 Of course you're right Chris. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. The environment is dynamic & fluid & whatever we do as humans will not really affect things. Only in the short terms ie. a few 1000 - 10,000 yrs or so.
Better stop now, or we'll link this to the geology thread... ;-)
|
 |
 I was trying to avoid linking this with the geology thread! As you say, for this thread we are thinking in human terms - maybe not even 1,000 years, just the next few generations.
I am in favour of more trees!
|
|
Trees it is then!
Personally i don't think we'll even make the next 1000 years, looking at our track record over the last 100. We're moving at such a fast rate of destruction / depletion.
When we become extinct, the next so called 'dominant' species will look back at our era & think "jeez! they didn't last long, did they. Even the dinosuars lasted for 13mil years & they were REALLY stupid!"
My money's on the dolphins, they've got it sussed. (that's of course if we don't take them down with us)...
|
|
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm an optimist. Maybe we can change. Some of us anyway.
Most species increase then decrease and disappear over time. No reason why homo sapiens should be any different.
|
|
"Is there not then an argument to suggest that smaller wind factories be used to supply local needs?".....Cameron
Yes, although a small windfarm would probably need to be connected to the grid rather than just supply local needs.
"London would need a bloody huge one but that could be sited within the city somewhere?"
If you look at the map I linked to earlier you'll see the ave windspeed in the SE is very low. http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/wind/content/ukwindspeedmap.html
In the city windspeed is further reduced.
"What we all tend to forget when discussing the why's and wherefore's of wind power is that such renewables are both inefficient and uneconomic........"
What makes you say this? Your argument against the ROC scheme seems to hinge on your assumption that windpower is not effective. But do any of us here actually know this? That we shouldn't spoil our wild places with windfarms seems a valid argument in itself. Especialy coming from a magazine with strong environmental commitment. Speculating on the effectiveness of windpower seems a gamble which could undermine the stronger argument.
If you plug "windpower is effective and economic" (I don't know if it is or isn't) into your ROC argument, the ROC scheme makes very good sense.
"If the Renewables Obligation was scrapped there would be no incentive for power companies to build so many wind factories. They are not building all these turbines for green or altruistic reasons, but for the cash"
I don't see what the motive for building windfarms has to do with it. The fact is, the ROC scheme is the governments answer to a percieved need for a rapid increase in renewable energy. It's obviously working.
I suppose the government could have dirctly subsidised the construction of windturbines, but with the ROC system payments are only made for energy produced. The more effective the windfarm or whatever, the more ROCs it gains. If windfarms are so ineffective, how do they claim the all important ROCs?
|
|
 The Whinash enquiry gets underway today.
Proceedings are open to the public.
|
|
 Are there any organic windfarms? I feel that the wind would benefit avoiding the use of chemical fertilisers. I also think it's a bit cruel to keep it penned in in darkness. Does anyone know where I can get free-range wind?
|
|
 Greetings all,
Just back from several days exploring the North Pennines where I found plans to put five turbines on Alston Moor, found a wind measuring post on the moors near High Cup and of course missed out on all this debate.
The blade that sheered off a turbine in Scotland ain't the first - I recall a chunk of blade splitting off a turbine at the old Ovenden Moor wind power station above Halifax back in the early 90s. So the technology doesn't seem to have improved any there!
The argument that turbines don't cause any damage to the uplands is frankly hogwash. All turbines - like houses - need foundations and as the turbines grown in height so the foundations need to be wider and deeper - otherwise the turbines would simply fall over. The bases for the new, giant turbines we're faced with across the UK are bloomin' monstrous (in fact it'd probably cause less damage to build a new housing estate on some of the moors). They're dug deep into bedrock and once a wind power station's life is over (a mere 25 years) those bases won't ever go away. Even if they're dug out, where's the replacement bedrock going to come from? Given the scale of the developments being proposed, what's going to happen to drainage patterns? What's going to prevent heavy rains stripping surrounding peats and soils away, silting up water courses and leaving moors naked? What effect will that have on ground nesting birds? It's a disaster waiting to happen. Ooops, it's already happening! Destroying the very environment they're supposedly there to protect.
I did see a few turbines, outside youth hostels and remote farms, that made sense - producing the energy at the point at which it's going to be used, with a turbine tower no higher than the building it stands next to.
Hiking through the Mojave desert in California last year I saw - literally - thousands of wind turbines, of all shapes and sizes, spread as far as the eye could see. It took days to walk through them. More were under construction. And yet that's a nation that still manages to have power blackouts. Worse, many were fenced off with large "DANGER, WIND TURBINE" signs decorating the fences. It's a vision I'm getting scared will be repeated here, and for all the wrong reasons.
Don't forget to turn your TVs and computers off at the mains before you go to bed tonight folks - and turn off those energy saving lightbulbs when you've finished reading TGO in bed!
|
|
Renewable Obligation Certificates are driving a bizarre energy market in Scotland. eg Kyoto friendly hydro generation - Scottish and Southern are believed to be capping output of hydro generators at or below 10MW to enable them to take the benefit of ROC and increase their profit by generating less!!
ref "Enterprise and Culture Committee- Renewable Energy in Scotland Inquiry submission by Mr Allan Tubbs".
Ref John Hesp posting. Overhead lines are "air insulated" ie bare wires so losses from insulated cables are less even if underground or under sea.
Ofgem are as of this month making a country wide market for energy so that renewable energy can be exported from Scotland to markets in England and Wales.
Due to nuclear production Scotland is a net exporter of energy.
Without subsidised transmission and ROCs windpower is not profitable if it is far from its market.
Wind power development is subsidy driven in. Scotland.
Wind is at correct speed for about 25% of time ie not too high wind or too low speed wind.
Generation runs at about 20-40% of capacity installed.
Long distance transmission and distribution losses are high.
When wind power generation started in Germany 80% of population were in favour while now figure is nearer 55%. Wind generation only reduces demand because it drives up the cost of electricity. Conservation reduces demand.
Intermittance of wind means "spinning reserve" has to be kept ready to take up the slack and this is usually fossil fuel based. The Highlands have little "spinning reserve" with only Peterhead as a fossil fuelled station or alternatively Kyoto friendly hydro will have to be kept in reserve to "balance the grid". An unbalanced grid can result in automatic shut downs which can have knock on effects further down the grid an instance of which was the Canadian shut down which switched off New York. The wind power or not wind power arguement embraces more than just impact on landscape and wild life.
|
|
 Stuey, unfortunately, the damming of Welsh valleys was purely to supply drinking water to English cities and the flow of water is too slow to provide much electricity. Any useful generation would empty the reservoirs in two weeks or less in dry summers!
I am still a "fan" of the Severn barrage scheme, the second highest tidal reach in the WORLD!
|
|
 "conservation reduces demand" - of course it does but unfortunately most people couldn't give a toss about it and so the easiest demand reagulator is price.
welsh water, rather yummy stuff i'm led to believe!
|
|
I'm not sure where this discussion is taking us. None of us on this forum want to see windfarms in our wilderness. We seem to be discussing technicalities which, let's be honest, none of us really understand. I seem to be pushed into the devil's advocate corner - anybody want to take over?
..................
"Overhead lines are "air insulated" ie bare wires so losses from insulated cables are less even if underground or under sea.".......Cameron
That's not my understanding of it. The losses are from capacitance. Air doesn't make a good capacitor. Water does. Air good. Water or wet ground bad.
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Electronics_AS/Electronics_Module_1/Topic_9/physics_of_capacitors.htm
..................
"Without subsidised transmission and ROCs windpower is not profitable if it is far from its market."
I think the primary aim is CO2 reduction. Profitability is secondary. But energy prices will increase painting a different profitability picture. In any case, would windfarms be more acceptable if they were profitable?
.................
"Generation runs at about 20-40% of capacity installed."
I've got a feeling that conventional power stations run at a suprisingly low capacity too, but I havn't got any info to back that up.
................
"Wind generation only reduces demand because it drives up the cost of electricity"
I'd have thought you'd welcome reduced demand. Reduced demand = less windfarms. The price of electricity is going up, windfarms or not.
................
"Intermittance of wind means "spinning reserve" has to be kept ready to take up the slack and this is usually fossil fuel based"
Leaving aside the accuracy of wind forecasts, this argument assumes a constant demand, and supply from windfarms suddenly totaly disappearing. In fact demand varies considerably:
http://www.bmreports.com/bwx_reporting.htm
and supply has to be ready to deal with this. Yesterday, a Sunday on a warm bank holiday weekend, showed a 45% increase from low to high. A cold midwinter, midweek day sees bigger variation. Total sudden loss of all proposed windpower would only be a fraction of this demand variation. The grid is already dealing with variations such as these.
................
"Peterhead as a fossil fuelled station or alternatively Kyoto friendly hydro will have to be kept in reserve to "balance the grid". "
It seems to me the grid is balanced now, sans Highland windfarms. Aren't we in the same position if the windfarms exist but aren't generating?
Re hydro reserve. (Out interest rather than making a point). I had a feeling that hydro was used in this way to some extent already. It being very quick to react if necessary. I've a feeling the hydro plant near Snowdon, and maybe the one at Cruachan are particularly able to react to sudden loads on the grid.
...............
"The wind power or not wind power arguement embraces more than just impact on landscape and wild life."
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm getting out of my depth with these technical discussions. I'm happy to go on discussing it here as best we can, but I hope TGO doesn't use power distribution technicalities to argue its case. Yes there is more than just impact on landscape in this argument - but impact on landscape in itself is a valid argument, and one which TGO is better suited to voice than power distribution technicalities.
...............
|
|
"the easiest demand reagulator is price.".......Bored
Bored, I'm inclined to agree, PROVIDED that we don't reduce the very needy into a worse situation, and provided that increasing the price does actually reduce consumption - I'm inclined to think that most people just consume with no thought to cost. Industry might tighten it's consumption though.
As I said earlier (no response yet!), we could cut out unnecessary air travel, and reduce CO2 emissions enormously. CO2 emissions from electricity generation would then be less crucial. Somethings got to give.
|
|
 I have just come back from viewing a windfarm near Fauldhouse and to be honest, it isn't that bad. 25 individual windmills in a pretty bleak area which is scarred with the remnants of the mining industry, it could be worse. In the central belt there are plenty of places which could accomodate facilities like this without causing a massive problem, my own former village in Caldercruix being one. Let's face, it is the central belt which eats most electricity so why should the highlands suffer?
|
|
John
Cables are insulated and lines are not capacitance is not the issue.
Balancing the grid with predictable power is not too difficult if you can switch it in and out too much wind penetration on the grid makes this impossible.
The real fear is that if we go for wholesale windpower this far from the grid it will lose much in transmission losses and will not do the job. resulting i removal of ROCs. If windpower does not do what it says on the spin we will have destroyed our natural environment to justify a power line to service nuclear development or a criminal waste of resources which could be used for conservation. This destruction of the wilderness will not change CO2 emissions more than a gnat bite. Air travel is the main culprit.
|
|
