Windfarms

Hi-

I have relatives in hill country in Wales who basically say that the farms won't generate enough power to justify their initial cost and that the previous Gov. effectively made a lot of people millionaires with the scheme which will be revealed to be a costly white elephant in  a few years.  Maybe we should all just have put a small wind turbine on all our house roofs.

As to the RSPB stance- maybe it's the same as their stance on Malta joining the EU ?

 :)

S

Welcome to the forum Kaz, interesting comments there Seymouraves!

Firstly, you can read about RSPB policy on wind farms on our website linked here and in the attached leaflet.

To summarise, due to the threat posed by climate change we support the use of the right renewable energy technologies in the right places where they do not harm the habitats and the wildlife that depend upon them. We look at wind farm proposals on a case by case basis and if we identify that they pose a threat, we will oppose them.

From your post Kaz it sounds as if you are referring to a specific site, maybe you could speak to one of our conservation officers based at your regional offices, you can find a regional contact here. They may be able to assist. Otherwise we have a section on our website called protecting wildlife sites near you which you may find useful

seymouraves said:

I have relatives in hill country in Wales who basically say that the farms won't generate enough power to justify their initial cost and that the previous Gov. effectively made a lot of people millionaires with the scheme which will be revealed to be a costly white elephant in  a few years.  Maybe we should all just have put a small wind turbine on all our house roofs.

Hi,

I totally agree that wrongly sited wind farms can indeed be a threat to the wildlife that surrounds them but with the target of 20% of the country's energy needs to be generated by renewable sources by 2020, they must play a significant role in achieving this target. With clear guidance from conservation organisations on where to site new wind farms, they have to pose a lesser threat to wildlife populations than climate change itself.

I don't agree with comments above regarding costs. The Sustainable Development Commission has concluded that the energy payback of a onshore wind farm during its lifetime, in terms of electricity consumed, will be between 3 - 10 months. A single turbine over its lifetime ( about 20 years ) can produce electricity at an average cost of around 5-6p/KWh compared to a new coal fired power station of 3-5p/KWh. Add to that the fact that the advances in technology of improving the efficiencies of wind turbines will bring the cost of wind energy down, whereas the cost of electricity produced from fossil fuel sources will only increase with dwindling reserves, it makes great economic sense to invest in well planned new wind farms. Not to mention the reduced environmental impact of a much more cleanly produced energy.

I think it is essential for conservation organisations to embrace renewable energy sources but to campaign hard against any major development proposals that would have far reaching environmental impacts.

E

If all pending windfarms become a reality the National Grid have informed the Government that the total output will account for only 2% of our total needs.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Despite popular belief wind turbines are not ‘green’ and the proclaimed CO2 savings are a myth. Because the wind does not always blow, turbines produce only a small fraction of their capacity. So conventional power stations have to be on continuous stand-by in order to safeguard electricity supply.  When used in this way, they run less efficiently, cancelling out any saving in CO2.

Renewable targets for the SW have now been abandoned because they are unattainable.  Windfarms will never be sufficient.

16 turbines, each 125.5m high on the edge of Bodmin Moor, SSSI + AONB will have a far reaching environmental impact.  Especially to ou fabulous Starling clouds and Golden Plover - both protected species.

Kaz said:

Despite popular belief wind turbines are not ‘green’ and the proclaimed CO2 savings are a myth. Because the wind does not always blow, turbines produce only a small fraction of their capacity. So conventional power stations have to be on continuous stand-by in order to safeguard electricity supply.  When used in this way, they run less efficiently, cancelling out any saving in CO2.

It has never been said that windfarms will be a panacea to our energy needs but, by part of a holistic approach, a significant proportion of the demand can be met through green energy sources.

Wind turbines typically run to 30% efficiency over the course of a year, taking into account the fluctuations in wind levels and this still would represent a large CO2 saving of approximately 2000 tonnes per turbine per year compared to a power station burning fossil fuel.

These calculations are based upon the 'Conventional power stations' of oil, gas and coal fired, which make up the largest contributor to CO2 output in the UK. 

Whatever path is chosen, to combat climate change, we will need to cut CO2 emissions. This means we cannot dismiss wind generated power as part of the solution and must finds ways in which we can maximise its usage and minimise its impact.

If wind farms could be counted on to produce 100% of their capacity for just 2 days a week - that would be OK (apart of course from the destruction of the landscape and its wildlife)

The problem is caused by the fact that wind farms try to produce energy 7 days a week but on average produce less than 30% of their capacity over the year.  In order to balance electricity supply with demand it is therefore necessary to provide back-up somewhere on the grid equal in capacity to THE TOTAL WIND ENERGY CAPACITY CONNECTED. 

This back-up is continually ramped up and down as the wind energy supply switches in and out.  Because this is not an efficient way of using plant, the company maintaining the back-up supply has to be paid over the odds (they are even paid for producing no electricity at all while the wind is blowing). This of course pushes up the cost to the consumer, thereby driving more of the population into fuel poverty.

But the really sad fact is the CO2 produced by this back-up plant is pretty much the same as it would be if it was allowed to run at full capacity continuously without the 'help' of the wind turbines.  It is like driving on the motorway at a constant 70 mph which results in much lower fuel consumption and emissions than when continually accelerating and slowing down

The world has a good working prototype in Denmark, which has more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity - compared to 2% in the UK - It has the highest per capita wind power capacity in the world and the highest consumer electricity prices and also a higher CO2 output per capita than here in the UK.  Why our politicians choose to ignore this lesson is beyond comprehension (well, sadly, not really)

It is a common error to confuse load factor (percentage of capacity averaged over the year) with percentage of time running.  To average 25% capacity is not the same thing as running for 25% of the time

Whether the average load factor is 25% or 30% is more a function of the local wind climate than the efficiency of the turbine design.  If you look at my performance page on the STINC website, you will see that the published figures for Cornwall average out at about 25%.  Figures for Scotland are higher because the wind climate is more constant while in some areas of England the figure can be as low as 10%. 

my answer is the water mills old and new these are pratical been used in the uk for 100s of years dont need mountains to work lotts in the south of england

but in stead of grinding corn they drive electric generators enough for a small town

why oh why isnt any one promoting these its not rocket science and you dont need need an engineering degree to work one

Unknown said:

There are a number of false assertions and assumptions being made in these exchanges. Firstly, the tons of CO2 saved. Enki does not specify the size of turbine that saves 2000 tons of CO2 per year nor has taken Kaz’s statement on continuous stand-by into account. Conventional power stations whose supply to the grid is taken over by wind-generated electricity have to keep their boilers going and turbines spinning for the moment that the wind begins to drop and they take back the supply. This dual generation costs CO2. In fact, the wind authorities in both Denmark and Germany, where there are 1000s of wind turbines installed and operating, have stated that they don’t think they have saved so much as 1gm of CO2.  Secondly, it does not make great sense to invest in windfarms (except to the windfarm company owner who stands to make £millions) because there needs to be 90% of the wind capacity provided in conventional (reliable) power stations, so you are having to invest nearly twice as much to get the “green energy”. But what about global warming? Ah! This is my third point: the globe has been warming since the middle of the last ice age. It has fluctuated in the last 1000 years or so with the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age and has, in fact, been cooling for the last 10 years (which the notorious Climate Research Unit would not like us to mention). The savage cold spell we are now enjoying, with the coldest November record being broken by -7 degrees, is hardly a symptom of global warming! This is the coldest November of my 71-year life. Solar activity has a greater effect on global temperature than CO2 levels (which have been 20x higher in the past). CO2 has undoubtedly been rising since the invention of the steam engine and the demand for coal that that produced, but to suppose that that is boosting a runaway temperature rise that will destroy the planet and the species on it is a false assumption, and to sacrifice our landscapes, the bats, the birds and the wellbeing of people who live near them on the altar of the god wind turbine at the say so of the ill-informed and politically (financially) motivated is more than our intelligence should allow. And lastly, whatever reductions in CO2 output we may achieve will bear no comparison to the increase of CO2 output by the developing world. China alone is commissioning a new 1000MW coal power station every week for 20 years. Europe’s targets of 5%, 10% and 20% reductions are like attempting to bale the sinking Titanic with a teacup! Taken in the context of the global reality it is so insignificant, it is meaningless.

 

I believe in renewable energy (we are going to run out of buried sunshine eventually) but I don’t believe in this mad rush to cover the country with worthless windfarms in such a costly hurry. We should be looking at tidal power which does not depend on wind or sunshine, but which has 1000 times more energy (per unit volume) than wind, is out of sight, is permanent and, above all, is predictable (to the hour for 100s of years to come). It is clean, it is green and it does not destroy life, livelihoods or landscapes.

 that is very well put, and i know for a fact that the RSPB were for the wind turbines on the uists a few years ago, and i believe they were getting something out of it, i met a group of people from harris who had come over to protest at the loch garten site, unfortunatly for them it was only mid march so no one was about, i am at the moment trying to get ferry bridge to exept my body when i am dead to burn turning my body into terms i have sent them the details of what my body at present weight would make into so many units of electric, you think of the waste burning bodies at the crem, ok i know some people will go woh no way, but when we have expired, we are fuel, full stop. best regards mac British thermal Unit

seymouraves said:

 

  Maybe we should all just have put a small wind turbine on all our house roofs.

Except that because of the less than elevated position and turbulence around your average dwelling a typical domestic wind turbine produces about enough juice to charge one mobile phone per month.......

JBNTS