BS: Onshore windfarms

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: BobL
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 03:37 AM

Excellent answers. The only reason I haven't got solar panels myself is that I calculated the area available would just about provide enough power to run my computers...

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM

"It will ruin everything we've worked for and completely devalue our property"!

"The wind-farm project in Tipperary has created animosity in the community between those who will benefit financially from the wind farm and those who wont"!

That says it all, really!

https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10647103_620925894689093_7772818874430364441_n.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 12:32 AM

BobL: BTW, the calm-weather backup for a wind turbine is a wind turbine in another part of the country. It's always windy somewhere.

Not true. In 2011 and 2012 there were 2 periods, in the middle of winter, of 10 days and 8 days respectively, when the pressure systems had a flat calm over the whole country with virtually no wind-generated power being produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:14 AM

" once they're up and running, and prove their worth, the argument dies, refuted by reality." - Don Firth

Prove their worth?? - No they don't, the best they can hand back from the 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct, install and commission them is 6,000 to 8,000 tons in pay-back in terms of "clean energy" - That by the way Don is the reality.

Waste of time, effort and resources - much better alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:47 AM

Aw, wotthehell! Let's just dump the idea of wind farms, solar panels, huge turbines capturing the power of ocean currents, etc. and do as China does: coal fired power plants!

Cough Wheeze!! Scroll down. And keep scrolling down. Lots of pictures.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM

Thought that the subject of this thread was Onshore Windfarms?

The Kyoto deal that GWB rejected has proven to be a complete and utter waste of time for exactly the reasons that GWB said it would be.

Carbon emissions should be addressed by embracing new technology (In this category Wind Turbines have proved to have been grossly inefficient and unreliable - taking worse figures - you put 41,000 tons in to get 6,000 back -it will never break even let alone go into profit in terms of carbon emissions)

The agreements must include and tie-in the major polluters, namely China and India (Can't quite work out how the second largest economy on the planet can claim to be a third world emerging economy and demand exemptions)

Targets totally unrealistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:04 AM

and do as China does: coal fired power plants!

There are worse and better things in China, such as the Three Gorges Dam, which at 22,500 megawatts is the largest of any single power plant in the world despite being the environmental / human catastrophe it has caused. That aid, I'm still convinced Hydro is the best option, it just has to be approached in a less centralised fashion. Fir example, there are hundreds of dams in the UK not generating any power - all that focussed 100% renewable energy going to waste along with all our sunshine and badly insulated homes.

For this idiocy, what is left of our countryside is being ruined by hideous wind farms.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM

Damn (Ha!) the lack of editing here!

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keef
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM

I've done a bit of tilting at windmills myself.
But that's another story.

I'm not a Luddite, I'm not in the pay of BIG OIL or the fossil fuel industry.
I'm a Greenie, I'm all for protecting our planet and not shitting in our own nest.
It's a proven fact that C02 levels have been rising since the start of the industrial revolution and that the rise is on an exponential upswing.

There might be some room for argument that the link between this and global warming is a complicated equation and not 100% proven but it would be sensible to reduce our use of fossil fuels to avoid the strong possibility of runaway global warming.

HOWEVER....
The claims of Green Energy Purveyors should be subject to rigorous analysis .... in order to make money from investors and taxpayers some of them have been known to be economical with the truth.

Wind power SOUNDS like a good idea.
It should be possible to discuss the downside of them and have a rational debate about the cost/benefit without being yelled at :)

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: mg
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM

I think part of the problem is that engineers are trained to squeeze the most energy out of them sl theh design tem huge. You can get a lot ofenergy out of smaller ones, household ones. Can put them on logged over land, toxic waste sktes etc. Do not need blades..have other designs. Anything is preferable to a war over oil or sending more people to coal mines. Plus we need to burn garbage and sewage for energy in very clean plants..what is happening underground with all those chicken bones and baby diapers and litter boxes..epidemics just waiting to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM

I've not heard any discussion of a proposal/plan to harness the energy produced by the feet tramping through large airports.

As for the lack of wind-produced energy during calm days, isn't stored energy available then?

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keef
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM

Stored Energy is the missing link.
The only reliable and economic method is pumped hydro.
Sadly there are few places left that have the vertical rise and water availability to be harnessed.

I'm off grid myself and use lead acid batteries which come with their own set of problems.
Nothing better has yet come on the market but there are many "leading developers" who assure is that with just a little bit more money and just a few more years their lovely new energy storage technology will be ready.
Naturally they will need enough money to provide them with a Porsche and a yacht plus a mansion or two while they work very hard to save our small blue planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:14 PM

"In the course of its design life a single 3MW wind turbine will supply clean energy to the equivalent of some 6,000 to 7,000 tons of carbon emissions.

The carbon emission cost of installing that turbine and putting it into service amounts to somewhere between 26,000 and 41,000 tons of carbon emissions" (Teribus, 14 Aug14 - 04:34 AM)

You don't cite a source for your figures, Teribus, so I don't know where you got them from, but they didn't sound correct to me, so I performed my own calculation (an energy balance rather than a CO2 balance):

This site indicates that the energy "used" in setting up a 3MW turbine is 4.3GWh including "the energy used during the manufacturing, operation, transport, dismantling/disposal and transmission," so it sounds comparable to your baseline. Assuming it has a 20% power-factor (effectively producing 0.6MW = 3MW x 20% continuously) then it has produced its own "cost" in energy in 4.3GW / 0.6MW hours, or approximately 10 months.

After 10 months, it's all payback!

My figures do not include any energy consumed by the backup generators which, I admit, must be kept continually spinning.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:49 PM

"cost in enery consumption"

"cost in money"

"cost in carbon emissions"



not the same as one another

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: mg
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 05:25 PM

other things to consider...cost of coal mining, cost to breathing coal dust, oil fumes, health of workers. Accidents from high wind towers..should be lower I think. Cost of a war in mideast..we are dangerously close. cost of supporting some people in Africa, etc. when with some energy they produce they could be self-supporting. IMproved agriculture. Improved maternal care with something as simple as lights in delivery rooms. Diverting money now spent on energy to agriculture, health, education. Using up of things that are waste products now..old cars, refrigerator, computers..could be put to good use in third world. Give them the materials and electronics and they will come up with stuff. Ecological effects of clean vs. dirty energy. FInancial effects of transporting your energy vs. producing it on the spot. Massed vs. distributed energy.

Why do we need water falls? They pump the water uphill with pumps when there is excess energy and let it fall when time is right. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:27 AM

Ah Ringer, perhaps you do not comprehend as well as you think you do

Look again very carefully at your 4.3GW that only covers the turbine's manufacture, the turbine's operation, the turbine's transport, the turbine's dismantling/disposal and turbine's transmission. And please note we are only taking their word for it those items do not appear in any breakdown.

Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations.

Any idea the electrical power required in producing one tonne of steel, or one tonne of cement? How about the electrical power required to grind one tonne of rock to one tonne of hardcore?

My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:02 PM

Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations.

The roads could certainly be used again and I expect the platform could as well. Even the tower could potentially be used again when the time comes to replace the parts that have used up their functional life. The 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct would not need to be expended over and over, some of that would be at most a periodic cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM

Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM

Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True?

I am not sure exactly what you mean here.
I do not dispute your premise, wind turbines do have what could be considered hidden costs and those need to be considered when discussing whether or not they are a net plus.
I did not see a link to where you got the 26,000-41000 cost vs 6,000-8,000 benefit. I am wondering if these numbers treat the turbines like disposable razors, use it once then toss it and start the entire process again from the beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:30 PM

"My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms "

Can you provide a cite, Teribus? I'm no advocate of windmills, but I do like scientific rigour.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 11:39 AM

I guess you can't then.