# General > General >  A message to windfarm developers

## ywindythesecond

*Check your sums!!* 

*http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm ( Click on Wind forecast outcome)*

*4MW yesterday morning, 928MW last night, 47MW tomorrow.*


A message to people who think it is not worth trashing Caithness for such a fickle resource-

*Come to the Ross Institute at Halkirk on Tuesday 22nd June about 12.30 and let your Councillors know what you think about Spittal Hill Windfarm*

----------


## ywindythesecond

Wind output heading for rock bottom again. I am beginning to feel sorry for windfarm developers.



www.bmreports.com

Tomorrow doesn't look any more promising.
(15 is the half hour period, ie 7.30GMT on 15th June 2010.) 3 is the average generation in MW over the last half hour from 1588MW connected wind capacity in Scotland including Causeymire, Buolfruich and almost all other wind farms in Highland Region.  And Whitelees, 308MW, near Glasgow. 
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/staticd...arkModules.xls

----------


## ducati

So do the developers not know this? Or are they just cynically grabbing all the investment and subsidies they can until the game is up?  :: 

What is in it, in the long term, for the developers?

----------


## Green_not_greed

> So do the developers not know this? Or are they just cynically grabbing all the investment and subsidies they can until the game is up? 
> 
> What is in it, in the long term, for the developers?




The developers don't give a toss about the environment - its all about money.

Reduce the RoC subsidies and see how many are in it for the environment...... 

The Spanish reduced their subsidies by 30% and many of the developers simply went elsewhere where they could get a better return on their investment.

GNG

----------


## Scout

So if we take what you say is true and these wind farms are not turning out electricity then why have they not gone bust yet ::  I thought if it was clear that no Wind farm was making money from selling to the grid why would any one want to invest? And what about power stations they don't make money? Do they care what happens to this world ?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> So do the developers not know this? Or are they just cynically grabbing all the investment and subsidies they can until the game is up? 
> 
> What is in it, in the long term, for the developers?


 Wind industry hype is that it produces on average at 30% capacity.  That is the basis on which they count the number of homes served. Spittal Windfarm promises 42,000 homes served.  The 3MW recorded this morning across Scotland included all the grid-connected windfarms in Highland including Causeymire and Buolfruich.
When I came to Caithness ten years ago, the wind was constant.  It just isn't like that now and if a developer's business plan relies on say five year old wind records he has a nasty shock coming!
By the way, no wind= no electricity= no subsidy!

----------


## Even Chance

> When I came to Caithness ten years ago, the wind was constant. It just isn't like that now


Ive not noticed any difference in the wind up here at all, and I rely on it for my sports activities. Do you have any proof of this?

----------


## Green_not_greed

> So if we take what you say is true and these wind farms are not turning out electricity then why have they not gone bust yet I thought if it was clear that no Wind farm was making money from selling to the grid why would any one want to invest? And what about power stations they don't make money? Do they care what happens to this world ?


 
They are turning out electricity - it can just be very sporadic given that it is wind dependent.  The subsidies are so obscene that the occassional downtime doesn't matter - developers are still coining it in.   If I understand correctly, Ywindy's main points are (1) instability in the grid, (2) the fact that wind cannot be relied upon as a guaranteed supply source and (3) even though wind turbine numbers increase, no conventional power station has closed as a result.

Try this for a non-Caithness perspective on things

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/...n-as-in-money/

----------


## ywindythesecond

> So if we take what you say is true and these wind farms are not turning out electricity then why have they not gone bust yet I thought if it was clear that no Wind farm was making money from selling to the grid why would any one want to invest? And what about power stations they don't make money? Do they care what happens to this world ?


It is a good question Scout. I think part of the problem is the enormous
effort the wind industry puts into persuading politicians that wind is good and eventually they start believing it themselves. Weather patterns are changing, and wind developers do not care about anything but money.
The reality so far this year is that the 1588MW that National Grid monitors
averaged 14.5% in February, 26.3% in March, 20.3% in April, and 11.2% in May. If you can't get better than average wind in February and March, it doesn't bode well for the annual average.
At 30% average output, a 2.5MW turbine would earn 2.5x24x365x0.3x£45 per ROC = £295,650 pa. If output turns out to be only 20% average, then that is a big hole in your budget. http://www.e-roc.co.uk/trackrecord.htm
I am not quite sure what you meant when you asked about power stations?

----------


## fender

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;722645]
When I came to Caithness ten years ago, the wind was constant.  


What!!!

----------


## Sara Jevo

Every energy producer is motivated by profit from fertile markets for their shareholders.

Why should wind farm developers be any different?

The market has been created to make the returns attractive for development.

Those opposed to renewable energy ought to take up their argument with Government, not the companies.

It's like complaining to oil companies that they are using up the planet's resources.

Companies are free to do whatever legislation does not prohibit. If you want to block wind farms, it's government you need to persuade. Local opinion is irrelevant.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Ive not noticed any difference in the wind up here at all, and I rely on it for my sports activities. Do you have any proof of this?


I haven't proof, that would come from wind records, but wind *generation* records over the last four months show that Caithness has more periods of low wind than high wind.  Wind turbines start generating when the wind is about 8mph and reach peak around 33mph. To get 30% production overall, then there has to be a lot of wind generation a lot of the time. In the last four months there has been little wind generation for most of the time, punctuated by short periods of high wind.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> They are turning out electricity - it can just be very sporadic given that it is wind dependent. The subsidies are so obscene that the occassional downtime doesn't matter - developers are still coining it in. If I understand correctly, Ywindy's main points are (1) instability in the grid, (2) the fact that wind cannot be relied upon as a guaranteed supply source and (3) even though wind turbine numbers increase, no conventional power station has closed as a result.
> 
> Try this for a non-Caithness perspective on things
> 
> http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/...n-as-in-money/


Thanks GnG, I agree with all your points but my main point is that the generally accepted wisdom that:
on average, windfarms work at 30% connected capacitythe wind is always blowing somewherevery low wind events are rare and the liklihood of them coinciding with maximum demand is slight,is being proven to be wrong, therefore the incentive to develop is overstated and the rewards are unlikely to be as high as might have been expected.

----------


## ywindythesecond

[quote=fender;722695]


> When I came to Caithness ten years ago, the wind was constant. 
> 
> 
> What!!!


OK Perhaps it just appeared constant.  I moved here from Lochaber
and used to say that folk in Caithness did not know what rain was and folk in Lochaber did not know what wind was.  In my experience, Caithness is a far less windy place now than it was 10 years ago. 
Any takers?

----------


## Neil Howie

> (2) the fact that wind cannot be relied upon as a guaranteed supply  source



Still working on ways around this.  Such as convert the wind energy to gas.  Convert to gas 





> Throughout the world, electricity generation is based more and more on  wind and solar energy. So far, the missing link for integrating  renewable energy into the electricity supply is a smart power storage  concept. Because when the wind is blowing powerfully, wind turbines  generate more electricity than the power grid can absorb. Now, German  researchers have succeeded in storing renewable electricity as natural  gas. They convert the electricity into synthetic natural gas with the  aid of a new process. The process was developed by the Center for Solar  Energy and Hydrogen Research Baden-Württemberg (ZSW)

----------


## Duncansby

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;722866]


> OK Perhaps it just appeared constant.  I moved here from Lochaber
> and used to say that folk in Caithness did not know what rain was and folk in Lochaber did not know what wind was.  In my experience, Caithness is a far less windy place now than it was 10 years ago. 
> Any takers?


No not at all. I think perhaps you have just acclimatised!

----------


## Rheghead

> The reality so far this year is that the 1588MW that National Grid monitors
> averaged 14.5% in February, 26.3% in March, 20.3% in April, and 11.2% in May.


Broadly, what degree of performance correlation would you expect between each wind farm from a population of monitored wind turbines in Scotland?  A high degree of correlation or low degree correlation?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Broadly, what degree of performance correlation would you expect between each wind farm from a population of monitored wind turbines in Scotland? A high degree of correlation or low degree correlation?


Hi Reggy, welcome back.
I don't have an expectation but what we can observe is a high degree of correlation at low wind events across the monitored turbines since 1st February 2010.
There have been 38 days since 1st February when generation dipped to 20MW or less, and on 15 of those it was below 10MW, and on 10th June it got as low as 2MW, all out of 1588MW connected capacity.
It is only doing 25MW as I write this.
Not much happening across Europe at the moment either.

----------


## hawthorn

OMG, just read the article that GnG posted. It brought a tear to my eye as that is exactly what is happening to the folks of Caithness, and sadly they are sitting back and accepting it.  Having had a quick look at Gordon Moonies recommendation for Spittal Hill windfarm i'm quickly thinking it's time to move. I for one do not want my children's lives devestated by these monsters!

----------


## Rheghead

> Hi Reggy, welcome back.
> I don't have an expectation but what we can observe is a high degree of correlation at low wind events across the monitored turbines since 1st February 2010.


What is the fundamental reason for this high degree of correlation? Why is the wind data displaying such peaks and troughs?   ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> What is the fundamental reason for this high degree of correlation? Why is the wind data displaying such peaks and troughs?


Haven't a clue Reggy. Don't keep us in suspense, I bet you know the answer!
BTW Output went down to 17MW at 19.45 GMT (Quarter to nine tonight) That makes 39 times below 20MW since 1st February.

----------


## Rheghead

> Haven't a clue Reggy. Don't keep us in suspense, I bet you know the answer!
> BTW Output went down to 17MW at 19.45 GMT (Quarter to nine tonight) That makes 39 times below 20MW since 1st February.


So you don't know why virtually all the monitored wind farms in Scotland are experiencing the same windy conditions one day then calm days the next?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> So you don't know why virtually all the monitored wind farms in Scotland are experiencing the same windy conditions one day then calm days the next?


 Nope, but do tell.

----------


## Rheghead

> Nope, but do tell.


I think it is so obvious, I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I think it is so obvious, I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence.


Feel free to insult me Reggy, you have never held back in the past.
To think I said "welcome back!"

----------


## ducati

The weather?

----------


## Rheghead

> The weather?


partly yes, if we monitored 794MW of wind farms in California and collated them together summarily with 794MW of wind farms in Scotland in real-time, would we see the same sinusoidal pattern of peaks and troughs?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> partly yes, if we monitored 794MW of wind farms in California and collated them together summarily with 794MW of wind farms in Scotland in real-time, would we see the same sinusoidal pattern of peaks and troughs?


Why 794MW?

Got this from Wiki 

The *sine wave* or *sinusoid* is a mathematical function that describes a smooth repetitive oscillation.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why 794MW?
> 
> Got this from Wiki 
> 
> The *sine wave* or *sinusoid* is a mathematical function that describes a smooth repetitive oscillation.


Modelling the chaos of the real world presents its own difficulties outwith of the nature of political commentary and criticism but it is generally accepted that the wind grows and fades over a fixed point with sinusoidal influences.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Modelling the chaos of the real world presents its own difficulties outwith of the nature of political commentary and criticism but it is generally accepted that the wind grows and fades over a fixed point with sinusoidal influences.


Fascinating, but why 794MW?

----------


## Rheghead

An interesting vid

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=395599499298

----------


## Rheghead

> Fascinating, but why 794MW?


total monitored in Scotland (1588MW) divided by the 2 regions I quoted=794MW, again a bit obvious.   :: 

Has the penny dropped why the monitored wind farms in Scotland show a high degree of correlation?

----------


## Amy-Winehouse

> When I came to Caithness ten years ago, the wind was constant. It just isn't like that now !


 
I smell something brown coloured, from your direction Ywindy.  It is always windy here, I rely on weather for going out on my wee boat & six months of the year is a write off because of wind.

Fair Isle is the windiest place in Europe & we are not that far away from it, Ive lived in Wick for well over 30 years & the wind has never decreased.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I smell something brown coloured, from your direction Ywindy. It is always windy here, I rely on weather for going out on my wee boat & six months of the year is a write off because of wind.
> 
> Fair Isle is the windiest place in Europe & we are not that far away from it, Ive lived in Wick for well over 30 years & the wind has never decreased.


Charming turn of phrase Amy, thanks. Perhaps it is a question of scale. Your wee boat may well spank along on the open sea when wind is at a few miles an hour but it takes wind speeds of around 30-35 mph to drive a wind turbine at full output, and that has to be for 7.2 hours a day every day of the year to come up to the level of generation that Spittal Hill Windfarm claims it will achieve. That is the context I am discussing. Is Caithness that windy? It certainly isn't nowadays and probably wasn't when I first came here.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Generation went down to 3MW from our 1588MW strong fleet of wind turbines at 0440 GMT today.
We are now in our 40th day since 1st February when it has gone below 20MW, and our 16th day in single figures. Yesterdays average was 35MW.

----------


## Scout

> Generation went down to 3MW from our 1588MW strong fleet of wind turbines at 0440 GMT today.
> We are now in our 40th day since 1st February when it has gone below 20MW, and our 16th day in single figures. Yesterdays average was 35MW.



I think Rheghead has good points he is raised with these charts. I have said this before ywindythesecond in other rooms you have open about Wind Farms. My friend came back and was saying these do not show the true output of Wind Farms the time they go down the line the power shows small amount. But if you showed lets say the output from Caithness Wind Farms they would show different to your chart.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I think Rheghead has good points he is raised with these charts. I have said this before ywindythesecond in other rooms you have open about Wind Farms. My friend came back and was saying these do not show the true output of Wind Farms the time they go down the line the power shows small amount. But if you showed lets say the output from Caithness Wind Farms they would show different to your chart.


I can't isolate Caithness output as such, but Buolfruich and Causeymire Windfarms total 51MW capacity and are part of the 1588MW,and when total ouput from 1588MW across Scotland is only 3MW, even if it all came from Caithness it would still be a poor show. Anyway, South East England is the place to have a windfarm today.
And no, I still don't get Reggy's point.

And it is not my chart, it is National Grid's Chart.

----------


## badger

Unscientific contribution to this debate - no wind at all yesterday evening here so glad I wasn't relying on windfarms for supper, forum watching, telly etc.

----------


## Even Chance

That wind chart actually belongs to the website-
http://www.xcweather.co.uk/

It is the best wind data site available for free, bar GRIB files of course.

This is my first point of reference prior to entertaining my hobby and business pursuits.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think Rheghead has good points he is raised with these charts. I have said this before ywindythesecond in other rooms you have open about Wind Farms. My friend came back and was saying these do not show the true output of Wind Farms the time they go down the line the power shows small amount. But if you showed lets say the output from Caithness Wind Farms they would show different to your chart.


Indeed.  

What the BMreports do actually show is the performance of a limited amount of wind farms (approximately 33% of the current UK wind energy portfolio) that are all situated together (with respect to cyclone spacing) in a relatively small area of the UK. 

Ywindy is making non-valid political points by trying to extrapolate what we see in the BMReports (in terms of a future low-carbon economy) to his congregation's minds-eye  in other words, he is completely missing the point from an informed mindset.

I've also studied the BMReports.  I've often seen the occasional period during good winds and low diurnal load-following by coal that might have shown that wind energy became the third largest source of energy.  BMReports won't show this because it only monitors 33% of the wind.  

Another point which ywindy completely misses because it suits his political agenda is that the days when energy generators slavishly generate energy to satisfy whatever the demand is coming to an end.  The dinosaur of our old energy grid is showing signs of dying.  The new renewable energy system will have more energy grid storage, more end-user storage, more control of consumption when the energy is there, more facility to save wasted energy etc etc.

----------


## ducati

Point scoring aside, it is obvious the windfarms in Caithness will never pay for themselves, let alone reduce carbon emissions in their lifetime. 

So, what is the point? Why are we having these things planned/approved unaposed by our elected representatives?

Who do they really represent? I smell a conspiracy  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Point scoring aside, it is obvious the windfarms in Caithness will never pay for themselves, let alone reduce carbon emissions in their lifetime. 
> 
> So, what is the point? Why are we having these things planned/approved unaposed by our elected representatives?
> 
> Who do they really represent? I smell a conspiracy


You raise some interesting points and I'd like to see something that could validate your assumptions.

One of the big criticisms of wind energy is that it very expensive.  It is expensive at the moment, I have never said anything to the contrary.  It is also true that wind developers are in it for the money, they are like any other business person afterall.  But I see the acquisition of that wealth as a means for a better future and much preferable to the acquisition of wealth as a means to a bitter end.

I've also wondered whether wind turbines repay their carbon balance or energy balance.  This is fundamental to my approval of wind energy.  So if you find anything that suggests they don't then I will campaign against them.  It is as simple as that, cheers.

As for our locally elected representatives, they should have a difficult balancing act to perform.  They have a duty to represent us as they see fit by balancing the national need with that of the local.  Their duty isn't a one-way trip to do as we see fit.  And if they are acting out of touch or balance then we have a duty to vote them out.

----------


## ducati

> I've also wondered whether wind turbines repay their carbon balance or energy balance. This is fundamental to my approval of wind energy. So if you find anything that suggests they don't then I will campaign against them. It is as simple as that, cheers.


A better question is: When the wind turbines are generating, which fossil fuel powered stations are switched off?

If none of them are, then there is no carbon reduction-simples 

And, don't forget the carbon footprint of manufacturing, transporting and erecting the turbines, which must be immense

----------


## Rheghead

> A better question is: When the wind turbines are generating, which fossil fuel powered stations are switched off?
> 
> If none of them are, then there is no carbon reduction-simples 
> 
> And, don't forget the carbon footprint of manufacturing, transporting and erecting the turbines, which must be immense


That seems rather counter-intuitive firstly because we are locked into legally binding legislation to reduce carbon emissions and because I can't see the fossil generators paying for and using up fuel for no financial reward, again if you find anything to substantiate that I'd be most grateful.

Which part of the turbine do you think costs the most energy to make?

----------


## bekisman

I see Germany is being very green:

"The Germany government is one of the biggest proponents of green energy . However, they are currently planning to construct *26 new coal power plants.* The Vattenfall project in Berlin is only one example of a larger trend. Utility companies want to set up a total of 26 new coal-fired power plants in Germany during the coming years.In the long term, the power plants will replace older, dirtier plants. But that doesnt alter the fact that the plans are a direct contradiction of the climate goals formulated by Merkel.
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/04/26-new-coal-power-plants-in-germany/

----------


## fender

> Unscientific contribution to this debate - no wind at all yesterday evening here so glad I wasn't relying on windfarms for supper, forum watching, telly etc.


Never mind you should be ok today!!

----------


## Rheghead

> I see Germany is being very green:
> 
> "The Germany government is one of the biggest proponents of ‘green energy’ . However, they are currently planning to construct *26 new coal power plants.* The Vattenfall project in Berlin is only one example of a larger trend. Utility companies want to set up a total of 26 new coal-fired power plants in Germany during the coming years.In the long term, the power plants will replace older, dirtier plants. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the plans are a direct contradiction of the climate goals formulated by Merkel.
> http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/04/26-new-coal-power-plants-in-germany/


There is always something that these cynical website bloggy things don't tell us and it always takes a little effort to tease the truth from the cynicism, as always it is in the small print.

In this case, the new coal-fired plants are combined heat and power plants (CHP) which does as it says on the tin providing heat and power to homes and businesses thus cutting carbon emissions from those sectors.

CHP is endorsed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth so if they are doing that then I've no problem with it.

I believe it is customary to put my face in my palms now.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Indeed. 
> 
> 
> What the BMreports do actually show is the performance of a limited amount of wind farms (approximately 33% of the current UK wind energy portfolio) that are all situated together (with respect to cyclone spacing) in a relatively small area of the UK. 
> 
> 
> Ywindy is making non-valid political points by trying to extrapolate what we see in the BMReports (in terms of a future low-carbon economy) to his congregation's minds-eye in other words, he is completely missing the point from an informed mindset.
> 
> I've also studied the BMReports. I've often seen the occasional period during good winds and low diurnal load-following by coal that might have shown that wind energy became the third largest source of energy. BMReports won't show this because it only monitors 33% of the wind. 
> ...


BMreports and % metered
BMreports cover all the windfarms in the UK that National Grid has meters on. The reason that they are all in Scotland is that Scotland operates mainly on 175kv distribution and the visible ones connect directly to the grid at substations. Windfarms that connect into the wider distribution (embedded) aren't metered but they bring the total wind generation capacity in Scotland up to about 40% UK total. Because of the wide spread of the 1588MW seen windfarms in Scotland, then it is a reasonable assumption that embedded generation is performing at the same sort of level.
In England and Wales, National Grid operates 400kv lines and the rest of the distribution is run by other companies, unseen to NG. So the 1588MW ststs on bmreports is all the information that is available in near enough real time. 
It _is_ confined to Scotland but when the weather pattern is reasonably similar across UK as in the chart I posted earlier (thanks for info Even Chance) then it is reasonable, in these circumstances, to assume a similar level of generation applies across the rest of the UK

Para 2
I have no idea what you mean by " congregation's minds eye".

Para 3.
Of course there are periods of high wind. But just as a recorded very low wind event has to be Scotland wide, a recorded very high wind event has to be Scotland wide, and if the weather pattern is the same across UK, then it is probable that wind will become a major generator for that period when we have six times the number of turbines that we have now. 

But in low wind events, six times zilch is still zilch.

On your 4th paragraph, energy use must indeed change and it is the most fruitful area to attack.

_"The new renewable energy system will have more energy grid storage"_ What new renewable energy system? How do you do energy grid storage? What form will end-user storage take? If you mean "demand side management" for control of consuption, that is code for turning your power off when there is not enough to go round.

I am eager to learn what my political agenda is. Do tell.

----------


## ducati

> That seems rather counter-intuitive firstly because we are locked into legally binding legislation to reduce carbon emissions and because I can't see the fossil generators paying for and using up fuel for no financial reward, again if you find anything to substantiate that I'd be most grateful.
> 
> Which part of the turbine do you think costs the most energy to make?


It should be easy enough to find out which, if any fossil fuel generators are 'downed' when wind generation is being fed to the grid. 

As far as energy to mnfg the turbines I havn't a clue. I would take a stab at the steel forging. everything else is just casting and machining.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> I've also wondered whether wind turbines repay their carbon balance or energy balance.  This is fundamental to my approval of wind energy.


Welcome back!

The average turbine base requires a huge volume of cement.  Manufacture of cement is one of the worst processes there is in terms of producing CO2.  Perhaps you've got the time and curiosity to do some homework and sums on this aspect alone?  Of course all the other aspects including manufacture, transport and decommissioning, all need to be added in to the overall equation afterwards.  

For reference, the Baillie turbine bases are 18m x 18m x 1.5m (approx).  The base isn't square but shown as octagonal.  Assuming they are circular (to simplify calcs), the volume of cement is 486 m3 which is around 972 Te.  That's per base, by the way.  

And remember when you do the carbon balance, please use the correct sums for "carbon savings" from generation, and not the one used by the Developer, which was vastly exaggerated.

I look forward to seeing your calculations online.

GNG

----------


## Rheghead

> Welcome back!
> 
> The average turbine base requires a huge volume of cement.  Manufacture of cement is one of the worst processes there is in terms of producing CO2.  Perhaps you've got the time and curiosity to do some homework and sums on this aspect alone?  Of course all the other aspects including manufacture, transport and decommissioning, all need to be added in to the overall equation afterwards.  
> 
> For reference, the Baillie turbine bases are 18m x 18m x 1.5m (approx).  The base isn't square but shown as octagonal.  Assuming they are circular (to simplify calcs), the volume of cement is 486 m3 which is around 972 Te.  That's per base, by the way.  
> 
> And remember when you do the carbon balance, please use the correct sums for "carbon savings" from generation, and not the one used by the Developer, which was vastly exaggerated.
> 
> I look forward to seeing your calculations online.
> ...


Thank you very much for those measurements.

I know you are no lover of Wikipedia but it says that 900kg of CO2 are emitted for every 1000kg of cement produced.  This seems reasonable to me, should I proceed?

----------


## Rheghead

> It should be easy enough to find out which, if any fossil fuel generators are 'downed' when wind generation is being fed to the grid. 
> 
> As far as energy to mnfg the turbines I havn't a clue. I would take a stab at the steel forging. everything else is just casting and machining.


I understand that it takes 18GJ to produce a tonne of steel, the towers are made of 20mm gauge steel, 4m diameter X 70m long.  From the top of my memory, the density of steel is ~7g/cc.

I think we have all the figures to make a reasonable energy CO2 balance calculation for the tower and cement base.

----------


## Rheghead

> It _is_ confined to Scotland but when the weather pattern is reasonably similar across UK as in the chart I posted earlier (thanks for info Even Chance) then it is reasonable, in these circumstances, to assume a similar level of generation applies across the rest of the UK.


Well not quite, in fact not at all like BMReports.

As a weather pattern passes over the country and into the north sea where more turbines are earmarked and into Europe, it will sequentially activate the turbines in its pathway thus producing a totally different performance curve than what is produced in the BMReports from the limited Scottish turbines.  And if the geographical spread is on the scale of a typical cyclone ~1500km then when one passes over then the next one will be on its way.  Of course we now have the international agreements to cater for this now.  I think I've read somewhere that 120GW of wind energy is projected for the north sea in the future by some speculatory experts in the industry.

----------


## Neil Howie

Large scale offshore wind farm investment re-affirmed here,

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Well not quite, in fact not at all like BMReports.
> 
> As a weather pattern passes over the country and into the north sea where more turbines are earmarked and into Europe, it will sequentially activate the turbines in its pathway thus producing a totally different performance curve than what is produced in the BMReports from the limited Scottish turbines. And if the geographical spread is on the scale of a typical cyclone ~1500km then when one passes over then the next one will be on its way. Of course we now have the international agreements to cater for this now. I think I've read somewhere that 120GW of wind energy is projected for the north sea in the future by some speculatory experts in the industry.


*Well not quite, in fact not at all like BMReports.*

For anyone just joining this discussion, www.bmreports.com is the website for the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) run on behalf of the UK National Grid for the benefit of the industry organizations which generate, buy, sell, and distribute electricity in UK. It publishes data every five minutes on what is being generated by fuel type across UK and what is is being passed across the Irish and French Interconnectors. It shows the market and windpower projections for the immediate future, records what happened and provides a host of other information on how the supply and demand of electrical power is managed second by second.

IT is solid true fact coming from the people who run the electrical power network in UK. They know a little more about it than Reggy.

The windpower industry and the politicians it has seduced grasp the word average. My average requirement for electricity is that every time I want a cup of tea I can turn the kettle on and it will boil the water. Multiply that by about 60million, and you get the nations average requirement for electricity. We dont want to wait for a cyclone to conveniently pass over us.

Here is yesterday's wind map of Europe including the North Sea. How many cups of tea would offshore wind boil yesterday? 
(Is this a good weather info source Even Chance?)

----------


## Rheghead

> IT is solid true fact coming from the people who run the electrical power network in UK. They know a little more about it than Reggy.


Indeed, and their message is more wind power please and we are able to deal with the variability quite easily.  If I remember rightly NGT can accomodate around 35GW on the grid before they need to think more imaginatively with the variability problem.  We have so far only 4.5GW so all your 'technical' objections have no validity until such as then.

----------


## Bobinovich

So Rheghead are you saying that the country needs almost 8 times the current number of turbines in order to produce 35GW, all before you'd bother contemplating the non-technical consequenses?

If the current trend of siting them where there is the least population to resist the proposals continues, then Caithness will probably get more than 8 times its share  :: .

So in addition to the 48 already erected and another 66 already approved, you appear to be satisfied at the prospect of maybe another 270 on top of that in Caithness alone  :: ?

----------


## bekisman

> So Rheghead are you saying that the country needs almost 8 times the current number of turbines in order to produce 35GW, all before you'd bother contemplating the non-technical consequenses?
> 
> If the current trend of siting them where there is the least population to resist the proposals continues, then Caithness will probably get more than 8 times its share .
> 
> So in addition to the 48 already erected and another 66 already approved, you appear to be satisfied at the prospect of maybe another 270 on top of that in Caithness alone ?


*Cos it'll save the world of course!* (oh, and line farmers/developers pockets and also put up electricity costs for us poor gits)

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Thank you very much for those measurements.
> 
> I know you are no lover of Wikipedia but it says that 900kg of CO2 are emitted for every 1000kg of cement produced. This seems reasonable to me, should I proceed?


 
I'm sure you can do better than that.  Is that based on the chemical process only?

CaCO3 + heat producesCaO + CO2

Or does it include the coal emissions used to fire the kilns (900 degrees C or so)?  Emissions from mining the ore in the first place? Transport?  Please clarify.  Thanks.

----------


## Tugmistress

ok here's something for you to ponder, i've been asked for some wind records, i've chosen january as an example month.

*Averages\Extremes for the month of January to 31 2006*

------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature       4.0   °C
Average humidity          82   %
Average dewpoint          1.2   °C
Average barometer         1014 mb
Average windspeed         9.3  mph
Average gustspeed         11.2  mph
Average direction         163 ° (SSE)
Rainfall for month        23.4  mm
Rainfall for year         23.4  mm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maximum rain per minute   0.5   mm on day 29 at time 13:06 
Maximum temperature       11.6  °C on day 19 at time 13:36 
Minimum temperature       -4.8  °C on day 31 at time 06:26 
Maximum humidity          91 % on day 01 at time 10:12 
Minimum humidity          43 % on day 06 at time 21:52 
Maximum pressure          1034.9  mb on day 26 at time 21:41 
Minimum pressure          979.6  mb on day 10 at time 19:06 
Maximum windspeed         48.3  mph  from 195°  on day 10 at time 22:32 
Maximum gust speed        61.0  mph  from 191°  on day 10 at time 22:17 



*Averages\Extremes for the month of January to 31 2007*

------------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature       4.6   °C
Average humidity          82   %
Average dewpoint          1.8   °C
Average barometer         1000.4 mb
Average windspeed         17.8  mph
Average gustspeed         20.8  mph
Average direction         266 ° ( W )
Rainfall for month        87.2  mm
Rainfall for year         87.2  mm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maximum rain per minute   3.0   mm on day 12 at time 16:45 
Maximum temperature       12.4  °C on day 13 at time 13:47 
Minimum temperature       -1.9  °C on day 10 at time 16:29 
Maximum humidity          90 % on day 29 at time 07:59 
Minimum humidity          60 % on day 11 at time 19:29 
Maximum pressure          1028.9  mb on day 22 at time 22:12 
Minimum pressure          963.6  mb on day 09 at time 07:40 
Maximum windspeed         88.6  mph  from 278° on day 11 at time 15:36 
Maximum gust speed        90.8  mph  from 285° on day 11 at time 19:43 



*Averages\Extremes for the month of January to 29 2008*

------------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature       6.4   °C
Average humidity          88   %
Average dewpoint          4.6   °C
Average barometer         1009.5 mb
Average windspeed         15.4  mph
Average gustspeed         19.4  mph
Average direction         246 ° (WSW)
Rainfall for month        96.8  mm
Rainfall for year         96.8  mm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maximum rain per minute   1.1   mm on day 25 at time 10:08 
Maximum temperature       11.2  °C on day 28 at time 14:41 
Minimum temperature       0.5  °C on day 29 at time 21:54 
Maximum humidity          96 % on day 27 at time 04:04 
Minimum humidity          27 % on day 24 at time 20:02 
Maximum pressure          1018.4  mb on day 27 at time 20:54 
Minimum pressure          300.1  mb on day 24 at time 20:02 
Maximum windspeed         46.0  mph  from 261° on day 25 at time 01:11 
Maximum gust speed        59.8  mph  from 251° on day 25 at time 01:08 



Averages\Extremes for the month of January 2009

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Average temperature     = 4.1°C
 Average humidity        = 89%
 Average dewpoint        = 2.4°C
 Average barometer       = 993.8 mb
 Average windspeed       = 16.6 mph
 Average gustspeed       = 19.6 mph
 Average direction       = 149° (SSE)
 Rainfall for month      = 28.6 mm
 Rainfall for year       = 28.6 mm
 Maximum rain per minute = 1.1 mm on day 20 at time 05:12
 Maximum temperature     = 11.4°C on day 21 at time 06:23
 Minimum temperature     = -3.9°C on day 20 at time 08:28
 Maximum humidity        = 95% on day 25 at time 13:58
 Minimum humidity        = 62% on day 21 at time 13:37
 Maximum pressure        = 1030.3 mb on day 24 at time 06:19
 Minimum pressure        = 963.8 mb on day 19 at time 13:57
 Maximum windspeed       = 71.3 mph from 248°(WSW) on day 19 at time 22:41
 Maximum gust speed      = 85.1 mph from 248°(WSW) on day 19 at time 22:41
 Maximum heat index      = 11.4°C on day 21 at time 06:23



Averages\Extremes for the month of January 2010

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Average temperature     = 2.4°C
 Average humidity        = 87%
 Average dewpoint        = 0.6°C
 Average barometer       = 1015.8 mb
 Average windspeed       = 15.8 mph
 Average gustspeed       = 18.7 mph
 Average direction       = 111° (ESE)
 Rainfall for month      = 43.0 mm
 Rainfall for year       = 43.0 mm
 Maximum rain per minute = 1.0 mm on day 08 at time 11:26
 Maximum temperature     = 9.3°C on day 26 at time 23:44
 Minimum temperature     = -6.1°C on day 10 at time 08:51
 Maximum humidity        = 93% on day 27 at time 07:04
 Minimum humidity        = 61% on day 05 at time 19:44
 Maximum dewpoint        = 7.6°C on day 27 at time 06:25
 Minimum dewpoint        = -7.6°C on day 10 at time 8:33
 Maximum pressure        = 1038.5 mb on day 10 at time 09:48
 Minimum pressure        = 767.7 mb on day 23 at time 07:48
 Maximum windspeed       = 48.3 mph from 135°( SE) on day 16 at time 03:01
 Maximum gust speed      = 57.5 mph from 135°( SE) on day 16 at time 03:16
 Maximum heat index      = 9.3°C on day 26 at time 23:44
 Avg daily max temp :4.3°C
 Avg daily min temp :0.1°C
 Growing degrees days :0.0 GDD
 Total windrun = 11680.8miles
 Frost days= 15

 Frost days= 9

Maximum heat index        11.2 °C on day 28 at time 14:41 

Maximum heat index        12.4 °C on day 13 at time 13:47 

Maximum heat index        11.6 °C on day 19 at time 13:36

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm sure you can do better than that.  Is that based on the chemical process only?
> 
> CaCO3 + heat producesCaO + CO2
> 
> Or does it include the coal emissions used to fire the kilns (900 degrees C or so)?  Emissions from mining the ore in the first place? Transport?  Please clarify.  Thanks.


the chemical process CO2 amounts to 440 kg per 1000kg of cement.

the 900kg of CO2 (from wiki) per tonne of cement is the sum of the chemical process derived CO2 and the energy CO2.  Should we proceed or do you have a level of CO2 in mind?

should we just double the figure to allow for any discrepencies?

----------


## Rheghead

> So Rheghead are you saying that the country needs almost 8 times the current number of turbines in order to produce 35GW, all before you'd bother contemplating the non-technical consequenses?
> 
> If the current trend of siting them where there is the least population to resist the proposals continues, then Caithness will probably get more than 8 times its share .
> 
> So in addition to the 48 already erected and another 66 already approved, you appear to be satisfied at the prospect of maybe another 270 on top of that in Caithness alone ?


Perhaps you should impartially review the enormity of the task of in front of us in order to gain a low carbon economy.

We can either go on as we have before and sod climate change and have a nice life today cos the effects are not gonna affect us or we do something now at our visual and economic detriment so as to provide a fair future to our children and their children not mentioning nature itself.  To some of us, the best interests of our kids mean everything to us.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> the chemical process CO2 amounts to 440 kg per 1000kg of cement.
> 
> the 900kg of CO2 (from wiki) per tonne of cement is the sum of the chemical process derived CO2 and the energy CO2.  Should we proceed or do you have a level of CO2 in mind?
> 
> should we just double the figure to allow for any discrepencies?


If that's what you recommend, why not?

----------


## Rheghead

> If that's what you recommend, why not?


ok so the base of a turbine is typically responsible for 972te X 1.8te= 1750te of carbon dioxide, are we still in agreement?  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

This morning, generation level across the 1588MW windpower monitored by National Grid across Scotland reached the magic 30% figure (475MW) (needed *on average* to meet the output claimed by Spittal Windfarm) for the first time since 12th June but it doesnt look like it will last for long.

----------


## badger

> Perhaps you should impartially review the enormity of the task of in front of us in order to gain a low carbon economy.
> 
> We can either go on as we have before and sod climate change and have a nice life today cos the effects are not gonna affect us or we do something now at our visual and economic detriment so as to provide a fair future to our children and their children not mentioning nature itself. To some of us, the best interests of our kids mean everything to us.


Many of us don't think we can carry on as we are but also don't believe covering the country in windfarms is the answer to anything.  There are very many other ways of reducing our energy use and destruction of the environment.  The massive sums of money spent on windfarms could insulate homes, improve heating systems, provide micro-renewables wherever possible for buildings to be self-sufficient, improve public transport to reduce car use, ban all unnecessary activities like motor-racing,  bike/car rallies etc. etc.  

If Govts. were really serious about saving the world for our children they would not be travelling around in limos. and private jets to attend "green" conferences!    

If I had the choice between living near a windfarm and using as much energy as I wanted or living in peace and reducing my energy consumption to absolute minimum, there's no contest.  

Very few people who advocate windfarms or stand to make money out of them actually have to live right up close to one.

----------


## Rheghead

> Point scoring aside, it is obvious the windfarms in Caithness will never pay for themselves, let alone reduce carbon emissions in their lifetime.


This is a study which calculates the CO2 payback time on a peat-rich site as  3.5 years.   The study is far from perfect and includes several biased assumptions which are designed to lengthen the payback time of CO2 but nonetheless it is a good starting point.

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_c...udit-Guide.pdf

----------


## ducati

Sorry, don't believe it. One of the assumtions I assume, will be that it actually generates lecky a reasonable proportion of the time. That is one thing we know they don't do

----------


## Rheghead

> Sorry, don't believe it. One of the assumtions I assume, will be that it actually generates lecky a reasonable proportion of the time. That is one thing we know they don't do


Of course the biggest unanswered question that we can ask every disbeliever of the benefits of wind power is 

'Why are countries like India, China and the USA (which is now the biggest wind power developing nation) all keen to go renewable with wind when it is ineffective?'  

They can't all be conned into it like the gullible British!

----------


## ducati

> Of course the biggest unanswered question that we can ask every disbeliever of the benefits of wind power is 
> 
> 'Why are countries like India, China and the USA (which is now the biggest wind power developing nation) all keen to go renewable with wind when it is ineffective?' 
> 
> They can't all be conned into it like the gullible British!


Don't get me wrong; I personally have no problem with renewable energy, of course not. And wind as part of this has its place. However, I do have a problem with highly visible wind turbines being used as a political and highly cynical tool to make the Scottish (and UK) government look like they are doing loads to save the world. Where as in fact we know that they (on their own) have little to no effect.

I believe that Caithness is being used as a testing ground to see how many of the damn things people will put up with.   ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Don't get me wrong; I personally have no problem with renewable energy, of course not. And wind as part of this has its place. However, I do have a problem with highly visible wind turbines being used as a political and highly cynical tool to make the Scottish (and UK) government look like they are doing loads to save the world. Where as in fact we know that they (on their own) have little to no effect.
> 
> I believe that Caithness is being used as a testing ground to see how many of the damn things people will put up with.


  Scotland is only responsible for what Scotland does.  But we are a small country so yes we will have a small impact on global climate change but that is missing the point.  We could cynically say that wind farms in Scotland will only mitigate <0.0X% of global climate change but we are a small country <0.1% of global population and have to make that mitigation 80% of our current fossil fuel energy us and we have to recognise that our national emissions per capita are way above the global capita average so we will have a significant effect.

----------


## ducati

> Scotland is only responsible for what Scotland does. But we are a small country so yes we will have a small impact on global climate change but that is missing the point. We could cynically say that wind farms in Scotland will only mitigate <0.0X% of global climate change but we are a small country <0.1% of global population and have to make that mitigation 80% of our current fossil fuel energy us and we have to recognise that our national emissions per capita are way above the global capita average so we will have a significant effect.


I don't disagree, but we should stop wasting money and effort (and the landscape) on windfarms that are not having the desired effect. Why is it taking so long for offshore wind, tide and wave power to come to production?

If these technologies were to receive the same kind of investment and subsidy then surely they would be up and running by now. And a lot more home grown technology would be involved.

And in the longer term, it ain't going to happen without nuclear energy.

In fact with a modern replacement for Hunterston and Torness, you could probably forget all the other renewables.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't disagree, but we should stop wasting money and effort (and the landscape) on windfarms that are not having the desired effect. Why is it taking so long for offshore wind, tide and wave power to come to production?
> 
> If these technologies were to receive the same kind of investment and subsidy then surely they would be up and running by now. And a lot more home grown technology would be involved.
> 
> And in the longer term, it ain't going to happen without nuclear energy.
> 
> In fact with a modern replacement for Hunterston and Torness, you could probably forget all the other renewables.


The reason that the other renewables haven't taken off so readily is that all these new technologies need to be underwritten and there has to be real confidence in the marketplace as the marine working environment brings its own difficulties.  You can only get that confidence by artificially raising the financial return  for investors.  That is precisely why the government has raised the ROC return for offshore and mooted that tidal and wave get more premium from the RO.  But anti-wind groups have argued against the RO system (because it is successful) so it is self-defeating as the new coalition has suggested the RO system should be scrapped and replaced by a feed in tariff.

As for the nuclear aspect, it could be cynically stated that nuclear would achieve more than wind etc.  But let's see how long the uranium is going to last.  Experts have suggested that at current consumption which is at an all time low since the 1990s, the uranuim will last us at most 100 years, some say 50.  So if the rest of the world models their energy portfolio on the French model  (75% nuclear) then  we could see uranium running out on us within 30 years, hardly a recipe for sustainability do you think.  But then that is all most anti-wind people want, another wind turbine free 30 years so _they_ don't have to see them in their lifetime.

----------


## ducati

> The reason that the other renewables haven't taken off so readily is that all these new technologies need to be underwritten and there has to be real confidence in the marketplace as the marine working environment brings its own difficulties. You can only get that confidence by artificially raising the financial return for investors. That is precisely why the government has raised the ROC return for offshore and mooted that tidal and wave get more premium from the RO. But anti-wind groups have argued against the RO system (because it is successful) so it is self-defeating as the new coalition has suggested the RO system should be scrapped and replaced by a feed in tariff.
> 
> As for the nuclear aspect, it could be cynically stated that nuclear would achieve more than wind etc. But let's see how long the uranium is going to last. Experts have suggested that at current consumption which is at an all time low since the 1990s, the uranuim will last us at most 100 years, some say 50. So if the rest of the world models their energy portfolio on the French model (75% nuclear) then we could see uranium running out on us within 30 years, hardly a recipe for sustainability do you think. But then that is all most anti-wind people want, another wind turbine free 30 years so _they_ don't have to see them in their lifetime.


Well. I will remain anti-onshore wind until convinced there is any return in terms of carbon reduction or indead useable electrickery.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well. I will remain anti-onshore wind until convinced there is any return in terms of carbon reduction or indead useable electrickery.


But don't you think that the anti-wind stance is all about the single visual amenity issue and anything that in anyway supports wind energy on technical grounds is destined to be rubbished or even ignored by thosr against?  In other words there is no common ground, no compromise or even acknowledgment of facts unless it serves to undermine wind turbines?

To illustrate my point, that report that I posted was published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, an anti wind farm group.  I purposefully posted it with balanced, even positive commentary with regards to CO2 reductions but it is all about context, it is known that I am positive about wind turbines but I am using anti-wind farm propaganda and yet you discounted it.  Rather ironic eh?  It is all about context, perception and how one doesn't like to publically accept one's bad judgement when presented with evidence in a message forum format of exchanging ideas.

----------


## ducati

> But don't you think that the anti-wind stance is all about the single visual amenity issue and anything that in anyway supports wind energy on technical grounds is destined to be rubbished or even ignored?


No...................... ::

----------


## Rheghead

> No......................


Care to explain?  :Grin:

----------


## ducati

> Care to explain?


The problem for me (and I thought it was clear enough) is that 100 windmills create very little electricity most of the time because of the lack of wind. So, 1000 or 10,000 windmills will still have no wind most of the time, so why waste money we could better spend on reliable renewables, that don't screw up peoples lives?

----------


## ducati

> Rather ironic eh? It is all about context, perception and how one doesn't like to publically accept one's bad judgement when presented with evidence in a message forum format of exchanging ideas.


It would be if I looked at links people post, I almost never do.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> It would be if I looked at links people post, I almost never do.


Even so, how can you disbelieve something when you never even looked at the source for my position, some would find that is irrational? ::

----------


## ducati

> How can you disbelieve something you never even looked at, some would say that is irrational?


Don't ever let me be accused of not being irrational!

----------


## Tubthumper

> But don't you think that the anti-wind stance is all about the single visual amenity issue and anything that in anyway supports wind energy on technical grounds is destined to be rubbished or even ignored by those against?  In other words there is no common ground, no compromise or even acknowledgment of facts unless it serves to undermine wind turbines?


That's a fair point. However a monstrous rotating edifice filling the view that previously was a tranquil emptiness tends to focus one's mind on the pro/con argument. A sharp drop in property value wil probably add to the strain. Then when it appears that any big development will go ahead regardless of the opinions of those most affected by it, the frustration builds further. Couple that with the fact that someone's making a killing (and the betting is it won't be those who live with the windfarm) tends to turn the head even further. And any technical arguments against the installation are ignored or rubbished by those who are pro.
So what is left for those who are directly affected? Roll over and enjoy?
It's a thorny one, I must admit.

----------


## Rheghead

> And any technical arguments against the installation are ignored or rubbished by those who are pro.
> So what is left for those who are directly affected? Roll over and enjoy?
> It's a thorny one, I must admit.


But don't you think that the last thing a wind farm operator should want is people being genuinely upset by the development?  I mean to say the onus is on him/her to prove that the site is viable on every discrete aspect from visual amenity to noise birds right through to peat slide.  A lot of wind sites don't get past that stage because it is obvious they aren't viable.  It takes a lot of money, time and effort to put an Environmental Statement together and it can and should put the insincere people off proposing wind farms willy nilly.  However the downside to this is that it is often left to big corporations and rich landowners to propose wind farms which does leave local residents (and some not so local) with the impression they are being exploited, some have even played the ridiculous _Clearance_ card as a headline grabber to illustrate their point.

It has been said that if the Government wants more renewable energy then they should put up the money for the development stage, and on approval, the owner of the site pays back that investment loan back to the Government.  I see rights and wrongs in this so I am undecided, my main concern is that it would lead to ridiculous proposals at no cost to the developer, however if there was an independent ombudsman who could approve the loan from a brief site visit then that would be much better if we are to encourage more community owned wind farms as they just collapsed by through dissent by being 'developed by committee'.

The top and bottom of it is that wind energy is coming to Caithness whether we want it or not so we should agree to them where they are now or one could be coming closer to you sometime soon.  And a lot now are thinking I'm glad it is no nearer and why should we object anyway if they have to go somewhere so thank goodness it is them and not me.

----------


## bekisman

> But don't you think that the last thing a wind farm operator should want is people being genuinely upset by the development?


What! goodness me reggy - what planet do YOU live on.. it's bleeding obvious people are 'genuinely upset' by wind turbines, the grab for cash far outweighs any concern for folks who live near the darn things... ::

----------


## Tubthumper

Rheg, I was going to do a dissection of your post, but I can't be bothered. Suffice it to say the things couldn't  get much closer to me and while I can just about live with the prospect of endless drone and things the size of football pitches almost in my back garden (and no financial return for me), what really sticks in my craw is that some people think I should be glad!? :: 
Puhlease!

----------


## Rheghead

> it's bleeding obvious people are 'genuinely upset' by wind turbines,


Yeah, these people who like to write a letter of protest and who like their slice of fame, their name in the paper, their name associated with celebrities who constantly claim to be 'deeply outraged', 'deeply disappointed', 'terribly upset', 'shocked and disgusted'.  They canna get enough of themselves.

----------


## bekisman

> To illustrate my point, that report that I posted was published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, an anti wind farm group.


Reggy, you must stop spouting fiction! (by publicly stating that the REF are 'an anti wind farm group')
I earlier emailed REF press@ref.org.uk and simply asked if it was correct they were as you stated; "an anti wind farm group" - they have just replied..
"Good evening,
The Renewable Energy Foundation is a registered education and research charity encouraging the development of renewable energy and energy conservation whilst emphasizing that such development must be governed by the fundamental principles of sustainability. REF is supported by private donation and has no political affiliation or corporate membership. 
In pursuit of its principal goals REF highlights the need for an overall energy policy that is balanced, ecologically sensitive, and effective. 
Amongst other work for example we publish the output statistics for every renewable generator claiming ROCs. *We are not an anti-wind farm group* but have been critical of the RO as a blunt instrument that supports the fastest technology to market regardless of intrinsic value, which has led to this misinterpretation.
 Our website is currently under construction but more information can be found on www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk and our historical site www.ref.org.ukKind regards Margareta

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy, you must stop spouting fiction! (by publicly stating that the REF are 'an anti wind farm group')
> I earlier emailed REF press@ref.org.uk and simply asked if it was correct they were as you stated; "an anti wind farm group" - they have just replied..
> "Good evening,
> The Renewable Energy Foundation is a registered education and research charity encouraging the development of renewable energy and energy conservation whilst emphasizing that such development must be governed by the fundamental principles of sustainability. REF is supported by private donation and has no political affiliation or corporate membership. 
> In pursuit of its principal goals REF highlights the need for an overall energy policy that is balanced, ecologically sensitive, and effective. 
> Amongst other work for example we publish the output statistics for every renewable generator claiming ROCs. *We are not an “anti-wind farm group”* but have been critical of the RO as a blunt instrument that supports the fastest technology to market regardless of intrinsic value, which has led to this misinterpretation.
>  Our website is currently under construction but more information can be found on www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk and our historical site www.ref.org.ukKind regards Margareta


Anti wind farm groups never say they are anti-wind per se, it makes bad press.  They will say weasel words like 'we are a group of people genuinely concerned with the proliferation of wind energy on the environment', 'We think wind farms are good in the right situation' but never offer to say where.

----------


## Tubthumper

I think your attitude sums up that of the pro-windfarm lobby. And I seem to remember you got all excited and dribbled when the Baillie farm got approved. Too bad for the poor folk who weren't happy about it.
There may be a need for renewables. Windpower might be a way ahead. There may be a need for a few people's well-being to be sacrificed for the greater good. But rubbishing people's concerns (and believe it or not sometimes people have a right to be concerned) just makes you look shallow and, frankly, a bit silly.

----------


## ducati

Well I am unashamedly (slightly) anti-windfarm. I've no problem if they are in Kent. What I complain bitterly about is that there are better, cheaper alternatives that will be short of funding if it all goes to pay to line the pockets of richer landowners and foreign manufacturers. Even the Cranes used to erect them come from Ireland.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think your attitude sums up that of the pro-windfarm lobby. And I seem to remember you got all excited and dribbled when the Baillie farm got approved. Too bad for the poor folk who weren't happy about it.
> There may be a need for renewables. Windpower might be a way ahead. There may be a need for a few people's well-being to be sacrificed for the greater good. But rubbishing people's concerns (and believe it or not sometimes people have a right to be concerned) just makes you look shallow and, frankly, a bit silly.


Shallow and silly?

And then you say there *may* be a need for renewables?  How can I trump that?

----------


## Rheghead

> What I complain bitterly about is that there are better, cheaper alternatives that will be short of funding.


A catch 22 there.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Shallow and silly? And then you say there *may* be a need for renewables?  How can I trump that?


Never mind, we're all much more mature now. We have to reduce carbon release and cut fossil fuel use. You're siding with windpower regardless of any negatives. I'm not so keen on wind, but I must admit I'm keen on nuclear power. Low-carbon coal generation as well. I would like lots of either here. Like it or not,  big lumps of power station bring quality jobs in decent numbers and a degree of prosperity to an area. Which windpower doesn't.

----------


## Rheghead

> You're siding with windpower regardless of any negatives.


Not really, I'm very aware of the negatives of wind energy.  How can I avoid it, there's no shortage of willing persons to advertise them all. ::

----------


## Tubthumper

> Not really, I'm very aware of the negatives of wind energy.  How can I avoid it, there's no shortage of willing persons to advertise them all.


And those of nuclear power are made clear as well. It's an irony that remote areas like ours become pro-nuclear to a degree once the tangy taste of jobs and prosperity has been experienced.
I suppose I'm coming down on the side that offers something in return for the inconvenience. Other than cleaner air that is. For a given value of 'clean'.

----------


## Bobinovich

> ...we could see uranium running out on us within 30 years, hardly a recipe for sustainability do you think...


Maybe so, but at least 30 years should be sufficient time to develop an alternative clean, renewable/sustainable and RELIABLE alternative, rather than relying on onshore wind  ::

----------


## bekisman

> Yeah, these people who like to write a letter of protest and who like their slice of fame, their name in the paper, their name associated with celebrities who constantly claim to be 'deeply outraged', 'deeply disappointed', 'terribly upset', 'shocked and disgusted'. They canna get enough of themselves.


That is one of the most arrogant, pompous statements you've said for quite a while Rheghead, even before your disappearance in high dudgeon...  ::

----------


## bekisman

> Anti wind farm groups never say they are anti-wind per se, it makes bad press. They will say weasel words like 'we are a group of people genuinely concerned with the proliferation of wind energy on the environment', 'We think wind farms are good in the right situation' but never offer to say where.


That is another one of the most arrogant, pompous statements you've said for quite a while Rheghead, even before your disappearance in high dudgeon...

----------


## Sara Jevo

From the Press and Journal:

Economic benefits of wind farms to the Caithness economy

----------


## ywindythesecond

> From the Press and Journal:
> 
> Economic benefits of wind farms to the Caithness economy


Where is it going to come from? It needs to be 475MW to be average.

----------


## Phill

> From the Press and Journal:
> 
> Economic benefits of wind farms to the Caithness economy



The 100 construction jobs jobs 'created' are all going to be new full-time positions for the length of the windfarm (25 years). (not just contractors from Holland for the duration of the fit)

Out of the £112 million that is benefiting the community I will be getting a cheque then yes? For how much? (will it buy my Aston Martin?)

My business is going to benefit?
My house will go up in value?


Or is it just a handfull, maybe half a dozen, private business owners will benefit.

Oh the few getting richer again while the rest get shafted.

OKAY, lets destroy our landscape on a folly, sounds like a plan.

These are not getting built on brownfield sites by cities, why?

I was looking again yesterday, 6 windymills only 3 turning. Hmmm, these need a lot of servicing don't they.

----------


## Mr P Cannop

what was all said at todays meeting ??

----------


## hawthorn

Nothing said from members of the public because we didn't get the chance to speak!!!!!! And 3 yes 3 of our local councillors were barred from speaking. But the main decision was to reject the proposal for No Objection. Thank god. :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> That is one of the most arrogant, pompous statements you've said for quite a while Rheghead, even before your disappearance in high dudgeon...


It's only arrogance if you're wrong  by Anonymous.

----------


## Amy-Winehouse

> Charming turn of phrase Amy, thanks. Perhaps it is a question of scale. Your wee boat may well spank along on the open sea when wind is at a few miles an hour but it takes wind speeds of around 30-35 mph to drive a wind turbine at full output, and that has to be for 7.2 hours a day every day of the year to come up to the level of generation that Spittal Hill Windfarm claims it will achieve. That is the context I am discussing. Is Caithness that windy? It certainly isn't nowadays and probably wasn't when I first came here.


Thats ok Ywindy , you clearly dont want windfarms , Im not fussed but my sister managed to get a turbine for powering her house & it seems to be working well , in fact the wind was working so well it burnt out the last turbine  :Grin: 

Me personally , I cant wait to the tidal power turbines come on stream , a very interesting feat of engineering it is going to have to be to harness the tidal power in the Firth , but where theres a will. Now the tide never stops Ywindy as you`ll know- what are your opinions on that form of energy ?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Thats ok Ywindy , you clearly dont want windfarms , Im not fussed but my sister managed to get a turbine for powering her house & it seems to be working well , in fact the wind was working so well it burnt out the last turbine 
> 
> Me personally , I cant wait to the tidal power turbines come on stream , a very interesting feat of engineering it is going to have to be to harness the tidal power in the Firth , but where theres a will. Now the tide never stops Ywindy as you`ll know- what are your opinions on that form of energy ?


I am very happy for your sister, apart from her maintenance costs, but comparing a small domestic wind turbine to an industrial one is like comparing a Dinky Toy to a Dumpster Truck.

I was excited by tidal for a while. The advantage of tidal is that you can predict with great accuracy hundreds of years ahead when the tide will be running. It does stop twice a day while it turns around, but I thought if you had a ring of tidal generators around Britain, you would have tidal diversity which would smooth out the turns. Unfortunately, strength of tide is important and that limits tidal energy projects to a few distinct areas around the UK coast, so your diversity becomes somewhat limited.
Tides also vary with lunar cycles, season, current weather patterns etc., so as you say, a very interesting feat of engineering. But I believe that what will be the deathnell of tidal generation will ultimately be its cost.
Market forces are driving renewables generators towards onshore wind at present because it is relatively risk free, and there are lots of opportunities up for grabs. Why risk your money?
Government can fund research and first generation schemes, but after that they have to be viable. I believe the cost of removal of generator's risk from marine energy development will be of such a magnitude that the general public will refuse to accept it.

----------


## bekisman

> It's only arrogance if you're wrong by Anonymous.


"_it's only arrogance if you're wrong_" (anonymous). While perhaps applicable in some circumstances but, if effectively and generally true, to state something in error would seem more-so the 'innocent side' of arrogance. If that's true, then it is to view arrogance as coming in degrees, having shades or hues. Perhaps though, we could call it 'unintended' arrogance since being wrong is surely unintended. However, since being right doesn't have the power to erase a demeanour, it dispels that anonymous notion...

You did not wave back today Reggy; saw you at 16.33 do you not recall seeing a brand new dark blue Volvo V70 passing your bicycle, and me beeping my horn?  ::

----------


## ducati

Came across this tender notice: http://www.publiccontractsscotland.g...x?ID=JUN078928

I don't know whether this marks change to thinking or just part of ongoing work to establish the environmental impact and carbon cost of Wind farm Development.

----------


## Anfield

> You did not wave back today Reggy; saw you at 16.33 do you not recall seeing a brand new dark blue Volvo V70 passing your bicycle, and me beeping my horn?


Bekisman, have you heard the joke about the difference between Volvo drivers and hedgehogs? :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

> Bekisman, have you heard the joke about the difference between Volvo drivers and hedgehogs?


Oh I see, you think it was me with the Volvo? nah, that was passing us, as I beeped the horn on my scooter..

----------

