The new Bradwell wind farm.

Tam Lin said:
I have asked the following question on the forum and had no reply. Do we get more energy out of a windmill over its lifetime than we put into its manufacture, maintenance and removal? A clear answer to this would help me make up my mind if I am for or against them.
!
Click to expand...

I asked the same question at an RTPI training presentation. The answer is a clear yes. the energy payback time is only. couple of years.

At another meeting with Gov representatives, we were told the rational for a push towards wind power is simple energy security. Or as the man put it, "if Mr Putin decides to sell his gas to the Chinese instead of Europe, we have a serious problem. Indeed recent events seem to bear out what was being said.

PS, at serious risk to body.... I drafted the planning policy that was used. Even though members adopted my words into the local plan , they ignored their own decision and refused planning permission and wasted a lot of public money fighting an appeal they reqlly could not win.... Thats local democracy for you.
 
The question I specifically asked was about the energy equation … not the cost and price of selling the product.

Does it generate more power than is used to manufacture and install?
 
Yes. It must do. Manufacturing attracts a cost that is reflected in the purchase price so the 'break even' point is the point the cost matches the saving. Isn't it?
 
In a way I suppose the ECF is about the only place the subject can be mentioned without anyone getting all hot and bothered, so from my research, here's some possibly accurate information. I say possibly because there's no chance of finding info that doesn't come from a biased source as far as I can tell. Happy to be proved wrong, but here goes

From an article published in the Guardian back in 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

Critics of wind energy often claim that the energy used to construct a wind turbine outweighs the energy produced during its lifetime in operation. This is not correct. An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It also found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months.


A life-cycle analysis published in 2011 by Vestas, a Danish turbines manufacturer, of a 100MW onshore windfarm consisting of 33 3MW turbines concluded, unsurprisingly, that the siting of the turbines is crucial in maximising the energy return ratio. "Doubling the distance to the grid from 50 km to 100 km typically increases [negative]


impacts per kWh by 3-5%," it concluded. "If the wind plant operates in low-wind conditions then the [negative] impacts per kWh electricity produced increases by 23% compared to medium wind conditions."


But it stressed that the energy used to transport and install the turbines was "very insignificant".



My reading of that would be, it depends :rolleyes:


From govt. figures http://www.local.gov.uk/home/-/journal_content/56/10180/3510194/ARTICLE


[TH="colspan: 1, align: left"]Turbine size[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 1"]Capital cost per turbine[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 1"]Feed-in-Tariff generation rate (current, £/kWh)[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 1"]Simple payback period[/TH]

[TD="colspan: 1"]Building-mounted micro (2.5kW)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£10,000[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£0.27[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]May not payback within lifetime[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]Micro (6kW)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£20 - £28,000[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£0.27[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]May not payback within lifetime[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]Small (20 - 50kW)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£50,000 - £125,000[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£0.24[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]8 - 15 years[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]Medium (100kW - 850kW)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£250,000 to £1.8 million[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£0.09 - £0.19[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]7 - 9 years[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1"]Large (1MW - 2.5MW)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£2 million - £3.3 million[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]£0.05 - £0.09[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"] less than 1 year - 5 years
[/TD]
- See more at: http://www.local.gov.uk/home/-/journal_content/56/10180/3510194/ARTICLE#sthash.ykJZhJez.dpuf


Or in other words, that depends too :rolleyes:


The other option looked at is nuclear, where there's still a lot of doom and gloom from those who don't look fully into the industry, so here's something from them too

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/

Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.
The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation.
Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as a waste.
Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes.
Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal.


So guess which option I think we should go with, it's just the green movement that still says it's not an option IMHO, but what do I know ;)
 
DavidofMersea said:
There was a proposal about 20 years ago to put a tidal barrage across the Blackwater. If they did that, we would have a river always full of water, so we could sail from Mersea to Maldon any time we wanted. The proposal included a lock to let yachts out into the sea - So what's not to like?
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that given the high clay content of the suspended silt in the water of the Blackwater/Crouch, anything which reduces the effect of tidal scour (such as building a barrage), will dramatically increase silt deposition. Clay minerals undergo ion exchange when they go from fresh to salt water, resulting in a process of deposition called flocculation. Build a barrage across the Blackwater, and pretty soon, there will be very little water to sail in.
 
Plus any underwater turbine would act as a flocculater (sp) and soon clog up and produce nothing

Sorry, worked in the water treatment industry a few years back, and to keep turbines effective the water would have to be treated before going through the turbines, anything that blocks the flow would soon block up itself
 
DavidofMersea said:
There was a proposal about 20 years ago to put a tidal barrage across the Blackwater. If they did that, we would have a river always full of water, so we could sail from Mersea to Maldon any time we wanted. The proposal included a lock to let yachts out into the sea - So what's not to like?
Click to expand...

I got into a lot of trouble for daring to suggest a flood barrier Cross the Blackwater to protect people in Heybridge, St Lawrence and Maldon from flooding.. It seems birds and worms are more important than people...

Sorry I digress.
 
I have said it before and I will say it again - I hate those outsized kiddies windmills with a passion!

Bradwell WILL almost certainly have a new Nuclear reactor at some stage in the future...it is the ONLY sensible way forward. Sizewell is functioning well and producing good constant levels of electricity as are all the other functioning reactors around the country. Waste disposal? No problem...I thought that was what Scotland was for??! ;)

When the windmills reach the end of their functioning life they will not be replaced as the ridiculous subsidies will inevitably have migrated to some other crackpot 'green' scheme. There will be a thriving industry spring up in taking the wretched things down for scrap!

Tidal power could work, but probably not on the East Coast...might work in the clearer waters of the West Coast. It would be a logical and relatively stable source of power 'cos sure as eggs is eggs the tides WILL keep flowing!

Taking a look at what is pushing out what:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Here we are, good steady winds across the country, thousands of these things spinning round and they are STILL not producing the same level of electricity that is being generated by Nuclear! How many more of these things will they have to construct to provide green power for the whole country...I dread to think!

Wind Power? Neine Danke!
 
Substantial amounts have been invested in energy R&D over the last 30 years. Much of this has been directed at developing nuclear energy – which now supplies 14% of world electricity.
Today, apart from Japan and France, there is about twice as much R&D investment in renewables than nuclear, but with rather less to show for it and with less potential for electricity supply.
Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries however it is taxed because production costs are so low.
Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back or abandoned in some places due to the high cost to consumers.
Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some direct subsidies.
Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
 
Sixpence said:
Substantial amounts have been invested in energy R&D over the last 30 years. Much of this has been directed at developing nuclear energy – which now supplies 14% of world electricity.
Today, apart from Japan and France, there is about twice as much R&D investment in renewables than nuclear, but with rather less to show for it and with less potential for electricity supply.
Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries however it is taxed because production costs are so low.
Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back or abandoned in some places due to the high cost to consumers.
Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some direct subsidies.
Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
Click to expand...

Hardly an unbiased source. Have a look at www.nda.gov.uk. €66 billion for the UK to decommission existing nukes and safely store spent fuel. This is a subsidy in all but name. Cost of decommissioning wind farms is insignificant.
 
Can't be impossible to find a source which is unbiased but have to admit I can't find one, but then that cuts both ways to be fair. As for decommissioning costs, windy things are self decommissioning as they fall down, just a bit of clear up work and off to the scrappy, whereas nuclear sites built now won't need to be dealt with in my lifetime and they may, by then, have found a better way of both clearing up and generating. Reliance on Chinese money to build seems a daft way to go but maybe if they were allowed a little bit more of a share in the profit they might pay the whole price to build
 
So if we don't go nuclear - what is the real alternative? Renewables just can't cope with the projected demand. I think anyone who claims that they can is misleading the public into a false sense of security. Maybe the reason we are now dependent on the Chinese for nuclear energy - having once been the world leaders - is the strident anti nuclear lobby that convinced the public it will kill us all and we don't need it cos wind will save us. That thought was cravenly followed as a vote catcher by succeeding governments. Hence the lack of a British nuclear industry when we need it.

And as an aside at the public meeting in Burnham ages ago about the wind farms the pro-wind speakers all seemed to come from outside Burnham - committed eco-warriors who wanted wind farms in our back yard. Interesting they all drove here rather than use public transport.

The Green lobby is a bit like UKIP - one obsession built into a supposedly fully rounded political force. As sailors we are - hopefully - aware of the environment and want to look after it so whichever party we vote for, we will expect environmental issues to be a part of their policy mix. But rather like the discredited thinking behind some of the decision support information on Marine Conservation Zones there is a lot of pseudo science and greenwash being sold as 'fact'. We should be able to vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour and know that real facts underlie their environmental policies. Last public meeting in Burnham where a Green Party candidate spoke he spent most of the time proposing a ban on animals in circuses. I rest my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top