enhanced by
Bookmark:
Why Why Why Why Why Why does the SE not actively promote micro-generation?Get Scots homes, especially those of us in more rural/remote areas, to fit a small turbine and photo-voltaic panels.Then householders can generate their own power. This would remove the controversy surrounding large windfarms, reduce waste (due to the transmission losses incurred with such large farms), any excess these individual households create can be fed onto the grid via existing connections to the houses, and this would leave leave the main-stay of the remaining power available for those in less rural areas.All that is required is for micro-generation to be subsidised (made attractive and viable enough) and new rural homes should be encouraged (not bullied) into installing these systems from day 1.Why is this never discussed?Have I overlooked something apart from the blinkered approach of those who are supposed to be working for us?
Will we ever learn that the first, most important and vital requirement is to stop the blatant waste of energy. Lights blazing throughout the night in every city is just one sample.Energy saving methods are known, talked about, and ignored as we dash for quick fixes of turbines wrecking the environment. "What a good boy am I?" syndrome of the politicians as they point to these monstrosities is electioneering at its worst. Future generations will look back and wonder at this generation with the disbeleif which we have looking at massive shale bings,coal bings, lands laid to waste for ever. Economy and ecology have got to be in better balance than the promotion of one at the expense of the other. The answer is not blowing in the wind.
Yes, you are right Richard.It is time that house builders incorporated energy efficient and energy producing technology in new builds. Solar pannels and other micro generation would reduce the requirements from the grid.This should not just be limited to rural areas but should be accross the nation.At the moment Scotland exports energy to England and is producing more than enough to meet consumer demand. The current discussion and persuasion about the "need " for more nuclear power is very worrying. Nuclear power is the most dangerous in production and in "safe storage" of waste. At least windmills can be dismantled without such a severe threat to the future generations. Of course it would benefit the South if the Scots would have the nuclear facilites and storage issues, well away from "civilisation".
Energy conservation, micro generation, base load production and renewable energy production should be fully integrated but it seems that it is too complicated. So we design TV sets and other boxes with a standby and pay a huge amount for energy saving light bulbs. I am thinking of insulating my attic with another 6" of glass wool. I would get a grant if I were over 60 but not at age 54. I would like a wind turbine in my garden but I have to get planning permission first. I cant get a grant for the installation because the supplier of the turbine I want isnt on the approved list. Even with a grant the cost of the approved turbines is a lot more. As far base load production both Torness and both Hunterston power stations have an excellent safety record. The alternative is burning fossil fuels with more C02 loading.
I am worried that we will end up with a row of wind turbines on the skyline of the lammermuir hills from the North Sea right into the Moorfoot Hills. And what happens on a day when there is no wind? If all these wind turbines top turning then we are up the creek without any baseload generation to pick up the slack.
Why, why, why, do so many people fall for the sustainable energy hype about wind turbines. The claims about capacity are simply not borne out in practice. This is an extract from the Toronto Star, from another country sold on wind.
"Let's take Ontario during the month of July. Last Thursday, for example, the output of the province's three operational wind farms, which at full output can produce 207 megawatts, only generated between 4 and 42 megawatts depending on the hour.
For most of the day last Friday, output was below 10 megawatts, working out to less than 5 per cent of "nameplate" capacity. So far this month the typical range is between 35 megawatts to 75 megawatts, with a top output of 157 megawatts achieved during a single hour.
This is part of the reason why power planning authorities, when factoring in the contribution that wind makes to the grid, only assume that an average of about 10 per cent of theoretical output will make it to the grid during peak times."
Such environmental destruction for so little return and the historical record shows quite clearly that there is not a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
Current temperature improvements did not happen until 1988, as a result of El Nino activity, for 40 years previously, temperatures were in decline during the period of major CO2 increase. These are verifiable facts, not computer models.
The excitement over the recent hot weather ignores the very many heat waves recorded in history, such as 1540, when the Rhine and the Seine dried up after a 7 month heat wave, and not a whiff of exhaust fumes to be found.
The wind power companies are really effective in the misinformation and propaganda they produce. Their environmental impact assessments are a scientific and technical travisty. They would be rejected by as unsatisfactory by anyone with a modicum of knowledge. Their biggest sin however is their bribes to suppport local communities and promise of local jobs. as anyone in a wind farm area will tell you , they are illusory!To get a Megawatt of load for the grid requires 60 acres of ground. To replace either Hunterston or Torness would take 72,000 acres of wind turbine country. In turbine terms it would take 16,000 of them to replace either Hunterston or Torness. But that is not the whole story. Hunterston and tornes power is contant, controllable and reliable. Windpower is Intermittent and ungovernable. For this reason it can only enter the general mass of energy in the Grid.As for CO2 alll their claims for savings are bogus. A base load station has to have a unused "Spinning Reserve" available for covering the loss of the unreliable wind.I could go on, and on....When will our politicians come out of the pockets of the British Wind Energy Association. Ahhhhh but there.. thy're pockets are deep with wind farm Klondike gold!
Micro-generation is a great idea and good for the environment. Sadly, it will never be encouraged, let alone subsidzed, because the power companies want to sell us electricity, not have us produce our own.
As for the idea that we could sell our surplus back to them - ha ha ha! Such naievety! No politician or business wants people to be independant. We might realize we're better off without them...
Richard (#1) I believe passionately that we should be encouraging micro-generation but not to the extent that it requires to be subsidised. Any such scheme would see great wallops of taxpayers money being given to Barretts and other housebuilders. In terms of householders I think that the sort of people (predominantly middle class) who are likely to be attracted to micro-generation do not need to be subsidised.
It is really Murdo (#2) who has put his finger on it. The single biggest thing we as individuals can and should do is stop wasting energy. We need a major campaign (ideally sponsored by the energy companies not the taxpayer) to encourage people to switch things off, we also need to the home technology industry to review the use of "standbys". Why can't I unplug my video without loosing the clock and other settings?
As for Robbie (#6) I do not believe that you should fling around allegations of corruption unless you have evidence about specific individuals and if you did have such evidence then you should take it to the police. As it is I suspect you have no such evidence and merely made your comments in the hope that mud sticks. As it is I find it laughable to think that the renewable energy sector is pulling the strings of politicians. Compared to the nuclear, oil and gas and coal industries they are very small players.
Agree with Richard - Skye in particular should benefit ONLY from micro-generation given the horrendous and amazing approval to the Greshornish wind farm.
Has anyone asked what energy costs there are in building and maintaining wind farms and, like nuclear power, what happens when the redundant kit needs decommissioning?
Colin,
I am a supporter of micro-genertion but I recognise its limitations. Most of the electricity we use we need to keep industry and the economy going. Micro-generation cannot help here.
It is a generalisation I agree, but one which is by and large true to say that most of the people who oppose wind farm proposals are doing so out of a NIMBYist attitude which is not shared by the population at large.
It's encouraging to read the report although there's an element of lose-lose in the long term unless we become more responsible at home. Why ? Well, it's either global warming or the loss of habitat = noth of which will completely change the ecology of Scotland
If you want to be energy efficient, live in a city for starters.
Microgeneration will never happen. Can you see the big utility companies allowing their customers to generate their own electricity and then buy the surplus for them? I think not.
The test of anything is whether a contributor would like a 70m tower in his or her back garden. Pro wind farm lobbyists/apologists might prove less enthusuastic if the proposals affected them directly.
Wind energy is a poor, largely inefficient process that Robbie & Dennis above have rightly confirmed can at best provide only 10% of energy needs.
Having lived across the Irish Sea in a property that relied on a wind-charger for relevant energy needs I think I qualify on non-NIMBY credentials!
Answers on a(n electronic) post card!
Peter should note that the Labour Party received a donation of £250,000 from the wind industry beofre the last election.
No influence on policy, of course!
"Micro-generation is a great idea and good for the environment. Sadly, it will never be encouraged, let alone subsidzed"
Ned (7) it is amazing how many things lorryists tell us are wonderful need to be subsidised. Things that are really wonderful can stand on their own.
Just because 1 300' windmill with 60' blades on a windy hilltop turns out to be useless does not mean that 3600 windmills with 1' blades in city centres (same area but less wind)will not be even more expensive, more useless & dangerous when the blades break.
The anti wind power interests are really effective in the misinformation and propaganda they produce. Wind turbines require only a few sq. m. of land each, the rest is untouched and still available. Spinning reserve applies to fuel burning power stations, not nuclear, uses very little fuel and produces very few emissions. Nuclear power stations cannot be ramped up and down to meet varying demand, which is why they are used for baseload only. A baseload power station is a baseload power station, it is never used for spinning reserve. The wind energy industry would be over the moon with a tiny fraction of the government money given to nuclear. Nobody has or proposes to put a 70m tower in anybody else’s back garden. How reactionary can one get? Fired and nuclear power stations are also largely inefficient. Wind turbines extract a percentage of the wind’s energy as it passes through. Steam turbines extract a percentage of the steam’s energy as it passes through. That’s physics.
I wholly agree with Richard from Skye; this is clearly the way forward and this should definately be taken up in Holyrood, AND in the parliment in Westminster!
A few places around where I frequent have micro-generation active: a BP garage in Ratho is one!, also a flower wholesaler in the village of Kinrossie, in Perthshire - this proves that it is good business sense to have these systems and that they should be encouraged.
Maf Smith's statement that 73% of the Scottish public support wind energy only goes to show how little the public know about wind energy and what a rip-off it is. The only persons who will profit from wind-farm businesses are the builders and the operators, as it is such an inefficient form of energy.
Frankly, I've never met anyone at all who wants a large windfarm next door to them, unless they have a financial interest in it. We're all nimbies at heart, Colin (10). And who'll protect our back yards if we do not? We have 20-odd turbines within 2 km of us (OK - not too terrible) - now 30-odd more are being applied for within 1 km. Enough's enough. Look at the hoo-haa when 2 or 3 turbines are applied for in deepest Oxfordshire. You know the alternatives - many have been discussed above. And when are we going to stop being terrified by a small amount of nuclear waste? I'm more concerned with large amounts of CO2 waste. But wind power only produces electricity - what's that? 25% or so of total emissions. Heat and fuel consumption are the biggest culprits.
Re: 19It is not sensible to criticise the whole country just because they don't agree with you.Who else do you expect to profit and why?Coal fired power stations are about 30% efficient in the sense that about 70% of the coal's energy is lost either up the chimney or through the cooling system. By the same measure nuclear stations are probably much worse. Not many systems have high efficiency. What matters is first to accept that we need renewable energy, otherwise there is no point in a discussion, and then to identify the cheapest source. At the moment it's wind but we'd mostly be happier if it could be PV or tidal or wave, which we are working on and it could happen.
NIMBY? Diane, you've never met me but I would be happier to see all of the fields around my house filled with turbines, and the sea covered in tidal generators, than to look upon Torness as I do. Torness does have an excellent safety record, but the memory of Chernobyl is difficult shake off. Especially if you live in Ukraine.
I guess few do want a wind turbine in their back yard, else The Houses of Parliament, Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff may well provide sufficient wind energy without placing turbines in some of the finest scenery in Britain. This IS a joke!!
I don't need a physics lesson as I have already demonstrated in #14 that I have direct experience of the basic process.
No-one chooses to answer the question of the cost of (a) providing the materials to create tower/turbine, etc. and (b) infrastructure - if you have ever visited Skye you may know how frequently there are power outages - contact a local who does! (c) decommissioning - most of the windmills in the South East from earlier centuries have to be lovingly restored. What is the BBE of a 21st century wind turbine & tower?
Regarding the footprint perhaps #17 has not heard of the disaster caused to peatland by a windfarm development in Western Ireland. I think you will find more than a few metres were affected in the severe landslip that occurred!
No comment from lightburning office blocks yet, or garages, car sales rooms etc.
Colin, yes, quite a few power outages on Skye. Even more problems with the water supply failing strangely enough !
I find it sad to read posters saying no to wind turbines because they are not yet efficient enough, or that they're ugly.
Most would agree that the status quo is not an option.
Imagine the the Wright brothers had given up on powered flight because eg. there was insuffient carrying capacity on their 'Flyer' to make it commercially viable or NIMBY's had scuppered them?
Within their lifetime aircraft broke the sound barrier, and soon after men walked on the moon. Experimental aircraft now have the potential to remain airborne for years without needing to refuel.
Since the 80's there have been many strides in the development of renewable energy sources' technology.
The more we do it the better we will become.
Why though, do we have to paint them so bright?
I feel a great deal of resistance to these machines would diminish if they were painted a more sympathetic colour to blend with their environment.
Is it to prevent RAF jets colliding with wind turbines on low flying exercises?
Here in California, our wind turbine farms have many, many rows of turbines. If you build more turbines per site, you will need fewer sites.
Having spent some time in Orkney this past summer, I'm amazed at some of the above comments. The school on Westray has their own microturbine that generates enough electricity to power the school and several small businesses with enough left over to sell back to the grid, turning an annual profit of several hundred pounds. One of the local churches does the same thing, earning almost a thousand £s on an annual basis. The skyline of Sanday is in no way ruined by the three wind turbines that generate that island's electricity - certainly not like a nice coal-fired plant or better yet, a delightful nuclear power plant would. More to the point, the energy is clean, safe and is not leaving a huge mess for future generations. We need to stop thinking only of ourselves - and try to get our politicians to start thinking beyond the next ballot.
I was very surprised to read Scottish Renewables claim that 73% of the Scottish public support wind farms. This support is certainly not reflected in the letters page of The Scotsman, nor in the communities where I live, where at each and every public meeting held by local Community Councils there was an overwhelming vote AGAINST wind farms in Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park.
I would also like to point out to anyone who may not be aware of this, Scottish Natural Heritage is funded by the Scottish Executive which also appoints its senior executives, so it is hard to know under what kind of pressure they have to operate, especially when you bear in mind that Labour received £250,000 from the wind industry before the last election.
ITo quote an article in this month's RSPB magazine: "But we are alarmed that some proposals for 'green' power threaten to destroy the environments that climate-friendly power intends to save. It is bizarre for an environmental solution to create a different environmental problem.
#26 is missing my point - if there is a majority of people who favour wind power why do they not clamour to have wind farms in Green Belt locations in 'middle England' rather than some of the most wild and beautiful land/seas scapes in the world?
You may answer 'because the wind only blows strongly at the extremities' yet what are the infrastructure footprints that are likely to further despoil the scenery.
I trust all those favouring wind-power are equally eco-friendly and forsaking fossil-fuel energy to add their contributions here by cranking up the hand-turbines.
Catharine (#28) small scale wind installations are attractive to community groups because they can get grants to install them and then pick up additional income from the Renewables Obligations Certificates while getting free electricity. But somebody is paying for this (the funding body = taxpayer).
I’ve been to Orkney too and I noticed a bit in the local paper about a new wind turbine at the Kirkwall squash court. It’s rated at 6kW and cost £25k to install. It’s estimated that it will generate about 18,000kWh per year. At today’s high electricity prices that electricity is worth maybe £1500pa. Sounds good – you make your money back in under 17 years. But wait a minute – if you invested the £25k at 5% you can pay for over 40 years worth of grid electricity before the money runs out. Will the turbine last 40 years without additional expenditure? Is it better to invest that money in central generation?
And if the case for micro generation is borderline in windy Orkney, what hope is there for it in the central belt where most of the consumers are? Has anybody analysed this?
Hawkayethenu (#26) - Just and observation, but the first large wind turbine to generate electricity was built in 1888 in Ohio - 15 years before the Wright Brothers flew.
If the Victorians had developed nuclear power where would we be now?
"I was very surprised to read Scottish Renewables claim that 73% of the Scottish public support wind farms"
It is easy to get the result you want in a poll.
Ask 2 questions 1) Are you a responsible person who thinks blackouts caused by power shortages would be a bad thing. Y 100%
2) Do you think the government should allow the electrical industry to build some windmills. Y 99%
Of course Scottish Renewables may have insisted on an unbiased poll.
1) Do you think Scottish Renewables exist to push the "renewables" option?
2) Do you think polls they produce are designed to help persuade us of the value of "renewables".
See 99% of people think Scottish renewables fix their polls.
People who go to live and work in cities, who build industrail estates and then move 'back home' for a bit of affluent peace and quiet whilr pricing their country cousins out of the market HAVE no heritage after they eat their mess of potage. Anyone who takes a quick buck for the latest fancy idea is merely following the ancient and honourable trend. Why didn't you think of it first?I might add I have recently stood within 50 metres of a turbine about 400 metres from the M6 in Cumbria and I could hear was the traffic. And forgive me, if I were an eagle eyeing up a lamb under a turbine, I would be taking a calculated risk. Is there an avian equivalent of sp*cs*vers??
The turbines on the North Hoyle Sea Farm are the most beautiful and graceful edifices (imo) that have gone up in this already scenic part of the world in a very long time. Rows of them on a sunny day with slight sea mist look so very romantic. No, I'm not trying to be funny - I believe that. People getting precious and refusing to consider the possible worth are just swallowing another PC myth. The govt likes us to argue about thinngs like that because it distracts us from our real problems. As regards the economic argument, I remain open minded.
One thing that IS interesting, though.. accoding to this proposalhttp://www.lomondenergy.com/assets/documents/Muirhall_NTS... six turbines can fuel 11000 homes. By extrapolation (too simple I know but an interesting 'ballpark' figure) you could fuel 66 million homes with 36000 turbines. The North Hoyle project I mentioned is 3-4 miles offshore and its 30 turmines only occupy about half-a-mile of coastline. Further they extend seaward by less then two miles. We have a 20-mile territorial limit, so why can't they all be built offshore? Even if uneconomic in the long term that could buy us some time for unbiased research.
Malcolm (#17) says "The wind energy industry would be over the moon with a tiny fraction of the government money given to nuclear. "
Wind energy and other renewables get quite a healthy fraction of nuclear's R&D budget considering how little electricity they generate.
See:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm
Across all the IEA countries since 1980 the amount of R&D on renewables and conservation has been between 1/3 and 1/2 of the R&D on nuclear fission. A huge a mount of money, which is yet to see much of a return.
And most of the recent R&D expenditure on nuclear has been by France and Japan. If we exclude these two large nuclear users, the rest of the countries have been spending twice as much on renewables & conservation in the last 5 years as they did on nuclear fission.
Hopefully we shall see a payback someday.
# 25 Richard - sorry I'm not there as often as I have been in the past, power outages or not. Did notice a couple of years ago that there had been much evidence of water shortage, although I know that 2005 & 2006 have been quite the opposite in terms of the 'Mist'.
Rgds
ref. 31Yes we all know small scale wind turbines are less cost effective than large ones, but are we better investing in central generation? well yes of course provided it's renewable. What makes most sense is to invest in the cheapest form of renewable generation. If too many people don't like the cheapest form then they have to examine the alternatives. Also we must pay for R&D for alternatives since we're going to need everything we can get.
Malcolm (#38) it may be axiomatic to you and I that centralised production would be more cost effective, but it doesn't seem obvious to everybody. Decentralised microgeneration is the cornerstone of Greenpeace's energy strategy, for example.
I have not seen any substantial studies that compare microgeneration with centralised production.
Firstly, in the name of accuracy, can I suggest that we stop referring to these industrial developments as 'Farms'? These projects, apart from being a goose that lays golden eggs for investors, are NOT farms, but factories. The developers like the term 'farm' since it has a green, touchy, feely sound to it. I note that one writer referred to the footprint of a turbine as requiring only a few sq. m. of land each - really? For the uninformed (73 per cent of the Scottish public?), a wind turbine, 450 feet high, and with rotor blades more than 300ft in diameter requires a concrete base of four million cubic metres. The 234 turbines planned for the peat bog of Lewis - an area of unique scientific significance, will each require 100 miles of new roads and five large quarries. The destruction of the peatland to establish this site will release more CO2 into the atmosphere than it will reduce. The so-called 'green energy' that a wind-turbine factory site is supposed to represent is a myth. The turbines are energy-INefficient and not the solution to our energy needs that the developers and other vested interests would have you believe.
I am a research scientist (I research the effects of the environment on life-forms) and referring to good science is not "NIMBY". I deal only in facts and telling the truth is vital in the face of the threat posed to the natural environment and its inhabitants (including humans) by these industrial installations.
James (#40), in your view what would the best solution be?
Your figures are interesting, but from my layman's point of view they don't provide enough information. How much peatland is there in total? What proportion of it would the turbines disturb? How do you work out how much CO2 this costs?
For somebody dealing only in “facts” and “truth”, you seem a little confused about the concrete base size (968 m3 maximum not 4,000,000) and the road mileage (100 miles not 23,400). I think you should get your figures within the right order of magnitude before you call the public uninformed. See http://www.lewiswind.com/turbines.phpI’m surprised a “scientist” would raise the efficiency issue again. What are you comparing it with and what are their efficiencies? How efficient is your car and how acceptable is that?The destruction of the peatland is a serious issue. In view of your other errors you’ll need to tell us where you got the “fact” that relocating the peat to other parts of the moor will lead to more CO2 release than would be saved by the turbines.
ref 39 colin I wasn't really saying that centralised generation would be more cost effective but simply that it actually is. Rooftop turbines at about 400W design output should cost about £400 which would reflect the simple machine that it is and would be comparable with large scale turbines. Unfortunately rooftop turbines are currently about 5 times that price. When the price is right greenpeace may be right too.
Malcolm #43. But surely even if the price scaled perfectly down to 400W, the wind conditions on your typical urban rooftop are not going to be as optimal as those at a wind farm? You would make some savings from not having electrical transmission loss (maybe 10%?), but would this really make up for the poorer performance?
ref 44. I expect you’re right about that although we won’t know for some time since there aren’t many roof turbines yet. To be fair, roof turbines are not the cornerstone of Greenpeace strategy. Embedded generation is mainly about improving the efficiency of fuel use (both fossil and bio) through combined heat and power, although I suppose it would also include PV and solar water heating and roof turbines if you can absorb the cost.
