UK wind record

[woodburner]

How much power would they generate?

[Tarrel]

Also, all this wind power capacity has been built in the last very-few years: think what we (well, the Nat Grid and the energy companies mostly) could do if we kept up the effort.

They've just given the go-ahead for a new pumped-storage plant in Scotland and all: useful if WTs can't ramp-up fast enough after the final whistle of that 6-Nations thriller (or tries to think what other stuff gets watched by lots of Scots).

Not the 6-Nations, that's for sure. We know we always lose. How about the Camanachd Cup? www.shinty.com. Makes ice hockey look like a WI knitting group.

[kenneal - lagger]

Twin screw: 19kW – producing approx. 97MWh/yr, peanuts compared to a 1MW wind turbine, at a cost of about £190,000. We might get five or six sites in the Newbury Town Council area as that is the number a water mills the town once had.

A few years ago we were eying up a site for three 1MW wind turbines but the NIMBYs came out in force. Strangely not the people who lived closest but the people who lived behind them in the most expensive road in Newbury!

[clv101]

Also, all this wind power capacity has been built in the last very-few years: think what we (well, the Nat Grid and the energy companies mostly) could do if we kept up the effort.

Yes, unless you like wind turbines, it would make the whole country look hideous, you still wouldn't have enough power from wind, and you would still have to have enough non-intermittent generators available to cover demand when the wind doesn't blow.

I'm not quite following your argument. What do you mean by "enough power from wind"? Surely it's clear that wind can contribute a significant amount of energy in the UK, at least 20% of our annual demand without any massive reengineering of the grid (several European countries, with poorer wind resources, are already at this kind of level. We could quadruple our generation just to catch up with the best in Europe. This is real energy, mitigating the burning of real imported gas.

Gas is expensive and imported, gas turbines are cheap. It's no problem to have a lot of gas turbines operating with relatively low activity factors.

No one is suggest wind is 'the answer'. The truth is that wind can provide a significant contribution, whilst mitigating CO2 generation associated with burning imported gas.

[Tarrel]

Also, all this wind power capacity has been built in the last very-few years: think what we (well, the Nat Grid and the energy companies mostly) could do if we kept up the effort.

They've just given the go-ahead for a new pumped-storage plant in Scotland and all: useful if WTs can't ramp-up fast enough after the final whistle of that 6-Nations thriller (or tries to think what other stuff gets watched by lots of Scots).

Unfortunately that news coincides with the abandonment of the Argyll Array offshore wind project. The reason given was the high presence of basking sharks in the area, but it's the third offshore project to be curtailed in the last few weeks and I wonder whether the energy co's are responding to uncertainty over future government support.

[RenewableCandy]

The daft thing is, it's not as if wind turbines block the view off, like buildings do, or smell and make a noise, like roads do. Well alright they sort-of swish, but it's hardly a racket like the A64.

[kenneal - lagger]

Put a few nukes in their place then!!

[emordnilap]

They would supply enough for basic needs. Not much more but how much more is actually a 'need'?

[RenewableCandy]

Also, all this wind power capacity has been built in the last very-few years: think what we (well, the Nat Grid and the energy companies mostly) could do if we kept up the effort.

They've just given the go-ahead for a new pumped-storage plant in Scotland and all: useful if WTs can't ramp-up fast enough after the final whistle of that 6-Nations thriller (or tries to think what other stuff gets watched by lots of Scots).

Unfortunately that news coincides with the abandonment of the Argyll Array offshore wind project. The reason given was the high presence of basking sharks in the area, but it's the third offshore project to be curtailed in the last few weeks and I wonder whether the energy co's are responding to uncertainty over future government support.

Possibly. But my money's on their waiting to see how well that floating-turbine project pans out. If it turns out they can build floating turbines cheaper, it'll be worth the wait.

[Tarrel]

Floating turbine project?

[kenneal - lagger]

Floating turbine project?

See here

[Tarrel]

Floating turbine project?

See here

Thx for the link. Interesting. Never really thought about it before. Presumably, most of the existing British offshore wind capacity is built onto the sea bed?

It strikes me that the embedded energy in a floating turbine will be lower than that in a fixed installation. Would this be correct, I wonder?

[biffvernon]

I guess it all depends on the water depth. The turbines off the Lincolnshire coast are in very shallow water so there it is probably cheaper to build them on the bottom. It's the big projects that have just been cancelled that are in much deeper water, where floating structures may prove cheaper.

[RenewableCandy]

Yup I think that's why they've called them off (for the mo).

[biffvernon]

Here's one for WB



We've had 24 hours in the 5 to 6 GW zone and more to come for several days.

(One of the nukes seems to have dropped out this morning - reliability? Pah!)