Do we like windfarms or not?

[Burnham Bob]

Personally I've always thought onshore windfarms are just a get rich quick scheme covered in greenwash for landowners. They are not efficient and they depend on a subsidy. Offshore I do have some sympathy with windfarms and we do need the renewable energy.

I've got used to the one on the way to Walton from Burnham but I know others have been causing problems at places like Foulgers Gat and that lighting them for navigation purposes is a bit contentious. Not to mention concrete berms reducing depth in places.

What do other forumites think?

 

[Tomahawk]

I see a lot of them in France and Holland..

I quite like windmills .. and that is al they are, windmills. Just more high tech windmills.

 

[tjbrace]

Prefer them to Chinese nuclear as to be seen in Bradwell.

 

[ex-Gladys]

I'm not sure the life of marine windfarms is going to make them economic. I can't remember which of the Estuary farms it was, but maintenance costs were large because (ahem) "they were in an unexpectedly aggressive environment"...

 

[Tomahawk]

If I have a =n objection to offshore wind farms it is because they are inherently dangerous. People will be killed getting on and off them to service them.

The only reason we have them in this country is because of the NIMBY brigade who are happy to plug into the national grid but complain if they can see where the electricity is coming from

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Shiny

 

[Noahsdad]

Visually I quite enjoy them.

 

[nigelm]

Easy nav - sail out river to windmills , chucka left , sail to end of windmills , chucka right sail onto big cranes & bingo in harwich ??

 

[Leighb]

They are quite handy going up the Wallet. Just keep the beach huts to Starboard and the windmills to Port, no other nav aids needed.

 

[Bru]

I'm not a massive fan of them finding them visually quite intrusive but I could live with that if they were environmentally sound (not economically - unlike some I'm prepared to see higher energy costs in return for a reduced dependence on finite supplies of fossil fuels)

The reality is that offshore wind is environmentally expensive to install, very environmentally expensive to maintain and will one day by environmentally expensive to decommision

I doubt whether figures are readily obtainable but it would be interesting and illuminating to find out how much diesel all the dozens, maybe hundreds, of Fastcat windfarm support vessels burn every day and they're presence seems to be a permanent and ongoing requirement. Not to mention the unknown quantity of diesel burnt in the generators necessary on every offshore wind turbine to supply power to its systems when its not generating

And then we get down to the other key problem that we've rushed ahead to install the last element of a renewable generation system without dealing with the need for some means to store the energy generated and load balance the grid

 

[MoodySabre]

Bru has nailed it. :encouragement:

It is disappointing that they have just come up with a modern version of centuries old technology. Only now are tide turbines being tried out when it always going to be a dependable and predictable method with no visual intrusion.

 

[PeterWright]

Visually, each will form their own view. I'm not against the appearance of an individual wind turbine or even a few grouped together, but when the Greater Gabbard is complete, there will be little sea between S Foreland and the Wash where the view does not include numerous windmills. Interesting tat they hardly seem to happen along the S coast or in the South West.

In terms of economics, they are worse than the land based equivalent because they are more expensive to build and maintain for similar output. If they were not heavily subsidised, no one would invest in building them. The subsidy is of a special form invented by the EU called a Feed in Tariff (FIT). This does not subsidise the building per se, but guarantees a price paid for the electricity produced several times higher than the market price for bulk electricity supply and index linked for, I believe, 40 years. The higher price paid for the windmill production is statutorily recovered by electricity supply companies from the consumers. This feature is of great attraction to the politicians Europe wide, as it enables them to subsidise their pet projects without raising one penny of tax and point the finger at the evil Supply Companies for the increasing energy prices.

In addition to this subsidy, the wind generators are guaranteed that their electricity will be purchased whenever they can generate. The effect of this on a market where other generators are selected, starting with the cheapest and working up, to just meet demand at any time, is dramatic. The wind and solar plants represent the most expensive generation available and, if the wind blows (or the sun shines) they are selected automatically causing thermal plants offering cheaper generation to be shut down and lie idle. This effectively educes the load factors of thermal plants so that they generate less over their lifetimes, which means that their capital and fixed (staff, maintenance etc.) costs must be amortised across a smaller lifetime production increasing the amount of those costs to be recovered for each unit generated. The owners of these plants therefore have no choice but to increase the bid price for their units and this again is recovered from the consumer.

This distorted market was designed by conventional economists who understand selling widgets which you can store in a warehouse, but just cannot grasp the market consequences of a product which is virtually impossible to store economically in quantities anywhere near the daily fluctuation in demand. Michael Spicer, MP and PPS to Cecil Parkinson at the time of UK electricity privatisation (now Lord Spicer) carries a heavy responsibility for this.

End of lesson on energy economics. If you want to understand more about the true drivers for the price you pay for energy, take a look at the work of Dieter Helm, Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford, and probably the most capable energy economist in the world:

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/

 

[Capt Popeye]

Errm, windmills, do I like them?

Well I do not like mine
but
I can get on with yours

 

[Boz]

End of lesson on energy economics. If you want to understand more about the true drivers for the price you pay for energy, take a look at the work of Dieter Helm, Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford, and probably the most capable energy economist in the world:

fascinating stuff, and does nothing to endear the damn things to me..... will they, in twenty years end up as derelict curiosities like the Thames estuary forts?

Quite good for checking log accuracy though

 

[ashtead]

Put them all in Northern Ireland surely where plenty of wind and lots of space?

 

[NUTMEG]

I like them. Not perfect by a long way but a step in the right direction. Everyone who does not like wind generation harps on about subsidies. Easy to decommission compared to nuclear and cheaper too if 'decommissioning subsidy' is factored in to nuclear supply, I hesitate to mention the cost of long term storage of radio active waste, which is another hidden subsidy so often conveniently overlooked.

 

[Daydream believer]

There are several sides to a general question
Do I think they are unsightly. Certainly. Sailing south from Bradwell I have the Gunfleet. The London array the ones off Whitstable & the Thanet array
Going west I have Galloper & Shipwash plus one a little further north( Forgotten the name)
Going north I have Scroby sands plus another to be built. There is one off Sherringham/Cromer which I had to sail round once en route from Grimsby to Lowestoft & i had a devil of a job beating the tide to get round it
It think that so many just look ugly & they are poorly lit. Not that i need to see them .the money goes abroad as we neither own nor build them ( Other than as subcontractors)
As navigation aids they could be considered very useful. But do I need any more nav aids & do they not spoil the experience of sailing on a wide open sea?
As for renewable resources - they are rubbish. The sooner Bradwell & a few other nuke stations get built the better. & what is wrong with coal- We have tonnes of the stuff & are just not using a simple resource

As for tidal resources - yes they look better simply because one cannot see them. But just try missing one at night in a gale !!!

 

[FulmarJeddo]

I sailed through the Kentish Flats farm and the majority were stationary although there was a 3-4 blowing. What was strange was that the stationary turbines that I passed were all emitting a sound from near the base that sounded like a Diesel engine running. Presumably the control mechanisms require a separate power source. Presumably this is why they require so many maintenance visits to keep the supplied with diesel.

 

[sailorman]

I sailed through the Kentish Flats farm and the majority were stationary although there was a 3-4 blowing. What was strange was that the stationary turbines that I passed were all emitting a sound from near the base that sounded like a Diesel engine running. Presumably the control mechanisms require a separate power source. Presumably this is why they require so many maintenance visits to keep the supplied with diesel.

with no or little wind they have gensets to power the thinks o/b the things, this includes "weather cocking" the rotors. I have no idea how "green" those gensets are

The original wind farm are ok once we get use to them & they were erected in shallow waters. My issue is now the technology has improved the damn things are erected in deep water areas, we used to sail in / over

 

[Stork_III]

with no or little wind they have gensets to power the thinks o/b the things, this includes "weather cocking" the rotors. I have no idea how "green" those gensets are

The original wind farm are ok once we get use to them & they were erected in shallow waters. My issue is now the technology has improved the damn things are erected in deep water areas, we used to sail in / over

If they are VP they will be green. If not they could be red, blue or silver maybe.