"Not windy enough in urban areas"

Do you have any research to back that up?
Are you using data from the Michael Fish school of weather forecasting? :)

I'm sure a 100 metre high turbine on top of a high building in London will be just as productive as any other.

John, margins are the key. With wide enough margins round protected areas the map would be okay. As it is, if windfarms were built on all the least sensitive areas they would intrude on most if not all mountain areas.

Has anyone travelled up the autoroute from Paris towards Calais. Sorry I can't remember the road number, but along one very long flatish section they had many many large wind turbines just next to the motorway. Seemed like a good compromise at the time.

Mike, if you look at this wind speed map you'll see that urban areas are generally built in less windy, protected areas. That's hardly surprising when you think about it, and your own experience will tell you that it's often windier up on the hills than it is in Dundee.

More specifically the map shows that Dundee might have an average windspeed of 7m/s, whereas the hills show 8m/s +, and the power available from the wind is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So if a windfarm is built in a location with 9m/s, the average windspeed is 9/7 = 1.286 times as fast, but the power available is 1.286 cubed as much = 2.1 times as much.

John

John,
your map only shows average windspeed at 25m above ground level. It doesn't show the windspeed over 100m, the height of many turbines. Wind speed at only 25m is affected by features on the ground. I still say stick a 100m turbine on top of tall buildings in industrial areas if folk want to go down this route. That way there is also no need for miles of giant electricity pylons through remote areas.
You could stick the turbines on top of the new traditional power stations that will need to be built as back-up to the windpower stations, for when there is not enough wind.

Mike, you could be right. I don't know. But there's a lot of money at stake here and I can't imagine anybody would build at a more expensive (access tracks and grid conection) site if there was no need. I would certainly expect a map of UK windfarms to look something like the wind speed map I linked to.

I expect the truth is that the 25m map might give a good indication, things are more even at 100m, but urban plus 100m is still not as good as a hilltop plus 100m.

John

Follow the money trail John. Look for who makes the most money, and check out their connections to pro wind powerstation lobbyists. Empty land is either something to be cherished and protected, or something to be exploited. It all depends on your point of view. I don't think you can compromise on this, as it's a clash of two vastly different attitudes.
There is no NEED for wind powerstations, on wild or urban land, it's one of many choices.

Mike, I don't really know what you mean. How am I supposed to know who's making the most money and what connections those people have? If you think landowners have used devious means to promote windfarms AND you think that urban land is equally suitable, why haven't urban landowners had a slice of the pie. They stand to make much more per acre than their country cousins. Sorry, I don't buy into conspiracy theories.


"I don't think you can compromise on this..."

I don't know why as a society we feel the need to take sides. Idealists are usually disappointed. At a practical level we can certainly compromise. In fact the best we can hope for is a compromise. The choice you're faced with is to say where you want the turbines or to just accept where the turbines are put. No turbines isn't an option any more. I'm afraid that despite what you and I think, the nation sees energy security and CO2 reduction as a bigger priorities than hillwalking.


"There is no NEED for wind powerstations, on wild or urban land, it's one of many choices."

Well that depends on how you define the word "need". If you agree that we need to maintain our current level of electricity consumption and reduce CO2 emissions then I suspect we need windfarms. If you've got any alternatives it could be you who's making the money...... :)

John

When i say follow the money, lots of folk want to build wind powerstations simply to make money. All their 'green' talk is hot air. Take away public subsidies, and see how many get built. The reason they want to build them in remote ares is simply down to cost. The land is 'worthless' from an economic point of view, so more attractive to developers to buy. The landowners also want to make money from their 'worthless' land.


As i said earlier, if you build wind powerstations, then you NEED a 'traditional' powerstation as back-up. You don't NEED the wind powerstation.



My solution to future power and CO2 issues would be for small scale developements. Make it compulsory for every new house to have a mini-turbine generating its own electricity, better insulation of houses, solar panels etc. More should be done in this direction, in my opinion.
Of course, if every house/factory/public building became self-sufficient in electricity production/consumption, the power companies wouldn't have any customers, so i wouldn't hold out much hope of this direction being followed. Money talks.

"......lots of folk want to build wind powerstations simply to make money."

That's how things work in this country. People want to make money. Nobody builds power stations of any sort just because they like doing it.


"As i said earlier, if you build wind powerstations, then you NEED a 'traditional' powerstation as back-up. You don't NEED the wind powerstation."

You don't NEED it, but the idea is to reduce CO2, not build as few power stations as possible. The backup GW need only be a fraction of the total wind GW, and it only needs to run occasionally. I read somewhere that some backup will only be needed once a year or so.


"Make it compulsory for every new house to have a mini-turbine generating its own electricity..."

An excellent sentiment MIke, but in trials at Warwick university it was found that small scale urban turbines were worse than useless, generating virtually no electricity. Payback was thirty years or something ridiculous.


"....better insulation of houses...."

I agree, although it has to be said that new build regs are pretty good insulation wise, and retro fitting insulation on older houses can be problematic (for instance, despite being very aware of energy use, the house I live in is virtually uninsulated, and not possible to insulate). But I'm sure more could be done.


"Of course, if every house/factory/public building became self-sufficient in electricity production/consumption, the power companies wouldn't have any customers, so i wouldn't hold out much hope of this direction being followed."

Don't be so cynical, it's counterproductive :)

I expect we'll see the power companies leasing householders small scale generation equipment (CHP units, Solar panels?). That's not a cynical remark, it's business.

Money talks ;)