reproductive organs to put his money where his mouth is.
He is very bold and very principled, he actually may be able to mitigate his expedition to Greenland on account that he is producing clean energy!!!
I somehow think he has more to answer for than just one trip to Greenland. Unless he is completely self sustaining, never uses a motor car, or public transport or buys white goods or electronic goods such as TV's or never goes to foreign countries on holidays or ......
....I'm sure you can fill in the rest yourself.
We know he has been to "Austria, Switzerland and France." Did he walk there? Or cycle even? How many tons of greenhouse gases has your "bold and principled" guest been responsible for over the span of his lifetime?
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
I make no apology for my guest (peter) who has since left my house.
But he has at least had the reproductive organs to put his money where his mouth is.
He is very bold and very principled, he actually may be able to mitigate his expedition to Greenland on account that he is producing clean energy!!!
he did say he was going to register on caithness.org and argue his case so i am waiting for him to do so.
The Press and Journal are conducting an online poll to get public opinion on windfarms. Vote away!
http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149306&command=newPage
peter macdonald
31-Jan-05, 23:25
OK i see what you mean but pray what is the alternative to schemes such as wind power etc??
Should we be looking at the nuclear option ? Is Dounreay is a shining example of the economics of that methodt?? It will be about 80 years from cradle to grave and employ on average 2000 people to produce ...well just about nothing.
The fossil fuels are dirty and will eventually run out ..So then what ?? I agree that wind power is not perfect but the people who spend so much time protesting not coming up with too many options ??
recycling, energy conservation, offshore wind, biodiesel, biofuels, solar, tidal, nuclear, fusion when available, ground source heating, public transport, sailing, video conferencing, etc etc
Colin Manson
01-Feb-05, 20:03
Should we be looking at the nuclear option ? Is Dounreay is a shining example of the economics of that methodt?? It will be about 80 years from cradle to grave and employ on average 2000 people to produce ...well just about nothing.
Answers in order.
Yes
Nope because it was never a commercial power station, only a prototype, that's what the P is for.
It has done too many things to list really.
OK i see what you mean but pray what is the alternative to schemes such as wind power etc??
Should we be looking at the nuclear option ? Is Dounreay is a shining example of the economics of that methodt?? It will be about 80 years from cradle to grave and employ on average 2000 people to produce ...well just about nothing.
The fossil fuels are dirty and will eventually run out ..So then what ?? I agree that wind power is not perfect but the people who spend so much time protesting not coming up with too many options ??
As mentioned in this thread (http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6911), James Lovelock, the man behind the Gaia theory in a recent programme on energy stated that we may have to resort to nuclear energy as the only way to prevent global warming.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
captain chaos
05-Feb-05, 16:58
peter macdonald wrote:
Should we be looking at the nuclear option ? Is Dounreay is a shining example of the economics of that methodt?? It will be about 80 years from cradle to grave and employ on average 2000 people to produce ...well just about nothing.
Its was sad that PFR was shut down,but a fact that the PFR generated more electricity in its short life time than all the windmills in caithness will ever do in their long life.....so the above statement "well just about nothing" is grossly false
What was the power output of PFR and other reactors on the site?
http://www.caithness.org/fpb/dounreay/historical/pfr.htm
tells us it was 250MW, no mention of any other reactors though.
Funny it was the first page listed in my google search before the ukaea's own site :)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dounreay+pfr+output
Wasn't there one called DFR or am I getting muddled? :confused :o)
Colin Manson
07-Feb-05, 14:53
DMTR - Was only for testing, no electrical output AFAIK
DFR - 14 MW
PFR - 250MW
I'm sure the commercial version was going to be 1000MW
Cheers
Colin
A local community has said no to the development by Powergen of a 3 turbine windfarm next to their village. Catworth Hill Action Group have stated that Powergen in the guise of E.ON UK have ignored the overwhelming opposition to the siting of the 3 wind turbines of over 300ft tall on the top of Catworth Hill in Cambridgeshire.
Following a vote of the residents 79% of those who voted turned down the plans.
They asked the company to withdraw the plans. The energy giant made a commitment to consult the public over a 3 month period while the application was considered.
Seems like powergen is going to drive ahead with their application irrespective of the wishes of the residents. As a "sweetener" they are touting the figures of the community benefitting from an annual income of £5000 for the next 25 years, to spend as it wished on local projects, plus educational materials and free energy effiency advice!!!!!
So Rheghead, get your calculator out and tell us if the figure of £5000 pa for 25 years is anywhere near the truth???
Previous News article on this topic (http://www.stivestoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1704&ArticleID=929969)
Hunts Post (http://www.huntspost.co.uk/man/news/story.asp?datetime=19+Jan+2005+14%3A45&tbrand=HPTOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=HPTOnline&itemid=CMED20+Jan+2005+09%3A47%3A17%3A853)
http://www.powergen.co.uk/communitypower/catworth.htm
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
According to the Scottish Executive and their advice, they recommend that the community should receive £1000 per MW. The Catworth windfarm is a 2MW windfarm, so the proposed community payment of £5000 far exceeds the recommended level.
However, lets calculate the annual takings of the Catworth farm.
2000kW X 24 X 365 X 0.241 X 0.057p = £240,672 plus they will receive a similiar amount in the form of ROCs bringing a grand total to approximately £480,000.
And out of that they are proposing to compensate the locals with a £5000 sweetener?
Tell them to go back to the negotiating table.
Sweetener - 25 x 5000 = £125,000
Powergen gets - 25 x 480,000 = £12 million
so the community gets just over 1% of the income of the turbines over 25 years?
[lol]
Council rejects windfarm scheme
Plans for a windfarm between the villages of Boxworth and Connington have been unanimously rejected by South Cambridgeshire District councillors.
At a meeting on Wednesday council members rejected the plans.
Local residents from the Stop Cambridge Wind Farm Group have been campaigning against the windfarm since the plans were submitted last August.
The application for 16 330ft tall wind turbines was put forward by Suffolk-based firm Your Energy.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4416453.stm)
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
Forgot about this one :D
Turbine shadows 'upset prisoners'
Whitemoor Prison
The sun hits the turbine blades at an angle and causes the shadows
A wind turbine near a top-security prison is being switched off in the early mornings because the flickering shadows it creates annoy inmates.
[disgust]
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4424201.stm)
So is the bottom line, then, that the big businesses are making vast amounts of money over the heads of the local communities?
Are we agreed that with, or even in spite of the calculations, that wind power is a useful source of clean and renewable energy?
Was there not a case in Wales this year where a village bought a wind turbine for their own use, with excess electricity being sold to the National Grid?
Are there people living in Caithness who have the know-how and the industrial potential to build wind-turbines?
Why not then politely ask the fattest cats to go elsewhere while the Caithness communities work together to plan, create and install what it is we need up here, where we need it?
Or are concepts such as "working together" and "communities" things of the past?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.