Do we like windfarms or not?

[Gargleblaster]

I went to a talk by the RYA last night and they stated that currently the windfarms in the UK generate about 16 gigawatts of electricity. That in my mind is pretty good when your average coal fired power station generates about 2 gigawatts.
I really like sailing past them at night when their lights twinkle and you hear the wap wap wap of them turning.
I am concerned about the one proposed between Brighton and Hastings as I generally have to tack down the Channel into a SW wind and it may get in my way. I don't need much excuse to go down the French side so that will be another.

 

[Ceirwan]

Presumably wind turbines can be subject to freezing so need some form of turbine heater. One would have expected that that can be drawn back from the grid & a generator would be unnecessary

No, there's nothing on them to freeze.

 

[Triassic]

Did we ever find out why so many of them don't appear to be in use on a windy day? I appreciate that the odd one or two may be out of commission but given the information provided about how their energy is used before that produced by other means I don't understand why they are not all in constant use, wind allowing?

 

[Stork_III]

Did we ever find out why so many of them don't appear to be in use on a windy day? I appreciate that the odd one or two may be out of commission but given the information provided about how their energy is used before that produced by other means I don't understand why they are not all in constant use, wind allowing?

They do get paid for NOT producing, when the grid demand does not require their input. Could be the reason.

 

[Ceirwan]

I think its because its easy to switch them on and off, a lot easier than adjusting the power output from a conventional plant.

 

[Bru]

I think its because its easy to switch them on and off, a lot easier than adjusting the power output from a conventional plant.

Which, of course, is why we desperately need a viable means of storing the power generated when it is available

The best argument in favour of wind power is that it reduced the consumption of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) when wind is available therefore it is a serious disadvantage if the wind power is not used when available because it is more convenient to use conventional generation

(Actually, as I have argued long and often, we're going about it totally the wrong way and we should be focussing on micro-generation / macro-generation at the domestic and local level. Every new build, be it domestic or commercial, should be designed to be as close to energy neutral as possible. Forget "climate change", that's a red herring and it's irrelevant whether it is happening or not. The real issue is that we continue to burn finite resources of fossil fuels at an ever faster rate and they will run out. If not in our lifetime, in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren and when they do the developed world will have a serious problem. Fossil fuels are also the key source of many of the raw ingredients for the plastics and chemicals industries and we are merrily burning the stuff as if there's an infinite supply)

 

[Daydream believer]

No, there's nothing on them to freeze.

I think that you may be wrong
Possibly water & condensation in the windings for a start

 

[PeterWright]

windfarms in the UK generate about 16 gigawatts of electricity.

The RYA clearly have some rose tinted specs. Looking at a wind energy advocating organisation's website just now, the total uk installed capacity for both onshore and offshore wind is 13.614GW. Of course, that doesn't mean that they ever generate that much, because the wind so rarely blows hard (but not too hard) everywhere there's a windmill. The same site gives their load factor as 28.4% whereas the coal plants you compare them with would deliver 90 - 95% if they were not being forced off the grid by the wind farms' privileged market position.

That means that all the windfarms we have, offshore and onshore, deliver about the same total energy as we could get from 2 to 3 coal plants, not 8 as your figures suggest

 

[PeterWright]

I think its because its easy to switch them on and off, a lot easier than adjusting the power output from a conventional plant.

Not so easy to switch on if the wind's not blowing and even though they might be easier than thermal plants to switch off, they are not asked to switch off when there is more generation than load until virtually all the thermal generation has been switched off. It's then that the windfarms are asked to turn down but still get paid whereas all the thermal plants are earning nothing.

 

[Daydream believer]

Which, of course, is why we desperately need a viable means of storing the power generated when it is available


(Actually, as I have argued long and often, we're going about it totally the wrong way and we should be focussing on micro-generation / macro-generation at the domestic and local level. Every new build, be it domestic or commercial, should be designed to be as close to energy neutral as possible.

Do you really think that a bloke with 2 kids & a mortgage wants to spend more money on the cost of local generation which is by virtual of scale more inefficient. There is massive supply of coal & I do not see why we should not be using it - Just because "one day it may run out" is not a reason not to use it

 

[Bru]

Do you really think that a bloke with 2 kids & a mortgage wants to spend more money on the cost of local generation which is by virtual of scale more inefficient. There is massive supply of coal & I do not see why we should not be using it - Just because "one day it may run out" is not a reason not to use it

The bloke with 2 kids and a mortgage would be pretty keen when he learns that he won't be paying electricity or heating bills ever again and that he'll even get an income from selling surplus energy to the grid

The inefficiency is a red herring. It's a dubious claim anyway because there are enormous inefficiencies in the current generation system (generation plants idling on standby, available generation from renewables going to waste because the energy cannot be stored, transmission / distribution losses etc. etc.) and in any case it doesn't matter if micro/macro generation is less "efficient" if that generation is provided by renewables (wind, solar etc.)

The key advantage of micro-generation is that it makes it possible and cost effective, with currently available technology, to store surplus energy when the PV arrays or wind generators are providing a surplus against demand when they are not. We do not have, and there appears to be little prospect that we will have in the foreseeable future, an industrial scale solution to energy storage. However, at the single building level old fashioned technology offers an almost ideal solution. NiFe (Nickel Ferrous) battery cells are the answer. They are (or would be if mass produced) relatively cheap to make and they're virtually indestructible. They fell out of favour due to their poor efficiency compared to lead acid cells but that inefficiency is not important in this application. What is important is that a bank of NiFe cells installed in a new build house would have a life of at least 30 to 40 years before needing to be replaced making them very cost effective

If every new build house had installed solar power/hot water panels on the roof and a bank of sub-floor NiFe cells coupled with a bore hole ground source heat pump the initial costs would fall dramatically.

It is already financially viable, indeed profitable, to install solar PV (granted currently due to the artificially inflated tariff but the cost model isn't far away from not needing that assistance - a modest rise in the cost of fossil fuel generation and / or a modest drop in the initial cost of installing solar PV would obviate the need for a subsidy)

Some new builds are already featuring bore hole ground source heat pumps (which I can testify from personal experience are effective and energy efficient).

Like it or not, wind farms and solar farms are here to stay and I maintain we're going about it the wrong way by assuming that it has to be done on a grand scale with massive installations when a more effective (and ultimately cheaper for the end user) solution would be local generation

Instead of covering acres of countryside with PV arrays, they should be going onto the roofs of warehouses, factory units etc. for example

But the real killer is the statement "Just because "one day it may run out" is not a reason not to use it"

It is not a case of "one day it may run out". One day it will run out. And that is a very good reason to minimise (or even eliminate) our wasteful use of fossil fuels to generate energy

When coal, oil and gas DO run out, and they will, it will be hugely expensive to synthesise the materials needed for the chemical and plastics industries that are currently derived from oil etc. Future generations will curse our short-sighted selfishness

 

[Strolls]

we're going about it totally the wrong way and we should be focussing on micro-generation / macro-generation at the domestic and local level. Every new build, be it domestic or commercial, should be designed to be as close to energy neutral as possible.

This was to be a requirement, starting from this year. It had been planned for 10 years, so the construction industry had plenty of time to get their house in order. Instead, the current government scrapped it. I can only speculate why.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target

 

[Bru]

This was to be a requirement, starting from this year. It had been planned for 10 years, so the construction industry had plenty of time to get their house in order. Instead, the current government scrapped it. I can only speculate why.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target

The problem, fundamentally, was the use of emotive phrases such as "carbon neutral" and the linking of the policy to climate change issues. As we all know, that is an emotionally charged subject with polarised views and an awful lot of nonsense spouted by ill-informed people

That's why I say we should be talking about being "energy neutral" and focussing on the most efffective long term means of providing energy to homes and businesses whilst making the best and most efficient long term use of finite mineral resources.

Of course, the real problem is that it means a commitment now from this generation to a plan that will primarily benefit future generations and I'm sorry to say that it is endemic in our society today to denigrate such long term thinking. It is, near enough, a single generation thing but it is that generation (of which I am not proud to be a member) which currently holds political, economic and strategic power

We are the "I'm all right Jack" generation and history will not look kindly on us for our failure to invest in the long term future at all levels

 

[Daydream believer]

Has anyone considered that in the next 100 years there could well be ( extremely likely in fact) a third world war & all the effort into reducing carbon emissions will be a total waste of time & effort

 

[Daydream believer]

I work for a company that were fitting hundreds of Schuco solar panels before the govt change in tariff & i am no way convinced of their real value.
We were paid £ 600,000 to fit solar cells up the side of some tower blocks to keep the greenies happy. Even our in-house designers admitted it would only light the communal lighting in the staircases at best.
( & at £ 600K we still lost money so it was not a case of overcharging!!)

 

[GrumpyOldGit]

....probably less fuel than it takes to propel a ship carrying coal from Australia or South America to Kingsnorth and a lot less than when that ship sails back unladen to do the trip again ?

Only an idiot would send an empty ship anywhere. A return cargo would be a prerequisite for any commercial operator. Have you noticed all the empty container ships plying the oceans of the world ?

 

[GrumpyOldGit]

The cost per unit of the windy mill things is quite a bit, frankly I could not be bothered to add it all up but when it is allied to ongoing maintenance costs and the usage of 2 tonnes of diesel per boat/ day to build and maintain them and the ongoing costs it sure aint cheap technology. Link below shows the costings ( at the time it was written );

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5408/ei-a-guide-to-an-offshore-wind-farm.pdf

 

[sailorman]

Only an idiot would send an empty ship anywhere. A return cargo would be a prerequisite for any commercial operator. Have you noticed all the empty container ships plying the oceans of the world ?

One reason for ever larger box boats is It is cheaper to store the MTs on board than pay shoreside storage

 

[Bru]

One reason for ever larger box boats is It is cheaper to store the MTs on board than pay shoreside storage

I have heard that from somebody who used to book container space on ships. Not only do they carry empties around, apparently there's often cargos that go backwards and forwards until they're wanted because it's cheaper to leave them on board than store them ashore

Plenty of shipping makes return trips unloaded in ballast anyway. Bulk ore carriers, tankers etc.

 

[Daydream believer]

Only an idiot would send an empty ship anywhere. A return cargo would be a prerequisite for any commercial operator. ?

That comment does not stack up
If China is supplying world markets to the extent that exports exceed imports by such a large amount it stands to reason that the difference will be empty ships ( or empty containers) returning to collect more exports.
The owners of Felixtowe docks had a short article on "Look East" a year or so ago in which they decried the fact that ships were coming into UK fully loaded but going out virtually empty
If a shipping line were short of work it is not inconceivable that they would send the ship ( empty if necessary) to a place where the next work was likely to arise so they are ready to pick up trade quickly when the order comes rather than loose it