MoneySaving Poll: Are wind farms an aye-aye or an eyesore?

DMACB

The poll would be far more meaningful if it attempted to link the participants level of knowledge about wind energy to their level of support. It is clear from some of the posts in this forum that there remains widespread ignorance about this form of electricity generation. Any reference to opponents of wind farms being 'NIMBYs' for example is usually a good indicator that the poster hasn't a clue what the real issues are in the debate.

Whether or not they are an ugly blot on some of Britains most cherished landscapes is really of secondary importance. They are a massively expensive, colossally inefficient and unreliable method of electricity generation, the amount of CO2 they will save is pathetically low (and when built on areas of peat they may actually be net CO2 producers), and as numbers of windfarms grow they will destabilise the national grid leading to a higher risk of blackouts. For every job 'created' by the wind industry it has been shown that between 2 and 4 jobs (depends which study you look at) will be lost elsewhere in the economy. They don't produce baseload power, so don't expect them to replace nuclear or coal power stations, nor are they much good at load following, so don't think that they're going to significantly reduce gas power generation - although evidence suggests that when they do replace conventional generation it will be gas, already a low CO2 producer per MW/h generated.

What windfarms are very good at doing is generating subsidy for already wealthy landowners and developers.

Remember - those who support wind power do so out of financial self interest or ignorance. Sadly the majority of people voting in their favour in this poll will fall into the latter category.

ifan.goch

stevemcol wrote: »

Do you use electricity? Are you happy to pay a significant premium to have the EHV cables buried?

We are already paying a significant premium to have the turbines installed and for the tariff paid for the electricity generated. If it's shared around all electricity users I can't see that the premium would be that significant.

little-engineer

Wind turbines are pretty inefficient, I think everyone realises that we can't rely on a single source for our energy needs. Wind needs its part in the mix but its heavily subsidised by the government because they're expensive to maintain and they actually draw energy from the grid when it's too windy or not windy enough. They're variable in their output which can cause instabilities on the national grid, in an ideal world you'd have more stations like Dinorwig (which are actually net consumers) to 'soak up' the variable generation from renewables so that it can be distributed when it's needed (after Corrie when everyone puts the kettle on). Aswell as this you need a reliable sustainable baseline, typically from a conventional power plant (fossil or nuclear). Rant over, wind turbines have their place but they are by no means the answer... For more info read David McKay's 'without hot air', a fab *FREE* ebook.

cepheus

little-engineer wrote: »

Wind turbines are pretty inefficient, I think everyone realises that we can't rely on a single source for our energy needs. Wind needs its part in the mix but its heavily subsidised by the government because they're expensive to maintain and they actually draw energy from the grid when it's too windy or not windy enough. They're variable in their output which can cause instabilities on the national grid, in an ideal world you'd have more stations like Dinorwig (which are actually net consumers) to 'soak up' the variable generation from renewables so that it can be distributed when it's needed (after Corrie when everyone puts the kettle on). Aswell as this you need a reliable sustainable baseline, typically from a conventional power plant (fossil or nuclear). Rant over, wind turbines have their place but they are by no means the answer... For more info read David McKay's 'without hot air', a fab *FREE* ebook.

I don't think much of McKay's section on wind he has made several blunders, see the reference in this article What is the Potential of Wind Power

stevemcol

DMACB wrote: »

The poll would be far more meaningful if it attempted to link the participants level of knowledge about wind energy to their level of support. It is clear from some of the posts in this forum that there remains widespread ignorance about this form of electricity generation. Any reference to opponents of wind farms being 'NIMBYs' for example is usually a good indicator that the poster hasn't a clue what the real issues are in the debate.

Whether or not they are an ugly blot on some of Britains most cherished landscapes is really of secondary importance. They are a massively expensive, colossally inefficient and unreliable method of electricity generation, the amount of CO2 they will save is pathetically low (and when built on areas of peat they may actually be net CO2 producers), and as numbers of windfarms grow they will destabilise the national grid leading to a higher risk of blackouts. For every job 'created' by the wind industry it has been shown that between 2 and 4 jobs (depends which study you look at) will be lost elsewhere in the economy. They don't produce baseload power, so don't expect them to replace nuclear or coal power stations, nor are they much good at load following, so don't think that they're going to significantly reduce gas power generation - although evidence suggests that when they do replace conventional generation it will be gas, already a low CO2 producer per MW/h generated.

What windfarms are very good at doing is generating subsidy for already wealthy landowners and developers.

Remember - those who support wind power do so out of financial self interest or ignorance. Sadly the majority of people voting in their favour in this poll will fall into the latter category.

Every point you raise has some basis in fact but non are overriding arguments against wind generation.
If you really wanted i could take on each point but that does become very boring on forums and few people will read the whole post.
In summary though, wind power isn't supposed to generate base load, it's meant to be (and is) one of a number of sustainable generation methods used to supplement generation capacity. When used with tidal, hydro, solar etc it allows lower (selectable) output from the traditional generation sector.
I agree firmly with you however, that turbines should not be located in inappropriate locations and this trend should be monitored and policed more closely.
I have no axe to grind, I don't benefit financially from turbines.

On your point of efficiency....how efficient is it to let the wind blow, without harnessing its power?

stevemcol

ifan.goch wrote: »

We are already paying a significant premium to have the turbines installed and for the tariff paid for the electricity generated. If it's shared around all electricity users I can't see that the premium would be that significant.

Does your opinion include all pylon runs in rural areas that are deemed unattractive? At the moment, just replacing like for like as the grid ages, is threatening to put bills up significantly.

ifan.goch

stevemcol wrote: »

Does your opinion include all pylon runs in rural areas that are deemed unattractive? At the moment, just replacing like for like as the grid ages, is threatening to put bills up significantly.

That would be nice, but not necessarily affordable. I think any new schemes should lay underground cables, especially schemes of the magnitude proposed for Mid Wales.

cepheus

Packaham wrote: »

I would rather see turbines than fracking any day.

There have been professional national polls on this as well

Wind farms more popular than fracking, UK study suggests ...

14 Apr 2014 - Britons would prefer to live near a wind farm over a “fracking” site by a majority of three to one, according to an opinion poll

Of about 2,000 people sampled, 62 per cent favoured wind, against 19 per cent for fracking in their council area. Half those identifying themselves as Conservative voters said they preferred to live near a wind farm.

[url]HTTP://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e8c266a6-c2ea-11e3-b6b5-00144feabdc0.html[/url]

DMACB

stevemcol wrote: »

On your point of efficiency....how efficient is it to let the wind blow, without harnessing its power?

The answer to that question depends on what proportion of your overall generation is from wind. Since there must be a 'spinning reserve' ready to kick in when wind generation drops, the higher your proportion of generating capacity that is wind based, the more spinning reserve is required and the more conventional fuel (usually gas since there are insufficient pumped hydro sites available) will be wasted.

stevemcol

DMACB wrote: »

The answer to that question depends on what proportion of your overall generation is from wind. Since there must be a 'spinning reserve' ready to kick in when wind generation drops, the higher your proportion of generating capacity that is wind based, the more spinning reserve is required and the more conventional fuel (usually gas since there are insufficient pumped hydro sites available) will be wasted.

I agree; providing sufficient reserve power is a problem, which is why wind has to be one of a number of sustainable solutions. Weather forecasting is becoming more exact so the wind dropping without warning is a less likely event; spinning reserve can be better optimised. A station operating as spinning reserve still uses less fuel than if it were operating at full capacity.