I don't know if anyone followed up on responses to the few wind turbine that failed during Scotland's extreme weather only a few weeks ago, but to listen to the vicious anti-wind brigade, one might be forgiven for thinking that nothing else ever failed when stressed in operation, and that a failing wind turbine had the same effect as a small nuclear device being detonated at the same place.
Whatever...
Fatigue and fracture toughness have just increased for wind turbine blades, as a new polyurethane composite technology has been developed by Bayer MaterialScience LLC, allowing stronger and longer blades to be manufactured when compared to epoxy-based methods.
The new material has been quantified, and has a fracture toughness 48% greater than epoxy, which equate to a doubling of this property compared to epoxy.
Looking as if its early adoption of onshore wind, Germany would appear to be making the same investment to secure offshore wind now...
Siemens Energy is to build the 288 MW Amrumbank West offshore wind farm in the German North Sea.
The Amrumbank West offshore wind park site is around 35 km north of the island of Helgoland and 37 km west of the island of Amrum, and the offshore wind turbines will be installed over an area of 32 km2 in waters of around 25 meters.
Those who are predicting the end of renewables as the subsidies (for all, not just solar) can be seen to be politically or personally financially motivated, as this later piece of news tells only of growth in the real word.
Siemens Plc and Associated British Ports (ABP) have submitted applications to Hull City Council for the development of facilities for wind turbine storage, handling, assembly and testing at the proposed Green Port Hull facility in the UK. The facility could open as soon as 2014.
The Alexandra Dock could create 700 direct jobs, plus many more in the related supply chain.
Elsewhere, wind turbine tower manufacturer Mabey Bridge, Chepstow, is ramping up production to work 24 hours a day to meet increasing demand. 45 new jobs have been created, and it has transferred 50 workers from its bridge-building division. With 102 staff already on the site, this almost doubles the workforce.
It is reported that the wind energy industry is already employing more than 10,000 people full time – a figure set to rise to some 90,000 over the next 10 years.
Solar PV cowboys take note
Stop whining and holding your hands out for free money - get out on the road and WORK for it.
Kind of makes that infamous John Muir Trust report about wind power being useless look a bit sick too.
The wind farm not actually inside a national park but near a national park so it can be seen and we don't want it party has now started protesting about the development outside the park.
Quoted Text
The Save the Monadhliath Mountains group is objecting to the planned Allt Duine wind farm on the edge of the Cairngorms National Park.
Campaigners say the 31-turbine wind farm would be "devastating" to the unspoilt landscape. Campaigners stage protest against 'devastating' wind farm
Protestors gathered outside Highland Council headquarters in Inverness on Tuesday morning to voice their anger at the proposals.
They staged their protest while members of the council's planning committee for that area meets to discuss the plans.
A report by planners recommends that councillors do not object to the plans, which will then go before the Scottish Government.
Chris Townsend, campaign spokesman, said: "Today marks a critical stage in the Save the Monadhliath Mountains campaign.
"As the council meet to discuss the Allt Duine wind farm proposal, we want to send a very clear and visible message to councilors that our supporters strongly believe Allt Duine is a wind farm too far.
"The proposed Allt Duine wind farm represents one of 11 wind farms that either already exists or are at the planning application stage in the Cairngorms National Park area alone.
This is going to drag on for years, lead to lots of CO2 - from all the hot air...
Quoted Text
At the meeting councillors stalled on deciding whether to support or object to the plans, so they could make a visit to the site some time early next year.
Probably the most revealing thing is to be found at the foot of the story, where one of the supporters has spammed the area.
Tut-tut...
Clearly a bunch of neds
This has a fair chance of dragging on for at least 2 years, and the most contentious have manages 7.
How green are the protesters, since they are the ones causing many meeting in nice heated offices, lots of people having to travel to and from those meeting, not to mention the cups of tea boiled up every weekend as they meet to plan their protests, then travel to them, and disrupt other peoples' days, causing more waste.
And then there's probably going to be Scottish Government involvement, more meetings and travel for MSPs, and that's not cheap or green either.
That's not intended as an anti-protestor post, I really just started off thinking the way they do about their opposition, and it stuck me that the green side of the table might not really be that green - as the instigators of all these additions.
A farmer made a pre-emptive strike by erecting his wind turbine without planning permission, so he would beat the deadline for tariff reductions.
Unfortunately, the planners didn't see things in quite the same order of importance as the farmer, who has been ordered to take down his 20 kW turbine, since it was erected without planning permission, and they are refusing planning permission in his retrospective application.
Quoted Text
But Perth and Kinross Council found the impact on the landscape could not be "economically or socially justified". The planning officer also said there was a lack of information with the application.
A report added: "The application fails to comply with the development plan and supplementary planning guidance. Additionally there is a lack of information.
"This provides sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the application."
A wind farm proposal in Sutherland that it will be interesting to watch towards its conclusion, because it looks as if the application is not being made until the majority of local communtiy work has been completed:
Quoted Text
A German renewable energy developer plans to construct 22 wind turbines on the Sallachy and Duchally Estates near Lairg, in Sutherland.
WKN AG, which has wind farm sites across Europe and the US, said, if approved, the project would generate enough electricity for 34,000 homes.
The company also said the scheme would involve inward investment of about £200m.
Plans for Sallachy Wind Farm have been submitted to the Scottish government.
WKN AG said it had spent 18 months consulting with local communities on the 66 megawatt project.
It said a package of community benefits has still to be agreed.
Spokeswoman Inga Schuster said: "If approved, the wind farm will provide an inward investment of £200m to benefit the Highland and Scottish economy, specifically that of the Sutherland region.
"Before submission it was important to us to thoroughly and actively engage with the local community, local politicians and local stakeholders to seek opinions on our plans for the site and we have used this feedback to shape our proposal.
"As a result we have reduced the number of turbines from our original scoping proposal - from 30 to 22."
It seems Scottish ministers have now approved 50 energy applications since 2007.
Two more onshore wind farm approvals:
Quoted Text
Two wind farms which could power more than 90,000 homes in the north of Scotland have been approved by Energy Minister Fergus Ewing.
Dozens of jobs will be created with the approval of the 177 Megawatt (MW) Dorenell wind farm on the Glenfiddich estate, near Dufftown, Moray.
The 59-turbine farm will have the capacity to power 84,000 homes.
A six-turbine, 21 MW extension to the 104 MW Muaitheabhal wind farm in Lewis will power an additional 9,000 homes.
Mr Ewing said the Dorenell project involved capital investment of more than £250m, and would generate at least £93m in direct benefits for the Scottish economy.
About 75 jobs will be created in construction, with additional maintenance jobs once the farm is operational.
Developer Infinergy has also committed to delivering "long-lasting community benefits", worth about £350,000 a year, including a new visitor centre.
Moray Council, which had objected to the original application because it conflicted with its strategy for wind farm location, said it had no plans to appeal the minister's decision.
In the second project, the Muaitheabhal Community Windfarm Trust will receive a share of revenue generated by the privately-owned element of the wind farm and extension.
Developer Crionaig Power will also pay a portion of its annual revenue to the Western Isles Development Trust
A wind farm developer is to fight a council decision to reject its plans for an 11-turbine project in Wigtownshire.
In September, Dumfries and Galloway councillors refused planning permission for a wind farm at Glenchamber, between New Luce, Kirkcowan and Glenluce.
They expressed concerns over its "significant adverse impact" on the landscape.
Developer RES said it had now submitted an appeal to the Scottish government.
RES project manager Dave Eastman claimed the company had a strong case for an appeal.
He said: "Whilst Dumfries and Galloway Council raised objections on the grounds of effects on landscape character, adverse visual effects and impacts on the historic environment, this position is not supported by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Historic Scotland."
I received a huge long report in praise of wind power in America (no, I'm no even going to try and read it all - there's lots of legislation changes to promote wind) but a couple of paras caught my eye...
2011 saw wind power hit 20 percent overall in two states, and it contributed a record 50 percent for a period of time in another. And the turbines that pump out all those electrons? Their cost has dropped 33 percent.
And...
When more than 50 power plants totalling 7,000 MW unexpectedly went offline in Texas due to unusually cold weather early in the year, wind power helped stabilise the system and keep the lights on. Wind energy played a critical role in limiting the severity of the blackouts, providing enough electricity to keep the power on for about three million typical households. ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, confirmed that wind energy was providing between 3,500 and 4,000 MW of electricity (about 7 percent of ERCOT demand at that time) - roughly what it was forecast and scheduled to provide - during the critical two-hour window when the grid needed power the most. Said ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett, as reported in the Texas Tribune: “I would highlight that we put out a special word of thanks to the wind community because they did contribute significantly through this timeframe.”
Anyone looking to have a 'small' wind turbine just got an increase in choice, as SIAC Wind Energy's Bergey Excel-S 10 kW wind turbine has successfully obtained MCS certification, qualifying it for use in the UK.
And, the certification has been welcomed by RBS and NatWest, which have made £50 million available to agricultural businesses seeking to install renewable energy, including wind turbines.
The generating capacity of onshore wind has passed 1 GW - actually given as 1.15 GW - which is said (on this occasion) to be enough to power 700,000 homes.
(I'm not being naughty here, but the number of 'homes per watt' seems to be a variable number - I keep meaning to start a list of these one day )
I mentioned (only a few days ago) here that Germany had been an early adopter of onshore wind, because it has no fossil resources of its own, and is largely (but not completely) landlocked, but that it was looking to the sea off its northern shores.
As if by magic, a story popped up this morning, of a 346 MW offshore wind farm planned for a spot 37 km northwest of Borkum island, where the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency has approved the 97-turbine Borkum Riffgrund 2 offshore wind farm in the German North Sea.
ENGINEERS have been urgently summoned to find out why a small wind turbine at a remote north-west Sutherland village hall dramatically lost one of its two blades on New Year's Eve
Though in the USA they are being given permission to kill eagles.
If they were routinely mounted alongside building, the it probably would be wrong, and in contravention of planning regulations, or someone lied in the application.
The Stoer turbine apparently is not near a building, so someone is lying mistaken
Quoted Text
He denied that there had been any risk to passers-by from the flying blade.
"It isn't next door to a building so the chances of the blade hitting anyone were pretty slim. Maybe if you had been a sheep standing underneath it, then you might have been bonked on the head," he said.
I've been to Stoer (yes, there is one of THOSE there ) but was on the holiday camp area, and it was pitch dark at night by the time I arrived, so I have no idea if I was near the hall - or anything else - other than sand. That's the one outstanding thing I remember about Stoer, sand, everywhere, and in everything.
Regarding the perpetual bird carnage claim...
As far as I am aware, the actual probability of this event is minimal, and the 'outrage' has been whipped up by an agenda group circulating the first recorded event multiple times.
I did have a report that analysed this once, and discredited the but it was a while ago.
The story quoted is typical alarmist nonsense, with a headline that suggests the Golden Eagle population is about to be decimated, but then goes on to reveal that the 'killing' amounts to less than one bird per year.
Look at the provocative phrasing:
Quoted Text
a legal permit to kill as many as
Sounds as if a slaughter has been announced, but in the real word, away from the agenda group, this means that up to three dead birds over five years will not result in action against the operator.
It does not mean those birds WILL be killed in that time, but recognises that they MAY, and that there will be a consequence.
Nor does it mean that MORE may not be killed in that time, but it does draw a legally binding line that if crossed (by more than three dead birds in five years) will trigger the next step in reviewing the farm's operation.
Just think of the outrage if a canary died down a pit nowadays
If only they took the same approach to, for example, fishing around the UK, where thousands of fish are routinely killed 'legally'.
Under the quota system, tons of dead fish which are caught along with 'legitimate' catches - and could be landed and sold - have to be tossed back into the sea simply because their quota has been reached, and the skipper cannot legally land them for sale.
Even though they are dead, and cannot breed, back into the water they go, by the tonne.
There was a fashion some years ago to erect turbines alongside community centres, schools and similar buildings. I presume there was a grant available or perhaps it made it easier to get planning permission. Many seem to have not been used much if at all and I heard of one being removed because it was considered too dangerous close to a school building.
The school projects I've reviewed recently seem to have been quite small, more of the order of science projects than serious 'generation'. But having said that, small turbines are chucking out more now that they did not that long ago.
The only ones I saw that were near the buildings concerned were of the small 'fan' type, not the larger 3-bladed variety now seen on serious generators.
The small units generally have smaller, more numerous blades, and are generally of a design that has flexible mounts that bend - or rather twist - in response to the forces their own speed generates. This tend to feather the blades and reduce their angle of attack as the wind speed rises, so they don't 'run away'.
The reported removal of a trubine suggests planning now deals with them in a way that was not prevalent when they were new and novel, and there was perhaps little guidance or legislation.
Dare I say that 'Save the Eagle' has as much credibility as the 'vested interests' is seeks to dismiss?
Agenda driven groups without oversight have very little credibility, and can cherry pick as they please with no fear of comeback.
Their tone and presentation is alarmist, and peppered liberally with 'projections' and 'extrapolations' with fantastic numbers - my eyes are closing down as they become exhausted with hyperbole.
You would think that nothing else failed in service - but there are dozens of such cases around the country every week, but are not 'hot' in the way wind turbine failure is, and the media just ignores.
I saw an American tale of the Ardrossan turbine mentioned here as a fire. But the time the American was finished with it, it was an 'explosion that showered the surrounding area with flaming debris". One can only imagine what the Americans reading such things think Brit England looks like.
There have been numerous videos posted of roofs disintegrating under the influence of the winds over the past few days, and the flying material showering (deserted) roads and streets with debris falling from a considerable height, and driven by the wind. These roofs are usually on industrial units and shopping centres, beside roads and places where a lot more people can be expected to be found than anywhere near a wind turbine.
Strange that we do not see the same people calling for wind turbines to be shut down and removed to be calling for the buildings that have spread more flying debris near people and roads to be closed down and demolished.
I also seem to recall of trees actually killing people in these same winds - yet those seeking to have turbines hauled down seem to be strangely silent, and I detect no evidence of their concern over these actual deaths, or their campaign to have trees cut down anywhere near roads or people.
Perhaps they have... a hidden agenda?
For the rest of us, there are better things to consider, such as this proposal for an alternative to bladed turbines to catch the wind, an application of piezo technology - they claim it produces the same output as a conventional wind farm of the same area:
While the concepts look impressive, and the idea is clever, I see no mention of what happens over time as those stalks strike one another time after time. In the real world, everything succumbs to fatigue, be it metal or plastic/synthetic/composite.
They also speak of increasing the output for a given area by increasing the density of the stalks - which will have them crashing into one another with greater frequency.
There must be an optimum density too, as collisions waste collected wind energy in various ways, and denser packing would create larger area of wind shadow within the farm, and could even become dense enough to cause the wind to be deflected up and over stalk farm.
But they will have considered all this, and more, won't they, before they created the nice conceptual artwork - won't they?
And it does look nice, especially with the promised LED on top of every stalk.
I think the key factor may be in their choice of words "The idea is based on existing hydroelectric pumped storage systems".
I suspect they may only be using this for a small amount of reserve, to cater only for small periods of calm - anything longer would be dealt with by the normal system of power management on their grid.
I wonder if this is still part of their theoretical design, as the cost of installing even a small system as described would require major excavation (and spoil, which would have be transported away, or the tip would mask the farm - unless they pulled a trick not shown in their graphic - and built their wind farm on top of the hill made by putting the spoil on top of the tanks).
This could be a good idea as it would reduce the depth to be excavated for a given head, and raise the farm, which would move it into the faster wind that exists as you move away from the ground.
In reality, I would actually have thought they would use arrays of the new containerised battery backup supplies now being installed to supplement intermittent natural energy sources.
These are being used more often, and there are reports of them earlier in this thread.
Sort of apologies for including a fairly large chunk of a quote to be read (if anyone ever does) but it follows on from an oft-repeated meme I use with regard to claims against (and sometimes for) wind, specifically that they are often chosen because they are just plain wrong, but someone said them, so they eventually turn up later, quoted as irrefutable 'facts'.
The following quote of a book review includes a couple of erroneous assertions - made by the author, not the reviewer, who points out and corrects them - which I am sure will be found somewhere in future, quoted by the anti-wind brigade as reasons to oppose wind power development:
Then, rather abruptly on page 608, the voice changes, as if a mental editor kicked in imploring an exploration on the drawbacks of wind. When someone asks me what the limitations of wind are, I give three responses: first, wind doesn't work everywhere (not enough wind, local opposition, proximity to airports etc); second, even in prime sites, the wind does not always blow when you need the power; and third, moving parts (operations and maintenance costs). If Yergin had chosen any of these, I would have been right there with him. Instead, he picks scale and cost. This is a mistake.
In his section But How Big? Yergin focuses exclusively on whether the U.S. can reach 20% by 2030. This is odd because the book has been so global up to this point, yet all of a sudden, he ignores 80% of the world market for wind turbines and focuses on the U.S. market. It would have been interesting to ask whether Europe and China will be able to reach their goals (e.g., 17% wind energy in China by 2050).
Secondly, he goes astray when he says, “one problem is just getting the large turbine to the site. If a turbine is too big, it does not fit on a truck: it is not easy to move a 25-story tower, lying on its side, down the highway with a police escort.” As the reader will know, no one has ever tried to move a 25-story tower down a highway – towers come in sections.
Moreover, while logistics are certainly an important consideration, they are not really a major constraint on wind sector growth. More than a hundred thousand turbines have been erected, the vast majority on towers 50 metres – 100 metres in height. The industry gets that job done every day.
Typical wind power plants nowadays are 100 MW or more in size, and some exceed 500 MW. Offshore, plants well into the GW class are planned, the largest in British waters will be 7,000 MW. So scale is really not the issue [Ed – as we go to press Siemens has just launched a 6MW direct drive offshore wind turbine, see news, page 8].
Similarly, Yergin overstates the cost issue. Of course cost is always an issue, but given recent improvements to technology and a good dose of good old price competition, wind energy is cheap, dirt cheap. This year, 20-year Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) have been running in the US$0.03 to US$0.04 per kWh range in the American Midwest. This is less than new coal, nuclear or natural gas – and provides an important hedge against future fuel price increases.
In Europe, the case is even stronger because shale gas has not (yet) been developed there, and existing sources of natural gas (e.g., Russia, Libya) are not domestic, and can be subject to political manipulation and instability.
The book in question, which was recommended for anyone working in energy, ot just general reading, was:
The Quest, Daniel Yergin, 2011, The Penguin Press.
It's so full of rubbish it's shameful (not The Guardian article - the wind-hater's claims).
The author's are seriously suffering from some sort of delusion if they think anyone outside their own agenda-drive community is going to swallow their 'logic'.
The first few comments that appeared minutes after it was published must have been posted by their friends, 'antis' primed and waiting for it to show.
Am I the only person looking past the headline and wondering why I am paying a renewable levy on all my fuel/energy bills if this is what the the windfall cash is being used for?
Isn't the renewable levy supposed to be enabling us to have energy sources put in place over the coming years to displace the nasty CO2 spewing fossil fuel burning monsters, and provide sustainable energy that doewn't feed climate change?
Quoted Text
Scottish Hydro operates the nearby Griffin wind farm and is to pay about £320,000 per year into a community fund, with some of that money going towards the cinema restoration project.
The group has now raised almost 80% of the £1.8m needed for the rebuild.
The Friends of the Birks Cinema charity has set a deadline of the end of January to raise the remaining cash.
Tony Scott, project manager for the construction of the 68-turbine Griffin wind farm, said: "As construction at Griffin comes to an end it's really exciting to see the Griffin community fund being used for a local project that so many people could benefit from."
Scottish Hydro has agreed to pay money into the Griffin community fund for the 25-year lifespan of the wind farm. It is expected that the total value will be in excess of £8m.
It's all very nice, and the communities that benefit from these bribes to shut the anti-wind farm type up, can get a nice warm feeling as they collect 'my' £8 million over the next 25 years, but I'd rather see money extorted from me (I have no choice about paying the levy on my gas or electricity bills, and will be in court, fined, or jailed if I withhold it) under this rule going to build more renewable energy sources, be they on/offshore wind, tidal, wave, solar, geothermal... or whatever.
I see the need to raise funds to cover the up-front development and build costs of - in this case - a wind farm, but I baulk at finding that I'm also handing over £320,000 to a village to do what amounts to playing. Much as I want the cinema preserved, it's not an essential. If they want to use it for community good, give it to old folk in care or similar, not hobbyists.
It's rather like Glasgow pleading poverty for cutting services while able to find money for Commonwealth Shames projects. Stuff the games - keep the council staff employed.
(I should become a politician, but then I couldn't make apolitical gripes about all sides )
I don't live anywhere near where this money is being handed out, so why should I be paying what amounts to a compulsory charitable donation to their maintenance?
All renewable levy monies should go to renewables if that is why the tax is being placed on out energy bills.
It's little short of insulting if it is being taken from us under that title - then handed out for something else.
It's not coppers, its millions, year after year.
Dare I also point to the cut in FiT, and the whining cowboys of solar - I'm sure they'd like this money
Always nice to get an inside into just how worthwhile the wind power business is.
Vestas has just reported a preliminary revenue estimate of €6 billion for 2011
Order taken for 2011 amounted to 7.4 GW at a total value of approx €7.3bn – the forecast was 7-8 GW.
Shipments of wind turbines reached 5.1 GW, slightly below the expected 5.5 GW.
However, the company's costs in 2011 are expected to be €125m higher than expected, €100m is predominantly related to the development costs for industrialisation its 3 MW wind turbine, some smaller products, plus higher production costs.
Somebody posed the thought that there appeared to be a lot of failures at wind farms - and we have already seem the ant-wind farms nutjobs calll for all wind farms to be shut down and even removed because they are so dangerous.
I wonder of putting two and two together and considering how extreme some of the anti-wind farm nutjobs are might garner a clue as to the source of some those 'more frequent than expected' wind farm incidents?
Quoted Text
A blaze at a north-east wind farm may have been deliberately set, according to police.
Three fire engines were sent to tackle the fire at the Rothes wind farm site at Cairn Uish near Elgin.
Crew spent more than an hour dealing with the blaze which started at an outdoor storage facility, on Sunday, January at around 1pm.
A hose reel jet, a water-spraying lance, a fan, hay drags, four breathing apparatus and hand tools to tackle the flames.
A Grampian Police spokeswoman said the fire is being treated as "suspicious" and appealed for anyone with information about it to get in touch.
Contact Grampian Police on 0845 6005700 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111.
Once again, as I look at my increasing energy bills (and decreasing usage), I am left wondering why I am being charged a compulsory 'climate levy' on those bills, supposedly handing over money to be dedicated to tackling climate change.
Here we have what looks like a nice story about Inverness College UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands), benefiting from a handout from West Cost Energy od £132,000 per year, to be paid from the profit from the Daviot Wind Farm (proposed) - with further benefits to go to the communities of Strathnairn and Strathsdean.
While it's very nice for those three to benefit from the cash handouts, they should not be available!
Isn't the story (if we listen to the solar cowboys for a moment) that all these renewable sources are not able to fund themselves, hence the levies the rest of us are paying to finance the installation of wind farms etc etc.
Yet they appear to pots of surplus money to dole out to the areas they are moving into - often bribes to shut them up and stop them objecting. 'We hate the wind farm, but we the the extra £100 k we get paid for not complaining'.
Quoted Text
A 13-turbine wind farm planned for near Inverness would be the first in the Highlands to bring direct benefits to education, its developer has said.
West Coast Energy has submitted a planning application and environmental statement for its Daviot Wind Farm with Highland Council.
The firm said it had also agreed in principle an arrangement to use profits to fund Inverness College UHI.
The college could receive £130,000 a year to improve access to its courses.
West Coast Energy said the project, about five miles (8km) south-east of Inverness, would generate enough electricity for about 18,600 homes.
Communities of Strathnairn and Strathdean would also benefit directly from the net profit from the wind farm, the company said.
It's like the old days of early wind farms, when no-one was allowed to use the word 'subsidy' around them, and people were fooled into believing that wind farms were built without being paid subsidies.
Now we have 'community funds' that the wind farm developers pay into when wind farms are built - but we are not allowed to call them bribes, even though the community will not see them if it object to the farm and it is not built.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Wind power
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
Site
)
