[Closed] Windfarms - yes or no?

Sometimes

As a part of a mix of solutions yes. Its not the only answer but they are part of the answer

Install closer to the end user would be a better idea. The Cambridge NIMBYS didn't like that idea though.

yes but then they are building a great big one off the coast at gunfleet sand and are using the port where i live and are bring a shed load of cash in to the local area so not going to say no

Offshore is the sensible option, onshores generally only produce around only ~15% of their rated output, and although one looks nice, a hillside smattered with them looks bloody aweful. I think the location needs careful consideration - IMO farmers fields on flat ground are a fine location from a looks point of view but useless from a generation point of view, so they have to stand on picturesque hillsides where people previously ventured to get away from the hustle and bustle of man-made life.

Off shore yes, in the mountains, well i'm not sure...

they are more than welcome to put one in my back yard as long as they fill in all the planning forms.

I like wind farms from an eco side and from an industrial design side

....... not very effective on a day without wind

As a minor part of an overall plan yes.

Currently I prefer tidal (more reliable - possibly), however have seen so many (contradictory) statistics that I now no longer believe anything.

Keep Nuclear as it actually works.

Also interested in building regs type aproach - ie better insusualtion, compulsary solar roofs etc etc

Solar panels are questionable - the amount of energy and chemicals used to make them isnt great, certainly not with normal incident light as the energy production takes 10+ years just to pay back the carbon used in manufacture IIRC, concentrated to a few hundred suns makes them far more viable, butimpossible to put on your house roof.
And in the UK? The efficacy of them goes lower and lower. We had some 80w panels on our roof here in scotland and their output throughout the year was negligible - talking <5w unless it was a clear-sky day.

solar panels of the type that heat water are fine - even in Scotland they work. Photovoltaics are not - the embedded energy and polution from making them is too great for the return

Context dependant. But I'm not anti-turbine. I'm glad they built one on the Mendip because people need to get used to the look of them and we needs some realistic idea of the cost/benefits.

Cooling towers seem ridiculous- Combine heat and power

Flaring also looks stupid

Transmission losses of electricity are surprisingly high so localising generation near users is good (e.g. a nuclear pile near London makes sense to me).

An infrstructure supporting fixing the energy at source and transporting it efficiently to the end user (hydrogen cells?), using the cells to fuel the transport.

Tidal - yes but some mitigation for the landscape and ecology changes must go with it IMO

Finding was of sponsoring reduced consuption - a Joule saved is a Joule earned.

Basically, we have to do the lot.

Efficiency is king. Insulate, insulate and err airtight etc etc.
If you are in Scotland, micro hydro is a massively undeveloped and huuuuge potential - capital payback is 3-5 years, maintenance minimal, more reliable energy production etc etc.

Onshore wind - sometimes...

yes

No - too ugly for anywhere but at sea

Nuclear & coal with some off-shore turbines [as a gesture] is the way we'll be going, which is fine by me

If you are in Scotland, micro hydro is a massively undeveloped and huuuuge potential - capital payback is 3-5 years, maintenance minimal, more reliable energy production etc etc.

Boy would I love a house with micro hydro capabilities, unfortunately I cant find a house thats affordable let alone has a water supply 🙂

TJ - you mention water heating panels work in scotland, I'd like to see some tests done on that - I dont doubt it but I'd assume you needed a fairly large array to give any form of payback?

Apparently, they take 10 years to produce the amount of energy it took to make them in the first place so I'd have to say NO.

Wind turbines? i've seen 'em 😀

[img] [/img]

Video:
[url] http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg70/AK350Z/Random%20Pics/?action=view&current=MVI_2162.flv [/url]

I can't understand people who think wind turbines look ugly. i think they look beautiful both physically and for what they represent. To see these tall, slender, graceful structures with their slowly-turning pure-white wings is only made better by the thought that they represent responsable and clean energy production.

but it remains the fact that nuclear energy is the way to go. for the energy produced versus the amount of energy to build and the amount of waste produced, nuclear is leaps and bounds ahead of any other method. all we need now is controllable nuclear fusion....

Done the connections for a few in my time (puffs chest, draws breath , prepares to spout nonsense).

Once again I'm agreeing (generally at least) with MattO&A.

Onshore, properly designed and in the right place windfarms have a load factor of around 20-30%.
Flat farmland can be an excellent place to put them 'cos there's no hills to get in the way of the wind (same as offshore, if one thinks about it).
A mix of sources is always best.
And even better is not to use it in the first place; as the man says - insulate. Also turn your central heating down (17C is plenty, I grew up with 14C) and put a vest (baselayer to you) on if you're cold

A little O/T but in the ballpark:

The "book" within this site is free for download and also available via Amazon. It seems to cover a number of angles - i have only dipped into it so far.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

think too intrusive in the wrong place and may well be there for a few decades when technology will have moved on or should have moved on

there is a proposal to build 5 410ft high turbines on the ridge above Stocksbridge, north of Sheffield and across from Langsett facing the moors
so if you don't want to see these as you descend Cut Gate towards Langsett Barnsley Council Planning Application 2008/1667 is I think still open for comment

(to compare Blackpool Tower is just over 500ft high)

That quoted height will be to the tip of the vertical blade, not the hub, so in reality they won't seem *quite* that tall.

Antigee - there's already a windfarm above langsett, I think it looks fine from cut gate. Don't forget you can also see the woodhead road, and in the distance, emley
Moor transmitter and several coal power stations in west and north Yorkshire...

TJ - you mention water heating panels work in scotland, I'd like to see some tests done on that - I dont doubt it but I'd assume you needed a fairly large array to give any form of payback?

Not really - 5 panels provide enough hot water for 6 people in the summer and top up to 30 degrees on a grey day in the winter. You can see them here (well you cant actually but they are the 5 conservatory roof panels) It was a new build. Savings may have been nulled a bit by modern build quality of the boiler though!!

[img] [/img]

Windfarms - yes or no?

Definately, but preferably out at sea.

I read recently that the amount of CO2 released when upland peat/boggy areas is dug into to erect wind turbines, negates the CO2 saved by using this as a renewable source of power.

Unless the cost comes down considerably, there won't be any more wind farms for a while.

Offshore wind is more effective than onshore 37% efficient and generating 85% of the time IIRC.

Still all our projects are currently shelved until the cost comes down or the ROC goes up

Where about at Dunkeld geoffj I haven't seen anything in the local press
Personally I hate the things if they want to build them they should put them in the cities that need the power not all over hill sides miles from population centres

No idea about pros/cons of their use, however I do know a lot of people whinge about them being an eyesor on the landscape however I disagree. I find them very relaxing and cool to look at. Look at the ones at Afan as you ride past ... brill! would be happy if I had to look at them from my back/front garden.

there's already a windfarm above langsett, I think it looks fine from cut gate. Don't forget you can also see the woodhead road, and in the distance, emley
Moor transmitter and several coal power stations in west and north Yorkshire...

it looks fine because it is small scale
the woodhead road is visually intrusive and at some points runs less than a metre from people's front doors - a ban on HGV's so they have to use the M62 would make sense
as to Emley Moor and the power stations - my point exactly - once they are there - that is it no turning back

No

beinbhan - logiealmond, 10km west of Dunkeld, west of Little Glenshee

They are beautiful, as are many other things humans built - emley moor transmitter, ribblehead viaduct, the millau gorge bridge, and so on.

Something has gone wrong in our culture when so many people are afraid to build anything.

Yep. Would see lots of jobs created in the North East of England.

Thanks geoffj

They are beautiful, as are many other things humans built

Wind = heavily subsidised and not particularly effective.

The answer is nuclear sited right in the centre of the cities that want the power.

utterly unconvinced - government soft option imo.

>They are beautiful, as are many other things humans built<

Yeah, in context perhaps but they have intruded far enough into the Scottish Highlands for example

Absolutely no.

If you think they are beautiful, please campaign for them in your own areas, your own backyards. But don't forget that you don't only build 'graceful' turbines, you build the infrastructure to get transport to and from the sites, you fence off areas of open moorland, you clear areas of trees, you destroy areas of heathland and mountain landscape, you most definitely intrude on areas of natural beauty. Not to mention potential damage to archaeological sites and wildlife.

The area around Afan is completely ringed with planning applications for turbines to the extent that the locals at Glyncorrwg are worried about losing the tourist trade ie you. Their valley has been raped once by outside developers, now it is going to happen again.

If I ride to my highest point on my local ride, I can see the ones over at Afan. If nPower get their way, I'll see 19 more, 127m tall, sitting to the north of Swansea at Mynydd y Gwair. There is a plan for an offshore windfarm to the southeast. If I ride a little to the north I can see a windfarm over to east. There are other applications to the west of Swansea as well.

These things aren't built to provide jobs, or cheap power, they are built to reap the subsidies, and the companies that do it stick their fingers up at local communities.

A quote from nPower relating to the Mynydd y Gwair windfarm:

Taking into account periods of low winds, very high winds and time for maintenance work, the Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm would generate enough clean electricity each year to supply the average needs of about 28,000 homes. This clean electricity would make a significant contribution towards the amount of renewable energy generated in South Wales.

So a windfarm which will be visible for around 20 - 30 miles will supply the energy needs of approximately 12% of the Swansea urban area. Better build some more then guys..

After all we have enough wilderness in the UK that we can just wreck whats left.

For wind energy and combined wind/hydo schemes yes. But on a sensible scale and only combined with reduction and increased efficiency of energy production/distribution/use etc.

Siting however is a real problem for me, even though as a designer I believe they can be of aesthetic value. 'Wind farms' inevitably alter the 'sense of place' where they are sited in a way that other human/non-human interactions do not (due to scale in time and space), and this can be problematic. Of course, nowhere is truly 'natural' and true wilderness scarcely exists (if it ever did). That doesn't mean these are empty concepts. Seemingly remote, relatively untouched and wild places remain important (perhaps even more so as they appear more scarce than ever) to many, and the introduction of wind turbines to some sites would fundamentally alter their aesthetic character to the point that they lose their meaning and value to us, and more importantly, in a manner that cannot be redressed by future generations.

Basically, as humans we have the uniquely privileged position of being able to alter the environment in this way. In many areas however, 'wind farms' alter the qualities of an area so dramatically that the place itself is changed irrevocably. Why we should site wind turbines in remote upland areas for largely short-term economic and political reasons in order to simultaneously 'tick the box' for sustainability whilst failing to address entirely vacuous political and social attitude towards energy consumption is entirely flawed is beyond me.

Personally, I would love to propose the designation of all waste land, land alongside infrastructure (motorway/railway embankments, centre of roundabouts, landfills, brownfield...) for compulsory energy generation projects (turbines, short rotation willow/poplar coppices etc as appropriate), urban situated waste-fuelled combined heat and power plants, and some proper building regulations and incentives for improving efficiency in both domestic and non-domestic buildings (rather than the badly thought out nonsense that passes for building regs currently). This might at least force the problem of energy generation and consumption into people's faces, rather than tuck it away out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

Oh - are we doing this one again already?

Build more. Offshore would be better. Lots of wind up in the North of Scotland, so to minimise transmission losses, we should be moving jobs and people there too.

So I take it all of you people who moan about the way they look are also going out and chaining yourselves to trees wherever someone wants to build or widen a road? 😉

I don't see how the tourist trade at Afan is going to be affected by more wind farms. As for "reaping the subsidies", can you explain exactly how the power companies get more money than it costs to build and run the things?

Oh - are we doing this one again already?

Build more. Offshore would be better. Lots of wind up in the North of Scotland, so to minimise transmission losses, we should be moving jobs and people there too.

Out of interest, what would happen if we all had a small one on the roofs of our houses? Like...a decent enough sized one. Anyone have any idea what impact that would have on our bills etc? I can't see how it would affect the urban landscape too much...tv aerials are ugly enough anyway.

Just throwing that one in there to the mix...I'm not sure as I don't really know enough about the returns/efficiencies/paybacks etc.

deadlydarcy, plenty of people who live in remote and windy areas have been doing this for 30 years or more with success, although it's generally not thought to be that efficient for various reasons (some real-world advocates would argue otherwise). As for putting it on your roof- if you had anything capable of generating any meaningful output it'd destroy the structure of the building fairly quickly or the vibrations would drive you insane. Easiest solution is to design them independent of the building where they can also be situated to optimise their performance. That's not to say it can't be done, some interesting attempts recently proposed in various schemes abroad, but retrofitting them would be risky business.

if you had anything capable of generating any meaningful output it'd destroy the structure of the building fairly quickly or the vibrations would drive you insane

Ah right, good point. I realise people in remote areas have been doing it for years, just wondered y'know, about the prospect of doing it in an urban area. I suppose the bottom of my garden might be an idea. A bit on the pricey side I guess....would I be able to rig something up with a few scaffolding poles and a propeller I picked up from eBay?

Might be fun to try but I wouldn't spend much on it or hold my breath... Urban wind generation is tricky at the best of times due to turbulence caused by buildings even a seemingly reasonable distance away. You might need to chop down nearby trees and demolish your neighbour's house(although then you could build a dedicated storage unit there). Forced eviction and demolition of the street could be justified if you dislike them too?

Shame the budget had only £525m for offshore wind development. That's maybe what one opffshore wind farm would cost to develop. And not a particularly big one.

Right now, all my work is on renewable energy projects (wind and biomass mainly), so naturally from a self interest POV, I like them.

They are not the sole solution and, as many have alluded to, offshore is a good option from a "living wit them" POV (though, of course, the grid connection, consenting and environmental work (not to mention oeration issues) do make them a much more costly option).

Follow the Crown Estate's recdent release of the third round (Round 3, natch) of seabed for offshore windfarms - the succesful developers of the zones will have been selected in around the autumn. Of course, these projects are a way off being built and operational (the planning and environmental work is unbelieveably complex) - we're still waiting for all of the ROund 1 and Round 2 projects to get going.

Vattenfall are a big developer, so will realy only go for a site where they consider real value wilbe derived. That said, given their recent overpayment in a certain acquisition, I'm surprised they're out there spending more cash right now....

As for "reaping the subsidies", can you explain exactly how the power companies get more money than it costs to build and run the things?

Or to put it another way - why would the power companies expend that amount of money just to power 28,000 homes?

Another solution to this would be to persuade everyone to stop using quite so much electricity. Turn appliances off overnight. Force businesses to turn their lights off when nobody is there. (Where I work for instance there are approximately 1000 people. The vast majority leave their PCs on overnight as it takes so long to start them up next day.) Do we really need the front of Specsavers to be lit up all night, for example? Why are most cities still using appallingly wasteful street lighting? Sort out even some of those and we wouldn't need this discussion.

The location should be very carefully considered - generally I do not have a problem with them, but when I was driving along Bondmin Moor a couple of weeks ago, there were a series of them to either side of the road. As any peripheral movement attracts the eye, I actually found it very difficult to concentrate on the road as my attention was continually being drawn to the blades spinning around.

They look beautiful though. I can see a few in the distance on the North Yorkshire Dales from my house and sometimes, on a cloudy/overcast day they can be lit up by shafts of sunlight and look really cool.

can see a few in the distance on the North Yorkshire Dales from my house and sometimes, on a cloudy/overcast day they can be lit up by shafts of sunlight and look really cool.

I do agree about this, but I'm worried about the fact that where I live is literally surrounded by planning applications for these.

I think they are best as a personal supplimental source of power rather than a cover the countryside method, in case nobody has pointed it out the wind doesn't blow all the time seen plenty of them not moving.

I do agree about this, but I'm worried about the fact that where I live is literally surrounded by planning applications for these.

No

If it came to having a wind farm near my house or a nuclear plant, i would go for the wind farm any day.
Nuclear is just a quick fix IMO. They cost a fortune to build and run. Dont last that long and take about 150years to decommission at a cost to the tax payer.
Nuclear is a big NO.
Hydro is another option?
I was up at fort william the other week and they have hydro electricity running the aluminium works. According to a local guy, the hydro power plant is only running at 1/3 capacity and the national grid dont want the other 2/3rds as it will effect there profit margin as its cheap energy.

I love wind turbines and I’m totally fascinated by their big sweeping arms. We stayed up at Carron Valley a couple of weeks ago and there were 11 wind turbines on the hill opposite the cottage we stayed in – I was compelled to trudge across the moor in a howling gale to get up close to them. I think they’re beautiful structures.

They’re building a massive (140 turbines) wind farm on the Eaglesham Moor which is just outside Glasgow and about 8 miles from where I live. Scottish Power are also building a visitor centre, and developing cycling/walking/horse riding trails in the forest. There was very little there before, apart from few fire roads.

But where they are places does require careful consideration – in the cairngorms, no, on a moor on the outskirts of Glasgow then yes. I would also thought off-shore would make more sense as it’s generally windier at sea and it’s generally not spoiling anyone’s view. And it's not the only solution.

If it came to having a wind farm near my house or a nuclear plant, i would go for the wind farm any day.

Why not? They have their benefits...
[img] [/img]

Gary_M - Member

They’re building a massive (140 turbines) wind farm on the Eaglesham Moor which is just outside Glasgow and about 8 miles from where I live. Scottish Power are also building a visitor centre, and developing cycling/walking/horse riding trails in the forest. There was very little there before, apart from few fire roads.

I've wondered why there isn't more joint development of this sort. After all, if they're gonna have to build access roads up to the top of a hill, the least they could do is put in a little singletrack back down again.....

Another solution to this would be to persuade everyone to stop using quite so much electricity. Turn appliances off overnight. Force businesses to turn their lights off when nobody is there. (Where I work for instance there are approximately 1000 people. The vast majority leave their PCs on overnight as it takes so long to start them up next day.)

One problem with that is the word "force" - what does this mean exactly?

Another is, there might well be good reasons why for example PCs are left on overnight in offices, virus scans and network backups for example. High electricity prices might convince IT managers to think of ways around this, and low power laptops replacing desktops will help. But where I work many machines are doing proper work all night, not just the servers but people's desktop machines are used overnight to build and test our software. Lights being on in offices might just mean people are working late, and if they are all on late at night the cleaners are in.

But the big problem is that, if everyone just does a little, the net result is... little. Talk of turning off mobile phone chargers etc. is hugely to miss the point - if I walk or cycle to work just one day a year it saves the same amount of energy as leaving all my ipods, phones, wifi, computer etc. turned on for how long exactly? (answer - probably longer than you think).

Talking of leaving the lights on, what really, really bugs me is this new 'need' to light up the exterior of every ****ing buildings in Glasgow city centre. Do we really need to light up 1970's architectural gems for all the world to see.

Right, here is the plan:-

Build a f***** great big fusion reactor somewhere in UK. Reverse power all the wind turbines as motors. Wind up the fans to full power pointed east and either sail the UK to somewhere nice or just Pi** off a load of Europeoples with 150mph wind.......

http://www.penycymoeddwindfarm.info/welcome/the_project.html

This is the website for Nuon, who are trying to build 'approximately' 100 turbines above Glyncorrwg, basically stretching from the Wall trail area, up as far as Aberdare, crossing the area of the Whites and Skyline trails.

Nothing is said about how that will affect the trails but judging by the map they will be affected in some way.

Not a local issue for me but this is the website for Lewis POwer who want to build 181 turbines on the Isle of Lewis:

http://www.lewiswind.com/projectcentre/stats.php

These are just two proposals that I know of, there are a lot more around.

They’re building a massive (140 turbines) wind farm on the Eaglesham Moor which is just outside Glasgow and about 8 miles from where I live. Scottish Power are also building a visitor centre, and developing cycling/walking/horse riding trails in the forest. There was very little there before, apart from few fire roads.

I was up there on a ride yesterday. It's awe inspiring when you're standing right underneath one as it's spinning. the sheer size of them is breathtaking.

So a windfarm which will be visible for around 20 - 30 miles will supply the energy needs of approximately 12% of the Swansea urban area.

I quite like the way one, or even a few look. I'm a lot less keen on huge swathes of them spoiling the natural landscape.

Shame the budget had only £525m for offshore wind development.

Really not sure why nuclear is being brought into this debate - I'd suggest those doing so have a very poor understanding of the potential of wind generation. It's not an either/or - wind can't supply the base load nuclear can. The choice is between nuclear or lots more conventional stations.

Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, I'm a no (even if they were all built in or near London).

aracer - Member

> Shame the budget had only £525m for offshore wind development.

Why does it need more? Oh sorry, I'm forgetting they only make sense with massive subsidies.

And by how much have we / are we / will we subsidise nuclear? If a fraction of the cost of nuclear had been spent on alternative technologies (wind / wave etc), we'd be self-sufficient already.

I think they are good as part or a range of provision including nuclear, clean coal (if the scientists can crack that particular nut), hydro, tidal and perhaps even bio mass / rubbish incineration. The bit about using less is also key.

Why is electric cheaper the more you use (and gas too)? Surely that is subsidising people with big houses, not enough jumpers and too idle to turn off lights and stuff. This is no incentive to use less is it?

If a fraction of the cost of nuclear had been spent on alternative technologies (wind / wave etc), we'd be self-sufficient already.

Oh, and also a complete load of rubbish - assuming by self-sufficient you mean relying just on renewables.

Big fan of Emley Moor mast (aesthetically) especially compared to Holme Moss. Don't have a problem with the wind farm above Langsett, in fact I think they look pretty good. At the same time I love getting to the top of Cut Gate and looking South (or walking up to Grinah Stones) because bar aircraft overhead you can't see or hear any evidence of civilisation - not many places you can do that in England.

Don't forget wind farms are reversible - [i]if[/i] nuclear fusion becomes a reality we'll be able to take down all the windmills one day and restore the views / ecology which [i]may[/i] have been spoiled. If fusion does not become a reality, we're going to need a lot more windmills some where. And tidal generators. And biomass biolers. And Waste-to-Energy plants. And everything we can.

'Don't forget wind farms are reversible '

Only in the sense that every industrial unit is reversible. They still need foundations, cabling etc. Do you really believe that these companies will leave no remains if they move on?

(The copper works behind my house was reversible - it was built somewhere around 1840 and is still there, slowly falling down. Despite not having been used for many, many years. Need I carry on?)

Well if you think wind turbines are ugly, what do you think about irreversible climate change??

BoardinBob are there any new tracks up there yet? I haven't been up for a few months and I went in via the dead end road at Waterside onto one of the main spine roads. Did you go in via the Eaglesham road or onto the fire road at Carrot. I went over the moor on a road ride yesterday and noticed the visitor centre is coming on.

Well if you think wind turbines are ugly, what do you think about irreversible climate change??

So its turbines or climate change?

Well that simplifies that rather complicated argument then.

Thanks.

I would add that wind turbines are a better visual manifestation of the quantity of energy we use.

That's why they upset people. 100MW of Coal Station covers a relatively small area. 100MW of wind farm is bigger. Instead of bitching about it, maybe we shouldn't have got used to using so much?

Instead of bitching about it, maybe we shouldn't have got used to using so much?

see my post above.....

Yes I agree.
As long as we can just plug something into the wall and it works, whether it's a 1Watt phone charger or a 2500Watt heater, then nobody will have a clue as to what they consume.

I would add that wind turbines are a better visual manifestation of the quantity of energy we use.

That's why they upset people. 100MW of Coal Station covers a relatively small area. 100MW of wind farm is bigger.

Well if you don't like it you could just get rid of all your electrical appliances?

Just looked out of my office here in southern Sweden and I counted 4 windmills turning with little wind (I can see far more when it is not so hazy) and one decommissioned nuclear power plant. That is in a built up area a to tell you the truth you can hardly hear them when you cycle under them. The power station will be radioactive for quiet a few thousand years I believe when the windmill can be taken down quite quickly. Coming from the country side I can see why the townies who have paid top wack for a quite get away in the country would not want them built but do we really want to listen to them. Governments like Nuclear as it seems to be a big box that solves all the problems. A lot can happen in a few thousand years but most people are too stupid to think about that.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark ]danish windfarms[/url]

While wind power accounts for almost 20% of the power generated in Denmark, it covers only 10–14% of the country's demand. Power in excess of immediate demand is exported to Germany, Norway, and Sweden. The latter two have considerable hydropower resources, which can rapidly reduce their generation whenever wind farms are generating surplus power, saving water for later. In effect, this is a cheap way for northern Europe to store wind power until it is needed — an opportunity which is not generally available for wind power generators.[13][14]