"Toy" Wind Turbines

[Flyfisher]

If you want the details the Renewable Energy Foundation has published monthy generation figures for all 181 UK windfarms, from which I am pleased to learn that the windfarm I can see from my bedroom window gave a load factor of 35.8% last year.

One Swaffham turbine near me seems to be running at an average of about 26.5%.

The Ecotech one (1500Kw), also Swaffham, one seems to be about 24%

Probably because they are inland I guess.

What I don't understand is why only these two are listed as there must be about 10 in Swaffham in total.

 

[MdB]

The farm of 15 a mile from here only works at a load factor of 21%. I would have thought it was quite a good site, its inland but on the top of the only high ground around here and being in Cornwall there isn't anything stopping the wind from the Atlantic. Maybe they put in too highly rated systems..

 

[biffvernon]

There is clearly a lot of variation between windfarms with some being pretty unproductive, but the data do not reveal the reasons. For the early years of any technology one should expect teething problems, the Blythe Harbour turbine not connected to the grid being the extreme case.

But the data do support the industry claim that a 30% load factor is a reasonable expectation for new windfarms across the UK with a good deal more in favourable locations.

Load factor is only one, and arguably not very important measure. EROI - the energy return on energy invested, is perhaps more important. For a modern large wind turbine the energy payback time is less than six months. For a new nuclear plant it would not break even on energy terms for over six years of operation (and that after an even longer period of building).

It's a similar story with solar pv. A lot of attention is given to the 'efficiency', how much of the sunlight is converted to electricity, when what really counts is how much power you get for your investment. T'lad is currently organising the roll out of solar powered mobile phone networks across about 20 African nations where solar pv is the most economical way of providing a secure power system.

 

[wobs]

Load factor is only one, and arguably not very important measure. EROI - the energy return on energy invested, is perhaps more important. For a modern large wind turbine the energy payback time is less than six months. For a new nuclear plant it would not break even on energy terms for over six years of operation (and that after an even longer period of building).

Ahem, six years is a much disputed figure.

See here, for a source not linked with the industry:
"So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. Normalized to 1 GigaWatt electrical capacity, the energy required to construct and decommission the plant, which amounts to 4 Peta-Joules (PJ), which is repaid in 1.5 months. The energy required to dispose of the waste is also 4 PJ and repaid in 1.5 months. In total this is less than 0.8% of the all the electrical energy produced by the plant."

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power

Note the 40 years.
How long do wind turbines last? 20-25years? You might also want to bare in mind that Denmark has had to replace many turbines early owing to unforeseen wear in offshore operation.

So, nuclear runs for about 40years, has a payback of between 5months and your 6years. (Probably at the lower end owing to more modern simpler reactor design)

But we're digressing. Wind and nuclear are not comparable anyway as they provide different types of supply. We need both.

Its just a shame that the best wind resources aren't near the largest demands for energy in the UK.

 

[wobs]

the Renewable Energy Foundation[/url] has published monthy generation figures for all 181 UK windfarms, from which I am pleased to learn that the windfarm I can see from my bedroom window gave a load factor of 35.8% last year.

Now, what was the problem, Wobs?

Biff old chap, I don't want to have to repeat myself. I've already shown you examples of dishonesty in the wind industry, and 27% is still below 30%. The increase from 24 to 27% has been largely to the new wind farms in Scotland and offshore. This increase in average has not altered the return you'll get else where, where it is less than ideal, which they are still doing.

From the BBC:
"Many developments achieve under 20%; the lowest recorded by Ofgem in 2006 were 3.3% and 7.6%. "
""If you take an area from Lincolnshire down through East Anglia into Essex, across to Hertfordshire and up the central spine of England, there are only five schemes achieving load factors of 30% or more," says Mr Jefferson. "
""That's just five out of 25. We should be putting our money where the wind is and that is quite often not where the development pressure is. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6970209.stm

I've come across serious dishonesty, and at one point plain corruption.

But let me repeat one bit: I'm not against wind turbines. Scotland and Cornwall has some great resource, and they're building some near here. Great stuff. But there is a limit to what we should sensibly build, both in terms of grid stability, and environmental impact. And as I said, you run into diminsihing returns the more you build, in terms of CO2 reduction.

I might also add that Eon are building wind turbines (eg. near the Humber), but also building a coal power station as well. I read this on a BBC page for my area, which also had a headline link "Worn-out slippers replaced free"! Marvellous!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If you want the details the Renewable Energy Foundation has published monthy generation figures for all 181 UK windfarms, from which I am pleased to learn that the windfarm I can see from my bedroom window gave a load factor of 35.8% last year.

One Swaffham turbine near me seems to be running at an average of about 26.5%.

The Ecotech one (1500Kw), also Swaffham, one seems to be about 24%

Probably because they are inland I guess.

What I don't understand is why only these two are listed as there must be about 10 in Swaffham in total.

Because the list is of commercial windfarm installations, not domestic ("toy") ones?

 

[wobs]

Speaking of toy wind turbines, these hardly ever spin:

Hull Arc

 

[Flyfisher]

Because the list is of commercial windfarm installations, not domestic ("toy") ones?

These are just outside Swaffham on the road to Watton.
I wouldn't call them 'toys' and if they're not commercial then they are a hell of a big domestic set up :wink:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Because the list is of commercial windfarm installations, not domestic ("toy") ones?

These are just outside Swaffham on the road to Watton.
I wouldn't call them 'toys' and if they're not commercial then they are a hell of a big domestic set up :wink:

That one's on the list as North Pickenham Wind Farm, I think

 

[Flyfisher]

That probably explains it then. I know they are fairly new so that also ties in with there being no %LF figures on the list as yet. Thanks.

 

[biffvernon]

Its just a shame that the best wind resources aren't near the largest demands for energy in the UK.

And that's not much of a problem either. For sure some extra infrastructure in terms of transmission lines needs to be built, but line losses are not as big as some folk imagine - less than 7% on the existing AC grid and when we build a Europe wide DC supergrid to import solar generated power from North Africa line losses will be insignificant. The new Chinese DC line loses less than 1% over 2000 miles.

 

[biffvernon]

Wind and nuclear are not comparable

Too right, one's a problem, t'other's a solution.
Still not read The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy then?

And now, hot off the bloggsphere, is a timely piece from t'lad

Nuclear Britain

Nuclear Britain

 

[wobs]

Wind and nuclear are not comparable

Too right, one's a problem, t'other's a solution.

I was hoping for a more intelligent answer from you Biff. Especially given the problems with wind energy, which I'll get onto later.

Still not read The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy then?

Read it some ago, and was dismayed that Greenpeace's lack of honesty was catching. What the report fails to mention (unless I missed something), is that prospecting for uranium has hardly occurred for decades, owing to the low and consistent demand for existing reserves. Concepts that the anti nuke lobby always forget (read Ultimate Resource II). It also forgets to mention that improvements in extraction and fuel production techniques have only improved.

Its interesting however that the author feels the need to put up cartoons of bicycles to prop up their point. Shame it lacks substance.

And now, hot off the bloggsphere, is a timely piece from t'lad

Nuclear Britain

Nuclear Britain

Which is why we need to start building new ones now. Infact many have been calling for new builds for a number of years, but has fallen on deaf ears. We saw this coming given our dash for gas, and the limited reserves we had of that. The Greenpeaces of this world are part of the problem by blocking new builds with legal campaigns.

The truth is that the energy from nuclear provide its energy direct to the grid without the need for back up 24/7. Wind power of course requires back up 24/7. It hasn't prevented the building of any fossil power stations in the UK, and nor is it likely to.

http://www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/Whiteco2.pdf
"Thus, the CO2 saving from the use of wind in the UK is probably much less than assumed by Government advisors, who correctly believe that wind could displace some capacity and save some CO2, but have not acknowledged the emissions impact of matching both demand and wind output simultaneously. As a result, current policy appears to have been framed as if CO2 emissions savings are guaranteed by the introduction of wind-power, and that wind power has no concomitant difficulties or costs.
This is not the case."

Just because we see turbines spinning in the wind, does not mean they are saving CO2. They require spinning back up, variations in wind speed result in power stations ramping up and down their ouput, which produces more CO2.

Indeed, lies such as:
" Professor Ekins committed himself to the view that:
Every 1 kWh of electricity from wind will substitute for 1 kWh generated from other sources." Doesn't help the wind industry on bit.

The anti-nuke lobby always complain that nuclear isn't carbon free, that the ore extraction through to the decommissioning has a carbon cost, but then neglect to mention the equivilent issues with wind power. They don't mention the instability that wind power brings to a power grid, the required back up, the difficulty in calculating the CO2 saved. Or the fact that the majority of wind blows when we don't need it.

Also, most CO2 calculations for wind are assumed to be coal sourced energy, which produces the most CO2. However, the UK has a more complicated arrangement, as we also have gas and nuclear, so the saving is another order of magnitude lower.

With an aim of 10% supply from renenwables, it poses some serious challenges to keep the lights from going out. Lessons from mainland Europe has shown us that high dependance on wind can bring about risks from brown outs and problems of where to send excess energy in times of high wind. Denmark sends much of its excess energy to Norway/Sweden, where hydro electric plants are ramped down. Not much CO2 saving there. The rest goes to Germany, which also has an abundance of wind turbines (and less wind). Infact there has been times of high winds where Denamrk has been unable to send its excess to Germany for that very reason.

However, this also neglects the cost. Wind energy (especially off shore) isn't particularly cheap, and maintenance costs aren't that cheap either, given the amount of energy they produce.

Also, the wind doesn't always blow:

"The often-stated view that the wind will be blowing somewhere at all times, or that probability theory can be applied in determining the UK’s generating capacity, does not address the fact of widespread total calm. Our land-mass is not large, and an anticyclone can easily cover the whole country, and these conditions tend to coincide with periods of high demand due to extreme cold and extreme heat.
E.ON Netz writes in its Wind Report 2004:"

The truth is that as an island, we can't easily off load excess energy like Denamrk can, and we'd need additional lines to France in times of low wind levels. Using their nuclear energy, now there would be an irony.

when we build a Europe wide DC supergrid to import solar generated power from North Africa line losses will be insignificant.

Thank you for the laugh this brought me. It tickles me everytime I read the wiki article on it. One of the rationals of this idea is that we reduce the amount of oil imported from polictally unstable regions. So where are we to take energy from? N.Africa! Nice one! That won't become polictially unstable if we import energy from them at all will it!?

It will still require us to import energy from France's nuclear plants of course, but lets ignore that eh?

 

[biffvernon]

As Chris's article shows, the plan to build four nukes before 2020 will not fill the power gap - by a long way.

Your anti-wind rant, Wobs, is, of course, largely nonsense.

 

[wobs]

As Chris's article shows, the plan to build four nukes before 2020 will not fill the power gap - by a long way.

Your anti-wind rant, Wobs, is, of course, largely nonsense.

Nuclear energy is a long term low carbon, large scale solution to our growing energy demands. There aren't alternatives that actually work to the standard that the population require.

Wind energy can only nibble at the edges of our energy demand, and not prevent a single power station being built. What will you propose when we reach the limit that the grid can cope with? Which, given the rate at which they are being built could come sooner rather than later.

I think they look great, welcome any in my area, but at the same time, we need to limit their numbers carefully. Here's why:

"E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur. The report was sponsored by the German government and all sides of the industry. Among bombshells contained inside, the study suggests that while wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity.

The evidence also shows a mismatch of supply and demand. High pressure weather systems bring cold winters and hot summers which unfortunately coincide with low wind levels. These meteorological realities mean that wind makes its maximum contribution when demand is lowest and its minimum contribution when demand is highest. In 2004, wind accounted for 20 percent of total electricity production in Denmark but supplied only 6 percent of consumption, because it produced a surplus at periods of lowest demand. What's more, 84 percent of Danish wind-generated electricity was exported to Norway, and sold at a loss for Denmark. Furthermore, the Norwegian electricity system uses carbon free hydro power, so the effect of carbon reductions realised in power produced by windmills was nullified.

Also, because of this variability in wind, back-up fossil fuel plants must be operated at low load to maintain system reliability. There is new evidence that shows that switching base load fossil fuel plants on and off to balance a system produces higher carbon emissions than continuous operation, certainly not a supposed benefit from switching to renewable energy sources."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/wind/power/prweb420633.htm

Interesting last paragraph as well:
"ABS Energy Research’s report does not relegate wind power to the dustbin. But it does show how essential proper analysis is to establish what renewable energy can and cannot deliver and how it must be accommodated within a total electricity generation system. Objective analysis is essential. Nearly every one of the points described in the study has been labelled a “myth” by a lobby group. "

As an island, we have less options than Denmark, and have to be far more careful in how we install wind energy on a large scale, as is proposed.

 

[Moo]

What about hydro-electric, Wobs? China seems to think it's a good thing.

 

[Penners]

variations in wind speed result in power stations ramping up and down their ouput, which produces more CO2.

I don't understand that. But then there's a great deal in this whole debate that I don't understand.

To a simpleton like me it would seem that, if there's a good blow going on and the wind turbines are all spinning away merrily, other carbon-based power stations can have their volume turned down - thus producing less CO2.

Why isn't that the case?

 

[Flyfisher]

A bit like driving a car, perhaps, where a steady 56 mph (or whatever) will usually return a much lower fuel consumption than if you keep stopping and starting? Now scale up the car to supertanker proportions to equate to a power station.
(only a guess though).

Also, once 'run down' most big power stations cannot (I believe) get up to full power very quickly, so if the wind suddenly drops there is a power shortage and the consequent power cuts, hence the importance of base-load with stuff like hydro cutting in to assist (pretty quickly) with peaks (or, import our peak demand with France's excess nuclear electrickery).

A friend used to work for the CEGB (which dates both him and me!) and he has told me how they would switch in additional generators to cope with the load demand. But, of course, there had to be sufficient steam on tap to be able to instantly run up those turbines . . . so I can see wobs point about reducing the load with wind turbines not necessarily reducing CO2, proportionally anyway. Hmm.

 

[biffvernon]

It's funny how people who are not in the industry can find all sorts of reasons why wind-power won't work, while those whose business it is, know how to make it work. Yes, I read that German report when it first came out. It has been much criticised and is not regarded as a useful contribution.

Of course nobody suggests relying 100% on any one renewable energy source, grids will get bigger with more international connections and a variety of storage technologies are available and will become a significant part of any system. Frankly, wind variability is just not an issue.

What is an issue is our ability to meet electricity demand during the next ten years. Planning nuclear power stations for the 2020s will divert capital and human resources and not prevent the lights going out before any new nuclear capacity can possibly be made available.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's funny how people who are not in the industry can find all sorts of reasons why wind-power won't work, while those whose business it is, know how to make it work. Yes, I read that German report when it first came out. It has been much criticised and is not regarded as a useful contribution.

Alternatively:

It's funny how people who are in the industry and therefore have a vested interest are convinced they know how to make wind power solve our energy problems, while those not in the industry are more willing to take a wider view and acknowledge that there are some serious concerns. The pro-wind lobby's response to the German report has been much criticised and is not regarded as a useful contribution.

Of course, both statements are useless for helping to understand the issues.

Wobs' post deserves a more considered response than simple dismissal as nonsense but the standard of debate here seems to quickly descend to condescension or abuse.