This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
4
1
In reply to kingieman:
I'm sure that is good news, though I don't know the area.
But not everyone on this site will agree!
I'm sure that is good news, though I don't know the area.
But not everyone on this site will agree!
2
In reply to kingieman:
Yeah, the population of the Maldives are dancing in the streets,(if they have them).
Yeah, the population of the Maldives are dancing in the streets,(if they have them).
3
5
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Isn't travelling by boat greener?
> Yeah, the population of the Maldives are dancing in the streets,(if they have them).
Isn't travelling by boat greener?
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
I don't think we need to sacrifice our environment to save theirs. There are other options which the UK should be spending more on (offshore wind / wave sites etc.)
For a chain of islands that relies heavily on tourism (i.e. international flights) there is a certain bitter irony to their situation.
(I'm not sympathetic to the wind farm argument: my own power supplier is Ecotricity)
I don't think we need to sacrifice our environment to save theirs. There are other options which the UK should be spending more on (offshore wind / wave sites etc.)
For a chain of islands that relies heavily on tourism (i.e. international flights) there is a certain bitter irony to their situation.
(I'm not sympathetic to the wind farm argument: my own power supplier is Ecotricity)
1
1
In reply to kingieman:
It's a subject I'm still undecided on.... I actually like the look of them, and have never heard them even when I've been close certainly a lot less annoying than your average a road
As an eyesore I'm not sure they are any worse than some of the forestry clearance that's happened in the past etc.
I think their fundamental problem is that they don't generate enough power otherwise they would be a no brainer.
In my view the perfect place for them is on the edge of cities though not in the few remaining wild areas we have. I can't really see what the objection could be to having them in and around cities given all the other noise and visual pollution already present.
It's a subject I'm still undecided on.... I actually like the look of them, and have never heard them even when I've been close certainly a lot less annoying than your average a road
As an eyesore I'm not sure they are any worse than some of the forestry clearance that's happened in the past etc.
I think their fundamental problem is that they don't generate enough power otherwise they would be a no brainer.
In my view the perfect place for them is on the edge of cities though not in the few remaining wild areas we have. I can't really see what the objection could be to having them in and around cities given all the other noise and visual pollution already present.
12
In reply to Flinticus:
Meant to say 'unsympathetic' or 'I'm sympathetic'. One or the other. Can you see how I got it wrong?
Meant to say 'unsympathetic' or 'I'm sympathetic'. One or the other. Can you see how I got it wrong?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Well you need to put them in windy places!
They are generating 10% of the nation's need at the moment - that's power for 6 million people!
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Chris
> I think their fundamental problem is that they don't generate enough power otherwise they would be a no brainer.
> In my view the perfect place for them is on the edge of cities though not in the few remaining wild areas we have. I can't really see what the objection could be to having them in and around cities given all the other noise and visual pollution already present.
Well you need to put them in windy places!
They are generating 10% of the nation's need at the moment - that's power for 6 million people!
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Chris
4
1
In reply to Chris Craggs:
interesting site.
But I couldn't help notice that on Sunday when it was less windy they only provided ~1%. Therein lies the problem.
> They are generating 10% of the nation's need at the moment - that's power for 6 million people!
interesting site.
But I couldn't help notice that on Sunday when it was less windy they only provided ~1%. Therein lies the problem.
1
In reply to Marek:
Not to mention that the quoted 10% is closer to 2.5% of our total energy need, all of which needs decarbonising in the next few decades.
> interesting site.
> But I couldn't help notice that on Sunday when it was less windy they only provided ~1%. Therein lies the problem.
Not to mention that the quoted 10% is closer to 2.5% of our total energy need, all of which needs decarbonising in the next few decades.
1
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Well actually (and I'm not being pedantic), that's ten percent of the nation's electricity needs, not 10% of the energy released by the gas, oil, petrol, diesel, coal and wood etc that people are burning in addition to the electrical energy they're using to boil their kettles and power their laptops.
That said, wind turbines are jolly good, but the wind farm bounty should be fairly shared with the populations they're mostly serving. For example, a hundred or so across Edinburgh's windy Pentlands, and a few scattered over the 7 hills such as Arthur's Seat.
> They are generating 10% of the nation's need at the moment - that's power for 6 million people!<
Well actually (and I'm not being pedantic), that's ten percent of the nation's electricity needs, not 10% of the energy released by the gas, oil, petrol, diesel, coal and wood etc that people are burning in addition to the electrical energy they're using to boil their kettles and power their laptops.
That said, wind turbines are jolly good, but the wind farm bounty should be fairly shared with the populations they're mostly serving. For example, a hundred or so across Edinburgh's windy Pentlands, and a few scattered over the 7 hills such as Arthur's Seat.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
But even ignoring the impact on our "wild" places, you need to factor in the costs (financial and environmental) of getting the power from the hills to the cities.
> Well you need to put them in windy places!
But even ignoring the impact on our "wild" places, you need to factor in the costs (financial and environmental) of getting the power from the hills to the cities.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Indeed - it is all about the mix.
6GW tonight, the most I have ever seen - whizzing around in the dark and doing their thing.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Chris
Indeed - it is all about the mix.
6GW tonight, the most I have ever seen - whizzing around in the dark and doing their thing.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Chris
2
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Irrelevant when you have family like ours, who have just arrived from London way.
They basically turn all their lights on, bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, outside lights and leave them on, all the time. I am going about their rooms trying to turn them off, unfortunately in the name of peace and harmony at Christmas I dare not say anything.
There must be many like this with no regard for energy saving - I know lights are only a drop in the ocean, but when you multiply it by millions (they leave 7 on in empty rooms) it must add up to something.
Sorry, rant over.
Irrelevant when you have family like ours, who have just arrived from London way.
They basically turn all their lights on, bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, outside lights and leave them on, all the time. I am going about their rooms trying to turn them off, unfortunately in the name of peace and harmony at Christmas I dare not say anything.
There must be many like this with no regard for energy saving - I know lights are only a drop in the ocean, but when you multiply it by millions (they leave 7 on in empty rooms) it must add up to something.
Sorry, rant over.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
As regards noise, i have worked in the vicinity of large turbines for the last two or three years on and off.
At 150 metres there is absolutely no ignoring the noise: whether you like the noise is a different matter. Eventually you get attuned to it to such an extent that you can detect changes in windspeed by simply listening.
At upwards of a kilometre on the opposite side of a fairly busy A road they are still audible under certain wind conditions when there is a lull in the traffic.
As regards noise, i have worked in the vicinity of large turbines for the last two or three years on and off.
At 150 metres there is absolutely no ignoring the noise: whether you like the noise is a different matter. Eventually you get attuned to it to such an extent that you can detect changes in windspeed by simply listening.
At upwards of a kilometre on the opposite side of a fairly busy A road they are still audible under certain wind conditions when there is a lull in the traffic.
1
In reply to Siward:
We have a little annex round the back that we run as a b&b, so lights have to be good and this is where they stay.
But the point is, how wasteful people are who pay no regard to something as simple as not wasting energy. If the ordinary person cannot do it at that basic level they probably don't at other levels. These are well off people on good wages and no shortage of money, so electric bills are probably irrelevant to them.
Meanwhile, we can all argue about the rights and wrongs of various means or energy production.
We have a little annex round the back that we run as a b&b, so lights have to be good and this is where they stay.
But the point is, how wasteful people are who pay no regard to something as simple as not wasting energy. If the ordinary person cannot do it at that basic level they probably don't at other levels. These are well off people on good wages and no shortage of money, so electric bills are probably irrelevant to them.
Meanwhile, we can all argue about the rights and wrongs of various means or energy production.
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
This is the one. Really don't understand folks moaning about stunning pieces of engineering expertise that look quite spectacular, and have a genuinely positive and increasingly necessary function.
> Yeah, the population of the Maldives are dancing in the streets,(if they have them).
This is the one. Really don't understand folks moaning about stunning pieces of engineering expertise that look quite spectacular, and have a genuinely positive and increasingly necessary function.
1
In reply to Flinticus:
Offshore wind is a lot more expensive, and still "spoils the views". Wave power is ridiculously hard to harness, the forces involved are ridiculous along with the corrosive effect of salt water, engineers have been struggling for years to develop something robust enough to withstand the elements encountered. Of course there are other ways of harnessing the power of the sea and some of those are being used or will be built, e.g. the tidal pools planned for the Bristol channel.
> I don't think we need to sacrifice our environment to save theirs. There are other options which the UK should be spending more on (offshore wind / wave sites etc.)
Offshore wind is a lot more expensive, and still "spoils the views". Wave power is ridiculously hard to harness, the forces involved are ridiculous along with the corrosive effect of salt water, engineers have been struggling for years to develop something robust enough to withstand the elements encountered. Of course there are other ways of harnessing the power of the sea and some of those are being used or will be built, e.g. the tidal pools planned for the Bristol channel.
In reply to kingieman:
If local councils turn down every WF application it definitely WON'T be good news. Agreed, some locations are more appropriate than others, but a knee-jerk reaction to each and every proposal is surely not the way forward. I think some people (and unfortunately our "representative" body) are allowing themselves to be too precious in their visual sensibilities.....at the expense of a sustainable energy future.
If local councils turn down every WF application it definitely WON'T be good news. Agreed, some locations are more appropriate than others, but a knee-jerk reaction to each and every proposal is surely not the way forward. I think some people (and unfortunately our "representative" body) are allowing themselves to be too precious in their visual sensibilities.....at the expense of a sustainable energy future.
1
In reply to Jamie B:
Potentially goes further than that. The current government clearly have an agenda against renewable energy, whether that's due to having a vested interest in carbon fuels or for some outdated political agenda. Sadly I think we will see more decisions of this nature even though the UK has one of the best wind resources in Europe.
> If local councils turn down every WF application it definitely WON'T be good news. Agreed, some locations are more appropriate than others, but a knee-jerk reaction to each and every proposal is surely not the way forward. I think some people (and unfortunately our "representative" body) are allowing themselves to be too precious in their visual sensibilities.....at the expense of a sustainable energy future.
Potentially goes further than that. The current government clearly have an agenda against renewable energy, whether that's due to having a vested interest in carbon fuels or for some outdated political agenda. Sadly I think we will see more decisions of this nature even though the UK has one of the best wind resources in Europe.
2
2
In reply to Jamie B:
I think the entire strategy, (assuming the govt have one), needs a thorough coat of looking at. As I understand it the big issue with increasing wind capacity is balancing the network, which means using constraint payments to pay windfarm operators more to not generate electricity than they are paid to produce it. This incentivices the windfarm operators, ( who tend to be speculators rather than power generation companies), to expand windfarms with the aim of increasing the income from constraint payments, not with the aim of providing sustainable generation. Locally to me there's a drive to build more and more wind turbines, but the obsolete ones don't get repaired or replaced, and I've never seen the existing windfarms running at full capacity.
IMHO funding should be allocated to cracking the problem of providing energy storage to harness the output of windfarms rather than just switch them off, (and let the operators hoover up the subsidies), when output is greater than demand. Until that gets sorted then simply covering every scrap of the countryside with windfarms isn't an option.
> If local councils turn down every WF application it definitely WON'T be good news. Agreed, some locations are more appropriate than others, but a knee-jerk reaction to each and every proposal is surely not the way forward. I think some people (and unfortunately our "representative" body) are allowing themselves to be too precious in their visual sensibilities.....at the expense of a sustainable energy future.
I think the entire strategy, (assuming the govt have one), needs a thorough coat of looking at. As I understand it the big issue with increasing wind capacity is balancing the network, which means using constraint payments to pay windfarm operators more to not generate electricity than they are paid to produce it. This incentivices the windfarm operators, ( who tend to be speculators rather than power generation companies), to expand windfarms with the aim of increasing the income from constraint payments, not with the aim of providing sustainable generation. Locally to me there's a drive to build more and more wind turbines, but the obsolete ones don't get repaired or replaced, and I've never seen the existing windfarms running at full capacity.
IMHO funding should be allocated to cracking the problem of providing energy storage to harness the output of windfarms rather than just switch them off, (and let the operators hoover up the subsidies), when output is greater than demand. Until that gets sorted then simply covering every scrap of the countryside with windfarms isn't an option.
2
1
In reply to Ridge:
...and I'd be so much happier if the benefits from windfarms accrued to local communities. In my opinion deciding where to site them needs to be down to something a bit more joined-up than who shouts loudest and/or who has the biggest wedge.
...and I'd be so much happier if the benefits from windfarms accrued to local communities. In my opinion deciding where to site them needs to be down to something a bit more joined-up than who shouts loudest and/or who has the biggest wedge.
1
1
In reply to Jamie B:
+1. It's very much crumbs from the rich venture capitalist's table round here.
> ...and I'd be so much happier if the benefits from windfarms accrued to local communities. In my opinion deciding where to site them needs to be down to something a bit more joined-up than who shouts loudest and/or who has the biggest wedge.
+1. It's very much crumbs from the rich venture capitalist's table round here.
In reply to Ridge:
This. Otherwise much more growth in wind will need growth in gas plant as well, because nothing else spools up/down fast enough to fill in for lulls in the wind.
Then again, if sufficient grid scale storage to balance out multi-day variations in the wind existed, there would no longer be a problem going all-fission because of the diurnal variation in demand. This would need a small fraction of the storage that wind would need. There's now a plutonium burning reactor design that's passively safe without the jamming hazards of pebble beds, and we're sitting on a lot of the stuff.
Another problem with ramping wind up is similar to ramping tidal up - the geographic location of energy moves around over the scale of the country, and our grid infrastructure is largely intended for relatively local load balancing not long distance transmission. I'd imagine this leads to either much greater losses or melting if it's repurposed to net exporting from the highlands to London...?
> IMHO funding should be allocated to cracking the problem of providing energy storage to harness the output of windfarms rather than just switch them off, (and let the operators hoover up the subsidies), when output is greater than demand. Until that gets sorted then simply covering every scrap of the countryside with windfarms isn't an option.
This. Otherwise much more growth in wind will need growth in gas plant as well, because nothing else spools up/down fast enough to fill in for lulls in the wind.
Then again, if sufficient grid scale storage to balance out multi-day variations in the wind existed, there would no longer be a problem going all-fission because of the diurnal variation in demand. This would need a small fraction of the storage that wind would need. There's now a plutonium burning reactor design that's passively safe without the jamming hazards of pebble beds, and we're sitting on a lot of the stuff.
Another problem with ramping wind up is similar to ramping tidal up - the geographic location of energy moves around over the scale of the country, and our grid infrastructure is largely intended for relatively local load balancing not long distance transmission. I'd imagine this leads to either much greater losses or melting if it's repurposed to net exporting from the highlands to London...?
In reply to Ridge:
I'd be interested to see an official document that categorically states that wind farm operators are paid more to not generate electricity than they are paid to produce it. Companies that sight wind farms do so within the best environment possible, taking into account: the wind resource, the suitability of land and access, proximity to centres of population, airstrips, natural habitat (Environmental Impact Assessments as with all civil engineering projects), accessibility of a grid connection and suitability of the connecting lines. I have several wind farms re-powered (old turbines replaced with larger models at the cutting edge) in Cornwall.
I'd be interested to see an official document that categorically states that wind farm operators are paid more to not generate electricity than they are paid to produce it. Companies that sight wind farms do so within the best environment possible, taking into account: the wind resource, the suitability of land and access, proximity to centres of population, airstrips, natural habitat (Environmental Impact Assessments as with all civil engineering projects), accessibility of a grid connection and suitability of the connecting lines. I have several wind farms re-powered (old turbines replaced with larger models at the cutting edge) in Cornwall.
In reply to Ridge:
"Sometimes payments are made to a generator in return for reducing output because more electricity is being generated than can be used in a particular region because a grid ‘constraint’ exists - an analogy would be a road block - preventing that electricity being exported to a region where the electricity could be used.
Such a constraint exists between Scotland and England. Increasingly more electricity is being generated in Scotland than can be used in Scotland, and the grid interconnections between Scotland and England are insufficient to take the excess electricity which is generated, usually at times of, often unexpectedly, high winds and low Scottish demand."
So the real problem here is the grid interconnections.
"The United Kingdom currently has approximately 6 GW of wind power in total, but has plans for over 30 GW by 2020. The fact that substantial constraint payments are already being made with 6 GW of wind power demonstrates that very significant grid expansion will be required to accommodate 30 GW of capacity. However, grid expansion is both expensive and time consuming, and there is a real possibility that constraint payments may rise very significantly in the future."
http://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data/notes-on-wind-farm-constraint-payments
"Sometimes payments are made to a generator in return for reducing output because more electricity is being generated than can be used in a particular region because a grid ‘constraint’ exists - an analogy would be a road block - preventing that electricity being exported to a region where the electricity could be used.
Such a constraint exists between Scotland and England. Increasingly more electricity is being generated in Scotland than can be used in Scotland, and the grid interconnections between Scotland and England are insufficient to take the excess electricity which is generated, usually at times of, often unexpectedly, high winds and low Scottish demand."
So the real problem here is the grid interconnections.
"The United Kingdom currently has approximately 6 GW of wind power in total, but has plans for over 30 GW by 2020. The fact that substantial constraint payments are already being made with 6 GW of wind power demonstrates that very significant grid expansion will be required to accommodate 30 GW of capacity. However, grid expansion is both expensive and time consuming, and there is a real possibility that constraint payments may rise very significantly in the future."
http://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data/notes-on-wind-farm-constraint-payments
In reply to Marek:
"... when it was less windy they only provided ~1%. Therein lies the problem".
There is a lot of work being done on how to balance supply from renewables with demand. It is perfectly feasible. Have a look at the link below for one example of how it might be done if we honour the Paris agreement & commit to creating a zero carbon economy.
http://zerocarbonbritain.org/index.php/zcb-latest-report/zcb-managing-varia...
"... when it was less windy they only provided ~1%. Therein lies the problem".
There is a lot of work being done on how to balance supply from renewables with demand. It is perfectly feasible. Have a look at the link below for one example of how it might be done if we honour the Paris agreement & commit to creating a zero carbon economy.
http://zerocarbonbritain.org/index.php/zcb-latest-report/zcb-managing-varia...
2
In reply to Skip:
It's in the same document you quoted re: constraint payments:
What has become clear over the last year is that the amount charged by wind farms is very significantly in excess of the value of the subsidies foregone. For example, the average price paid to Scottish wind farms to reduce output in 2011 was £220 per MWh, whereas the lost subsidy is approximately £55 per MWh. The amount paid by conventional plant such as coal and gas was approximately £34 per MWh to reduce output in 2011. Ultimately the cost of balancing electricity is paid by the electricity consumer so this large difference in cost is not in the consumer interest.
Not all constraint payments are in the public domain. Where a private contract has been entered into between National Grid and a generator, the participants, volumes and price of the trades are not published. Thus, the user should remember that the Constraints Data shown on the REF website refers only to those trades carried out as part of the Balancing Mechanism. It appears from data reported in a Parliamentary Question that the annual wind farm constraints total of approximately £12.8 million made through the Balancing Mechanism in 2011 is nearly matched by a further £12.7 million in payments which are result of confidential bilateral trades and are not in the public domain. REF believes that such charges on the consumer should be visible to the market to ensure market transparency, and also to facilitate competition to reduce costs (see REF press release).
It's clear that sorting the grid out and looking at storage solutions for when wind isn't blowing should be the priority if wind is pretty much at full capacity with the existing connections.
> I'd be interested to see an official document that categorically states that wind farm operators are paid more to not generate electricity than they are paid to produce it. Companies that sight wind farms do so within the best environment possible, taking into account: the wind resource, the suitability of land and access, proximity to centres of population, airstrips, natural habitat (Environmental Impact Assessments as with all civil engineering projects), accessibility of a grid connection and suitability of the connecting lines. I have several wind farms re-powered (old turbines replaced with larger models at the cutting edge) in Cornwall.
It's in the same document you quoted re: constraint payments:
What has become clear over the last year is that the amount charged by wind farms is very significantly in excess of the value of the subsidies foregone. For example, the average price paid to Scottish wind farms to reduce output in 2011 was £220 per MWh, whereas the lost subsidy is approximately £55 per MWh. The amount paid by conventional plant such as coal and gas was approximately £34 per MWh to reduce output in 2011. Ultimately the cost of balancing electricity is paid by the electricity consumer so this large difference in cost is not in the consumer interest.
Not all constraint payments are in the public domain. Where a private contract has been entered into between National Grid and a generator, the participants, volumes and price of the trades are not published. Thus, the user should remember that the Constraints Data shown on the REF website refers only to those trades carried out as part of the Balancing Mechanism. It appears from data reported in a Parliamentary Question that the annual wind farm constraints total of approximately £12.8 million made through the Balancing Mechanism in 2011 is nearly matched by a further £12.7 million in payments which are result of confidential bilateral trades and are not in the public domain. REF believes that such charges on the consumer should be visible to the market to ensure market transparency, and also to facilitate competition to reduce costs (see REF press release).
It's clear that sorting the grid out and looking at storage solutions for when wind isn't blowing should be the priority if wind is pretty much at full capacity with the existing connections.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...