I believe that the first place (in the UK) to store surplus wind generated electricity as hydrogen was one of the Orkney Islands. Methil may be the first place to do it in comercial quantities.
Whilst bringing the cans back is an interesting grab line I think you will find that few drinks cans these days are made of aluminium except maybe the top and the ring pull. Most are extremely thin steel. I recommend some experiments with a simple magnet.
I'd challenge the assertion that "few drinks cans these days are made of aluminium" as I have a few lying around and they are all aluminium.
I don't think the current type of paper-thin drinks can could even be made of steel. The high-speed cold forming production processes would not work with the harder material.
I've had a quick hunt, but can only find the aluminium can process - maybe because they are all American - Asia (and Europe) still seem to use steel for some of their production. I wonder if this is simply because they have old production kit.
I can't even think of handling a drinks can I couldn't crush in one hand - which I cannot do with a steel food can.
For my on working days, the drinks industry here all seemed to use aluminium, while the food factories used the usual 'tin' can (but these have to undergo heat and pressure when the contents are cooked).
Cost and weight (plus the need for coating to prevent reactions and corrosion) probably rules steel out as an effective material for the design too, given the number of drinks cans in circulation. Aluminium gets plastic or epoxy coating. Uncoated aluminium (and even coated) has also been accused of contributing to Alzheimer's, but this has never been proven medically.
Maybe it is an industry thing?
What steel drinks can are you looking at - since I have none handy for comparison (and don't fancy being thrown out of Tesco for trying them with a magnet
(I freely admit to being taken as a mug or a sucker on this one, as I have been using old drinks cans as a source of cheap - free - sheet aluminium for years, and have never cut up one that was made of steel, so it never occurred to me, having seen them made and filled at source as well, that there were still any steel versions around nowadays,)
Actually, I'm so curious now, I'll listen to anybody's tales of steel drinks cans
Although I'm not 'sad' enough to sit down and keep a running total of the various (onshore) wind farm applications and approvals, since I have a feed giving me most of the current news, I do have a 'gut feeling' for what is happening, and I have suggested that things are slowing up in this particular area (and I also suggested that this was down to forthcoming awakening of offshore wind power).
It seems that my suspicions were not wrong, and there has been some alarm as a measurable fall has been detected by those who do sit down and keep track of the numbers:
Quoted Text
The number of wind turbines being refused planning permission by local authorities is "alarming", according to a renewable energy industry body.
RenewableUK said approvals fell from 58% of the applied-for capacity in the year 2008-09 and 57% in 2009-10, to 39% in 2010-11.
This was the lowest level for approvals since 2006.
England's approval rate was running far lower, at 26%, which RenewableUK called "a critically low level".
RenewableUK found UK approvals were taking longer - on average from 24 to 33 months.
The report also found approvals were easier for smaller wind farm applications than for large ones and that there was a slowing of the pipeline of projects in the planning process.
The largest wind farm applications - above 50MW - are handled by central government - UK and Scottish.
While there are fewer of them, their approval provides much greater capacity.
The number of wind farm applications handled in Scotland at a local level fell from 40 to 34 in the year to June.
Total onshore wind approvals in 2010-11 ran to 195 MW which was above the previous year, at 186MW, despite fewer projects being approved.
The number of wind farm projects approved in Scotland fell by 16 percentage points, from 78% in 2008-09 to 62% in 2010-11.
However the annual 'state of the industry' report found the first half of this year saw a sharp rise, of 70%, in the output of wind turbines, due to higher wind speeds.
And I do so because this rise has not been accompanied by those in the industry making some sort of claim that "The future of wind power has been proven, and everyone should be building them because they are so great".
Contrast this to the earlier headlines carried by the media - not very long ago - by those who were claiming that wind power was a dead-end and pointless option, when the wind dropped by a few mph, and the contribution from wind followed suit.
I'm neither particularly for nor against (but technically prefer offshore to onshore - and not for visibility), but the ongoing record of the pure anti-wind types seems to classify them, by their own words and actions, as a bunch of nuts.
And...
I say that not to defend wind power, but to highlight the damage these nuts are doing, as their continuous whining means that potential valid problems with wind are beiong dismissed as more of the same whining, instead of having proper additional research devoted to it.
There have been some underhand stories in the media recently, with members of the "anti-wind" brigade throwing up questions about the community funding that accompanies a number of such installations being 'dependent' on approval of the scheme.
(Again, the antis now seem to be becoming increasingly desperate in their tactics - and I wonder if all the supposed tales of 'evil developers' in the past were valid. It wasn't something I particularly bothered about before, but as I am fed more stories, the trend seems to be for the antis to be the folk I wouldn't want to meet in a pub.)
A moment's thought leads so some puzzlement at such a claim, since if the scheme is not approved, and the farm is not installed, there will be no community fund, and since the find is part of the approval - unless the developer want local community problems - then the fund (which is a share of the operating profits) will be created and pay up as promised.
The funds are mentioned often, but there was a recent report of one:
Quoted Text
A £500,000 fund is to open for communities close to a new wind farm that will be built in the Ochil Hills.
Lochelbank wind farm fund will pay out £20,000 a year for the next 25 years to projects in the Glenfarg and Bridge of Earn area.
Permission for the 12-turbine development was originally rejected by Perth and Kinross Council, but the decision was overturned on appeal.
The fund will be open for applications for six weeks from 29 October.
Lochelbank wind farm began generating electricity in May 2011. The 9.6MW scheme can generate enough power for about 5,300 homes, according to RWE npower renewables, who built it.
The company said the purpose of the fund was to foster "vibrant, sustainable communities". Grants are also made to projects that "enhance quality of life" and promote well-being.
Applications will be processed by the Scottish Community Foundation, a grant-making charity .
Local groups can apply for grants between £250 and £2,000 - but awards of less than £250 can be made through a "micro" grants scheme run by the two community councils in the area.
Worryingly, I seem to find myself referring to 'nutty' anti-wind farm cabals at the moment, and I seem to have picked up the scent of another one.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I seem to have passed my fair share of wind farm on the road, both in the distance, and all the way up to roadside itself, so close, I have been moved to pull over for a look, a walk around, and even the odd pic.
That makes me wonder about this story, where a group in Glenrothes is protesting again a proposed wind farm on the basis that it would be a distraction to drivers - I think a lot of wind farms could fall into that category, so we'll have to wait and see where this goes, as their will be a review of their objection (see the last para in the quote for the basis):
Quoted Text
A community group are protesting against proposed wind farms claiming they will cause serious road safety problems.
Developers want to build ten turbines on Clatto Hill near Glenrothes, generating enough power for 10,000 homes.
But local residents say the 100 metre high structures will suddenly come into view and distract drivers on an already dangerous road. They say the sharp bends and blind summits mean drivers would not see the turbines until they were very close.
Greg Brown from the group said: "This road has farm traffic, rat run traffic, as well as local traffic so at certain times of the day it’s very busy. People that drive this road all the time know about these obstacles but it’s adding this extra surprise factor to the situation that we are concerned about."
Fife Council’s planning guidance states wind farms should be continuously visible from a distance to avoid distracting drivers.
I received a short note claiming to describe the wind farm off Tiree - one of the five proposals mentioned a few posts back.
I'm not too sure of the detail (having nothing handy to compare it with), and it came with a certain amount of anti-rhetoric and digs at the Scottish Government and other official bodies concerned - so if you sent this, you know I think there was a certain degree of bias.
The installation at Tiree will be five times the size of the island itself and will wrap around it from the south east to the north west. It will have anything from 300 to 500 wind turbines installed, each of which will be between 130 and 200 meters high, above sea level, the actual dimensions being dependent on the size of the individual turbines chosen for the project. It starts only 3 miles offshore and will dominate many of the characteristic white sand beaches on which Tiree’s toursm depends, and surround Alan Stevenson’s 46 metre high Skerryvore, recognised as the most beautiful in the world.
Skerryvore is a 48 metre tall lighthouse credited to Alan Stevenson (the light is at 46 metres) - and it rather like a wind turbine in that is not a natural feature, but man-made.
But there's nothing wrong with being selective about what big thing sticking up from the surroundings you see as beautiful or not...
According to the Northern Lighthouse Board it is: "asserted by some that Skerryvore is the world's most graceful lighthouse".
Just as an illustration and for info, I couldn't resist slipping in this illustration showing wind turbine sizes, releases as Vestas has a 7 MW offshore design undergoing tests:
On the left is the new Vestas wind turbine. Left of centre is the Anholt wind turbine. Centre right is the London Eye, next is the Vindeby wind turbine, and on the far right is the Round Tower Observatory, Copenhagen.
The manufacturer has just been given permission to install six demonstration turbines in waters off Frederikshavn in Northern Jutland, Denmark.
Texas isn't Scotland by any measure, but in the wake of the thoroughly misleading and biased report on wind power that the John Muir Trust had spun for it earlier this year, a news item about a Texas wind farm seems appropriate (Yes, I know, someone wants to say 'Texas always has to be bigger than everyone else', so I'll just do it now ).
JMT's report tried to make a case against wind turbines by mos-representing (spinning negatively) a number of actually well established points about wind turbines, such as the fairly obvious fact that there are times when they don't make their assumed level of 30% of installed capacity, implying that this somehow meant that 29% or less rendered them useless failures, only fit for the scrapheap. 30% is, of course, a nominal assumed figure based on averages, some will be higher, some will be lower, and because wind is natural and not manufactured in a factory, it varies, sometimes higher, sometimes lower - and sometime even (shock horror) with a different average depending on the length of time the measurements are made over.
According to JMT's logic however, the world should now be dropping all other forms of power production, and getting those wind farms in place without even thinking about it, as they are so good... 70% is way way over the assumed 30% after all... (somehow, I think everyone else will just smile, nod knowingly at the poor JMT advisors, ignore them and carry on as they were, regardless)...
Quoted Text
Texas set a new record for wind-power output in October 2011 as coastal wind farms start playing a bigger role in supplying electricity to the state, the grid operator said in a report. The amount of electricity produced from wind on the afternoon of October 7 set a record at 7,400 MW, more than 78% of the 9,400 MW of installed wind capacity in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). That’s well above the average 30 to 40% of nameplate electric capacity that wind farms typically produce.
Looking at tonight's news, it would appear that we have been provided with a prime example of the saying that "My enemy's enemy is my friend".
Although I didn't get a chance to mention it a few weeks ago (I think) Donald Trump got himself and his elite golf club up in Aberdeen into the media (again) when he stood up and proclaimed that he "Spoke for Scotland".
Obviously no-one is listening to him, as I did not detect any adverse response to the claim, but he made it while rubbishing wind power in general, and the offshore wind farm that offend his eye because it can be seen from his shiny new show-piece golf club. He doesn't want anything spoiling the view - I'm surprised he's not also applied for planning permission for a coastal battery to ward off passing ships.
Despite an apparently cooperative series of consultations between RSPB and the developers of this wind farm, which has led to a number of changes, RSPB is still looking for more - and it looks as if the developers are going to accommodate them without argument.
But Trump is still hurling abuse at the them, so that makes Trump and RSPB (strange) bedfellows :
I previously posted reports that indicated that wind turbine manufacture was set to overtake aerospace as the greatest consumer of composite (and other) material which can be lighter and stronger than the usual metals traditionally used in such applications.
Readers may, or may not, be aware that we recently passed the anniversary of the Comet jet airliner disasters, when these new aircraft (the first passenger jets) suddenly started to fall out of the sky for no apparent reason.
Long story cut short - this was the discovery of metal fatigue, and the sharp corners on the windows developed fractures as the cabin was pressurised for flight at the high altitude the jets operated best at, and the pressure in the cabin at that altitude eventually cause them to burst open catastrophically. A redesign with rounded corners was all that was needed to cure the problem, but by then it was too late. The competition jumped in with bigger and better jets, and when the Comet came back into service, it was already history.
The story is relevant, because the advanced composite industry is in much the same position today.
The problem is not perceived as one of design, as in the Comet, as we have a wealth of information, but in the repair and maintenance of these composite materials in service - we have neither the knowledge or experience of such things in a real working environment.
Quoted Text
ON 1 NOVEMBER the first aircraft with a pressurised fuselage and wings made from carbon-fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) flew its first passengers from Tokyo to Hiroshima. The All Nippon Airways Boeing 787's composite structure makes it around 15 per cent lighter than a typical aluminium-based plane of that size, increasing fuel efficiency and making aviation greener.
But the media hoopla over the flight disguised some worrying questions about the long-term safety of composite aircraft. On 20 October, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report which, while accepting that the 787 has been certified as airworthy, questions the ability of the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, to ensure that inspectors are capable of assessing and repairing damage to composite structures over the long life of a plane.
"It is too early to fully assess the adequacy of FAA and industry efforts to address safety-related concerns and to build sufficient capacity to handle composite maintenance and repair," says the GAO.
Until now, only smaller, isolated pieces of secondary structure, such as tail fins and wing leading edges, have been made from composites. The GAO reviewed the scientific literature and interviewed engineers about the evidence underpinning the expansion of composite use to incorporate the whole fuselage. On damage and ageing issues it found the science wanting.
The GAO found that engineers don't know how such materials will behave when damaged, what such damage will look like, and how these factors change as the material ages. Because composite damage is hard to detect - indeed it can be effectively invisible - working out what risk a dent poses is difficult. Too few inspectors are being trained to diagnose such damage, the GAO report adds.
Boeing has no doubts. "We test, we analyse and we demonstrate that even in extreme conditions - which may never be experienced in a full life of service - the airplane is safe and durable," the firm said in a statement.
A composite is made by combining multiple layers of carbon fibres with an epoxy resin. It has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than aluminium and resists corrosion. But it has different fatigue problems: it tends to snap, rather than bend or stretch over time like a metal.
Although the Boeing 787 is deemed safe, the GAO says regulators must focus on assessing composite damage in service. "The long-term ageing behaviour of these composite materials is indeed an unknown," says Philip Irving, an aviation structures specialist at Cranfield University in the UK. "What is going to happen to these structures, which are often bonded as a single piece, in the 30-year lifetime of an aircraft?" Much is known about metal, he says. "There is almost nothing equivalent published on composite-structure damage, visibility and growth - and the necessary research is still under way," he says.
America is not Britain, or even Scotland, and I would not suggest a direct correlation as such, but there is some value in noting a report I was looking at this morning, which noted that the price of wind turbines in America had dropped by about 30% since 2008. Previously, prices had doubled from 2002 to 2008.
They found that changes in labour costs, warranty provisions, manufacturer profitability, wind turbine scaling, raw materials prices, energy prices, and foreign exchange rates – explained 70-90% (depending on the year) of empirically observed wind turbine price movements through 2010.
Turbine scaling – i.e., the rapid increase in average wind turbine capacity, hub height, and rotor diameter over this period – is found to have been the largest contributor to the wind turbine price doubling through 2008 (and has continued to pressure prices higher to this day). Dare I say the dollar weakness seems to have been the next largest.
The cost of scaling was however not without benefit, according to one of the study’s authors.: “Although larger and taller turbines do cost more per kilowatt of rated capacity, they are also generally able to access better wind conditions and capture more of the wind’s energy, resulting in higher capacity factors and a lower overall cost of electricity.”
I'll have to think this one through in case I need the term again in future.
In the meantime, I'll just refer to a bunch of nuts that organised a conference in Ayr this week, against plans in Scotland for wind farms.
While I would never criticise local communities for making their own representations with reference to developments that affect them, I cannot extend the same courtesy to this mob that just want to be contrary - and unreasonable.
I read about this conference in notes passed to me earlier this week, by those involved in renewables (not just wind, but all forms) and most notable was their review of the claims made by the organisers - to the effect that most of their claims were old and had largely been shown to be unfounded.
They said:
The group says Scotland's aim of 100% renewable energy means: “a stealth tax on all our energy bills to re-direct money from the poor to wealthy land owners and mostly non-British energy companies through ROCs and a climate levy charge.”
Furthermore, they claim that by encouraging farmers to allow wind farms on their fields could “cause local food shortages and change the face of the countryside for ever.”
The organisers go on to say: “We want to highlight the negative effects on tourism, the film industry, wildlife, and landscapes which will not be realised by most until it is too late.”
“The First Scottish National Windfarm Conference is about getting closer to the truth about wind farms,” they conclude.
Since I started to watch out for stories relating to wind power developments here, it would seem to be truer to say that the anti-wind farm activists are engaged in a mis-information campaign about "wind farms being approved and rubber-stamped regardless of local community opposition or opinion.
Here is yet another wind farm development that is most certainly not being 'imposed' on the surrounding community regardless.
After years of discussion which has seen the number of turbines fall from 36 to 24, the local council is still blocking the application for a wind farm near the Devil's Beef Tub in southern Scotland.
And this is just one of many refusals noted since I started noting the stories here...
Quoted Text
Scottish Borders Council has opposed revised plans for a wind farm near the Devil's Beef Tub in southern Scotland.
Wind Energy has reduced its application to the Scottish government for the Earlshaugh site from 36 to 24 turbines.
The company said the new plans would greatly reduce the visual and landscape impact on the surrounding area.
However, planning councillors in the Borders have followed the advice of officials and decided to lodge an objection to the scheme.
The wind farm site is located in the Scottish Borders but lies within a few miles of neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway.
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale MP David Mundell has already objected to the revised proposals, claiming the area remained "entirely inappropriate".
SBC has now followed suit, opposing the plans for a second time.
The refusal rate even seems to belie the suggestion that the Scottish Government would abuse its self-granted power to overrule negative decisions, and approve wind farms even where the local council refused permission.
One to keep watching, and see if anything changes.
Evidence of more 'cashing-in' on the wind power premium in Scotland as an engineering business in East Kilbride makes a promised move into wind power by buying up a struggling Finnish wind turbine parts maker.
The Finnish company Moventas has around 1,000 staff in q0 countries around the world, and had been facing restructuring and bankruptcy before the Scottish company bought it.
Despite these apparent problems, the buyer described it as: "Moventas operates some of the most advanced, state-of-the-art manufacturing and test facilities in the world and has an extensive product range. It is a leading independent player in the global wind turbine gearbox and drive solutions market with products extending across a wide range of wind turbines, from the kilowatt class up to multi megawatt scale turbines."
Almost sounds like two different companies
The chairman and chief executive of Clyde Blowers said he was ready to join the renewable energy boom expected to come to Scotland.
(Almost sounds like two different countries, with some people suggesting Scotland's future in renewables is in doubt - but then again, they were politicians, and they were not the ones currently in control, so... that's as close as I dare sail to that subject )
The £100 million Gordonbrush facility near Brora has seen its first two turbines switched on and geeding power into the national grid. At this stage, 15 of 35 turbines have been installed, with completion due in 2012 (having started in Autumn 2010).
The completed farm is expected to contribute about 180 GWh per annum.
I had a slight wade through a paper analysing the cost of (onshore) wind power over the years (for the pedants, that rally means the cost of electricity produced from wind farms when compared directly against other generators, after normalising for the effects of operating costs, installation, R&D, maintenance, scale of installation yada yada yada...)
Suffice to say that it was an analysis that aimed to compare costs across all energy types by levelling parameters that either benefited or disadvantaged each equally, to reduce the energy unit cost to a single representative figure, which could be easily compared.
The very bottom line was that onshore wind power is set to meet like-for-like parity with fossil fuel electricity by 2016. This would need a 12% drop in its cost over the next five years, and this would be in line with current trends as the cost falls with falling equipment costs and gains in efficiency. Similarly, any jumps in fossil fuel cost (does anyone expect such a thing might happen? ) would hasten this parity.
The analysis observed that the most efficient (newest) wind farms are on a par with coal, gas, and nuclear, when levelled.
Specifically, the levelised cost of energy from onshore wind turbines has fallen by 14% for every doubling of installed capacity between 1984 and 2011. So the levelised cost of energy from onshore wind has fallen in 2011 real terms over this time period from €200/MWh to €52/MWh. This is only €6/MWh more expensive than the average cost of a combined-cycle gas turbine plant in 2011, the analysis shows. If the cost of carbon emitted was included as well, wind would already be at grid parity.
It gave a figure of 7% for cost reductions in wind arising from each doubling of installed capacity.
Maintenance costs of 50 euro per MWh in 1980 have fallen to 11 euro per MWh in 2011.
The report also concluded that "The public perception of wind power tends to be that it is environmentally-friendly, but expensive and intermittent. That is out-of-date, as the best locations are now cost0competitive with fossil fuel electricity."
(Head overload - can't read and summarise any more, but it did go on to wider aspects.)
Not exactly the sort of story I expected to be listing under 'Wind power', but on the other hand, I can hardly say I am surprised.
As per threads we have had raised recently that ran along the line of electrocuting yourself, and of the insult to those remembered on memorials, it seems that the metal thieves - and let's be frank, crooked metal dealers who willingly support them - will take anything that not screwed down or in a quiet place where they think they won't be noticed:
Quoted Text
Tens of thousands of pounds worth of wind turbine parts have been stolen from a wind farm.
A large quantity of diesel and aluminium supports used in the construction of the turbines was stolen from the Hill of Towie Wind Farm, in the Mulben area of Moray.
The theft is thought to have occurred some time between Friday night and early Saturday morning.
A silver Ivor Williams trailer was also stolen from the site along with numerous other tools.
The total value of these thefts is initially estimated to be a five-figure sum.
Investigating Officer Constable Robert Collie said: "I would ask people in our rural communities to be aware of unfamiliar vehicles and persons acting suspiciously and to report their concerns to the police."
Diesel was found spilt on the Keith to Newmill road at about 9am on Saturday.
Grampian Police would like to speak with anyone who may have knowledge of this, and are keen to trace any suspicious persons or vehicles seen in the area at the time.
The first turbine was erected in August at the under-construction wind farm, which is designed to produce sufficient electricity to meet the average annual demand of around 26,000 Scottish households.
In a remarkable coincidence, just after I made a post about how wind farms were now reaching capacity levels that put the idea that were 'useless', and highlight the fact that those who sought to deride and dismiss them were depending on outdated information and ignorance of the way they work as part of a system, and not in isolation (a requirement never specified for any of the fossil-fuelled power sources), someone who knows nothing about the subject, but has the advantage of many people listening to everything he says - for some unknown and unfathomable reason - has raked up this stupid claim again...
Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has decreed:
Quoted Text
The Duke of Edinburgh has made a fierce attack on wind farms, describing them as "absolutely useless". In a withering assault on the onshore wind turbine industry, the Duke said the farms were "a disgrace".
He also criticised the industry's reliance on subsidies from electricity customers, claimed wind farms would "never work" and accused people who support them of believing in a "fairy tale".
Quite what his qualifications are for this sweeping statement are escape me.
I don't normally give a moment's concern about the rambling drivel that usually comes from this source, but this one is unforgivable.
Interestingly, info sources in the analysis that begins following this are not from the current industry, but appear to depend on reports completed in 2006, so even that is five years old, and would already have been dated even then.
We'll just have to wait and see if there is any fallout from this - or if they find somewhere to pension him off, or assign a minder to keep him away from anything important.
Significant offshore wind farm to be proposed on site next to the Beatrice oil field.
The 350 turbine development would need 1,400 workers to build it, and provide employment for 280 to operate and maintain the completed farm, with up to eight offshore electrical platforms needed to collect the power, which would feed its output to a connector at Peterhead power station.
The turbines could be erected around 14 miles from the shore close to Caithness, and this large-scale offshore wind farm has the potential to produce up to 1500MW of electricity, effectively the same as a conventional power station. This is reported to be enough to power 1 million homes.
(I really should make a note of what the standardised power consumption for a 'home' is assumed to be, and put it where it can be found. One day )
Two demonstration turbines have been operating at Beatrice since 2007.
A series of public exhibitions will be held to let the public see the new plans. They will be held at:
MacKays Hotel in Wick on November 23; Helmsdale Community Centre on November 24; Eastgate Centre in Inverness on November 25; Fraserburgh Leisure Centre on November 30; Buckie Town House on December 5; Eden Court in Inverness on December 6 and St Giles Centre in Elgin on December 7.
Mentioned back in June, it looks as if a seven year wind farm saga will be concluded one way or the other by the end of this year.
The Broadmeadows Farm dispute in the Borders will be decided on by the Scottish Government after the plan was referred when the local council refused permission, but the developer appealed, after cutting the scheme from 13 to 8 turbines.
The process means a Scottish Government reporter will visit the site (this week) and a decision will be made by the Government soon after.
It will be interesting to see if it follows the local council, or uses its powers to impose the farm.
So far, if you have watched these cases, it is NOT the case that such disputes are resolved in a way that suggests the Government approves every referred development in order to make up the numbers, but listens to local objections. Which may be a surprise.
Energy Minister Fergus Ewing approved the plans for the Strathy North wind farm near Strathy village, saying: "In consenting this application I have put in place a series of conditions to protect the outstanding natural habitats and landscapes and local communities."
Highland Council had already approved the project, provided certain planning conditions were met, requiring Government consent before construction could start.
Quoted Text
Plans for a 33-turbine wind farm in Sutherland have been approved by the Scottish government
SSE's Strathy North project is expected to create work for up to 100 people during its construction and generate electricity for about 35,000 homes.
During the planning process the scheme attracted 166 objections and eight letters of support.
It looks as if hydrogen is becoming much more common as an energy source than the naysayers would have us believe - as evidenced by the number of stories that have landed here after the first mention - so I've had a quick collection and shift exercise carried out, and this too has its own thread now.
I'd have to say that now I have an industry related source passing me info an all renewables, it seems clear to me (I only mention a handful of the stories I actually see, as many are specific to other nations do not have a general aspect that adds to local info on the subject) that there is some sort of unwillingness somewhere to either suppress (at worst) or rubbish (at best) just how quickly the various renewable technologies and developments are progressing.
Don't know if these vessels will begin to appear off the northeast coast, but the needs of offshore wind power construction, development, and maintenance are spawning a number of new business, and developments, in their wake.
A new tri-hull design is being claimed to offer significant advantages in this field:
The offshore wind farm crew transfer vessel, Mobimar 18 Wind, is set to be finished in March 2012.
The three slim hulls keeps the vessel stable even in harsh weather conditions with significant wave heights up to 2.5 m.
“The Mobimar 18 Wind truly meets the demands of the wind farm industry. It is classified to seastate 4.0 Hs , and provides safe transfers for service engineers in significant wave heights up to 2,5 m,” says Pauli Immonen, Managing Director of Mobimar Ltd.
The vessel has an intelligent gripper system in the bow, enabling it to approach offshore wind turbines from either side and run idle during disembarkation. The hydraulics keep the landing platform in position and the water jets in the side hulls make the vessel easily manoeuvred. The Mobimar 18 Wind trimaran vessel is also said to be much less sensitive for rolling and slamming than monohulls and catamarans.
The offshore wind farm crew transfer vessel measures 18 m in length and the beam is 8.5 m. The large deck space can be used for transport of maintenance equipment and as a workspace for work that cannot be carried out at the wind turbines.
I suppose there's no surprise that the media would highlight the proximity of the Queen Mother's castle to a proposed wind turbine installation:
Quoted Text
A farmer's appeal against refusal of his planned wind turbine near the late Queen Mother's residence in Scotland has been dismissed.
Barrogill Angus had appealed Highland Council's opposition to his proposal for a turbine less than half a mile from Castle of Mey in Caithness.
An official appointed by Scottish ministers was satisfied the project was not at odds with the listed building.
But he dismissed the appeal because other homes could be affected.
The planning reporter said noise from the turbine could potentially impact on properties near Mr Angus's farm, Barrogill Mains.
In his decision dismissing the appeal, the reporter said: "I acknowledge the modest but nonetheless useful contribution which the proposal would make towards renewable energy targets.
"In this case, however, I find that to be outweighed by the potentially adverse impact on residential amenity."
Throwing the net a little wider than out own shores for some windy stories, it seems that Europe as a whole (bear in mind a number of European countries grasped wind power long before the UK and Scotland) is set to benefit in emissions reduction arising from that use of wind power.
By 2020, the EU wind industry could avoid 342 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 31% of the EU's target of reducing emissions by 20%. If emissions avoided by other renewable electricity technologies are included, almost half (48%) of the EU's target could be met.
The large contribution of wind power could, furthermore, enable the EU to move from a 20% to a 30% emissions reduction target, the report from EWEA (European Wind Energy Association) argues.
Rémi Gruet, EWEA's Senior Advisor on Climate and Environment said "It is clear that by deploying wind energy and other renewables the EU can move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target with ease.”
Being posessed of a small child, I wasn't able to investigate further, except to note that the "expert" (read "swivel-eyed lunatic") seems to think that turbines produce some kind of subsonic vibration that can injure at a distance.
The "expert" (read "swivel-eyed lunatic") seems to be unaware of small, but perhaps relevant fact that turbines and wind farms have been installed in Europe for some years, long before they became fashionable in the UK, so there would be a whole heap of evidence to be found there to back up his claims - and that doesn't even count 'Litigation Central' (the US) where they bring 'class actions' for such things as this (if even a shred of evidence is found, or even suspected).
But then again - why let something like facts get in the way of a good, topical, sensation headline?
I wonder if he has heard of my fear of strange electromagnetic radiation emitted by solar PV arrays?
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Wind power
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
:
