I suppose these windmills are better than those ugly old power plants like the "Hunterston" monstrosity on the Clyde.

More hydro-electric plants would be good too.

No bicycling in skirts. And no short skirts on windy days.......

#3 Why?

It's absolute lunacy building more wind turbines. The approved or built capacity is already about 3GW for Scotland, so on a under ideal wind conditions it will exceed the lower end of Scottish electricity demand (about 2.5 GW). That's a good day though, and guaranteed power is (to a good approximation) 0% of demand, since the wind isn't always so accomodating.
The CO2 savings claimed won't be met, since they assume that it is entirely coal generation that is being displaced, not other low carbon sources like other renewables or nuclear. Grid stability becomes an issue too, since the national grid was built for controllable power sources, not ones that fluctuate unpredictably.
It will all cost you more too, since wind is only viable because it get more in subsidies than from selling the electricity. No doubt we'll soon be hearing about subsidies to dump unusable wind generated power.

5 C

Of course yer right they never seem to factor in the wind or the load when they design and build these things.
Subsidising the wind nae wonder theres nothing left for the NHS or our schools.
Thank god theres folk like you oot there to point these things out to us.
Now whats yer take on nuclear power?

All power is subsidised, especially nuclear. As for reliability, when a 'conventional' power station goes offline you instantaneousy lose gigawatts of power. That cannot happen with wind as they are widely distributed and the failure of a single generator has no effect. We have had big failures of Scottish nuclear and coal power in Scotland with stations out for weeks or months. With only around 6 stations in total this highlights a serious vulnerability.

A few nuclear power plants and there would be no need for destructive wind, hydro and coal pollution.

There is, as usual, more spin from the wind-farmers than from the turbines themselves.

Let's take the figures as quoted: 'will be capable of generating 213 megawatts of electricity, enough power to supply an estimated 120,000 homes'.

Well, that depends on what the homes are doing. Simple arithmetic tells you that is equivalent to 1.8kw per household. A standard electric kettle draws around 2kw, so as long as you agree with your neighbours that you stagger your tea-breaks/dinner/prime TV watching/showers etc, and tolerate doing all of these things without electric light, then fine. That is not going to happen on the planet where I live on in the forseeable future.

What the figures really mean is that over the long term they will (=might) generate enough energy to meet the annual energy demands of these houses. But since energy demand is not constant, that cannot translate directly into power equivalents. This is the fundamental problem with wind-power, and how the industry has got away with telling these lies for so long is an abiding mystery.

The installed or effective installed capacity of a windfarm (power in MW) is irrelevant - what is important in this debate is the energy it generates (energy in MWh). The industry always quotes the former because the latter is so embarrassingly unimpressive.

10. Your argument is weak. Demand fluctuates all the time and supply is adjusted to meet it. The grid operators will use first the base power (probably nuclear or coal), then the next cheapest - taking into account CO2 emissions (probably wind where available), then the fast responding stations like gas or hydro) for any sudden large increase in demand. Any of these sources can and do fail, or are off line for maintenance from time to time and no generator has 100% capacity factor. The thing about wind is that the fuel is free and delivers itself to the rotor for free. Coal, oil, gas and uranium are not free (from monetary or human costs) and do not deliver themselves to the generator.

Onshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape. I condemn this decision for Harestanes. I hope something comes up to prevent the scheme.

The only way to go for renewable energy is wave power and the constancy of the ocean its movement!

Wave energy is the answer.. If we could harness wave energy efficiently the whole coast of Scotland would become a power house.

In Lochaber alone you could harness the tide at the Narrows at Corpach, at Corran and at Ballachullish.
Then there's the west coast and the Pentland Firth.

11 "The thing about wind is that the fuel is free and delivers itself to the rotor for free"
Why does it cost us so much then?

No, Fred. Your argument is the weak one. 'The grid operators will use first the base power (probably nuclear or coal), then the next cheapest - taking into account CO2 emissions (probably wind where available), then the fast responding stations like gas or hydro) for any sudden large increase in demand'.

Absolutely right, and you have just confirmed that wind will not replace nuclear/fossil generation with our present demands for electricity (and they are demands, not needs). The whole justification for wind and other green sources is to remove fossil generation and cut the CO2 it produces. Others who want green energy don't want nuclear. You have just shown why wind will not cut fossil generation without nuclear replacement.

Wave and tidal power is the way ahead. All these boys scrambling for Scottish Renewable Energy contracts would be better off putting their dosh in hydro research. Tides don't turn and waves don't stop.

Are windfarms the most higly subsidised industry in the UK?

If we assume a load factor of 27.4% ( the UK norm in 2006) the 213MW farm will generate (213*0.274*24*365) =511,251MWh of electricity in a year. At the current energy prices of £45/MWh that makes £23 million.

Windfarms also get the ROC subsidy which is currently £47.74MWh making another £24.4 million. So for a £200 million investment they get £47.4 million a year.

what are the RSPB saying about this as it might kill birds or are they a one track organisation

16# well argued the logic is clear and you win hands down.
Winds farms - no more they are spoiling our countryside right left and centre. The add no value whatsoever to our economy in fact the have a negtaive effect. The proivde no real jobs, they will certainly not make us world leaders in any related subject and they basically don't work.

16

No mate its your argument that is subjective and only applies in the present situation not the future.
The idea is to wean us off Nuclear and carbon based fuels in the FUTURE with renewables and non Uranium dependent options which considering the fact we have no home grown Uranium and are required to purchase it from dodgy sourses seems like a good idea to me dont you think?

#8 - . Rulesbutnotrulers
I agree with you that these are not the best way forward but you've got it slightly wrong when you say they operate 30% of the time. They operate for a far higher % of the time but their output varies according to the wind conditions. The figure you are thinking of is their average ouput against their maximum capacity i.e. on a long-term average they generate 30% of their maximum ouput.
that's why although the article states that at maximum capacity it would generate enough power for 280,000 homes Jim Mather says it will produce enough power for 120,000

20

Nothing will spoil a countryside more than a good solid dose of Gamma radiation and radioactive waste.

23# have we had any ?
The most we have is from Chernobyl which was run incompetently.
I suggest that wind is not for the future and has been found wanting by Denmark and Germany world leaders in it's technology.
Wind farms rarely produce anything like the 30% of possible production quoted and we will pay a high price for this folly. We already have in terms of spoiled landscapes.

Couple of points. I have yet to see any windfarms that spoil the look of the countryside but we should be careful where we put them. the real blight on the landscape is pylons, they are truely awful.

With regards cost, what is the cost difference between wind and coal with full carbon capture?

The other thing is surely we would require a balanced energy policy so both wind and nuclear could/should be accomodated, rather than this one or the other approach. (Tidal and wave seems good but will it will take time for such technologies to really become a major force. Aiming to get a few projects up and running and possibly aiming for about 10% or electricity from such sources would seem realistic).

Another question round the cost of wind. What is the cost break down that apears to make it higher than other souces. Is it the initial cost of the turbines? Is it maintenance? Is it our land prices? Also they seem to have been making quite large productivity gains and as such at what point will they have similar prices to coal.

finally i thought the dash for gas was very short sighted and through our gas resources should have been used more sparingly so that we would not have been in a posistion to rely on russian gas.

#21 - I don't know which timewarp you live in, but I live in the present and in the real world. I suspect we are on the same side, but not all of the other 6(?) million Scots, never mind the 6 billion elsewhere, agree with us.

As for the future, time is running out and political action, as always, is focussed on short-term gain rather than long-term sustainability. Get real!

#21
Dodgy sources of Uranium? The two largest producers are Canada and Australia.

#26
Energy prices are so high at the moment that no form of electricity production needs to be subsidised. The fact that a windfarm can recover its setup costs in 5 years ( see #18) shows that the ROC system needs a complete overhaul.

18. I don't argue with your calculation but you need to do the same for the other fuels as well as adding the saving in CO2 not emitted before you can condem wind.

Of course, wave, tidal etc are potentially very attractive; unfortunately they've not been fully developed yet either from an engineering or economic point of view and we're running out of time because most of our power stations will soon come to the end of their lives.

16. I'm not against nuclear. As far as I am concerned it is very clean compared to coal etc and ideal for base load. However, I am also pro-wind because it is clean and though it is variable it has been demonstrated across the world that it can be part of the mix at least up to around 20% without causing any balancing problems. - Especially in Scotland where we have a lot of wind and the wind tends to blow more on winter nights when demand is high. Also more power is produced in lower temperatures because the air is denser.

#30 - Fred - in Scotland the coldest days are the calmest. Turbines don't generate on the basis of air density, but on wind speed. No wind = no energy = cold houses. I don't mind, but my wife and many others do. The only thing wind generates is massive profit for anyone lucky enough to have the land to put them up, and the developers who join with them.

#30 Yes but windfarms still produce less than 10% of their rated output for a quarter of the time and less than 22% for half the time. In terms of electricity production they are a side show. The important producers are those that can deliver the needed power when required.

#28 In #18 I was condemning the fact that the windfarm companies are making colossal profits at the expense of the British consumer when they would be profitable without the ROC subsidy. Coal and gas are sufficiently expensive at the moment that no other encouragement is required for electricity companies to look to windpower.

""While we cannot have onshore wind farms anywhere or at any price to the environment, onshore wind will continue to play a crucial role over the next few years............" Jim Mather, Energy Minister.

They certainly do not belong in Scotland's Regional Parks. To sign a petition against wind farms in Scotland's regional Parks go to

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.as...

Scotland's biggest earner is tourism. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if we cover our beautiful country in wind turbines we will no longer attract visitors who come to enjoy what has been a wonderful natural landscape.

#24 Three Mile Island

Forgive my naivete, but is there no way to store excess energy generated by the windmills, such as batteries?
I agree with others who have posted in favor of offshore hydro facilities.

I have been researching some facts about wind power, and other forms of 'green' generation, for part of a sustainability project I'm involved in:

PART 1

The average wind turbine is rated at 1MW and runs at 23% efficiency. Given that UK power requirements are about 57000MW, this translates into about 230,000 of these monsters across the country. The UK has an area of approximately 89,000 square miles. That equates to one turbine every 2.5 square miles if we rely on wind power alone. Also the carbon footprint involved in the manufacture, transportation and connection to the national grid (not to mention the despoilation of the countryside), coupled with their low efficiency, means there is unlikely to be any overall reduction in CO2 production. Clearly unsustainable.

Coal-fired power stations are about 33% efficient, so better than wind power but at the cost of massive production of greenhouse gases, though the technology exists to reduce it - and the UK has massive coal reserves - around 300 years worth at current estimates.

Wave power is in its infancy and it is very difficult to find good data on its efficiency. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, at present, it is not much more efficient than wind power, though the power source is more reliable. There are plenty of claims but precious few hard facts.

Hydro power, in which Scotland is a world leader. Unfortunately, it is not very green. Notwithstanding the enormous environmental damage done building them, the effect on the local ecology can be disastrous, especially to aquatic life as the oxygen content of the water passing through the turbines becomes depleted. This can lead to anaerobic conditions in the catchment lakes where present and the resultant production of greenhouse gases. That said, hydro electric in Europe produces only about 8% of the greenhouse gases that conventional oil, gas and coal generators do.

All of the UK's electricity needs could be achieved by constru

PART 2

My researches have led me to conclude that there are no truly 'green' solutions only some solutions that are less bad than others. Wind power is a non-starter. It is inefficient and unreliable. The only reason we are seeing so many being built is politics - being seen to be green, even though it isn't.

The jury is out on wave power. It has the potential, due to the source being reliable, but the technology is not mature enough. Needs massive investment.

Hydro has the advantage of low greenhouse gas emissions but at the cost of huge environmental damage.

Nuclear is the only way to be green in the short to medium term. The fact is the present generation of nuclear power stations are going to be needing replaced in 10 - 15 years. It is unlikely that the alternatives outlined above will be available in sufficient quantity to replace them, due in no small meaure I would suspect to the opposition to destroying the environment that such massive expansion would entail, especially wind and hydro power. Nuclear also evokes much dissent but, if the lights are not to go out in ten years, some very hard decisions have to be made now. With the present Scottish Government having set its face against nuclear, it is difficult to see how it can be avoided unless compromises are made. Or are we going to ask the English if we can borrow some of theirs?

36. Efficiency is meaningless for a wind turbine because the fuel is free. Do you mean capacity factor?

18. Your calculation omits operating costs, maintenance costs and transmission costs, thus greatly exaggerating the potential profits. You also omit the savings in environmental damage from CO2 emissions saved.

31. In fact the UK has the best wind resource in Europe. The recorded capacity factor for onshore wind energy in the UK is 27%, greater even than in Germany (15%) and Denmark (20%) where wind farms are currently most widespread.
Availability of wind power in the UK is greater at precisely the times that we need it - during peak daytime periods and during the winter.
The UK wind resource is dependable. The likelihood of low wind speeds affecting 90% of the country would only occur for one hour every five years.
The chance of wind turbines shutting down due to very high wind speeds is exceedingly rare - high winds affecting 40% or more of the UK would occur in around one hour every 10 years and never affect the whole country.

Met Office chart showing that it's windier in winter:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/location/scotland/...