Posted on 12/18/2006 5:58:47 AM PST by grundle
The claimed benefits of wind energy are called into question today by a study that finds few wind farms in England and Wales produce as much electricity as the Government has forecast.
The first independent study to rate farms according to how much electricity they produce shows that wind farms south of the Scottish border are not generating as much as the Government assumed when it set the target of producing a tenth of Britain's energy from renewables by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015.
Despite millions being spent on wind turbines, the study by the Renewable Energy Foundation shows that England and Wales are not windy enough to allow large turbines to work at the rates claimed for them. The foundation, a charity that aims to evaluate wind and other forms of renewable energy on an equal basis, based its study of more than 500 turbines now in operation on data supplied by companies to Ofgem, the energy regulator.
The study shows that even wind farms in Cornwall on west-facing coasts, which might be expected to be the most efficient, operated at only 24·1 per cent of capacity on average. Turbines in mid-Wales ran on average at only 23·8 per cent. Those in the Yorkshire Dales ran at 24·9 per cent and Cumbria 25·9 of capacity. The only regions with turbines operating at or above 30 per cent of capacity were in southern Scotland, which averaged 31·5 per cent, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland at 32·9 per cent and offshore (North Hoyle and Scroby Sands on opposite sides of the country), which came in at 32·6 per cent.
The report concludes that the most effective place to site the turbines is at sea near major cities where they can harness the greater power of off-shore winds without losing much of the electricity generated in transmission through the National Grid from remote areas such as the north of Scotland.
John Constable, an adviser to the foundation, said: "All the Government's targets are based on wind farms running at 30 per cent of capacity. It is quite clear that if they are built anywhere on land south of the border, the targets will not be met."
The foundation's report found some real "turkeys" in lowland England – some attached to the offices of high profile companies. Worst of all is the turbine close to the M25 at Kings Langley, Herts at the HQ of Renewable Energy Systems, the green energy division of Robert McAlpine group. This produces 7·7 per cent of the electricity it would if there was enough wind for it to run continuously at full power.
The study says the turbine at GlaxoSmithKline's pharmaceutical plant at Barnard Castle, Co Durham, which is in a built up area and uses second-hand turbines, operates at 8·8 per cent of capacity. "We are really talking about a garden ornament, not a power station. These are statements about the company's corporate social responsibility, not efficient generating capacity," Mr Constable said.
The foundation says that too much subsidy (£45.50 per megawatt hour under the renewables obligation which gives wind farms 60-70 per cent of their annual income) has encouraged wind development in poor sites. One house will need between three and five megawatt hours a year. Dr Ian Mays, managing director of Renewable Energy Systems, whose turbine scored lowest in the report, said: "Situated in low wind speed Hertfordshire, the RES turbine was never intended to generate huge amounts of electricity. But each unit it does generate is zero-carbon and you can't get much better than that."
A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association accused the Renewable Energy Foundation of having an "anti wind agenda" and said it was "deeply suspicious" of the findings.
A plan for a wind farm on land owned by Mohamed Fayed at Invercassley near Lairg in Sutherland has been refused by Highland councillors. An appeal is expected.
DUH.......wind energy is expensive..and it has to be backed up with convential generation...so it really costs twice as much..but it makes the Greenies feel good..that is if it isn't in their back yard.....
I wonder what happens to the weather when you suck energy out of the atmosphere? There has to be some consequence. Nothing is really free.
the great LIBERAL folly laid bare. WHEN will people stop listening to these NITWITS?
If all they want is 'renewable' energy, why don't they just burn wood? (Of course, I know the problems with burning wood, I am just trying to show how silly this all is.)
I really don't think they are sucking energy out of the atmosphere. They are impeding the movement of air, but not much different than putting up a building or growing a tree for that matter.
I really don't think they are sucking energy out of the atmosphere.
Yes, they do. Teh eneregy the wind plant turns into electricity comes from the kinetic ennergy of the moving air. It is not very windy in back of a wind farm, the velocity has been reduced by the turbine blades.
Makes as much sense as global warming. You should write a book and try to get it published as serious piece of writing. I'll help edit.
So, blow harder!
Its probably all of the birds slowing down the turbine blades, that is making it less effecient.
Bush's Fault.
But how is that different than a tree? Are we to worry about planting too many trees? Of all the problems with wind energy, that is nonsensical.
Just another example of what happens when you inject emotion into science.
Trees change the local climate. Simple fact.
Change isn't necessarily bad. Its just change...
Also, when wind blows (drags) on trees the energy has to go somewhere. In the case of trees it is likely heat. The wind farms take that energy and transport it somewhere else where it is turned into heat (for the most part).
Global Warming for starters. Reduction in air transfer to/from poles to tropics and thus the tropics will bake while the poles freeze a bit more than now. On a smaller scale a reduction in clouds will also cause warming, although not as clear cut. The biggest argument for warming is the huge amount of fossil fuels required to create and maintain a "PR" windmill.
You'd think Britain would be in an ideal situation to look at tapping the power of ocean waves.
A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association accused the Renewable Energy Foundation of having an "anti wind agenda" and said it was "deeply suspicious" of the findings.
You know this has to be true when the only rebuttal is the "race" card.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.