Wind farms (1 Viewer)

[Gus Horsley]

Here in Cornwall we've got wind farms all over the place but I've noticed that, even when it's windy, a lot of the blades aren't turning. They've been here for a few years now and are obviously knackered. A guy I know is contracted to do the repairs and he can't keep up with the breakdowns. In addition his company charges a small fortune. That in itself can't be energy-efficient can it? It's all these hidden costs that the government sweep under the carpet in order to make it appear that we're doing something to help save the planet.

Now there's a proposal to construct a tidal barrage in the county (site to be confirmed) to generate electricity. I wonder what the hidden costs for that will be?

Gus

Getting cynical again.

 

[Hindolbittern]

Here in Cornwall we've got wind farms all over the place but I've noticed that, even when it's windy, a lot of the blades aren't turning. They've been here for a few years now and are obviously knackered. A guy I know is contracted to do the repairs and he can't keep up with the breakdowns. In addition his company charges a small fortune. That in itself can't be energy-efficient can it? It's all these hidden costs that the government sweep under the carpet in order to make it appear that we're doing something to help save the planet.

Now there's a proposal to construct a tidal barrage in the county (site to be confirmed) to generate electricity. I wonder what the hidden costs for that will be?

Gus

Getting cynical again.

Swaffham 1 was hit on the blade by lightning earlier this week. The repair chaps were brought over from Germany.

HB

 

[CornishExile]

Yes CE this technology is very interesting.Particularly so since it is being considered on Unst because of the difficulties of transmitting wind electricity to the Grid from such a remote site.

"A recent study compiled by Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd has shown the net load factor output recorded from the five existing commercial wind turbines in Shetland to be over 50%. This makes the wind resource in Shetland among the best in Europe if not the world, but its intermittent and unpredictable nature means that it requires a significant amount of load management and energy storage in order to provide a dependable energy supply. The limitations of the isolated Shetland electricity network mean that the Distribution and Network Operator cannot accommodate any more firm connections from renewable sources. This has meant that for the foreseeable future, any renewable energy projects within Shetland must either be developed as an off-grid system, or must incorporate a substantial amount of storage to provide a guaranteed supply."

Certainly, this allows the "electricity" to be stored thus removing the problem of intermittency when transfering it to the Grid.The commentaries I have seen on Hydrogen from Wind highlight the need to significantly reduce the costs of transporting it before wind-powered hydrogen can be a major source of distributed transport fuel. But even at the local level it may well make economic sense-lets hope so. I notice that the Turbines are 3 X 15KW-which is pretty small. Do you know what the requirement would be for a system to serve Shetland?-and what the environmental impact would be?

Cheers
Colin

There's a 600MW windfarm on its way here in the not too distant future, and it's anticipated we'll be linked to the grid to export electricity to the mainland. Failing that, there's clearly plenty of potential to generate hydrogen from such a mighty wind resource once the technology and infrastructure are proven and in place.

Windfarms in Shetland

ce

 

[Tyke]

Thanks CE-that's impressive-must be min. 200 turbines?

Shetland has certainly been blessed-25 years of oil, and now this. If 50% loading is anywhere near correct the Shetlanders are going to make a lot of loot-assuming the interconnector is built. Is the estimate in your # 14 still correct? £245m is big figure-guess you have saved a bob or two from the black stuff .

It's a hell of a long way for my electricity to come-must be a thousand miles from Lerwick to Helston-hope there's a bit left when it gets here!

To be honest none of this makes too much sense to me & I incline to the views expressed in your posts #5 & #7, (and certainly hope the "mincing" will be minimal.) I still think it's a gold rush & pretty unconnected to saving the planet-but who wouldn't want a slice?

Good luck to you all up there

Colin

 

[Mark Duchamp]

Here in Cornwall we've got wind farms all over the place but I've noticed that, even when it's windy, a lot of the blades aren't turning. They've been here for a few years now and are obviously knackered. A guy I know is contracted to do the repairs and he can't keep up with the breakdowns. In addition his company charges a small fortune. That in itself can't be energy-efficient can it?
Gus

Once the turbines are in place, much of the money is made anyway from tax breaks and other perks. Whether the contraptions work or not is not essential. A recent report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee says: Payments to some wind farm operators are twice the level required for viability (see Tyke's post of yesterday).

We shall regret having marred the countryside with all that junk before long.
Did you know that a cyclone smashed 129 turbines to the ground in India? see this webpage that records windpower accidents:
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Downloads/Accidents - June 30 2005.pdf - see item 48

Mark

 

[Gus Horsley]

It's depressing isn't it when governments can hoodwink the general public by appearing to adopt environmental policies and then accuse those who have a grasp of the real issues of being spoilsports. Talk about head-in-the-sand politics!

Maybe we should cover the countryside with nuclear reactors instead. Now there's a scary thought. And one our government might readily embrace...

Gus

 

[CornishExile]

Thanks CE-that's impressive-must be min. 200 turbines?

Shetland has certainly been blessed-25 years of oil, and now this. If 50% loading is anywhere near correct the Shetlanders are going to make a lot of loot-assuming the interconnector is built. Is the estimate in your # 14 still correct? £245m is big figure-guess you have saved a bob or two from the black stuff .

It's a hell of a long way for my electricity to come-must be a thousand miles from Lerwick to Helston-hope there's a bit left when it gets here!

To be honest none of this makes too much sense to me & I incline to the views expressed in your posts #5 & #7, (and certainly hope the "mincing" will be minimal.) I still think it's a gold rush & pretty unconnected to saving the planet-but who wouldn't want a slice?

Good luck to you all up there

Colin

I believe it'll be in excess of 200 turbines involved. A study last year for HIE estimated Shetland alone could produce over 3000MW p/a from assorted renewables, and Orkney 4000MW p/a from tidal in the Pentland Firth.

Aquatera study

Combined, that'd be in excess of 50% of Scotland's energy requirements. Rather a poke in the eye for those who claim renewables will never contribute significantly to our energy demands and environmental commitments. Of course, those who deny global warming won't find that cuts much ice (hoho, nice metaphor).

Being more pragmatic, just the 600MW Shetland windfarm alone is estimated to have a significant contribution to make:

"A 600 Mw windfarm in Shetland (based on a very prudent 45% load factor) would
produce 2,365 Gwh of electricity. This would be enough to fulfil the domestic needs of more than 1.2 million people, or around 22% of Scotland’s population. This is equivalent to 6.6% of the UK’s 2010 renewable energy target and would result in an annual saving of over 2 million tonnes of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere."
source : http://www.shetland.gov.uk/news-advice/precodev0607.asp

Worth pursuing, no?

ce

 

[Stewart J.]

Found the following news story which may be of interest:

Quote:-

Fears that the planning process would cause the UK to miss it's targets of 3,000 wind turbines by 2010 have been eased by news that the Ministry of Defence has dropped its objections to building wind farms in a wide area of Southern Scotland.

Half of all potential windfarms never reach the planning stage because of objections by MOD, which has successfully argued that large turbines pose a danger to sensitive equipment like radars and seismc sensors.

The military installation at Eskdalemuir near Lockerbie is home to a seismic array that monitors the comprhensive nuclear test ban treaty. The MOD posed an 80km exclusion zone around Eskdalemuir in 2004 arguing that tubines within the zone would send damaging vibrations into the ground that could interfere with sensitive seismic sensors needed to monitor illicit nuclear explosions in distant parts of the world.

These excusion zones meant the UK was deprived of nearly 40% of its potential wind generating capacity from onshore wind farms.

However the good news for the wind energy lobby is tempered by the fact that there are even more objections raised by MOD and national Air traffic Services over radar interference because of possible disruption to civil/military monitoring and air traffic control.

Planning applications are also scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Met Office. Among the problems for air safety are turbine blades showing up on air traffic control screens and radar shadows caused by turbines which hide aircraft from detection by radar.

Article goes on a bit further stating research and development is taking place into interaction between blades and radar and looking into the development of stealth turbine blades. Sorry there isn't a link I can find for those interested.


Stewart

 

[Tyke]

Hi CE-interesting stuff-just a few thoughts come to mind :-

"A 600 Mw windfarm in Shetland (based on a very prudent 45% load factor) would
produce 2,365 Gwh of electricity. This would be enough to fulfil the domestic needs of more than 1.2 million people"

You missed a bit-but if you're using wind industry stats you would-because they always miss it out ........more than 1.2 million people for 3 days per week, conventional fossil fuels providing for the other 4 days per week provided the Grid can cope.[/COLOR]


"This is equivalent to 6.6% of the UK’s 2010 renewable energy target and would result in an annual saving of over 2 million tonnes of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere."

Wow-that's a big number . But it's meaningless without a bench mark isn't it?-which they never give.
Lets see-UK Electricity output 41.4GW-UK target for renewables by 2010 10%-ie 4140MW. Shetlands wind factory 600MW @ 45% loading=270MW generated...which equals 6.5%of the UK target-checks out.
In UK electricity generation produces 21% of our total CO2 emissions...so Shetland will save 6.5% times 10% times 21% of UK's CO2 emissions:-

which is............0.13 %

which is fine by me- provided any adverse environmental impact is of the same magnitude-you didn't answer my query on this CE-will the 600MW of turbines have any adverse impact on this ? :-

http://www.fatbirder.com/links_geo/europe/scotland_shetland.html


"Worth pursuing, no?"

Well if you're a resident of Shetland the answer must be yes . Let's have a go at some numbers.

Output from 600MW @ 45% loading =270MW-or 6480MWhrs per day.
So in a year that's 2,365,000 MWhrs.

Revenue- Electricity at wholesale priceof say £30MWhr X2.37m MWhrs pa...
thats £71 million per annum...mmmm.
Musn't forget the subsidy-Market value of the ROC say £70 MWhr x2.37 MWhrs pa...thats £166 million per annum-thats a bit better...so

TOTAL REVENUE-£237 million per annum.

Cost of building the wind factory-lets be conservative and use DTI's figure for offshore-Shetland's pretty remote....£1.25 million per MW installed...

So thats 600 X £1.25 millon, which is £750 million.

So with an interest rate of say 5%pa- pay back time....3.5 years!!! ( would have been 15 years without the subsidy-phew! )
After which SSE & the 22000 Shetlanders share a quarter of a billion pounds each year for the next 20 or 25 years.( am I close or way out?)

Yes I think that's "worth pursuing"-particularly if I lived on Shetland-the richest local authority in Britain. But they did lose a fair chunk of their oil revenues on the old Stock Exchange didn't they?-how much was it again-£100million or so.Still as long as you have enough left in the kitty to pay for the interconnector to the mainland Grid-things are looking up I'd say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/recession/story/0,7369,757052,00.html

Of course you should "pursue it"-you'd be mad not to.....just please don't say it's to save CO2, or stop global warming etc.etc.

Cheers
Colin

 

[Stewart J.]

Questions asked in our local paper on how can these windfarms be financially viable, picture it, you are a north Pennine landowner, plenty of wild windswept hills, graze a few sheep (a few for those of the belief we are overun) run a grouse shoot in season to help pay the bills. Someone comes along and offers to build say a 20 turbine windfarm on one of your hilltops and offers to pay you £5000 to £10,000 a YEAR for EACH turbine you allow them to build at no cost to you, thats serious income for which you don't have to do a thing. Is it taxable?

Various surveys etc all agree these things are at best 20% efficient, so how do they make any money?? Government grants, taxpayers and us consumers no doubt?

Wonder if I can buy some windswept hilltop, wouldn't ever have to work again?

Stewart

 

[Mark Duchamp]

Money versus birds.

Money versus landscape.

Money versus wild spaces, the love of the land, quality of life for future generations...

Local people, I know it, rarely appreciate the gem they have in their hands. But tourists do, especially that segment interested in "remote tourism", "eco tourism", birdwatching etc. And that segment is on the increase as commonplace tourist destinations become saturated. In the not too distant future, mainstream tourists will come to grow tired of wind turbines, as they will be everywhere. Places that will have kept free of the obtrusive giants will then reap the profits of having preferred to save the landscape, the birds, and the character of their surroundings.

And there is something special about islands. That "something" attracts tourists but also holiday homes and retirement cottages. Windfarms will kill that.

Goodbye Shetlands!

Mark

 

[CornishExile]

Of course you should "pursue it"-you'd be mad not to.....just please don't say it's to save CO2, or stop global warming etc.etc.

Cheers
Colin

Hi Col,

Just a quick note as I'm knackered and off to bed in a mo'. I don't think any of the parties involved would claim this development was entirely altruistic - at the end of the day, it's all about ensuring a safe and viable financial future for one of the most remote and peripheral communities in Europe. Believe me, if Shetland doesn't look out for itself, nobody else will - certainly not the government or Europe. I personally like the idea that this might also contribute something towards addressing the UK or Scotland's CO2 targets, but of course it's all about money - as you rightly say, building such a large installation won't be cheap, and significant investments are as ever only made if there's the prospect of significant returns.

Will address your other points another time mate. Sleep now!

CE

 

[Tyke]

Hi CE

I need to revise those numbers:-

The cost of the 600MW scheme is forecast at £500 million ( not £750m)

ROC's are traded & have a market value-currently £50 MWhr ( not a fixed £70MWh)

SO:-
Income 600x45%=270MW day=6480MWhrs day x 365=2,365,000 MWhrs pa
times Wholesale electricity price (£30 MWhr) plus ROC ( £50MWhr)=£80MWhr-

which comes to £189 million pounds per annum.

Capital cost-£500 million

Pay back @ 5% pa interest-3YEARS

After which the power company & the Shetlanders share £189 million per annum.

Cheers
Colin

 

[Tyke]

Someone comes along and offers to pay you £5000 to £10,000 a YEAR for EACH turbine you allow them to build at no cost to you, thats serious income for which you don't have to do a thing. Various surveys etc all agree these things are at best 20% efficient, so how do they make any money?? Government grants, taxpayers and us consumers no doubt?

Wonder if I can buy some windswept hilltop, wouldn't ever have to work again?

Stewart

Hi Stewart-maybe this helps :-

Cost of a 22MW onshore UK wind farm -£15million. ( per Renewable Energy Systems).

Output from this plant at 20% loading=22 x 20% x 24hrs x 365 days=38500 MWhrs per annum.

Value of a MWhr-wholesale electricity price PLUS ROC ( subsidy)=say £80MWhr.

Annual income 38500 x £80, which is £3 million pa.

This will pay back the investment in 5years, after which those (say) 10 2.2MW turbines are pulling in £300,000 per annum each.

plenty of scope for a few quid to the farmer-it's petty cash.

Cheers
Colin

 

[Tyke]

Questions asked in our local paper
Stewart

Hi Stewart
I wondered if the recent Public Accounts Committee Report on renewables had reached the Northumbrian press. It puts the financial aspect into perspective :-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmpubacc/413/41302.htm

Here's a commentary

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10566&channel=0

Just a further thought on the bribes to your local farmers. In view of the PA Committee report & the numbers I tried to analyse on this thread, they might consider demanding at least double whatever is offered!
They should also bear in mind, that since the "subsidy" element ( ROC) of the wind farm's income is actually passed into electricity bills, part of the money they are receiving is their own anyway..and yours, and mine.

Colin

 

[Mark Duchamp]

Water contamination

HERE ARE SOME REVEALING QUOTES FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR A WINDFARM IN SCOTLAND - Muaitheabhal/Eishken project - Appendix 3.2 - see: www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/LEWIS/EISHKEN_EAGLE_KILLER.doc

"7.57. A pollution incident during construction could have an impact of major magnitude on the water quality of the surface and ground waters of the area, potentially irrevocably damaging the ecology."

"10. During the upgrading works a number of potential pollutants may be present on site, including oil, fuels, chemicals, unset cement and concrete. Any pollution incident occurring on the site may detrimentally affect the water quality of the nearby surface waters and groundwater. Where there are fisheries and water supply interests this may have a significant impact."

"11. Similarly there is likely to be ground disturbance during the upgrading works, which may prompt soil erosion and sediment generation. Sediment transport in the surrounding watercourses and lochans may result in high turbidity levels which will impact on the ecology, fisheries interests and water supplies."

MY COMMENTS:

What is more, pollution is not limited to the construction phase. Contaminants will be used throughout the life of the farm: lubricants for the turbines, cooling oil for the transformers, cleaning liquids for the blades (dead insects form a paste that reduces performance). In addition, underground cables between turbines need to be oil-cooled, and leaks are possible.

There will be periodical oil changes for the turbines, involving about 400 litres for each of them. Accidental spills are bound to happen, and maybe some not-so-accidental ones as well.

Many such incidents will go unreported, but in Germany 5 are already on record:

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Downloads/Accidents - June 30 2005.pdf scroll down to these items:

- 111: oil leaks into ground - specialist firm called to clean up
- 171: oil leaks into ground - ongoing for a month
- 177: turbine destroyed by storm, oil spilled in protected area for drinking water supply
- 180: oil leaking into ground
- 186: 160 litres of oil leak in protected area for drinking water supply

Item 177 is interesting in that there have been many such crashes around the world. And as lubricating oil is stored in each nacelle (about 400 litres for 2 Mw models), the oil is spilled.

This website maintains a list of accidents:

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData_June2005.htm

Reviewing the accidents individually, we find the collapse of 129 turbines in a cyclone in India:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Downloads/Accidents - June 30 2005.pdf scroll down to item 48

More on this subject here:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1457

Mark

 

[Edward woodwood]

you're on loser bringing up 'pollution' from wind turbines. Not much pollution from burning fossil fuels or from nuclear energy eh Mark? Never mind the potential of accidents in the nuclear industry

you do make some good arguments now and again but you have to pick them or it looks like a blanket obession against wind farms...

Tim

 

[alcedo.atthis]

"you do make some good arguments now and again but you have to pick them"

Reminds me of your stance, and the old saying about Potties calling the Kettle Black Tim. How's the stress levels at present. Kids, don't you just love teaching them!!

Regards

Malky

 

[Edward woodwood]

but Malky i don't deny the downside of wind turbines killing birds. Mark is so blinkered against wind farms he often dredges up silly points like the pollution one above.

I don't get stressed teaching Malky. How can kids stress you out? Only place i get stressed is when dealing with folks who won't accept global warming is real. Creationists don't stress me cos their opinion has no effect on how we live. I hate the idea of people with a concern for the environment though getting the idea on here that GW is not happening etc... someone needs to put forward the view of the vast majority of the world's scientists because it IS an important situation

another hurricane now, more powerful than the last 'freak' one, Katrina. Mmmmmm....

Tim

 

[level seven]

Only place i get stressed is when dealing with folks who won't accept global warming is real.

I hope you haven't just been watching Channel 4 News then because there was a guy on there, head of some US Global Warming agency, who conceded global warming was happening and affected by human activity, but maintained it was a good thing. I'd imagine that view might cause you more stress than global warming denial!