Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wind farm efficiency queried by John Muir Trust study
BBC News ^ | 6 April 2011 | NA

Posted on 04/11/2011 12:51:36 PM PDT by neverdem

The study has challenged industry assertions about the output of wind farms

Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.

The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand.

The report, supported by conservation charity the John Muir Trust, concluded turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.

However, industry representatives said they had "no confidence" in the data.

The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting, analysed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 to December 2010

Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.

But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.

'Different manner'

It also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent".

The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours, it suggested.

The report noted: "Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter...

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; globalwarming; windfarms

1 posted on 04/11/2011 12:51:43 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Wind power is a complete disaster

"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."

2 posted on 04/11/2011 12:55:02 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (When and why did Steve Dunham change his name to Barack Hussein Obama? When he converted to Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I sure wish I had kept an article that I had read a few months ago where an envirowacko openly admitted that wind farms aren’t worth a ****. The main objective of these wind mill fiascos is to remind us to save da planet. I could not believe what this envirowacko had admitted to in the article.


3 posted on 04/11/2011 12:57:59 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Don't wait until the next "threatened" government shut down! Visit a National Park today!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So, who has the operational plot output as a fraction of installed capacity vs. system % of peak demand?


4 posted on 04/11/2011 12:58:37 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Periods of low wind can be avoided here in the U.S. by constructing wind mills on the White House lawns, next to the Capitol building and outside all senate and house office buildings.


5 posted on 04/11/2011 12:59:30 PM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Ah yes ... windmill efficiency.

6 posted on 04/11/2011 1:00:18 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Several weeks ago I was listening to an “energy expert” and global power requirements. He says it would take 7,500 Hoover Dams - of 52 million wind farms to equal today’s needs.


7 posted on 04/11/2011 1:04:10 PM PDT by edcoil (Democrats doing to America what Reagan did to russia. Driving it to bankrupcy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Ping.


8 posted on 04/11/2011 1:06:33 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
This should be the nail in the coffin of this boondoggle, but it won't be as long as you have the wackos pushing this scheme. Their next argument will be that is you are opposed to wind generation, you are racist.

Fact is, reliance on wind capacity builds in a structural requirement to burn more fossil fuels to make up for the time that the wind capacity is unavailable. The need for quick-start capacity when the wind generation goes down means natural gas, which simply gives the Russians, as the major supplier of NG, a greater stranglehold on the European economy.

9 posted on 04/11/2011 1:10:21 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No surprise here on FR. We have been saying that for years. Guess it only carries weight if a green organization says it.
10 posted on 04/11/2011 1:13:26 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera
The need for quick-start capacity when the wind generation goes down means natural gas, which simply gives the Russians, as the major supplier of NG, a greater stranglehold on the European economy.

Да!


11 posted on 04/11/2011 1:13:50 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Whenever you drive through one you will notice that less than half have blades turning. The upkeep and maintenance is difficult and unpredictable.


12 posted on 04/11/2011 1:14:43 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The article that you referenced has some excellent commentary, most of which agrees with the author. I will use it to rebut the leftists on the Denver Post blogs.


13 posted on 04/11/2011 1:18:12 PM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Windmills not only generate no electricity when winds are too low, but also when winds are too high. Those large blades have to be "feathered" in high winds least they destroy themselves. video
14 posted on 04/11/2011 1:20:12 PM PDT by The Great RJ (The Bill of Rights: Another bill members of Congress haven't read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Whenever you drive through one you will notice that less than half have blades turning. The upkeep and maintenance is difficult and unpredictable.

It's not that easy to find people who are willing to climb up and down 150 feet of ladder in order to check out the latest rattle.

15 posted on 04/11/2011 1:24:36 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed

I am thinking of the Ann Coulter quote in which she states that she wishes she was a liberal so that she could be constantly surprised by the obvious.

Anyone who actually thought through this stuff would know that you simply cannot run a modern society on wind power.

16 posted on 04/11/2011 1:28:42 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A system based on the consistancy and predictability of weather being undependable and inneficient? Who could have known?


17 posted on 04/11/2011 1:32:51 PM PDT by CrazyIvan (What's "My Struggle" in Kenyan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Exactly.
Can’t idle one boiler due to wind or solar. Ask any power engineer what he thinks of the wind farms (might need to get him drunk first).


18 posted on 04/11/2011 1:40:27 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Sweden is big into wind generated electricity. Unfortunately it must be supplemented by gas. My friend in middle Sweden pays approximately 52 cents per kwh. That compares to our 8-12 cents per kwh. These prices include generation, transmission, taxes, etc in both countries.


19 posted on 04/11/2011 1:42:32 PM PDT by P3_Acoustic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Sorry, I misspoke about gas supplement. Here is verbatim the Swedish story.

When the wind is not so strong it it compensated by waterpower. We need power on sunny summerdays without wind so we use waterpower. On cold winterdays without wind it is the same but the water is gone. So Germany start their coal and oil power plant and rise the price. The result is: billions ov money to the companies and bankrupcy to the people.


20 posted on 04/11/2011 1:55:37 PM PDT by P3_Acoustic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; Normandy; FreedomPoster; Para-Ord.45; Entrepreneur; tubebender; mmanager; ...
Thanx for the ping AAC !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

21 posted on 04/11/2011 1:59:39 PM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Wind energy might be better used to spray ocean saltwater into the air to create more cooling clouds, rainfall, and hydro power. Old tires could be floated out to sea to also increase evaporation. Tires are black so absorb sun heat plus wave action causes rubber to heat. A large tire island off Saudi Arabia might cause enough evaporation to turn some desert into farmland.


22 posted on 04/11/2011 2:00:19 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: P3_Acoustic
"52 cents per kwh."

Amazing. One could co-generate at home for less.

23 posted on 04/11/2011 2:00:42 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Jenny Hogan, director of policy for Scottish Renewables, said no form of electricity worked at 100% capacity, 100% of the time.

True, but coal fired plants don't need to run at 100% capacity to routinely cover our peak demand periods and they also provide backup power when the wind mills stand idle.

24 posted on 04/11/2011 2:00:48 PM PDT by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hot days tend to generate peak demand due to the need for Air Conditioning. These are precisely the days when you don’t have a measurable amount of wind. Imagine that?


25 posted on 04/11/2011 2:13:51 PM PDT by Tallguy (Received a fine from the NFL for a helmet-to-helmet hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

You don’t have to ask only POWER engineers.

I have to plan my route to avoid the sight of windmills whilst my grandkids are in the vehicle to keep from teaching them too much Chief Petty Officer speech, and I’m merely an Aero engineer.

Wind farms = M$ + BS


26 posted on 04/11/2011 2:18:22 PM PDT by Unrepentant VN Vet ((649 and a wakeup) Truth, I know, always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Thanks for the link!


27 posted on 04/11/2011 2:32:45 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bookmark


28 posted on 04/11/2011 2:38:30 PM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory; Paladin2

>>Whenever you drive through one you will notice that less than half have blades turning. The upkeep and maintenance is difficult and unpredictable.

I noticed that driving from LAX to Palm Springs 8 or 10 years ago, at the big wind farm at the pass though the mountains entering the Palm Springs area from the west.


29 posted on 04/11/2011 2:49:20 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: LibertarianLiz

Clearly you mistakenly think there is logic and analysis involved in this. Sorry, this is all about Watermelon Greens *feeling* good about themselves regarding the things they have forced on the public.

It is a sad state of affairs. Those who were paying attention during the Carter years saw much of the same nonsense with huge subsidies for “alternative energy”, as it was called at the time.


31 posted on 04/11/2011 2:55:03 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Clearly you mistakenly think there is logic and analysis involved in this.

Nah, I just think it's a religion, and have thought that for quite some time.

32 posted on 04/11/2011 3:01:53 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.

There is a reason for windpower's low capacity factor: That is, the power put out by a windmill is proportional to the windspeed cubed. To better undertand this, consider the case where the wind is blowing just strong enough to get 100% power from a windmill (with most windmills this is at about 22 mph). If the wind then diminishes to half of that windspeed (say 11 mph) the windmill does not produce half of the power but instead produces one-eighth of the power (1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2 = 1/8) that it was producing. Thats a huge dropoff and is precisely why utilities need to keep a backup power supply online at all times.

33 posted on 04/11/2011 3:25:11 PM PDT by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

It used to be farmland without the tires before.


34 posted on 04/11/2011 3:28:13 PM PDT by edcoil (Democrats doing to America what Reagan did to russia. Driving it to bankrupcy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If they only generate 30% of their rated capacity,
shouldn’t that be their rated capacity?


35 posted on 04/11/2011 3:28:26 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Worse, their is a cadre of Liberals who’s main client is uncle sugar. Their are those who are working the land leases, selling the concept to the farmer and then call the Utility for a free hook-up. My guess they are skimming all the cream off the top and leaving everyone hanging....


36 posted on 04/11/2011 3:43:33 PM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

I concur wholeheartedly on that. It has become a replacement religion for those who have foresworn religion.


37 posted on 04/11/2011 4:04:32 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Great thread! Need to take a look tommorrow at this as well.

Thanks!


38 posted on 04/11/2011 5:36:29 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unrepentant VN Vet
LOL! Boiler engineers and Chief Petty Officers must have a similar vocabulary.
39 posted on 04/11/2011 5:39:29 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

I agree. We’ve got some greedy ranchers doing it around here and enjoying the lease money. However, I DO NOT TRUST MY GOVERNMENT! I’m waiting to see what happens when Barry and his boys tell the Jolly Ranchers that BIG Gov’t is taking control of ALL energy sources AND THE LAND THEY ARE ON. Ain’t gonna be pretty.


40 posted on 04/11/2011 5:39:41 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Don't wait until the next "threatened" government shut down! Visit a National Park today!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Here’s the future, but it’s now politically untenable due to Fukishima.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567725/201103311739/On-The-Verge-Of-Safe-Reactors-That-Will-Revolutionize-World.aspx


41 posted on 04/13/2011 12:58:27 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Argonne national laboratories are designing a self-contained nuclear reactor with tamper-resistant features. Called SSTAR (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor), this next-generation reactor will produce 10 to 100 megawatts electric and can be safely transported on ship or by a heavy-haul transport truck. In this schematic of one conceptual design being considered, the reactor is enclosed in a transportation cask. SSTAR

Thorium reactors would be cheap. The primary cost in nuclear reactors traditionally is the huge safety requirements. Regarding meltdown in a thorium reactor, Rubbia writes, “Both the EA and MF can be effectively protected against military diversions and exhibit an extreme robustness against any conceivable accident, always with benign consequences. In particular the [beta]-decay heat is comparable in both cases and such that it can be passively dissipated in the environment, thus eliminating the risks of “melt-down”. Thorium reactors can breed uranium-233, which can theoretically be used for nuclear weapons. However, denaturing thorium with its isotope, ionium, eliminates the proliferation threat.

Like any nuclear reactor, thorium reactors will be hot and radioactive, necessitating shielding. The amount of radioactivity scales with the size of the plant. It so happens that thorium itself is an excellent radiation shield, but lead and depleted uranium are also suitable. Smaller plants (100 megawatts), such as the Department of Energy’s small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR) will be 15 meters tall, 3 meters wide and weigh 500 tonnes, using only a few cm of shielding.

Because thorium reactors present no proliferation risk, and because they solve the safety problems associated with earlier reactors, they will be able to use reasonable rather than obsessive standards for security and reliability. If we can reach the $145-in-1971-dollars/kW milestone experienced by Commonwealth Edison in 1971, we can decrease costs for a 1-gigawatt plant to at most $780 million, rather than the $1,100 million to build such a plant today. In fact, you might be able to go as low as $220 million or below, if 80% of reactor costs truly are attributable to expensive anti-meltdown measures. A thorium reactor does not, in fact, need a containment wall. Putting the reactor vessel in a standard industrial building is sufficient.

Because thorium reactors will make nuclear reactors more decentralized. Because of no risk of proliferation or meltdown, thorium reactors can be made of almost any size. A 500 ton, 100MW SSTAR-sized thorium reactor could fit in a large industrial room, require little maintenance, and only cost $25 million. A hypothetical 5 ton, truck-sized 1 MW thorium reactor might run for only $250,000 but would generate enough electricity for 1,000 people for the duration of its operating lifetime, using only 20 kg of thorium fuel per year, running almost automatically, and requiring safety checks as infrequently as once a year. That would be as little as $200/year after capital costs are paid off, for a thousand-persons worth of electricity! An annual visit by a safety inspector might add another $200 to the bill. A town of 1,000 could pool $250K for the reactor at the cost of $250 each, then pay $400/year collectively, or $0.40/year each for fuel and maintenance. These reactors could be built by the thousands, further driving down manufacturing costs.

Smaller reactors make power generation convenient in two ways: decreasing staffing costs by dropping them close to zero, and eliminating the bulky infrastructure required for larger plants. For this reason, it may be more likely that we see the construction of a million $40,000, 100 kW plants than 400 $300 million, 1GW plants. 100 kW plants would require minimal shielding and could be installed in private homes without fear of radiation poisoning. These small plants could be shielded so well that the level of radiation outside the shield is barely greater than the ambient level of radiation from traces of uranium in the environment. The only operating costs would be periodic safety checks, flouride salts, and thorium fuel. For a $40,000 reactor, and $1,000/year in operating costs, you get enough electricity for 100 people, which is enough to accomplish all sorts of antics, like running thousands of desktop nanofactories non-stop.

Even smaller reactors might be built. The molten salt may have a temperature of around 1,400°F, but as long as it can be contained by the best alloys, it is not really a threat. The small gasoline explosions in your automobile today are of a similar temperature. In the future, personal vehicles may be powered by the slow burning of thorium, or at least, hydrogen produced by a thorium reactor. Project Pluto, a nuclear-powered ramjet missile, produced 513 megawatts of power for only $50 million. At that price ratio, a 10 kW reactor might cost $1,000 and provide enough electricity for 10 persons/year while consuming only 1 kg of thorium every 5 years, itself only weighing 1000kg - similar to the weight of a refrigerator. I’m not sure if miniaturization to that degree is possible, or if the scaling laws really hold. But it seems consistent with what I’ve heard about nuclear power in the past.

The primary limitation with nuclear reactors, as always, is containment of radiation. But alloys and materials are improving. We will be able to make reactor vessels which are crack-proof, water-proof, and tamper-proof, but we will have to use superior materials. We should have those materials by 2030 at the latest, and they will make possible the decentralized nuclear energy vision I have outlined here. I consider it probable unless thorium is quickly leapfrogged by fusion power.

The greatest cost for thorium reactors remains their initial construction. If these reactors can be made to last hundreds of years instead of just 60, the cost per kWh comes down even further. If we could do this, then even if there were a disaster that brought down the entire industrial infrastructure, we could use our existing reactors with thorium fuel for energy until civilization restarts. We could send starships to other solar systems, powered by just a few tons of thorium. We will simultaneously experience the abundance we always wanted from nuclear power with the decentralization we always wanted from solar power. We will build self-maintaining “eternal structures” that use thorium electricity to power maintenance robots capable of working for thousands of years without breaks.

Source: A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home

42 posted on 04/13/2011 1:02:20 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (When and why did Steve Dunham change his name to Barack Hussein Obama? When he converted to Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Think of the positive effects of distributing the power sources. If by law you would have to build to 120% of community needs you’d have plenty of additional power built in across communities.

It would take pressure off the grid and render acts of terrorism against the grid useless or easily repairable.

We’ve got to get the word out.


43 posted on 04/13/2011 2:03:37 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson