Wind-Farms, 400 extra turbines. (1 Viewer)

[Barred Wobbler]

I don't think there'll be any public figures available on individual projects. They would be commercially sensitive I'd guess, but on the left column of the Windbytes site that I linked to above there's a link to a very useful site called Gridwatch, which shows live real time output figures for the various types of generation, including metered wind. Embedded wind doesn't show there because it doesn't reach the grid as such. As I'm typing it's showing that wind is producing 2.8 GW, about 7.6% of current demand ( Demand is now 37 GW. Maximum demand in winter can be as high as about 60GW, so that's a modest percentage of a low demand at the moment). It's interesting to look at on days when the wind is low. It often drops to about 1% of demand.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

There's a reasonable breeze blowing today, about 12mph according to the local forecast, so it's not a bad day for wind subsidy production.

 

[pratincol]

I don't think there'll be any public figures available on individual projects. They would be commercially sensitive I'd guess, but on the left column of the Windbytes site that I linked to above there's a link to a very useful site called Gridwatch, which shows live real time output figures for the various types of generation, including metered wind. Embedded wind doesn't show there because it doesn't reach the grid as such. As I'm typing it's showing that wind is producing 2.8 GW, about 7.6% of current demand ( Demand is now 37 GW. Maximum demand in winter can be as high as about 60GW, so that's a modest percentage of a low demand at the moment). It's interesting to look at on days when the wind is low. It often drops to about 1% of demand.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

There's a reasonable breeze blowing today, about 12mph according to the local forecast, so it's not a bad day for wind subsidy production.

Thanks for that!
The figure I find worrying is windfarms only meeting the 1% of demand on poor wind days.
We are going to have to get on building a lot of wind farms at that rate!
Something often thrown back at windfarm sceptics is that if the wind is not blowing in one place it is somewhere else.Your 1% figure would prove otherwise.I can remember many days and even weeks when high pressure has dominated the whole of the UK and there is little wind anywhere.
The other statistic you mention:that turbines only produce 26% of it's nameplate capacity over the course of a year is a real eye -opener too.
When you also say this does NOT include the transmission loss from source to user[30% loss] this makes the figures look even worse.
Deduct a percentage for the many times they have broken down then the output worsens even more!
More fool me:here I was thinking that our local wind farm was powering 6000 homes and it is doing nothing of the sort.
These figures are more revealing than I have ever read about windfarms.I suspected we were being conned-but not to that extent.

Without delving back into the posts on here can someone tell me
1] What is the average life span of a wind turbine?
2] What specifically would cause a wind turbine to stop working?Is there an inherent problem within their designs causing this to happen?
My apologies if anyone has already answered these points but I can't remember them being answered. There might be some wind turbine engineers out there-you never know.

 

[Jimmybirder]

What sickens me is corporations like Google,Apple and IKEA engaging in cynical greenwash via hot air about investing in windpower "cos they care". Just check out one example in Kenya where hundreds of wind turbines are to be planted right in the main flyway of migrating birds in the Rift valley. And that is not the only ugliness associated with this project which Google among others have backed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Turkana_Wind_Power_Station

 

[pratincol]

What sickens me is corporations like Google,Apple and IKEA engaging in cynical greenwash via hot air about investing in windpower "cos they care". Just check out one example in Kenya where hundreds of wind turbines are to be planted right in the main flyway of migrating birds in the Rift valley. And that is not the only ugliness associated with this project which Google among others have backed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Turkana_Wind_Power_Station

Well the green propaganda had me going too!
Looking at the ACTUAL electricity production figures as opposed to the headline 'homes powered' figures then this is a scandalous con.
I hadn't really looked into it before although I guessed they were not all they were made out to be.
No wonder the government is pulling the plug on wind power subsidies from April.
To think our hard earned taxes and money have gone towards these useless windfarms!
Can we have our money back please?
At least they have helped boost the economy.
Just think of all those people who have made a killing:farmers,wind power companies,civil engineers,builders,turbine manufacturers and scrap metal companies recycling the turbines which are already being replaced!
Everyone is a winner!

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Regarding output from wind generation. I've just looked at the Gridwatch figure, updated 5 minutes ago. Demand is 39GW. Wind is producing 1.4GW, 3.6% of demand.

Possibly more of interest to the discussion, the total installed capacity (the 'nameplate capacity' that they use to tell us how many 'homes' they are supplying) is something over 13Gw for the combined onshore and offshore farms.

So at present wind is producing just over 10% of its nameplate capacity. So 90% of the 'homes' are getting zilch.

 

[pratincol]

Regarding output from wind generation. I've just looked at the Gridwatch figure, updated 5 minutes ago. Demand is 39GW. Wind is producing 1.4GW, 3.6% of demand.

Possibly more of interest to the discussion, the total installed capacity (the 'nameplate capacity' that they use to tell us how many 'homes' they are supplying) is something over 13Gw for the combined onshore and offshore farms.

So at present wind is producing just over 10% of its nameplate capacity. So 90% of the 'homes' are getting zilch.

Thanks Barred Warbler.
I hadn't delved into the figures before but vaguely thought we were being duped.
Your postings have certainly opened my eyes and the figures of actual production you have quoted reveal the true output of wind turbines - as opposed to the headline figures we often see in our newspapers, or promoted by the Green lobby.
In the context of electricity production they are truly shocking!

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Just another figure to think about.

All the turbines on land and around our shore combined, something over 6,500 of them were producing 1.4 Gw when I typed that. The output hasn't changed in the 6 hours since then.

The single nuclear power station at Torness has a nameplate capacity of 1.36 GW. It can provide that output constantly while it is generating. It takes up a total of about one tenth of a square mile of land. I've just looked at the size of it on Google Earth. The station takes up 47 acres, so about 7% of a square mile. There is another area of open ground to the east of it between it and the sea of about the same size. The car park is in this area - another 3 acres or so.

The entire power station could sit in the space between four of the thirteen 2MW wind turbines at Lynemouth.

The existing two units at Heysham (1 & 2) have a combined output of 2.4 GW.

 

[Jimmybirder]

Just another figure to think about.

All the turbines on land and around our shore combined, something over 6,500 of them were producing 1.4 Gw when I typed that. The output hasn't changed in the 6 hours since then.

The single nuclear power station at Torness has a nameplate capacity of 1.36 GW. It can provide that output constantly while it is generating. It takes up a total of about one tenth of a square mile of land. I've just looked at the size of it on Google Earth. The station takes up 47 acres, so about 7% of a square mile. There is another area of open ground to the east of it between it and the sea of about the same size. The car park is in this area - another 3 acres or so.

The entire power station could sit in the space between four of the thirteen 2MW wind turbines at Lynemouth.

The existing two units at Heysham (1 & 2) have a combined output of 2.4 GW.

Which highlights the BS from the wind industry and their cheerleaders in the media about wind powering "millions" of homes. These snake-oil sales men have made a lot of money exploiting the ignorance of ordinary people as to the real nature of wind energy on a grid

 

[Barred Wobbler]

It's doing rather well at the moment. 4.6GW and 12% of demand.

EDIT. That was at 10am. At 5pm the position has changed. Demand is up from 39 to 45GW (it usually peaks from 5pm through the early evening), but the wind (and wind generation) has been dropping throughout the day and is forecast to ease more. Output is now only 2.3 GW, 5% of demand and falling.

 

[Nutcracker]

Which highlights the BS from the wind industry ...

What happens when the BS hits the fan [turbines]? 3

 

[Barred Wobbler]

What happens when the BS hits the fan [turbines]? 3

Time for some whitewash

 

[Barred Wobbler]

With an output of only 0.49 GW at the moment, wind is supplying 1.23% of the 40GW demand.

That 0.49Gw is a load factor of less than 4% of the nameplate capacity of the entire wind turbine installation. A typical output in times when high pressure over the UK brings them to a standstill, often for extended periods during frosty spells in winter.

Years ago when there were some very heated discussions about wind generations on Birdforum (look up the 'Extirpation of Eagles' thread for instance), there were those who would deny this, telling us time and again that 'the wind is always blowing somewhere, so when one part of the fleet is static, others are producing. They wouldn't have it any other way. Well here are the figures to show that the wind isn't 'always blowing somewhere'. There was a spell of about 3 weeks in a cold winter a few years ago when the whole country was almost wind-free. I think it was December 2010.

EDIT. Below is an extract from this link.

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/217-low-wind-power-output-2010

'Wind power output is significantly variable and difficult to predict over several timescales, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.

Variability over short time scales has been much discussed, and it is now well known that low wind conditions can prevail at times of peak load over very large areas. For example, at 17.30 on the 7th of December 2010, when the 4th highest United Kingdom load of 60,050 MW was recorded, the UK wind fleet of approximately 5,200 MW was producing about 300 MW (i.e. it had a Load Factor of 5.8%). One of the largest wind farms in the United Kingdom, the 322 MW Whitelee Wind Farm was producing approximately 5 MW (i.e. Load Factor 1.6%).

Load factor in other European countries at exactly this time was also low. The Irish wind fleet was recording a load factor of approximately 18% (261 MW/1,425 MW), Germany 3% (830MW/25,777 MW), and Denmark 4% (142 MW / 3,500 MW).

Such figures confirm theoretical arguments that regardless of the size of the wind fleet the United Kingdom will never be able to reduce its conventional generation fleet below peak load plus a margin of approximately 10%.

They also suggest that while widespread interconnection via the widely discussed European Supergrid, may assist in managing variability, its contribution will not on its own be sufficient to solve the problems, since wind output is approximately synchronised across very large geographical areas.'

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Regarding my post above, where I mentioned the 'Extirpation of Eagles' thread, I did a bit of a search and re-found an old friend. It was running parallel with the Extirpation of Eagles thread for a while, but pre-dated it.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=27198&highlight=wind+farm+eagles

The famous 'Wind Farms' thread. It's over ten years old now (doesn't time fly?), but the arguments remain the same. In the time since then though I do detect a decline in support for wind in the general public as the enormity of the impact and cost of these things sinks in. With regard to the query above about the use of 'homes' as a unit by the wind industry, I notice that on page 7 of that thread I was drawing attention to that very topic in post 156 on 22nd August 2005.

Some things just don't change.

 

[Trystan]

This has been a really interesting thread for me. Certainly easy to see the negatives of wind farms but always wondered if the good outweighed the bad.

From your figures Barred wobbler, it seems apparent that they do not. With the government claiming to reach 20% of demand by renewables by 2020 and an expectation that the UK population will outstrip Germany and France by 2025, it seems that an emphasis on birth control rather than renewable energy might be a better priority to reduce our carbon footprint.

 

[pratincol]

This has been a really interesting thread for me. Certainly easy to see the negatives of wind farms but always wondered if the good outweighed the bad.

From your figures Barred wobbler, it seems apparent that they do not. With the government claiming to reach 20% of demand by renewables by 2020 and an expectation that the UK population will outstrip Germany and France by 2025, it seems that an emphasis on birth control rather than renewable energy might be a better priority to reduce our carbon footprint.

Same here!
I have never really given much thought to the ACTUAL output of wind turbines but I instinctively guessed we were having the wool pulled over our eyes.
Reading this thread however, these poor out- put figures are pretty damning.
You just might accept the ruination of many fine landscapes if they actually did what they said on the tin-but they obviously don't.
Locally we got off relatively lightly.
Kendal lies in the middle of two National Parks,the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District where none have been built.
It didn't stop attempts to erect turbines on the edges however and in some cases the Wind farm companies succeeded ,but not as many as there would have been, had pressure groups like the Friends of the Lake District not protested.
The worst offender is the Old Hutton wind farm which lies in between both National Parks and is visible from either one.
It has only got six turbines but they are an eyesore.
I was talking to a farmer whose farmhouse has been blighted -they are built right behind his house.
He pointed to a woodland he planted many years ago right next to the turbines.He wanted to extend it further but the planners said any extension would ruin the landscape!
You couldn't make it up!
Incidentally his house has not only been devalued but he suffers from the noise[when they are actally goung around!].I have stood there with him and it sounds like six huge washing machines or dishwashers on the go..
Fortunately with the extension of both National parks by 180 square miles and the end of subsidies in April 2016,we can only hope that at least one part of the UK will be spared.
Too late for parts of Scotland though.After an absence for a few years I was astonished on my return, how many wind farms they have built in Galloway,and between Gretna and just beyond Stirling.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.
You never stop learning!

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Still low wind conditions over the country. Wind is generating 0.49 GW at 11 am today, 1.12% of the 42 GW demand.

 

[Richard Klim]

Just another figure to think about.

All the turbines on land and around our shore combined, something over 6,500 of them were producing 1.4 Gw when I typed that. The output hasn't changed in the 6 hours since then.

The single nuclear power station at Torness has a nameplate capacity of 1.36 GW. It can provide that output constantly while it is generating. It takes up a total of about one tenth of a square mile of land. I've just looked at the size of it on Google Earth. The station takes up 47 acres, so about 7% of a square mile. There is another area of open ground to the east of it between it and the sea of about the same size. The car park is in this area - another 3 acres or so.

The entire power station could sit in the space between four of the thirteen 2MW wind turbines at Lynemouth.

The existing two units at Heysham (1 & 2) have a combined output of 2.4 GW.

Only just dipped in to this thread (and admittedly haven't read it all!). But, as an (ex-)physicist, this post by BW sums it up for me, irrespective of potential impacts on birds. I'll now dip out again...

 

[lewis20126]

Yes, we should be building new gen Nuclear but not at £92.50 per MWh. That price is madness.

The last labour government was negligent for not moving faster, as they were with almost all major infrastructure.

cheers, alan

 

[Barred Wobbler]

You're right Alan. That price is madness. The strike price for conventional generation, including existing nuclear is about £55/MWh IIRC.

But consider an even greater madness. Onshore wind is paid twice the normal rate for generation and like offshore wind it is ring-fenced. It takes preference over the other more economic forms of generation for distribution to the grid. The strike price paid for onshore wind is c £100/MWh

An even greater madness still is that offshore wind is guaranteed an even higher price - three times the going rate for conventional generation, c £155/MWh.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2277939/breaking-renewable-energy-strike-prices-unveiled

And we wonder why our industry is being priced out of the market because of high energy costs.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

The lull continues.

11.40 am 4th Nov; Demand 41.6 GW, Wind 0.39 GW, 0.94% of demand.