London Array - offshore windfarm

ParaHandy

ParaHandy

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Nov 2001
Messages
5,210
Visit site
a ruddy great cludge of these things off the thames estuary will add to the joys of sailing on east coast? the area it occupies must be close to 200 sq miles ..

onyways, there's some intersting data collected about actual power outputs over a year and published by REF. It appears that in the UK when it is coldest, there is little or no wind which would make managing these things into the national grid quite difficult. you can switch gas generating plant (but not coal fired) on and off fairly quickly and that won't do them much good in the long term.

at the end of the day, it appears that you must have sufficient installed conventional capacity to meet demand irrespective of how much of your energy may come from (this) renewable source. We'll have to pay for that as well as the subsidy to these windfarms of £45.50 per Mwh or £145m per annum for the London array.

There might also be a nasty little problem in ten or so years time. the gov wants 10% of our energy to come from renewable sources by 2010 and is using the ROC renewable obligation certificates (at £45.50 per Mwh) to encourage this but as renewable supply increases, the market value of an ROC drops so financing for these things is rarely over 10 years. The operating costs of a 200Mw farm at North Hoyle are just about equal to the revenue from sales to the National Grid and without the ROCs (£8m pa) would be unviable. So what will happen to these things when (not if) they are uneconomic to run? Do they just get left ...
 
"So what will happen to these things when (not if) they are uneconomic to run? Do they just get left ... "

Put some pontoons aroundem. Hey presto, instant offshore marinae. What's left of the leccy could be used to power a railway to get berth holders ashore. Sort of extra long Hythe pier jobbie. Watch out for drunken dredgers.
 
" So what will happen to these things when (not if) they are uneconomic to run? Do they just get left ... "

Your points are well made.
Those Scandinavian Countries which lead the move to wind-farms are not renewing them as they become due for replacement as they produced the most expensive electricity in Europe - intermittantly. There are serious costs and pollution implications to dismantling them too.
I am at a loss to understand how we come to be going down this path with all the real-life experience that now exists from other installations.
Is there some hidden agenda which is motivating our Govt. which I am unable to understand ?
If the Green lobby was genuine, they would have seen through the wind-farm joke by now and would be pushing for tidal or Bristol Barrage or something else with a guaranteed return. Or do they have shares in the wrong companies ?
Ken
 
No, it's just a paper exercise to allow HMG to reach their "10%" renewable committment. It can never be a realistic practical power source, for reasons already explained by others.

We don't have viable source for hydro-electric (not in "England" anyway), wave and wind are both intermittent (plus cover vast land/sea areas), not enough sunshine for solar (until global warming properly kicks in!) so all thats left is tidal. I don't see why more effort does not seem to be being put into tidal generation schemes. Mind you, I'm not sure the green lobby is ready for a sea full of minced fish from passing through turbines!
 
Even if tidal energy could provide a significant portion of our total needs (which I don't think it can) it can only generate electricity for up to 10 hours a day (i.e. 40% of the time). I think wind is slightly better.

Our best hope, with any renewable, is in improvements in the technologies of storing power.
 
Re: London Array - offshore windfarm-HEP

On a walking holiday last year I met a Hydroelectric employee who told me that there were still plenty of sites suitable for H.E.P. in the UK but none were likely to be built because of the cost of the land! In most cases I suspect the land is pretty useless moorland with "sporting rights", valued at an inflated value. Perhaps the land ought to be compulsarily purchased at a sensible rate and HEP established for the benefit of us all rather than this enormous possible white elephant. The resultant lakes would give a habitat for wild life too.
 
Re: London Array - offshore windfarm-HEP

Then, like the gun towers, it would have to be a pretty small ship, as they are on sandbanks.

Or shall we just say, yacht?
 
"it can only generate electricity for up to 10 hours a day"

Enlighten me. Round my way there are only a coupla hours slack each tide cycle, equals 20 hours a day of generation if they are 'in-current' systems, rather than barrages.

Strikes me the biggest problem would be fouling/silting.
 
Re: London Array - offshore windfarm-HEP

Yes... sad isn't it..... we'll have to explore Fishermans Gat instead!

Look on the positive side..... no more trying to maintain a constant bearing on those tiny safe water marks while the tide sweeps you to the side!
 
"Is there some hidden agenda which is motivating our Govt. which I am unable to understand ?"

one does wonder whether they know what they're doing. using gas power generation to fill the gaps when there's no wind makes us more dependent on russia.
 
Re: London Array - offshore windfarm-HEP

Foulger's Gat will be maintained as a yachtsman's channel. The idea is to keep us out of Fisherman's Gat. There will an alley (my words) where Foulger's Gat is but a north-west/south-east dogleg at the southern end to go that part of the array built over the Knock Deep channel. One problem is that the Long Sand is migrating slowly (I forget which way) so if it continues to do so the channel won't be where the 'alley' is.

Take heart that the London Array consortium point out that "the risks to recreational craft are minimized through the turbine design (air draught of 22m), emergency shutdown system, navigation markings (of course if the vis is too bad to see the rotors and pylons, you'll be able to see the SWM's - tee-hee), individual numbers on each turbine as well as an access ladder and platform which could be used by a vessel (I'm sure they mean crew) in distress"

Incidentally, there is plenty of water outside the buoyed channel in Fisherman's Gat to keep out of the way although when we were there in October, there were three ships (one outbound) all arriving at the Inner Fisherman at the same time. the estimate for ships using Fisherman's Gat in 2006 was 536 which isn't a lot and this won't increase if the Thames Gateway gets built as container ships have to come in via the Sunk and down the Black Deep.

Incidentally, the Gunfleet Sands thing didn't get built/is delayed/put off because the pylon foundations don't work on those sands. They keep falling over or something like that.

My final point is a question. Why on earth would any of you expect this Government to something sensible? What prompts this enormous optimism?
 
If everybody stopped using their electric toothbrushes and turned instead to a more environmentaly friendly way of cleaning their teeth, we probably wouldn't need the wind farms at all.......................
 
No no no, the amount of extra methane produced by the food you need to eat to use that extra energy provides more greenhouse gases than the electric toothbrush. Add in the extra breathing needed to provide oxygen to the muscles and you might as well take long-haul flight.

Walking to work is even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top