We all like them…so long as they’re somewhere else…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/28/ukraine-built-more-onshore-wind-turbines-last-year-than-england

I am not an engineer: would it ever be possible for these to be located in cities? Is there a reason why you couldn’t have a couple in every supermarket car park?

I am not an engineer: would it ever be possible for these to be located in cities? Is there a reason why you couldn’t have a couple in every supermarket car park?

The need for wind.

Reading has one on the South West outskirts and it’s apparently the least efficient turbine in the UK.

Fundamentally to be cost effective they need to be either high up, miles from anything, or both.

Which is why the onshore ‘ban’ kinda makes sense. If you’ve got a spare few million in your pocket you’ll produce more megawatts putting it offshore than anywhere else.

I think the area required would take too much space in a city, but there’s nothing stopping smaller systems being adopted.

The whole dropping of the ‘green crap’ by Osbourne and Piggy was another fine mess the two **** got us in to. Whilst not a calamitous as their brexit folly in the long term could have equally as dreadful consequences…

Fundamentally to be cost effective they need to be either high up, miles from anything, or both.

Ohhh, I see…

A quick look on windy.com and you get to see quite how much more wind there is off shore.

Then look at the awesome size of the offshore farms (the area they cover, the number of turbines and their incredible size).

When you look at the amount of offshore power generation still to come online, it’s pretty incredible.

That’s the bit under the water

Which give you an idea how big the bit above the water is:-

I’m guessing we built more offshore than Ukraine?

Cheaper per MWh on shore as I understand it, but more MWh available offshore.

I live near Goole Fields 1 (16) & 2 (17) can I have £180 please

It’s simply mind-boggling that Ukraine, while it fights for its survival, has built more onshore wind capacity than England.

I don’t see how there is anything “mind-boggling” about a country which doesn’t have a ban on onshore wind turbines installing more onshore wind turbines than a country which has a ban.

What would surely be mind-boggling would be if a country with a ban had built more than a country without a ban.

Because of the British landscape, all sorts of things can change wind direction, so it’s far more efficient to put huge turbines out at sea, where wind is more consistent, plus the infrastructure is far less environmentally sensitive. Solar, on the other hand, can be put anywhere – big warehouses can have their roofs covered, less useful or productive farmland can have solar farms built, and sheep can happily graze underneath them, which keeps the sheep sheltered and happy, and controls weeds.

Then there’s land that can’t be used for anything else, like waste tips; once they’re at the end of their life, and capped, what better than to cover them with solar panels. The nature reserve I was walking around earlier today has a great view for many miles, as far as the Cotswolds and, on a clear day, Bannau Brycheiniog and Y Mynnydd Du, and a couple of miles or so away a former tip is being gradually covered with solar panels, and to the naked eye they’re barely noticeable, so the ideal use for that sort of environment.

There’s a new development in solar technology that’s far more efficient, and is transparent, so it can be used to replace windows on buildings, so high rise apartments, offices and such will ultimately be able to generate huge amounts of energy, probably more than they need for themselves.

I’m in favour of wind turbines but I think £180 a head is great value to have Rampion wind farm off the South Coast rather than dotted along 100 miles of the South Downs (as the chalk ridge is undoubtedly prime for turbines)

We’re going to have to make some very difficult decisions about our energy future.
As I understand it, storage and delivery of energy is a real issue.
I also understand that while very challenging and currently costly, tidal has huge potential. Currently mired in post brexit and UK government politics.

E.g.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65015217

Any live in Belgium on here? I’m sure I’ve driven down some motorways there that have turbines sited along the edge of the roads. Seems like a good solution to me as the roads themselves have already cut a big chunk out of any natural beauty in the immediate area, and grid connections etc could be incorporated into the road system?
Also less noise problems.

I don’t think that’ll be a difficult decision at all Matt. The folk consuming most of the energy will simply choose to have it produced and stored where they can neither see, not be impacted by it.

It’s simply mind-boggling that Ukraine, while it fights for its survival, has built more onshore wind capacity than England.

Only if you ignore the fact it’s practically landlocked.

I don’t think that’ll be a difficult decision at all Matt. The folk consuming most of the energy will simply choose to have it produced and stored where they can neither see, not be impacted by it.

Indeed. The proposed routes for the SSEN Beauly-Blackhillock transmission line (used to link all these new sources of power up and boot it down south) are currently in consultation. Biggest pylons in Europe – yay! The preferred route passes 2km from our house. One of the alternatives is 300m away straight out of the front window doglegging around the house, then directly across the local loch. Hard not to be a nimby about it, but I’m kind of hoping the preferred route gets the go ahead! What seems very unfair is that one of the reasons the preferred route is the preferred route is because it follows an existing pylon line put in a generation ago, with the theory being it’s spoilt anyway so another one is not so bad……..unless you were the poor sod living next to it who took one for the team the first time around who gets another much bigger one because you loved the first one so much!

Not all bad – the local wind farm has just paid £70K to refurbish the village hall and paid for all our smoke alarms after the change in legislation last year. Can’t beat a bit of appeasement cash! And windfarms = (slightly boring) gravel trails, so happy days.

LOL – I will admit to being a bit conflicted about windfarms on account of the tracks required. In some areas they link up with existing estate tracks to create a great network.

As for appeasement money, you only have to look at Tomatin or Farr to see how useful community facilities suddenly become possible. Mind you, I’m sure the residents of both would like to have cheaper electricity given it’s being generated in their doorsteps.

Fundamentally to be cost effective they need to be either high up, miles from anything, or both.

Or near the coast, which opens up many more potential sites.

The lack of a ban on onshore here has recently (last 4-5 years) cleared the last of the loans on my exes uncles farm, and cleared enough extra cash to pay for a fully loaded Taycan.

And to refurbish the two big barns the pigs stay in and a couple of the other buildings.
And paid (cash) for two new tractors and a massive logging machine.

So he’s happy. And retired.

Though, despite owning all that generating capacity, he still has to pay his electricity bills!

Needs to be a balance. There’s plenty of upland areas where they can be sited without destroying the landscape. I live north of Manchester, we already have turbines, big ones, but we have space for a lot more. There were plans but they got blocked. Across the valley behind my house we have two power transmission lines and five very big turbines. I’d happily see more (turbines). The land, although high altitude moorland (1500ft) is brownfield, various mines, coal, stone and others as well as opencast workings wrecked the landscape well before the turbines.

so it’s far more efficient to put huge turbines out at sea, where wind is more consistent, plus the infrastructure is far less environmentally sensitive.

Environmentally it’s got to be a lot worse putting them at sea, way more emissions, more materials needed and any spillage spreads fast. It’s got to be way more difficult to completely remove all traces as well compared to a land based turbine. Plus many locations at sea are highly environmental sensitive.

Land vs sea… a bogus argument anyway. Build both. Fast. Stop looking for more oil and gas.

How much offshore capacity was installed in England or the UK last year?

Only if you ignore the fact it’s practically landlocked.

Ukraine is not landlocked, or anything close to it. Offshore installations would have been vulnerable to attack this past year, but there is a huge chunk of the Black Sea that is Ukrainian territory.

Almost all energy in Scotland in generated from local green sources and yet we pay the highest energy prices in the UK. We could have more local, micro-generation schemes but government policy in Westminster is biased in favour of the big-6 generators plus an energy price pegged to the price of gas. I think more people would be in favour of onshore wind if they were to get a greater share of the benefits like a reduction in their bills.

There is no ban. Current planning law allows any objections to prevent a development. So, one person can stop an entire onshore windfarm. It is a trade off between average windspeed and transmission costs (to consumers). We certainly need to use less energy and really understand the vast quantity even a kettle takes to boil water, for example.

We need them on and offshore, as stated above. Why would you ban them onshore in a climate emergency?

Framing it as onshore vs offshore is counterproductive.

Or near the coast, which opens up many more potential sites.

Yep, look at Portugal, wind farms all along the coast.

I also understand that while very challenging and currently costly, tidal has huge potential.

They’ve been saying that for years, as someone who’s done the study (as in uni course) I’m not holding my breath.

Framing it as onshore vs offshore is counterproductive.

I see that as very simplistic.

It should be:-
Q1 – What is our goal as a nation for MWh of new turbines to construct a year?

Answer – as much as possible and more than we are doing now is clearly the answer, but it’s still a finite amount.

Q2 – where is the very best place to put them once they are built where they can make the biggest impact?

i.e. where is the best place to put a new finite resource? Offshore AND Onshore is missing the point – it’s where that finite resource is best placed. And to me the answer seems offshore – and not in a nimby out of sight out of mind way but a most effective way. Again as I said above, the size of these off shore wind farms takes some getting your head around – one wind farm can easily be the size of the entire Peak District. And the suitable off shore locations is almost limitless. On a clear day I can see Beatrice, Moray East and West (under construction) – it’s pretty mind blowing. And looking at my wind app on my phone today – it’s 4 times the wind speed there right now than it is where I live at 200m above sea level 25 miles away (in pretty much a perfect onshore turbine location). Same most days. Whilst clearly a lot of work to get them out there the process seems to be slick – almost daily you can watch ships leaving Cromarty firth with the jackets. And all the leccy comes in to planned, easy to hook up land hubs – so much easier than a hooking up the 15 or 20 much smaller onshore windfarms it would take to house the equivalent number of turbines. There is an onshore wind farm not too far from me that has planning permission but it is projected to take up to 15 years before the land based infrastructure will be in place to hook it up.

Yep, look at Portugal, wind farms all along the coast.

Check out the community turbine built near Bristol. Largest in England and financed on commercial terms. More please!

I also understand that while very challenging and currently costly, tidal has huge potential.

in a very limited amount of places.

floating offshore wind is the next big thing. opens up all kinds of locations currently not possible.

Ukraine is not landlocked, or anything close to it

It has very little coastline compared to its border.

It has very little coastline compared to its border.

And?

Ukraine covers an area of 603,628 square kilometres (233,062 sq mi), with a coastline of 2,782 kilometres (1,729 mi).

That’s still a decent amount unless I’m very mistaken.

It has very little coastline compared to its border.

Uzbekistan is landlocked.

Bosnia has very little coastline.

But Ukraine is not, by any means, practically landlocked. The port of Odesa was probably founded by ancient Greeks. Its coastline is five times longer than that of our sea-loving, clog-wearing, cheese-eating Dutch friends. Around 5% of all seafarers worldwide are Ukrainian.

Any live in Belgium on here? I’m sure I’ve driven down some motorways there that have turbines sited along the edge of the roads. Seems like a good solution to me as the roads themselves have already cut a big chunk out of any natural beauty in the immediate area, and grid connections etc could be incorporated into the road system?

Belgium is, though, comparatively flat; it’s why Europe used it to hold most of its wars on.

Environmentally it’s got to be a lot worse putting them at sea, way more emissions, more materials needed and any spillage spreads fast. It’s got to be way more difficult to completely remove all traces as well compared to a land based turbine. Plus many locations at sea are highly environmental sensitive.

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? Emissions? More materials? Spillages? What ****ing emissions? They’re bloody wind turbines, there are no emissions, they just go round and round, you don’t get emissions from a sodding windmill! Spillages? Again, what are you talking about? And there are no traces left by a floating platform.
And most of them now are floating, those that aren’t still don’t really leave any significant traces behind once they’re decommissioned – not that any have been around anywhere near long enough to be decommissioned, and it’s only really deep waters which some people want to dredge mine that’s environmentally sensitive, not the North Sea and Doggerland which they’ve been drilling for oil and gas for decades – which is the environmentally sensitive out of the three options mentioned?

The biggest issue with wind turbines is getting ride of the blades once they’re removed from the turbines, but a company in, I believe Sweden, or possibly Denmark, I can’t remember exactly, but it’s come up with a way to recycle the blades, even those that have been buried in landfill, so there’s even less environmental impact from them.

What ****ing emissions? They’re bloody wind turbines, there are no emissions, they just go round and round, you don’t get emissions from a sodding windmill!

Well there’s the embedded emissions in all the extra steelwork plus the shipping needed for ongoing maintenance.

Spillages?

Oils and greases used on the turbine itself. Granted that’s going to be negligible but it’s still a risk if you look at the shipping as well. At sea the risks from spillage are a lot greater, a drop of oil can disperse to a volume of water something like a million times the original volume. That’s a lot harder to control than on land.

And there are no traces left by a floating platform.

They aren’t just left to get on with it, they and the transmission lines are anchored to the sea bed. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Of course land based turbines have significant foundations in often environmentally sensitive areas as well.

@CountZero, there is a significant amount of emissions generated in making all the steel,  composite and concrete materials required to manufacture turbines, certainly when compared to the volume of carbon saved by generating clean electricity over theirlifetime.

Also there’s a sodding massive oil filled gearbox in them which is not immune to leaking into the sea. They also burn down and fall over sometimes.

(30 seconds after waiting 4 hours!)

Its Vestas that have found a way to break down the epoxy in the wings and use it to make new glue.

Thank you both for explaining in detail, I assumed everyone was bright enough to understand my post but obviously CountZ wasn’t without having it explained. This is a major issue with a lot of environmental thinking, it’s not just the operational impact that needs assessing. I think people still see the sea as some great wasteland rather than the rather fragile eco system we’ve over exploited in the last 100 years it actually is.

Ultimately cost of construction is a good indicator of the environmental impact, higher cost equals higher environmental impact, more materials, more transport, more mining more fuel burned more emissions and by products. Onshore is a lot cheaper to build, maintain and decommission. The big question is does the extra electricity from offshore offset all the additional issues?

And most of them now are floating

they really aren’t. Not yet.

We could have more local, micro-generation schemes but government policy in Westminster is biased in favour of the big-6 generators plus an energy price pegged to the price of gas.

And, as I was reading last week, energy storage is now a growing issue. Westminster is sat on things about the new proposed pump storage (yay, more flooded glens) schemes.
We’re also struggling with the grid capacity, and need more local storage on houses etc.

I too have a significant issue with Scotland producing a really significant proportion of UK sustainable energy, yet having highest prices up here, yet the same KW is sold down south for less… 🤷

And I agree with @scotroutes – people will pay to have a turbine in Scotland and a sodding great line of pylons so that thier Oxfordshire village can remain unsullied by such crap.