Wind power: Good, Bad or Ugly?

[stavros]

I wouldn't ever suggest there is A solution to the problem. We have to use all that's available to us to combat this grave reality and wind power can be a not insignificant part of this. Tidal is far more regular and predictable than wind, and of course we can store surplus energy.

Of equal importance is learning that we cannot continue using the quantity of energy we are and certainly cannot continue the growth of this. Very basic things done by all can save vast quantities.

 

[rich!]

It will be impossible to solely rely on these though, there are periods when the country can be effectively becalmed and tidal is only available twice a day.

I thought the wnid surveys showed that we never become becalmed in Britain?


Also, wave power >>> tidal power.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It will be impossible to solely rely on these though, there are periods when the country can be effectively becalmed and tidal is only available twice a day. If combined with an energy storage system or other other energy production systems, these can be useful though. <snip>

I think you've hit the nail on the head in that last bit above. Wind, unsurprisingly, tends to be strongest when solar isn't and vice versa. Combine the two with a highly efficient small CHP system, maybe one of those new stirling engine jobs, and feed it with biomass or biogas for preference, and fossil fuels only when you have to. You have a nice local set-up that combines very well with small-scale sustainable agriculture. Do the turbines, inverters and CHP at a community level, along with food growing, nutrient recyling etc. and put PV etc on the roof of each house.

The mix might differ depending where you are, some places are useless for wind, some places are too urban to do much with biomass/biogas, some places can actually get useful results with hydro, but we could make huge inroads into our fossil fuel bills by combining efficient (10-20% transmission losses are typical in centralised grid systems) local sustainable energy and food systems (about 25% of our energy goes into food systems and something like 90-odd% of that is potentially unnecessary), instead of optimising for profitability.

References here

 

[MikeMcc]

I thought the wnid surveys showed that we never become becalmed in Britain?


Also, wave power >>> tidal power.

Never as in absolutely zero wind speed over the entire country, but wind turbines do need a minimum wind velocity. They are also stopped by excessive windspeeds as well as the safety systems will drive the turbine out of the wind to minimise the the effects and apply brakes to stop the turbine from turning.

 

[DrRingDing]

What about those of us who live in areas where they propose to carpet our uplands in the bloody things? All so your local power company can appear to be meeting its environmental commitments & avoid fines. The only people who benifit there are the (few) landowners & the corporations who build & run them.

I come from an area where they are trying to build wind farms and only reactionary idiots with the logic of drunken egotistical gibbons object.

In addition to that I live in a country that has one of the highest productions of wind energy, percentage wise, and I've heard no cunt complain. There's turbines everywhere you drive in the countryside and they are elegant additions to the view.

...and as for the comment "The only people who benefit are the (few) landowners & the corporations blah blah" Please do me a favour and engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear

 

[DrRingDing]

pogofish relaxing at home earlier

 

[pogofish]

There's turbines everywhere you drive in the countryside and they are elegant additions to the view.

...and as for the comment "The only people who benefit are the (few) landowners & the corporations blah blah" Please do me a favour and engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear

Fine, you keep them. I'd prefer the landscape as it is, with other forms of less disruptive forms of renewable in place.

I do, quite often. My involvement with renewables goes back @20 years with some of the pioneers in the field. I also work with people charged to do statutory monitoring on windfarms. So far we have only seen one that has met its output targets & even then, it only managed because it was one of the first established & the targets were set stupidly low. The rest clearly regard any power generated as a bonus. That sounds like a rip-off to me?

Also consider this:

At the last meeting of the group it was made clear that a great deal of the existing applications were either speculative or would not meet the high standards of the Scottish Executive's planning guidelines.

And it was explained that the large increase in the number of applications towards the end of last year was due to a change in the terms for connecting to the national grid that came into force on January 1st 2005. It was also made clear that Scotland's energy needs would be best met through a full mix of renewable energy technologies.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/02/14120838

I think that puts some of your shit in perspective?

Fucking great developments without any sort of local need/accountability & consideration of the wider range of renewable issues/politics & technologies are just a sticking plaster.

Stop cooing at the prettiness & try to think about the very real & long term issues behind power generation, design & our way of using it.

 

[DrRingDing]

My involvement with renewables goes back @20 years with some of the pioneers in the field.

ooh hark at you!

 

[DrRingDing]

So far we have only seen one that has met its output targets & even then, it only managed because it was one of the first established & the targets were set stupidly low. The rest clearly regard any power generated as a bonus. That sounds like a rip-off to me?

Sounds like you have a very limited experience of wind energy as Denmark produces over 20% of it's energy needs from wind turbines and it's increasing all the time.

 

[DrRingDing]

I'd prefer the landscape as it is, with other forms of less disruptive forms of renewable in place.

I am totally for other forms of renewable energy that do not cause damage to people (apart from middle aged tories) and obviously the environment. At the end of the day wind turbines are not permanent structures, so when other sources of energy are created they can be taken down with no lasting effects.

But I doubt that interests you.

 

[DrRingDing]

One of the most important aspects of wind energy is that ownership can be decentralised.

In Denmark there are around 120,000 owners of co-operative wind turbines in Denmark. This is the way forward IMO.

 

[pogofish]

Denmark produces over 20% of it's energy needs from wind turbines and it's increasing all the time.

One of the most important aspects of wind energy is that ownership can be decentralised.

In Denmark there are around 120,000 owners of co-operative wind turbines in Denmark. This is the way forward IMO.

I'm also well aware that not all is not rosy over windpower in Denmark. There are considerable issues over corporate exploitation & subsidy abuse (most of the same firms are behind the schemes here BTW), as well as over dependance on one technology & its lack of a long-term efficency.

Another point is that Denmark is generating power for itself alone & has neither the same population nor urbanisation levels of the UK. Wheras Scotland & Wales are expected to carry most of the turbine load for the greater UK. So we get a disproportionate number of turbines so that companies elsewhere can appear to be doing something about renewables whilst avoiding facing-up to the issues in their own areas. The old Caledonian forest was denuded largely for the benifit of England's industrial revolution, creating much of the moorlands we have today. I'd rather not see that chewed-up so England can exploit us once again. As well as the forests, we have been royally fucked-over on all sorts of aspects of our economy, hydro-power, a disproportionate number of nuclear sites & of course most recently oil.

Denmark had also left us for dead 20 years ago on matters like energy-efficent design for domestic & industrial purposes, waste energy reclamation, demand reduction & conservation awareness. Untill we begin to catch-up, direct comparison is hardly possible. Economising/profligacy is an issue that nobody seems to want to broach in this country.

Yes, in its place, wind is an excellent renewable & co-op turbines serving individual communities are indeed a very valid renewable option & few places have any great problems with them. We assess several of those schemes as well & the picture is very different. This is a totally different issue to the sort of large & innapropriate-scale development we are getting stuck with instead.

At the end of the day wind turbines are not permanent structures, so when other sources of energy are created they can be taken down with no lasting effects.

But I doubt that interests you.

It interests me greatly, I've spent far too much time clomping round windfarm sites not to be.

If a fucking great concrete pad foundation, miles of roads, cableways, land-drains & a massively extended interconnection network is not a permanent structure, I don't know what is? Typically 18-20km on each site alone (& getting bigger) any moor blighted by a windfarm will take at least a few centuries to begin to recover. Of course the govt & corporations don't assess impact that way, they stop calculating at the edge of the pad whilst other forms of renewable are assessed on the impact of their entire infrastructure. A convienent handicap maybe?

What other sources? With 80-odd % of all available UK public funding going to the wind corps, there isn't much money left to divide amongst the other alternatives & the 25-year life (with little chance of much more improvement in output after that, unless they go offshore) of a windfarm isn't that much in the scheme of things. We should be designing & investing much further ahead than that.