The issue is a lot more complex and being "for" or "against" wind farms in general is not productive. Location is the key. I am against wind farms (or any development of any kind) that impinges on our dwindling wild land. Whether wind farms are a scam or are the best energy source ever is irrelevant when it comes to protecting wild land.

I think Chris is right, it does depend on location. However, government has told its inspectors at inquiry that location objections should take a poor second place to the need to provide turbines, therefore it becomes necessary to demolish the wind turbine argument as well. That is the only way of levelling the inquiry playing field.

At a recent public inquiry I attended the company admitted that turbines work on average just one day in three and that conventional power stations are needed to take over on the other two days (the conventional power stations have to be kept running all the time, they can't just be started up if the wind drops), or if the wind drops or gets too gusty over long periods when turbines are shut down. It seems to me that there is no point to turbines anywhere if they are not replacing the output of conventional power stations.

The turbine industry only exists at all because it is massively subsidised by the taxpayer. Drop the subsidy and you wouldn't see the multinationals for dust. Surely it is better that taxpayer subsidies should be used on household and industry energy conservation measures, which could save more energy than the turbines actually produce. That would provide far more green jobs as well.

Regards

John Bainbridge

I agree with those sentiments John,the subsidies should be diverted into the appropriate energy conservation schemes. How do we help this to happen though when any government is hell bent on subsidies for wind farms?

There are subsidies, or incentives, for energy conservation; all the way from help with loft insulation right through to making corporations pay for CO2 produced.


John, the demand (and hence supply) for electricity varies considerably throughout the day/year. We already have a grid system that has to cope with big swings in demand. If it were a steady state system I'd agree with you that throwing a variable in would be throwing a spanner in, but the system is already set up to match supply to demand. Adding a relatively small amount of wind power isn't going to cause the grid a big problem. I think National Grid said they could cope with 20%+ windpower, which is obviously a long way off.

"At a recent public inquiry I attended the company admitted that turbines work on average just one day in three....."

This refers to the capacity factor, and saying the turbines work one day in three is obviously a simplification. Wind turbine capacity factors are typically between 25 and 35 %. Not good is it? But look at the capacity factors of other types of generator:


Nuclear 91.1
Coal 72.2
Natural Gas/Combined Cycle 40.7
Other Renewables 37.3
Hydroelectric 37.2
Natural Gas/Other Types 10.6
Petroleum 9.2



John

I've being dropping in and out of this thread and refrained from posting, as I haven't felt that I'm not well read enough in the subject matter to validate claims and counter claims. However, I am confident that our reliance on carbon based fuel is a long-term issue, and that a reduction in energy consumption and alternative forms of generation are a priority. I think that with our current technology (and other resources) there will be a theoretical limit to the size of the population that the earth can sustain, which generates some very uncomfortable and morally complex issues around population control. I can accept that in the mid-term reliance on nuclear may offer us a stepping stone towards cleaner energy sources. I would like to see more focus on micro generation either at individual dwelling / factory / office or local community level. I can see a perverse unfairness in power generation, that the impact of wind turbines and nuclear power stations is felt far more by rural communities when (through simple population densities) the majority of the consumption is in urban areas.

All this said, one thing that I am sure about is the protection of our wild places. As Chris T said this is far more reaching than the installation of wind farms. The Hill Track campaign, Denny to Bully (?) power line or Mr Trumps "resort" have all generated debate on this forum because of their impact on our wild places. It deeply concerns me that our wild lands / places of special scientific interest / world heritage sites are all too often compromised by wider political and commercial objectives.

Regards,
Mark

Edit: 10/06/10 - Should read "not" well read enough. Corrected some punctuation.

Much of the criticism of wind energy is based on technical considerations - yet the political framework in which wind energy operates is also important. Currently, the contrary effects of emission trading and financial support for renewables act so as to negate any carbon emission savings achieved using wind turbines. This surprising conclusion is accepted by both energy experts and the green movement - see:

Wind turbines in Europe do nothing for carbon emission goals, Spiegel International October 2009: "As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2...."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

Recent peer reviewed studies also question the validity of public support for wind energy, with one recent survey finding that less than 20% of wind energy supporters appreciate even basic issues such as the relative cost of renewables versus conventional generation. The study notes that as people become better informed, support for wind energy is likely to decline.

Finally, one poster (JH) makes a comparison of capacity factors for wind and nuclear energy, yet does not indicate that the figure for nuclear is based on ageing and outdated technology. A modern design reactor would achieve close to maximum theoretical output. Moreover, wind energy has proven to be unreliable with gear boxes and turbine foundations proving to be problematic. World average turbine operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are now estimated to be 27 US cents per KWh (270 dollars per MWh). This is two-to-three times greater than originally estimated, and has significant consequences for UK energy policy. If we were to generate one third of our electricity from wind energy, O&M costs alone would be 750 billion US dollars over a 25 year period - almost certainly unsustainable given the extent of our economy.

Hi William. I'm not here to champion wind power, just to point out that there are two sides to the coin.

"JH makes a comparison of capacity factors for wind and nuclear energy, yet does not indicate that the figure for nuclear is based on ageing and outdated technology. A modern design reactor would achieve close to maximum theoretical output."

It wasn't really a comparison between wind and nuclears capacity factors, more the other types of generator that had lower than might be expected capacity factors, partly because they aren't able to operate at 100%, and partly because demand dictates they don't operate at 100%. Although surprising at first glance, I don't think to much should be read into windpowers 30% or so capacity factor.