-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
"Surprise" at Disappointing Windfarm Results (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter delia todd
- Start date
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Surprise?? Really?? Biggest waster of time and money so far.....the only 'greener' power source worth investing in is hydrogen but no-one will do it. Just think, no more need for huge amounts of oil....what a happier place the world would be. Wouldn't need to stick our noses in the Middle East's business anymore either!!
Irish Kite
Well-known member
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Some of us have been hoodwinked - not all.
Check the archive for the Windfarms thread and the Extirpation of Eagles thread.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=27198&highlight=extirpation
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=31406&highlight=extirpation
Helsinki Birder
Stealth Birder
I'm not sure I see the point to this report.
It basically seems to come down to, "when it is not windy, we see a drop in power supply."
We knew that did we not?
It also does some selective statistic analysis. And makes a great deal of assumptions (by their own admission...they may be valid). I would like to see the entire Wind turbine population data. It might improve things a tad, even if only a tad. Or it could drop the averages again.
For example...It displays a table of percentage time against output, with generation above percentage capacity. However it caps that at 30% capacity....Was it at 50% capacity for these periods? Was it at 100%? Why so low?
It does not mention electricity storage either, or rate of distribution to demand.
The basic average figures seem to be that for 5 months out of 2.25 years, there was low winds. 18% of the time period studied.
Broken down as once a week for a period of ~5 hours <20MW capacity
or once every 15 days for a period of ~5 hours <10MW capacity.
I cant seem to find the reference that possibly separates the two, is the 10mw data being included in the 20MW data, or have they banded these as separate time periods? If they are banded as separate time periods it is relevant as it would ad up to ten hours in a forthnight with low production, but if its sneaky stat work, then it could be the same 5 hours in the forthnight or a similar average.
It seems to base this on the stated 30% average capacity value, and then states, well if this is the case, it should produce 30% half of the time and <30 the rest of the time.
But it could produce 90% capacity for a small period and lower capacities at other periods. The first step should have been to obtain the original data upon which the 30% capacity value was obtained.
The percentage drop over the years studied, 2008, 2009 and 2010 could relate to an increase in demand vs. Static production. Is this made clear? Is the increase in demand (if any) graphed or stated anywhere?
Wind power is not perfect. No power source is. But you make the best of what you have! We have wind, waves and hydro in plenty. We need to IMPROVE and innovate these sources, make them more efficient, and develop better technology to store electricity generated at periods of high production, to distribute at periods of low production. As it stands, these electricity sources are only meant to alleviate demand on fossil fuel sources. We knew that too. Because no government is willing to go the whole hog and devote themselves to entirely green production. It would mean abandoning existing, and expensive infrastructure in favour of new sources, still in need of development. They will ride it out until the oil is gone and generate green side projects to satisfy international agreements and CO2 emission standards. (and fail)
Yes we can burn coal, oil and gas with more efficiency, we have been doing it industrially for a couple of hundred years now...but we know there is one doozy of a problem with doing so. CO2.
The time to streamline newer sources of energy generation needs to be given to increase their efficiency.
Do the manufacturers of the various technologies over sell them?
Probably. Do we know any business that does not do this?
Pinch of salt. Common Sense.
Would you rather a coal/oil/gas or Nuclear facility on your doorstep? Or an Rubbish incinerator?
Or would you rather some turbines off shore?
Owen
It basically seems to come down to, "when it is not windy, we see a drop in power supply."
We knew that did we not?
It also does some selective statistic analysis. And makes a great deal of assumptions (by their own admission...they may be valid). I would like to see the entire Wind turbine population data. It might improve things a tad, even if only a tad. Or it could drop the averages again.
For example...It displays a table of percentage time against output, with generation above percentage capacity. However it caps that at 30% capacity....Was it at 50% capacity for these periods? Was it at 100%? Why so low?
It does not mention electricity storage either, or rate of distribution to demand.
The basic average figures seem to be that for 5 months out of 2.25 years, there was low winds. 18% of the time period studied.
Broken down as once a week for a period of ~5 hours <20MW capacity
or once every 15 days for a period of ~5 hours <10MW capacity.
I cant seem to find the reference that possibly separates the two, is the 10mw data being included in the 20MW data, or have they banded these as separate time periods? If they are banded as separate time periods it is relevant as it would ad up to ten hours in a forthnight with low production, but if its sneaky stat work, then it could be the same 5 hours in the forthnight or a similar average.
It seems to base this on the stated 30% average capacity value, and then states, well if this is the case, it should produce 30% half of the time and <30 the rest of the time.
But it could produce 90% capacity for a small period and lower capacities at other periods. The first step should have been to obtain the original data upon which the 30% capacity value was obtained.
The percentage drop over the years studied, 2008, 2009 and 2010 could relate to an increase in demand vs. Static production. Is this made clear? Is the increase in demand (if any) graphed or stated anywhere?
Wind power is not perfect. No power source is. But you make the best of what you have! We have wind, waves and hydro in plenty. We need to IMPROVE and innovate these sources, make them more efficient, and develop better technology to store electricity generated at periods of high production, to distribute at periods of low production. As it stands, these electricity sources are only meant to alleviate demand on fossil fuel sources. We knew that too. Because no government is willing to go the whole hog and devote themselves to entirely green production. It would mean abandoning existing, and expensive infrastructure in favour of new sources, still in need of development. They will ride it out until the oil is gone and generate green side projects to satisfy international agreements and CO2 emission standards. (and fail)
Yes we can burn coal, oil and gas with more efficiency, we have been doing it industrially for a couple of hundred years now...but we know there is one doozy of a problem with doing so. CO2.
The time to streamline newer sources of energy generation needs to be given to increase their efficiency.
Do the manufacturers of the various technologies over sell them?
Probably. Do we know any business that does not do this?
Pinch of salt. Common Sense.
Would you rather a coal/oil/gas or Nuclear facility on your doorstep? Or an Rubbish incinerator?
Or would you rather some turbines off shore?
Owen
Big Phil
Well-known member
Hydrogen is a nice clean fuel, but you need to produce it first...and that's the problem.
As I understand it the only really viable industrial scale methods are to create hydrogen from gas/oil or by electrolysis of water (requiring lots of electricity).
So, to produce green hydrogen you will need green electricity from green sources such as windmills etc...!
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Yes, even post-Fukushima. (Already got one, anyway.)
deborah4
Well-known member
Rather than an advert against nuclear, I would see Fukushima as an advert for it. In comparison to other power sources, especially coal and oil, but also wind, the actual environmental damage/impact on human populations that has arisen from the Fukishima incident is next to nothing.
As I see it, and I respect that many will disagree with me, given this nuclear power station was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes to rock Japan, then struck by the most devastating tsunami in the country's recent history, then I'd say it's a mark of its safety the actual problems to date.
Helsinki Birder
Stealth Birder
Quite True. And as for Fukushima,....things are under control SO FAR. There are ongoing problems, probably played down more than we know about.
It may be years before we see any cancers emerge from the incident.
I would not have a Nuclear facility near me if I had the choice. Ok. The odds of an accident are slim. But when it goes wrong it goes badly wrong.
In an inept country like Ireland it is asking for trouble!
Yes the damage to migrating birds is a concern, but with research there may be a solution. Remember years ago the damage power pylons were doing to birds of prey? All it took was a simple change to the structure of the pylons, widening the distance between the cable supports, so that the birds wingspans were insufficient to form a circuit and be electrocuted.
I think someone will come up with a solution for wind turbines at some point.
Owen
Helsinki Birder
Stealth Birder
I think the only and also by principle the easiest way to solve the energy problem ist to SAVE energy, not to invest Billions in "alternative energy". This system does not work out "alternatively" at all.
But as for the politicians, if they tell their folks not to spend but to save (whatever...) they will surely not be elected...
But as for the politicians, if they tell their folks not to spend but to save (whatever...) they will surely not be elected...
Last edited:
The big trouble with wind power is that it cannot be relied upon until we develop some sort of system of storing the power until we need not having to use it as its being produced. At our present level of technology the only real power for the future is nuclear. There of course drawbacks ( one of them is building in a known active volcanic area is nothing short of madness ) , but the Japanese accident is not a good example of modern nuclear reactors and safety measures. The Japanese reactors were designed on 50 year old technology so cant be compared with modern nuclear technology. It would be like comparing a Ford Cortina mk 1 with a Ford Focus. Both do the same job , but the advances in fuel efficiency , electronics and safety bare little comparison
Perhaps not important, but the upgrade to level 7 does not reflect a worsening of the crisis, but a reappraisal of data.
However, the boundaries of the upper levels of this scale are exceptionally wide and the fact that it now shares the same level as Chernobyl is neither here nor there - it makes nice headlines for newspapers, but still, as even the WHO acknowledges, there is very little public health risk beyond the exclusion zone. Outside the boundaries of the actual plant, no persons have, to date, experienced any sickness or contamination.
In the month that these reactors have been crippled, total injuries amongst plant workers amount to less than two dozen cases of minor radiation sickness. Compare that to the more than 2000-6000 that die in accidents in coal mines every single year in China alone, this statistic not including the many more than will go on to develop chronic illnesses worldwide. Compare it to deaths in the oil industry, compare it to the automatic environmental damage that occurs when forests of turbines go up.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Exactly.
We need real technology for real-life situations and we are not going to go anywhere near meeting our national peak demand of over 60 Gigawatts or even a significant proportion of it by destroying our countryside and what's left of our natural environment with disfiguring monstrosities that are expensive to build, uneconomic to run, add huge sums to our power bills through subsidies to the developers and above all, that do not do what they are supposed to do. They need so much back up for the 75% of the time that they are not producing their rated output that they will not even reduce our carbon emissions.
In the words of the old T shirt slogan; If they are the answer, then it must have been a bloody stupid question in the first place.
Reuven_M
Well-known member
As far as I can tell there are only three power sources we have to generate enough electricity: fossil fuels, hydroelectric and nuclear
Hydro electric is limited in where it can be used, mostly already is in those places, and ruins the life in rivers.
Fossil fuels seem to be destroying the planet...
Nuclear creates a small volume of radioactive waste.
I know which I'd choose.
Hydro electric is limited in where it can be used, mostly already is in those places, and ruins the life in rivers.
Fossil fuels seem to be destroying the planet...
Nuclear creates a small volume of radioactive waste.
I know which I'd choose.
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
I think it's a shame the report (or at least the JMT online summary of it), makes such selective use of statistics to argue the case. I think it does them no favours - by so doing they’re committing the same crime they accuse the wind industry of.
