alant
Well-Known Member
Plus the cost of a back-up system, when they ain't turning & the lights go out!
Should put effort into tidal driven systems, much more dependable source.
Wind Farms, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Heckler
- Start date
Plus the cost of a back-up system, when they ain't turning & the lights go out!
Should put effort into tidal driven systems, much more dependable source.
alant
Well-Known Member
Proof please.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Interesting thought.
Everytime there is a Planning Inquiry into a new wind farm the developers wheel out all kinds of scientists, experts and surveys and reports to prove there is no risk and a positive benefit to having a sodding great fan on a hill.
The nay-saying is generally left to those who don't want them to look at by day and listen to the whirring at night.
Does this reliance on selective scientific proof to persuade us something is right ring any bells?
Everytime there is a Planning Inquiry into a new wind farm the developers wheel out all kinds of scientists, experts and surveys and reports to prove there is no risk and a positive benefit to having a sodding great fan on a hill.
The nay-saying is generally left to those who don't want them to look at by day and listen to the whirring at night.
Does this reliance on selective scientific proof to persuade us something is right ring any bells?
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
The Bible is the most shoplifted book in the United States - Lakesailor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe if it were here, the country would not be at the bottom end of the European heap morally and economically - remember the shoplifting may have been before it was read!
Still, revenons a nos moutons - I can't see how these swish contraptions can be seen as an improvement aesthetically to our coastlne.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe if it were here, the country would not be at the bottom end of the European heap morally and economically - remember the shoplifting may have been before it was read!
Still, revenons a nos moutons - I can't see how these swish contraptions can be seen as an improvement aesthetically to our coastlne.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Quite aside from the problems of reliability or even matching the optimistic output estimates, they need wind to work. No wind means a base level supply of energy is needed and wind (and solar too) is just a top up service.
Why bother? Quite plainly we have no option but to have nuclear since fossil fuels will eventually run out, so why waste them now in power generation. If we are going to have nuclear, stop pussyfooting about and build enough powerstations that windfarms and other nibbling at the edges solutions are not needed. As for not wanting nuclear in our backyard arguments, we live in Poole, 60mls dead downwind of the big nuclear powerstation on Cap De La Hague in France anyway.
There is a proposed offshore windfarm off Poole and Bournemouth and just west of the IOW. All the greenies and NIMBYs love the idea, 10mls offshore and out of sight. Just wait until the first ship with engine failure in a storm crashes into it and pray it isn't a tanker, otherwise the seahorses of Studland really will have something to worry about.
Why bother? Quite plainly we have no option but to have nuclear since fossil fuels will eventually run out, so why waste them now in power generation. If we are going to have nuclear, stop pussyfooting about and build enough powerstations that windfarms and other nibbling at the edges solutions are not needed. As for not wanting nuclear in our backyard arguments, we live in Poole, 60mls dead downwind of the big nuclear powerstation on Cap De La Hague in France anyway.
There is a proposed offshore windfarm off Poole and Bournemouth and just west of the IOW. All the greenies and NIMBYs love the idea, 10mls offshore and out of sight. Just wait until the first ship with engine failure in a storm crashes into it and pray it isn't a tanker, otherwise the seahorses of Studland really will have something to worry about.
billmacfarlane
Well-Known Member
Free range only
It it's not free range and organic I'm not interested.
It it's not free range and organic I'm not interested.
johnalison
Well-Known Member
Thank you: that is the first time I've seen a figure in writing. Although some people seem to be contesting it, at least we have a point from which we can discuss the question rationally. As I say, I have an open mind about it, while rather disliking their intrusion into the land & sea-scapes.
alant
Well-Known Member
I will repeat my previous post - PROOF PLEASE.
Where do you get the figure of 8 months from?
Do these costs also amortise the additional costs of a back-up system, for when the wind is too little or too much?
This summer, I was involved in the building of an offshore windfarm off Germany - they have many on land, but were building this one to assess the viability/costs involved, so they still need to be convinced.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Google "Wind turbine energy payback".
Would some sums be helpful? The Robin Rigg turbines are 3MW each. Assuming the usual 35% output factor, that's 1MW. Run for 8 months that's 8,000,000 x 8 x 31 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 170PJ. The embedded energy of concrete is around 3GJ/m^3 and for aluminium it's around 500GJ/m^3. Eight months' output from a Robin Rigg turbine is therefore enough to produce 57,000 m^3 (137,000 tons) of concrete or 340 m^3 (918 tons) of aluminium.
The idea that turbines take forever, or a long time, to make their construction energy is a myth. Note: that doesn't mean that anyone who innocently believed it is bad, or stupid - just misinformed.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
What costs? I gave the energy payback figure in response to a claim about energy payback.
alant
Well-Known Member
So, no back up system costed for, or are you claiming 100% wind availability, therefore no requirement?
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
What about the replacement gearboxes they seem to need regularly.
I heard that the barges to maintain the offshore turbines cost £80,000 per day to hire.
I heard that the barges to maintain the offshore turbines cost £80,000 per day to hire.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Sensible suggestion. I found this.
I may be a bit dim when it comes to these things but it seems that the windfarm misses the mark in this instance by nearly 100%.
http://web.mit.edu/flowlab/pdf/Floating_Offshore_Wind_Turbines.pdf
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Look, this really isn't difficult. A claim was made about energy payback - about how long it takes for a wind turbine would take to generate the energy used in its construction. That statement was wrong, and I have corrected it.
I have said nothing about the financial costs or the need for backup. These are interesting matters, but nothing whatsoever to do with the point at issue.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Perhaps. But still nothing to do with energy payback!
Searush
Well-Known Member
You're aren't really thinking this thro' are you? Why would any one assume 100% power output? That would be stupid. Windfarms are only ever intended to supplement other sources, therefore there never has been a requirement for 100% output.
For payback, one only needs to assess the output when the wind blows. (with apologies to Stanley Briggs). The questions you need to be asking are about Depreciation, Interest & Maintenance, but you probably won't get any consistent answers.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Orbister seems to think that the capital cost and maintenance costs are not an issue. When added to the subsidies and profits I regard it as a major issue to consumers.
I couldn't give a toss about carbon footprints etc (and the £60 million jack leg barges are built in "dirty" China by the way) so would rather like a 2-tier charging system.
Dirty electricity for us Oiks at a lower cost and Green electricity for Believers at twice the price.
I couldn't give a toss about carbon footprints etc (and the £60 million jack leg barges are built in "dirty" China by the way) so would rather like a 2-tier charging system.
Dirty electricity for us Oiks at a lower cost and Green electricity for Believers at twice the price.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Please don't misrepresent me.
I was correcting an erroneous statement about energy payback time. That is a simple energy balance, and has nothing to do with capital and maintenance costs.
alant
Well-Known Member
I was not thinking about 100% power output, I was questioning the payback period & what parameters it was based on - the later example given quotes 36% output.
"Windfarms are only ever intended to supplement other sources, therefore there never has been a requirement for 100% output."
Exactly, so you cannot ignore the so-called base load generator costs, which still need to provide power for the other 64% of the time. This must be factored into any windfarm feasibility.
These figures are 'mean' desired/projected outputs, which will vary from 100% to a complete Zero. When providing power, it needs to match demand, which with an irregular/inconsistent source such as 'wind', a windfarm will have some difficulty.
Searush
Well-Known Member
The base load is required with or without additions from wind farms & therefore appears in both comparative costings; the net effect is thus zero. It must be ignored for a fair comparison.
Wind farms DO NOT NEED to match demand & evidently cannot by their nature. Total supply must match demand, but the input for the (always relatively small) wind input is clearly wind dependant. Wind is only ever going to be a supplementary source and should only be set against the cost of the generating sources it replaces - which may be anything from imports, coal, gas or oil. Base supply is probably best met by Nukes as the cost & timescales of winding them up & down is high. Demand surge is generally met by pumped water storage & imports, both of which may be switched in virtually instantaneously.
