Wind

[Jake]

For the future wave power and geothermal are also likely reliable producers.

I agree with that, and nuclear. And with coal, if they can sort out CO2 capture (without wishing to get into that debate).

I'd add tidal, as it is more reliable than wave.

I think wind has its part to play, but obviously it can't be the core capacity (and I don't think it is intended that it should be).

 

[newt]

I have nothing against wind turbines, but what annoys me is that the government targets are based on installed capacity not actual operating capacity.

 

[CraigyBoy]

The analyses were compiled by Allan Tubb, a former power engineer, on behalf of the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development (CLOWD)

An independent study then :roll:

It always makes me laugh when I see reports like this dismissed with this type of comment. About 90%, if not more, of reports on climate change are produced by non independent bodies so if you dismiss this one because of that then you must also dismiss all the others.

Just a thought.

john

I'm not dismissing it, I'm simply saying that a report stating that wind farms aren't very good written by a group that is against wind farms needs to be considered within context, and any potential bias borne in mind. Unfortunately a lot of people won't do that, they will accept biased reports at face value.

You are correct though. In an ideal world, we should dismiss all non independent reports. It would provide a much more accurate picture and remove a lot of the deliberately created controversy.

Craig

 

[CraigyBoy]

From a reliability view point Craig, currently, coal or nuclear. As you say, criticism is easy, but so is day dreaming. Would you buy a car that could only run one day in three?
During a three day spell in June last year the wind generators through out the country produce 2 per cent of their rated out put.
For the future wave power and geothermal are also likely reliable producers.

Roy.

Clearly wind power is no good without some storage medium. When wind starts to contribute a bigger percentage of the power used then this will be more critical. Currently our grid operates in a way that can be turned on/off as needed. They simply turn on/up the power stations during the day an evening. Wind power doesn't work this way, but it doesn't mean it's useless, it just means we need to evolve the power grid into something that works differently.

Would I buy a car that only operates 1 day in 3, obviously not. However a better analogy is would you buy a car if the pertrol stations were only open 1 day in 3? Yes if the tank on the car was big enough of course you would. There isn't a petrol station on every street corner, and there doesn't need to be wind all of the time.

Stepping back to the report briefly ...

They have fundamentally (deliberately?) confused efficiency with load factor, and are badly reporting truths. The %s reported are the load factors of the devices and not the efficiency. Load factor is the power produced compared with the theoretical maximum of the device. Efficiency is the power out compared with the power in.

A wind turbine may be able to theoretically produce 5MW (example) in a good wind, however nobody would be stupid enough to claim they will always achieve this. Saying they only achieve 25% load factor is fairly meaningless without understanding the design expectations. If it was designed to work at 20% then it's doing great!! Traditional power stations are not on all the time either. In order to cope with peak demands, they are unlikely to average more than 50%.

Back to the car analogy: My car can do 100mph. If I was to drive it at 70mph constantly it would have a load factor of 70%. But that doesn't make it only 70% efficient. But hang on, I have to sleep, so I just drive it 12 hours a day. OMG - does that make it only 35% efficient? No of course it doesn't!!

Forgive me for sounding like a rant. It's not, honest! It just really p*sses me off when bullsh*t statistics are presented in this way, without correct explanation. It is a deliberate intention to mislead people and IMO that's wrong!

Craig

 

[Digit]

They have fundamentally (deliberately?) confused efficiency with load factor, and are badly reporting truths. The %s reported are the load factors of the devices and not the efficiency. Load factor is the power produced compared with the theoretical maximum of the device. Efficiency is the power out compared with the power in.

Absolutely! But that hardly changes the basic argument.
A friend of mine starts a new job today, installing the infrastructure for an of off shore wind farm. He has given up a long term secure job for a two year contract, the money's that good.
Last week he introduced me to the company owner, who freely admitted that the concept was a white elephant. By grouping generators in large numbers all you do is guarantee that large numbers all stop generating at the same time, the view of the company installing the generators.

Roy.

 

[CraigyBoy]

Assuming (for arguments sake) that the turbines were expected to have a load factor of 25% it changes the point of the article entirely. It stops being "wind farms are useless" (I'm paraphrasing!) to "wind farms perform exactly as expected". If you wanted to spin this differently it then becomes "wind farms produce 100% of expected power". This makes a big difference. As it stands, figures are quoted totally without any reference point. Emotive words like "feeble" lead you to assume the figures are bad. This is not necessarily the case.

Your point about clustering turbines together is valid, however it will have other benefits. In the case on an off-shore farm, only a single set of infrastructure (e.g. cables) is required back to land. Only a single set of approvals is required as opposed to one for each turbine. Maintenance is easier etc etc. It will make a lot of practical sense to group a few together. However we are not putting every single turbine in one place. That would obviously be stupid. They are already in over 250 locations in the UK, so the wind would need to stop in a lot of places. This does happen, hence my point about storage.

One big advantage of wind power is that it can be localised. Power for Cornwall can be produced in Cornwall, not at a nuclear power station in Scotland. Think of the power lost transporting it across hundreds of miles of cables and many substations.

As you're against the clustering, I assume you are in favour of putting a small one on every house? ;-)

 

[Digit]

Your point about clustering turbines together is valid, however it will have other benefits. In the case on an off-shore farm, only a single set of infrastructure (e.g. cables) is required back to land. Only a single set of approvals is required as opposed to one for each turbine. Maintenance is easier etc etc. It will make a lot of practical sense to group a few together. However we are not putting every single turbine in one place. That would obviously be stupid. They are already in over 250 locations in the UK, so the wind would need to stop in a lot of places. This does happen, hence my point about storage.

Craig, we are gonna have to watch this we are starting to agree! :lol:

But your point about clustering is based on economics of course and has to be a consideration. But then of course off shore installations are only economic 'cos of the subsidy.
How would you store the power, bearing in mind the governments stated aim of 20? percent of national usage from green sources?

Roy.

 

[Jason Pettitt]

You're not going to get anyone investing in any new public infrastructure without wanting a subsidy. It's expensive stuff.

Currently the UK uses the vast bulk of energy during the day time - wind turbines (I think they look brilliant) keep spinning through the night. Off the top of my head a resurgence in storage heating would make good use of night time surpluses. Energy is good stuff - you can use it for all sorts of things. It's really not hard to think of smart ways of using it. You should try.

I think that's part of the perceived problem. If you set out thinking it's got to look like 20th Century infrastructure, smell like 20th Century infrastructure and burn coke like 19th Century infrastructure then you'll find you're arbitrarily restricting yourself to 20th Century infrastructure. If you set out think of ways to do energy for the 21st Century then your start finding you've got a lot more options. Which is good - because we really don't have the option of carrying on being in the 20th Century; and the longer we try the greater the pickle we find ourselves in.

Hydro-electricity would be another classic, centralised this time, example of storing huge amounts of excess power. Smart grids and appliances could drastically reduce the need for storage at all. Hydrogen. Charging things that need batteries including perhaps electric vehicles when there's an abundance etc etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[big soft moose]

incidentally, for those interested in the wider debate , wind etc has been discussed to fair the well here wild about britain, another forum that I (and digit) am involved in.

the posts from "lancashire lad" over there are particularly illuminating (if you'll excuse the pun) given that he is an electrical engineer working in the sector. ( I figured i'd link it instead of reproducing them here)

 

[Digit]

And within minutes posters are trying to score political points, sad.
All sides have an agenda, with money available pro and anti, logic says both sides believe their view.
Frankly one of the most poitive ways of using wind, and I thing Craig was heading that way, would be to tie wind farms in with pumped hydro generation.
Let it flow through hydro generators then use wind generated power to pump it back up again!

Roy.

 

[CraigyBoy]

An interesting (brief) overview on power storage

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/des ... age-media/

I'm reluctant to bring up electric cars again ... however ... There is also a lot of interest in the expected increase in electric cars. This effectively means that there will be millions of batteries connected to the grid by us (well maybe not all of us ;-)). These could some how be used as temporary storage devices. Personally I don't see how this would work though. Yes, most people would charge at night (when excess energy is being created), but I don't think many people would be happy to find their car empty at lunchtime because they had been giving power back to the grid all morning! It's an interesting idea though that might have some merit. Perhaps this will become a go'er when batteries are so good that they can hold more power than we need 99% of the time?

Craig

Craig

 

[devonwoody]

Talking of electric cars, if the battery is really portable I can see garages springing up again along our highways, and you will just pop in and swithch tbe battery and leave the low one behind, just like they do with calor gas cylinders, you would buy one battery and just pay for recharge only.

 

[Digit]

This was actually done years ago DW with a modified Hillman Imp.

Roy.

 

[CraigyBoy]

... and soda stream!

 

[devonwoody]

Also remember during the war some vehicles towed a trailer with gas to fuel their engines so could also be done with a battery, and again substituted for a full recharged one.

 

[Ironballs]

It's all about having a balanced portfolio of generation isn't it, of which wind, wave etc are a part .Hopefully though we will see the light and vastly increase our nuclear generation, much like in France, our current policy of burning gas for power is very short sighted and driven by the wrong motives.

There will always be a problem with weather dependent generation as you cannot rely on it unless you can find a way to store the energy off peak. As others have said, using wind to pump water and store it as a hydro battery is a good solution. What we really need though are some form of industrial scale batteries and capacitors, need a technology breakthrough for that though.

Central and local govt could do their bit to help by forcing new rules around the energy efficiency of new build housing - not the weak rules they have at present. Cut down our consumption levels

 

[Digit]

I think Ironballs has neatly summed up that argument.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Central and local govt could do their bit to help by forcing new rules around the energy efficiency of new build housing - not the weak rules they have at present. Cut down our consumption levels

They are. http://www.greenbuildingpress.co.uk/art ... cle_id=510

 

[lurker]

There is a cluster of 6 "wind things" near where I work.
They are shut down at around 3pm every day as the blade flicker through a low sun is making nearby residents ill.

Additionally before you talk about NIMBYISM go and witness for yourself the noise these things make & imagine the effect of it 24/7

They are not the equivelent of the Ford model T more a dead alley penny farthing currently being used as a sacrifice to the tree huggers

 

[Digit]

The blade flicker that you mention, along with the noise, is a much under appreciated problem, as such flickering can be a trigger for epileptic seizures.

Roy.