Wind Turbines

[democat101]

Aquarian, great idea,count me in.
and there is this.....
JOIN THE REBELLION AND SAVE SCOTLAND
http://www.communitiesagainstturbinessc ... -heritage/

[Bitter End]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17783604

Aye right !

[WC1]

Commissioned by trade body RenewableUK

No axe to grind there, of course.

[bill]

A new poll commissioned by Scottish Renewables has revealed 71 percent of people in Scotland support wind power as part of our energy mix.

The results come ahead of Donald Trump’s appearance at the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee inquiry into renewable energy targets on Wednesday (25 April).

The YouGov poll which surveyed 1041 people in Scotland found 38.81 per cent strongly agreed with the statement ‘I support the continuing development of wind power as part of a mix of renewables and conventional forms of electricity generation’ and a futher 32.52 per cent said they tended to agree.

This was compares to just 7 per cent who strongly disagreed with the statement.


Young people were among the most favourable with half of 18 to 24 year-olds strongly supporting wind power and a third tending to support the continued development of this renewable energy source.

The results are a snapshot of a wider survey intended to find out what Scots really think about wind power, the renewable energy target, and Donald Trump’s recent high profile intervention into the renewable energy debate. The full results will be made available later this week.

Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, said:

“This lays to rest once and for all the idea that people of Scotland do not support wind power.

“A massive majority of people have clearly stated their support for the continuing development of wind power - offshore and onshore - as part of our energy mix. The facts speak for themselves and we hope the committee will listen to the majority of Scots who have made their opinions very clear on the matter.

The 7% who disagreed all had Kintyre addresses.

[WC1]

All very well and good, Bill, though of course it's another pro-wind power survey sponsored by the wind power industry. And to an extent relatively meaningless. Even people like myself who don't believe that wind power can in any way meet our base-load energy needs, and who are concerned about individuals using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, would "support wind power as part of our energy mix". But Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, is wrong to think that “This lays to rest once and for all the idea that people of Scotland do not support wind power", as if "anything goes" now. To a large extent Donald Trump is right. Our countryside is also an economic resource and we need a policy for energy supply that both protects it and truly answers our long-term energy needs. The present policy is wrong-headed and needs revision. If we go down Alex Salmond's road (100% of our energy requirements coming from renewables, mainly wind) there will come a point where we're all sitting in the dark like we were on Saturday night.

Enjoy the opening of the Royal, by the way. My invite seems to have got lost in the post!

[argylltourist]

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.ph ... ng-heather

Another interesting snippet!

[Kevin]

Even people like myself who don't believe that wind power can in any way meet our base-load energy needs, and who are concerned about individuals using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, would "support wind power as part of our energy mix". But Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, is wrong to think that “This lays to rest once and for all the idea that people of Scotland do not support wind power", as if "anything goes" now. To a large extent Donald Trump is right. Our countryside is also an economic resource and we need a policy for energy supply that both protects it and truly answers our long-term energy needs. The present policy is wrong-headed and needs revision. If we go down Alex Salmond's road (100% of our energy requirements coming from renewables, mainly wind) there will come a point where we're all sitting in the dark like we were on Saturday night.

I think you misunderstand completely the 100% renewable target WC.

Reading your post it seems you think the 100% target will be wholly reliant on wind turbines as the base load?

Currently we produce too much electical energy in Scotland and are exporting ~20% of our capacity into England from our current mix. (Wales also is a net exporter of energy into England but to a lesser extent than Scotland).

In 2011 Scotland generated 35% of this mix from renewables and the target is to have 100% of the Scottish electricity demand from renewable resources by 2020.

This 100% is an equivalent figure though and the the crucial point is by then we will be generating twice as much electricity as Scotland needs. Just over half will be from renewables and just under half from other conventional sources.

So in effect we will be exporting as much electricity as we consume by 2020 so any worries you have about the base load are unfounded due the large energy surplus we will have.

That is why there are projects already started to have an inconnector from Galloway to England as they will require to import more Scottish energy to meet international targets and also to ensure their lights don't go out.

You will have heard that England was trying to build new nuclear plans to offset their base load requirements but these have suffered another set back due to the subsidies required which are far and away anything for renewables.

Scotland's hydro electric schemes (with the new Glen Doe scheme due on line soon) are also part of the renewable mix and have the added bonus of being able to store base load using excess capacity at off peak times.

In addition, there is also the inconnector which will go from Scotland to Norway which will allow us to store our excess energy utlising Norway's vast Hydro electric system as well as being a direct link to the continental European electrical network through Sweden and Denmark into Germany.

With Scotland having 25% of EU potential for wind and tidal and 10% of EU potential wave capacity Scotland is 'best placed' to utlise this potential and to be at the forefront of the industry.

[WC1]

Almost all of the large conventional and nuclear power stations that presently supply our base load are either past or are about to pass the end of their designed 'life'. We have no plans on the table for replacement. Wind power is NOT the answer to this problem.

[MPR]

I just have to speak my bit, Wind power is a viable source of electricity,(when the wind blows) why dont we subsidise the homeowner,wont provide all the power they need but would maybe save them some money in the long run. I looked into doing this and the cost was all in the switching and battery storage, the tower itself ( 12 meters)was very reasonable.
Be nice if that happened but Im sure that the big power companies would be against that one and would then demand big money from the gov to offset their losses. I am a big proponet of trying to live "off the grid" only because I think we are financially raped by the people that allow us to stay warm in the winter.

[Kevin]

Almost all of the large conventional and nuclear power stations that presently supply our base load are either past or are about to pass the end of their designed 'life'. We have no plans on the table for replacement. Wind power is NOT the answer to this problem.

There are plenty of plans 'on the table' available to digest from the Scottish Government and other industry sources.

Wind power alone is not the answer and that is why a sustainable energy mix is required. This does not detract from the target to have the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's energy demand being generated by renewable means.

On-land wind is not as efficient as off-shore wind but tidal/wave is 80-90% efficient and 'repetative' thus why so much effort is currently being put in (eg Orkney testbed) to test and evaluate pre-production designs and are all part of the renewable energy mix

In addition, the current Hydro electric schemes in Scotland along with utilising pumped storage in Scotland to store excess electricity (from wind especially to balance peak load) will be utilised + utilising pumped storage capacity in Norway via interconnector and their direct access to continental European markets.

Scotland’s current energy supply is dominated by five major power stations and of three are fossil fuel powered plants.

Together, these five power stations account for around three quarters of Scottish electricity generation and as previously stated Scotland currently has excess generation capacity and exported 24% of electricity that we generated in 2009.

I am not sure why you believe the main power stations are "either past or are about to pass the end of their designed 'life'".

Longannet and Cockenzie are both powered plants using coal and the third in Peterhead is fired by gas.

Longannet has a lifespan to 2020-2025.

Cockenzie is set to close in 2016 but there are already plans to bring online a new combined cycle plant at the site to replace the current capacity.

Peterhead is also frontrunner to have the first CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) project in Europe which would be up and running within 2016-2020.

Scotland also has two nuclear power stations at Torness and Hunterston but the decision has been made not to build any new nuclear power stations.

Torness has a current life to 2023 but the operator has signalled that it could be extended to 2040 or beyond.

Hunterston has an operating license to 2016 but plans are already being considered by the operator to extend to 2026.

Are you advocating new nuclear pants in Scotland?

The UK Government energy policy is reliant on new Nuclear plants + importing renewable energy from Scotland to meet EU targets.

Their nuclear policy is in tatters as all but one of the providers have pulled out. The last is only still in because of the subsidies currently available for Nuclear (far higher than rewewables). When putting together analysis for costing nuclear power they conviently do not factor in the vast multiple of £billions required for decommissioning and nuclear waste storage/reprocessing costs.

The case for Nuclear is non-existant if subsidies stop and if UK Government policy were to ensure a level playing field across the UK (which actually ensures our electricity bills subsidise those in the South East of England).

[url]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-15711200[/url]

Plans being considered by the industry regulator could undermine the prospect of new UK nuclear power plants.

The cost of feeding the north of Scotland's renewable energy into the national power grid could fall by 80% under the proposals.

A study carried out for Ofgem suggested the change would boost the case for building wind and marine turbines in and around Scotland.

The costs were estimated in a draft pricing and investment model.

It suggested the access charge for wind and marine power from the north of Scotland would fall from £24 per kilowatt to less than £5.

Sharing the costs equally across the UK would remove the financial incentives to build any new nuclear power stations, and shift a projected £17bn of nuclear investment to other technologies.

Ofgem asked energy consultancy Redpoint to assess the impact on the energy mix if it removed the high costs for the north of Scotland and the subsidies for the south of England.

These currently create incentives for generating companies to build further south.

Scotland is best placed in the EU to capitalise on our vast renewables potential with 25% of tidal and wind and 10% of wave along with the added bonus of increasing exports of energy (adding £billions to our balance of payments). The industry also provides manufacturing, engineering, R & D, support and maintenance jobs plus allowing export of technology and expertise.

[democat101]

Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study
Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... study.html

Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.

But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.

Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.

This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.

It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.

[WC1]

Sorry for taking so long to respond to some of the above. I've been away for a weekend break. It's a couple of years since I last looked in detail at the research on this, using the Scottish Energy Survey (which Kevin is obviously drawing heavily on) and other sources. The main point coming out of those studies for me is that by the 2020s we will only be capable of generating about 30% of the current output. Only Torness (nuclear) and Peterhead (gas) will be left. I just don't accept that we can make up the shortfall from renewables alone, and certainly not from wind, on which the present Scottish Government is placing such reliance. From the sources I've seen, there is NO large-scale conventional generating plant currently in planning. Start stock-piling candles.

[Kevin]

The main point coming out of those studies for me is that by the 2020s we will only be capable of generating about 30% of the current output.

This is fundamentally incorrect.

By the 2020's Scotland will be producing twice our required electricity requirement using a mixed and sustainable generating portfolio utilising renewables (tidal, wave and wind), clean coal/carbon capture (and bringing new plants online to replace EOL capacity) and also we will still have Torness nuclear plant being viable until 2040.

I do not advocate any new nuclear build but as the investment has already been made to build and commission Torness and decommissioning costs are required whether we commence decommissioing in 2026 or 2040 so I do not see any reason to not extend the life until the maintenence costs or the design lifecycle become prohibitive.

We will be exporting the other half of our electricity surplus to our requirements into England using the new subsea interconnector. This is so England can keep their lights on as they are currently a net importer of energy while Scotland is already an exporter sending 24% of our capacity there but the current infrastructure limits anymore until the undersea linkage between Galloway and Cumbria comes online.

We will also be exporting over the Northsea inconnector to Norway for direct likage to the heart of Europe through the Sweden/Denmark/Germany connector or for storage using the excess Hydro pumped storage capacity of Norway.

Any advise to stock up on candles is based on little substance, contrary to industry/Government data, pessimistic and alarmist.

In fact, Scotland is in the enviable position within the EU of having full control over our energy security be it electricity or oil/gas. We will be able to meet all our own generation needs while exporting half our electricity capacity to add £billions to our balance of payments by 2020.

[WC1]

From the Scottish Government's Scottish Energy Survey:-

" Issues for Future Scottish Electricity Generation

"If the anticipated closure plans were adhered to, and no new capacity built, Scottish generating capacity would reduce to 32% of 2002 levels in 2023." There are some important "ifs" in there, granted, but the fact is there are NO major conventional projects in planning.

[Kevin]

From the Scottish Government's Scottish Energy Survey:-

" Issues for Future Scottish Electricity Generation

"If the anticipated closure plans were adhered to, and no new capacity built, Scottish generating capacity would reduce to 32% of 2002 levels in 2023." There are some important "ifs" in there, granted, but the fact is there are NO major conventional projects in planning.

This information is from a document published in 2006 which uses data from ~2002. It is also prior to the change of administration at Holyrood and has since been superceeded by subsequent Government reports and industry information.

The extract also highlights information concerning conventional generating capacity while failing to highlight the massive planned renewable (hydro,wind, wave and tidal) installed capacity by the year 2020.

As previously stated, Peterhead is planned to have the first CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) generation project in Europe which would be up and running within 2016-2020.

In addition, there is the the plans to replace the current Cockenzie coal fired station (which is due ~2016) with a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station.

There is also a £3Bn 'Clean Coal' and CCS 1600 MW plant in planning which is proposed to be situated beside Hunterston Terminal further adding to the energy mix as obsolete conventional/nuclear plant come to the end of their life.

These projects will also allow technology transfer onto other new conventional plants in order to meet stringent EU carbon reduction targets (from fossil fuels) ensuring any new conventional projects are planned and built incorporating clean technology instead of expensive retrofitting. The technology will also be able to be sold to overseas customers in order to meet their emissions targets.

By the 2020's Scotland will be in the enviable position of generating twice as much electricity as we consume while exporting the other half.