Wind Farms

[Hairy Celt]

As far as tourism, scenery and job prospects are concerned, 25 years is a long time. Indeed, it's one-third of an average person's lifespan. Plus, once the old turbines run out, what guarantee is there that the sites will be restored? There's more probability of them being replaced with new ones, if the old ones weren't abandoned before then.

JACKONE's points, for me, are very valid both for onshore and offshore developments.

there are planning conditions that require site restoration. the operator would need to come up with some reason for not doing so - i can't think of any valid reason. for large sites in scotland, they'd need to persuade the executive too.

the assumption within the industry is that off-shore sites will supercede on-shore within 20 years, and that other renewables will become more viable. the latter depends of course on a committment from the government, which hasn't yet materialised.

[The Penguin]

How efficient is a coal or oil fired powerstation? The figure I have in my mind is a whopping 30% or so.......

The World Energy Council puts the figures at 44% for coal and nearly 60 % for gas. Sorry, I haven't yet found a figure for oil, but even so, at least these sources of generation are predictable.

Edit: spelling mistake, sorry miss.

[I can't believe it's not better]

Max efficiency for a wind turbine (the rotor) is 59.3%, known as Betz's theorem. This assumes no losses, such as friction, electrical and magnetic. Small domestic turbines are something like 25% ish - dunno about the big one's, similar I imagine?

[Hairy Celt]

i don't mean to be picky, but what on earth is the point in quoting efficiency figures to compare hydrocarbon power stations to wind turbines when wind is effectively an infinite resource and hydrocarbons are rapidly disappearing?

[I can't believe it's not better]

None at all, I meant to say that in my post, but went and had dinner instead.

[Pickles]

Talking about efficiency, the current performance based analysis of actual output from wind farms in the UK is 25% of the theoretical maximum. Across the country this varies from 35% in Scotland and the Southwest down to less than 15% elsewhere. Hardly impressive figures, but worse is the fact that the wind farms are intermittent in their supply of power, that is to say, when it’s either not windy enough or too windy for the plant to operate they don’t produce. At all. Not the sort of thing to base a national energy strategy on, is it?

At least with solar power there is some certainty of a source of supply during daylight hours, even when it’s cloudy. And with wave and more especially tidal derived energy production the output is more certain, and continuous, still.

Going on those efficiency figures it means that wind generated energy, even at it's lowest efficiency figure of 15%, is (at worst) the same as the most efficient photovoltaic solar cell.

• Monocrystalline: has a typical efficiency of15 per cent.

• Polycrystalline: has a typical efficiency of around 12 per cent.

• Thin Film: has a typical efficiency of 7 per cent.

Please also consider these costs

Solar photovoltaic panels £4,000 to £9,000 per kilowatt

Wind £2,500 to £5,000 per kilowatt

so why not use wind turbines?

Solar power is dependant on sunlight and you are correct that the sun (as far as we know) will rise each morning and set in the evening but there is no sure thing on the wind blowing, great theory but the wind can blow 24 hours a day, what happens to solar panels in the winter when daylight hours are at their minimum?

Tidal power has a huge potential until the shipping community says the turbines are causing problems for them.

I think the best answer has not even been mentionedon this thread and it is is to plant BILLIONS of potatoes and use them to power cities.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the best answer has not even been mentionedon this thread and it is is to plant BILLIONS of potatoes and use them to power cities.

I always favoured 'Hemp' as a viable biomass fuel, it grows well in our climate, fixes nitrogen in the soils (so it fertilizes as it grows) makes beautifully fine paper (check out the American Constitution) has many pharmaceutical properties and not forgetting that those down wind of the power station would be too stoned to complain about it (in fact house prices my positively respond in the area to the NE of the station!!) :blink: .

[Hairy Celt]

I think the best answer has not even been mentionedon this thread and it is is to plant BILLIONS of potatoes and use them to power cities.

most of britain's already populated by potatoes, gormless couch variety. trouble is they're a drain on resources not a power source.

[Gray-Wolf]

most of britain's already populated by potatoes, gormless couch variety. trouble is they're a drain on resources not a power source.

:blink: :lol: :lol:

[PersianPaladin]

I always favoured 'Hemp' as a viable biomass fuel, it grows well in our climate, fixes nitrogen in the soils (so it fertilizes as it grows) makes beautifully fine paper (check out the American Constitution) has many pharmaceutical properties and not forgetting that those down wind of the power station would be too stoned to complain about it (in fact house prices my positively respond in the area to the NE of the station!!) .

Glad you mentioned it, because I was just going to make a thread about it.

Some more details on biodiesel (courtesy of http://www.hemp4fuel.com: -)

* Is created from soybean, hemp or other vegetable oil or from used cooking oil (there are more than 4 billion gallons of waste cooking oil produced annually in the U.S.; enough to replace 10% of fuel expenditures (Source: Greasecar.com)). It can be made from almost any plant-derived oil.

* Creating biodiesel from plants that are not grown organically could potentially offset the environmental benefits of this new fuel source due to pollution from pesticides/herbicides/insecticides, soil loss, habitat destruction, and/or damage caused by growing genetically-engineered plants.

* Reduces carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (one of the main causes of acid rain), hydrocarbons, benzene, and particulate matter.

* Increases nitrogen oxide levels (unless biodiesel is made from used cooking oil). The biodiesel industry is looking for additives that would reduce nitrogen oxide levels.

* Smells like french fries or popcorn when burned.

* Can safely be blended with petroleum diesel.

* Can be used in any diesel engine with little or no modification to the engine or the fuel system. On pre-1986 vehicles, it may be necessary to replace any rubber fuel hoses that are not made of modern synthetic materials. Before first time use, it is recommended (but not always necessary - depends on age of car) that the fuel tank be flushed to eliminate sediment and scum. The fuel filter should also be changed during initial use (frequency depends on age of car).

* Results in a slight drop in fuel economy.

* Currently costs up to $3.00 a gallon retail in the U.S.

* Can extend the life of diesel engines.

* Is biodegradable.

* Has been used extensively for over 20 years in Europe. France is the largest user in the world.

* Is one of the fastest growing alternative fuels in the U.S.

* Has been extensively tested by government agencies, university researchers and private industry in the United States, Canada and Europe.

* Would create new jobs and increased income for farmers.

* Provides a domestic, renewable energy supply.

* Has been approved by the U.S. EPA as an alternative fuel.

* Is safer to use than petroleum diesel - it has a flash point of 300 F (vs. 125 F for diesel).

* Can also be used as a fuel lubricity additive in diesel fuel.

* Is being actively marketed by at least 13 U.S. companies.

Or is this just a hippy fantasy?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Hippy fantasy. The amount of land required to be taken up to grow sufficient biofuel to power the western world is more than the entire landmass of the planet (or something like that) and all that will happen is poorer countries will start growing biofuel crops for the foreign income at the expense of trying to feed themselves, creating a vast monoculture in the process, causing environmental problems it's designed to reduce.

Way over-simplified, but that's the problem in essence.

[PersianPaladin]

Hippy fantasy. The amount of land required to be taken up to grow sufficient biofuel to power the western world is more than the entire landmass of the planet (or something like that) and all that will happen is poorer countries will start growing biofuel crops for the foreign income at the expense of trying to feed themselves, creating a vast monoculture in the process, causing environmental problems it's designed to reduce.

Way over-simplified, but that's the problem in essence.

Evidence?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I heard it on Countryfile when they were having a debate about it. That's all I know about it. No matter what the figures, imagine the lure of growing a cash crop for the power hungry west and China/India and the problems that would create.

[Pickles]

Surely the answer would be to cut power usage. Simple as that.

It is the best answer to the problem tbh.

As wind generated power only accounts for 0.5% of the total energy requirements of the uk, if people were to install the correct energy controls to their properties, they can reduce their usage by at least 20% therefore reducing the demand for electricity, this in turn would reduce carbon emissions, help the environment, and reduce the price of electricity in the long run.

for anybody wishing to find out more about wind generated power and where new wind farms are planned for, have a look here.

[PersianPaladin]

I heard it on Countryfile when they were having a debate about it. That's all I know about it. No matter what the figures, imagine the lure of growing a cash crop for the power hungry west and China/India and the problems that would create.

Indeed.

Maybe we could power the world by covering 90% of the Sahara Desert with solar panels?

[Mondy]

Surely the answer would be to cut power usage. Simple as that.

You'd thinkso! However, the local Sainsbury's petrol station has thousands of watts of floodlights left on 24 hours a day, p!ssing the energy away into the sky even when the Sun is shining.

Back to windfarms. There's new ones sprouting up all over the place around here. Not content with 36 turbines on the hills behind Doune, there is now a new crop going up on top of the Campsies.

Found this about the Clydebelt: http://www.clydebelt.org.uk/windfarm.html Good to see many objections..

[pyrogaz]

The whole energy issue isn't going to be solved until those who have responsibility for creating policy begin to consider the long-term welfare of the country rather than keeping their options open on nice fat directorship salaries from the oil/energy companies.

We've all felt the effects of high oil and gas prices this year, but you can be certain that this will be insignificant compared to the potential costs in a couple of decades; in many ways you can ignore global warming, the real danger is the next major war will be fought over control of oil and gas to secure affordable supplies. It makes more sense for the UK to invest heavily in nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, biomass, etc, no matter what the aesthetic impact may be on the countryside, to prevent us being drawn into such a conflict as a matter of necessity.

It's worth considering that the government has already indicated an intention to continue maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent; if the only other viable nuclear powers in the world are our allies this sort of implies that the situation may change.........