Author: Rowan Adams
Big Blue Sky – And No Hot Air
3:04 pm Saturday, 27th June, 2009, Isle of Wight
ShortURL: http://wig.ht/266I
Read More- Green Issues, Overseas, Wildlife
I left the Island behind for a few days recently to visit friends and explore Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire – but I found a few reminders of home.
Islanders may make wind turbine blades, but we don’t get many chances to see them in action.
So it was very encouraging to see the name of Vestas on a working turbine.
I stopped counting after about three wind farms and four individual turbines.
Well done at least some of the locals for the imagination to realize that wind turbines make their Big Blue Sky more beautiful as well as helping to protect it from climate change.
Those locals included the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, with a wind turbine at the Cley Marshes Nature Reserve, ‘internationally reputed as a premier birdwatching site’.
(Though it seems the nimbys live in Norfolk as well as the Isle of Wight)
And it’s not just the wind.
In Ely I came across a public loo with solar-heated water for the basins.
But whether you think wind turbines ugly or beautiful, we need to recover from our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels.
If we don’t want wind turbines, we still need renewable energy, and we need enough of it – the sums have to work.
And on the same trip, in Heffers bookshop in Cambridge, I found the book that can help do just that.
It’s the best book I’ve ever seen on renewable energy.
David JC MacKay’s ‘Sustainable Energy – without the hot air’ gives the actual figures we need to understand how to survive without fossil fuel. And amazingly he’s made the whole thing available free online.
Yes, on our regular trips to the Broads we have seen wind tubines all over Suffolk and Norfolk. We moored about 100 yards from one up near Martham – no noise all night and in a land of windmills they are just the next extension of a simple technology.
Offensive comment?
I was out in a boat fishing off Ventnor last Sunday and couldn’t hit the bottom with ten ounces of lead. The immense power of the tides probably escapes most people but there it is, relentlessly going backwards and forwards as it has done since the formation of the oceans. We have over 11,000 miles of coastline in Britain, what are we doing? Building windmills. You couldn’t make it up! Can anyone tell me how much one of these monstrosities costs? Probably considerably more than an Mp’s expenses or even the Kinnock’s euro-pension. I was also in East Anglia last week, watching Swallowtail Butterflies at Strumpshaw Fen Reserve, one of a few remaining wild natural habitats that remain from a once huge natural wildlife rich wilderness. Yes, you’ve guessed, until it was drained by pumps powered by….bloody windmills!
Offensive comment?
You seem to be a little confused Rowan.
On the one hand you denigrate those who disagree with you and who do not want the country covered in inefficient wind turbines with the “nimbys live in Norfolk” tag, yet you call Professor Mackays book as the “best” you have ever seen and that it “gives the actual figures we need to understand”.
Perhaps you should actually read the book and on page 33 you will find that David says “The windmills that would be required to provide the UK with 20 kWh/d per person amount to 50 times the entire wind hardware of Denmark; 7 times all the wind farms of Germany; and double the entire fleet of all wind turbines in the world.” Can you understand that figure? Pretty horrendous isn’t it?
He goes on to say that 20kWh per day per person would allow that person to drive his lovely new electric car for 25 kilometres.
I bet you just can’t wait!
You should also read what he has to say about the disgraceful Whitelee wind farm where it was originally stated that 140 turbines would “supply the whole of Glasgow” with power.
They built 140 and now tell us it will now require a further 80 turbines to do that.
Its all a bit like Pinocchios nose!
As the Judge said “Building windmills. You couldn’t make it up!”
Thankfully, it will never happen here.
Court adjourned.
Offensive comment?
They would much prefer just 1 Nucleur power station to take over when the lights go out.
Why do these anti developing technologies people insist on posting rubbish stats again and again.
Everybody knows that wind won’t wholesale replace current sources, but it will extend current supplies and …one day… if we continue to develope the technology, who knows
Offensive comment?
It seems more people are waking up to the fact that these white elephants are not fit for purpose. The energy demand is met by quantifiable supply from a controllable source. As the wind is as unpredictable as… oh,”the wind” (there’s a well know saying connected to properties of wind) turbines can only be looked on as an additional(on top of) power source. The solar car analogy shows this. Buy a solar car for transportation? Set off on a journey but because you don’t know when the sun will go in your usual car will have to follow behind. Why take one car to work when you can have two! Also, because wind turbines use energy when not generating, your solar car would have to be towed behind your other car(which you were unable to replace). Thus this shows solar car and wind turbines are a waste of money(tax payers money to private business) and resources(energy to build and erect them and the decimation to areas of land and natural environment).
They are symbols of clemency for a public that has absorbed the guilt heaped on them by the media.
Offensive comment?
t@4 said “It seems more people are waking up ”
While this is true, there is still a substantial minority who either refuse to or cannot wake up.
Despite proven data and even BWEA figures being used to dismantle the wind turbine case, examples of which have been gone into ad infinitum, they still don’t get it and just resort to name calling and derogatory statements such as:
“Why do these anti developing technologies people insist on posting rubbish stats” about a Cambridge Professor, whose field of expertise is renewable energy and:
“Though it seems the nimbys live in Norfolk as well as the Isle of Wight”.
They even blame the anti wind turbine lobby for the loss of Vestas from the island, notwithstanding the fact that Vestas have been found guilty of offences under the Control Of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) and that orders for blades had diminished substantially worldwide due, no doubt, to the worlds biggest turbine investor, Iberdrola reducing its wind farm plans and its budget by 40%.
Wonder why?
As for the hyperbole of young master Bonney, ” Mothership” “streaking through space” “fire needs to be put out”!! Grow up young man.
7 out of 10 though to Rowan for trying to ressurrect a dead duck.
Anyone want to buy some second hand wooden chalets?
Will be going cheap, very soon!
Offensive comment?
Blimey! If that’s what it takes to be called ‘young man’, even by a know-it-all like colin, I must remember to do this more often.
Offensive comment?
“even by a know-it-all ”
See what I mean? No argument = slag people off.
Just can’t help yourself can you. Sticks and stones old boy!
Offensive comment?
I think it’s you who’s confused Colin. We’ve gone and set light to the Mothership to keep ourselves warm. We are streaking through the void of space on our little planet with smoke pouring out the back. A countryside full of windmills may not be to your taste, but the countryside will be able to survive and those windmills serve as a timely reminder that the fire needs to be put out. We will quickly sicken on the sight of them and find a better solution such as tidal energy, although the ecological footpring of tidal energy generators will be a huge and bitter pill to swallow.
Offensive comment?
“We will quickly sicken on the sight of them and find a better solution” Isn’t that saying they are redundant even before installation
So lets pump millions if not billions into a concept that will not give us the results required just to make ourselves feel better and get over the guilt that we all must be feeling for so called “destroying” of the planet. That sounds like “we are going to kill you for your own safety”
The truly sad thing about this is that this flag waving high profile white elephant construction has hijacked the very sound principles of waste not want not; repair, re-use or recycle rather than renew and thrift. Pinning these badges to its blazer that has pockets stuffed with taxpayers money. It preys on the gullible mind that thinks “the wind is free therefore power from it will be free, or at least very very cheap”.
Offensive comment?
Demand for wind turbines is falling around Europe due to the fact that many countries have already reached their targets for renewable energy and thus have stopped providing subsidies and/or tax incentives for wind turbine developments.
Yes wind energy is unreliable (for want of a better word), hence why wind farm electricity production values incorporate a capacity factor linked to the typical wind conditions in the area of the development. This capacity factor is typically around 25-40% of maximum potential capacity.
Anyone with any idea of energy supply will know that diversity of supply is key to ensuring stability of supply. For instance, (theoretically speaking) the whole of the U.K being powered by 1 (one) nuclear power station, or, Just by wind turbines, or, just by coal fired power station would lead to a very insecure energy supply. An ideal situation is a country whereby the energy supply is constructed of many small local facilities whereby the knock on effect of a problem in one area would be minimal.
Yes, wind turbines have a visual impact. Some people see this as a negative, some are impartial to this, and some actually like the sight of wind turbines! However, anyone who believes that a coastline covered in tidal and wave generators would not have a visual impact, especially in such a tourist area as the Isle of Wight clearly has not thought things through!!! Thinking that a few small wind turbines on a hill would have more of a negative impact on tourism that a wave powered generator planted across Ventnor seafront is fanciful!!!!
It is the excesses of previous generations that has put the country, and the world as a whole in the position of needing to change the ways of energy production, and ironically, it is this generation that is proving the main objectors to our generations attempts to solve the problem we have.
Many complain about the detrimantal effect to wildlife that wind turbines have, these people, including THWART, tell us that they would support tidal and other forms of renewable energy. However, surely the environmental impact of other developments, such as, a tidal barrage across the river Seven would cause environmental issues of a magnitude far greater than current wind turbine proposals.
Oh.. but the river Seven isn’t on the Isle of Wight is it… silly me…
Our generation need to stand up against these NIMBY’S that have enjoyed the fruits of their generations damage to our beautiful home and press ahead with the move to renewable energy supplies.
Lastly, unlike the damage already done to the earth’s climate… wind turbines are indeed temporary structures!!! they last for around 20 years, by which time hopefully new technology will arrive and we can take them down!! i.e no lasting effect on the local environment… unlike the CO2 being produced by the coal fired power station being used to supply your computer to let you read this blog…..
Offensive comment?
Lastly, unlike the damage already done to the earth’s climate… wind turbines are indeed temporary structures!!! they last for around 20 years, by which time hopefully new technology will arrive and we can take them down!! i.e no lasting effect on the local environment… unlike the CO2 being produced by the coal fired power station being used to supply your computer to let you read this blog…..”
Ok, CO2 is not absorbed by the oceans and by every plant on the planet?? And the huge concrete foundations that the turbines sit on will be absorbed by the earth immediately after the windmill is obsolete, sorry, taken down? How much energy is used and therefore how much CO2 is discharged in the production and installation of these white elephants? Add everything together and the net energy return is small yet the financial reward for the installers and operators are fantastic.
Offensive comment?
Nail on head.Let the Dinosaurs have their say.
Offensive comment?
“Ok, CO2 is not absorbed by the oceans and by every plant on the planet?? And the huge concrete foundations that the turbines sit on will be absorbed by the earth immediately after the windmill is obsolete, sorry, taken down? How much energy is used and therefore how much CO2 is discharged in the production and installation of these white elephants? Add everything together and the net energy return is small yet the financial reward for the installers and operators are fantastic.”
Yes CO2 is absorbed and released by the oceans and all living things.. in NATURAL CYCLES… the burning of fossil fuels for electricity/energy is not a natural cycle…
Huge concrete foundations, were not talking about flattening rainforests here… were talking a few square metres of grass land and very very small quantities of CO2 stores that, at worst, would be released. However, I really do like your comment on the fact that CO2 is released in the design, manufacture and decommissioning of wind turbines.. firstly, yes this is true… BUT… only because fossil fuel based energy sources are used to build / transport them!!! if only we had green electricity to supply the factory and lorries running on green electricity / biofuels… then the turbines would be carbon neutral to build/install/run/decommission… but.. oh wait… we dont have a large green electricity supply, or a green transport solution yet.. i do wonder why this is? care to enlighten me?? and anyway, the CO2 cost is far far less than an equivalent coal fired, let lone nuclear power station, with all the issues surrounding waste that has to be stored for 100s of years… I wonder if youd prefer one of these sites on the proposed turbine site instead… oh but no.. its okay if its in someone elses back garden…
out of sight out of minds i guess…
Offensive comment?
So nature will only absorb naturally discarded CO2? Mother nature must have a very refined and complex filtering system to be able to analyse the CO2 to establish its origin before absorption or rejection?!
Nuclear power station on the Isle of Wight? Why? Is this the “we use electricity therefore we should have a power station”? Many fly away on holiday, surely we should have an international airport here? Many Islanders eat fish, where is our fishing fleet sitting in an industrial dock?
As for foundations. A few square meters? Each tower need tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete to sit on. Factor in the extraction, production and installation of these foundations and any power that may come from the turbines is pointless! Unless your the installer/operator, then you have made huge profits directly from taxpayers.
How many turbines would be needed to give a consistent dependable power supply equivalent to one nuclear station? Tens of thousands.
Offensive comment?
Sorry, I do want to disagree with t@4 on this one.
‘Nuclear power station on the Isle of Wight? Why? Is this the “we use electricity therefore we should have a power station”? Many fly away on holiday, surely we should have an international airport here? Many Islanders eat fish, where is our fishing fleet sitting in an industrial dock?’
Well, yes actually, I _do_ think that if we want to use electricity then we should be prepared to generate as much as possible for ourselves. And I do think that if we want to eat fish then the more local it is the better. Apart from the food / energy miles, the more local something is, then the more we can keep an eye on its production and make sure it’s done sustainably.
This is also about taking responsibility for our choices, rather than expecting other people – and other species – to live with the consequences of our actions. And that’s true whether they’re in other parts of the country, other parts of the world, or are the people and other living beings who will inherit this poor damaged world from us.
As for flying, I think we should all fly much less, if at all!
http://ventnorblog.com/big-blue-sky-and-no-hot-air/comment-page-1/?replytocom=71740#respond#ixzz0K7mQcHSl&D
Offensive comment?
“Demand for wind turbines is falling around Europe due to the fact that many countries have already reached their targets for renewable energy”
Would you care to put up the verifiable source for this “fact” Joe?
Offensive comment?
well you can pick and choose your expert…because there are dozens on both sides. Your expert is no more credible than any other, therefore a ‘fact’ is not a fact at all, it is a guess..and I like Joes version of a guess.
Offensive comment?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/08/eu-to-fall-just-short-of-2010-renewable-target-49805
I believe this highlights the fact that many contries in the EU have met, or will soon meet 2010 renewable energy targets, thus leading to the reduction in renewable energy developments. The biggest markets for wind energy development, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxemburg, Spain, Sweden and Holland have all met their targets and thus started to scale back wind energy developments. The countries that havent met the targets… namely.. the UK, Belgium, Italy and Greece… are the only expanding markets left in the EU, therefore demand is falling, therefore fewer wind turbines are being produced.. hence the reversal in fortunes for wind turbine manufacturers.
Note also, the UK is one of the main countries that will not meet its target…
I wonder if we can conjure up some reasons as to why this is!!!
Were not playing our part in global energy reform…
I think its about time we started.
How about THWFORT…
The Wight FOR Rural Turbines…
Maybe we can do our bit!!!
Offensive comment?
This is laughable.
The link actually says “eu-to-fall-just-short-of-2010-renewable-target” does it not?
Furthermore, it is nearly 2 years old dated 31 August 2007 and says the “Eu is on track” whereas analysts in the same article say “it will be difficult for the EU to meet its 2010 targets”.
You compound your misleading information by then saying:
“I believe this highlights the fact”.
You “believe”? You have a distorted view of the link and what it clearly states, i.e. “it will fall short” Can’t be clearer than that, can it?
So what you “believe” or would like to “believe” is just that, your belief. Does not make it a fact!
You go on to say:
“Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxemburg, Spain, Sweden and Holland have all met their targets”
Where is your evidence? Where is this stated as fact?
Offensive comment?
There you go, looking for ‘facts’ again…there aren’t any..only theories
Offensive comment?
yes the article is 18 months old, and yes you seem to have read the headline and stopped there. The point the article makes is that almost all EU countries, as at the date of the article, were on course to meet their targets.. with the UK. belgium, greece and italy holding the EU back in reaching its overall target… hence my point that demand was falling as only 4 countries are required to expand renewable energy development. Also, w.r.t vestas, why dont you contact them and see for yourself that this is an economic decision due to the ;ack of demand in europe. I believe they are moving their interests to the USA where wind turbine demand is increasing rapidly.
Offensive comment?
for some reason i thought 18 months was 2 years, please read 24 months.
Offensive comment?
“yes you seem to have read the headline and stopped there.”
Well you don’t want me to reproduce the whole article on here do you Joe?
Let us deal with some of the other assertions then.
“A record 7,500 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity was built in Europe in 2006. Wind energy now supplies 3.3% of the EU’s total gross electricity consumption.”
“In 2005, 16.3% of renewable electricity came from wind”
So a RECORD installaton of wind turbines, gave an ACTUAL return of 16.3% of 3.3%, or 0.52 of 1%.
Even given that there was an increase of 25% in renewables between ’05 and ’06 that is still only 0.65 of 1%!
Why bother?
“Wind power could, some studies say, supply 16% of the EU’s total electricity consumption by 2020.”
Given the above mathematical calculation (no guesswork involved), the “fact” that you say 9 countries have already achieved their targets and that “only 4 countries are required to expand renewable energy development”, I put it to you that a figure of 16% is impossible.
Where did these “studies” take place? Given the guesswork implied in that statement, probably in a Bier Cellar in Berlin or a pub in Shanklin.
Heres another :”Stephanie Schlegel from the Institute for International and European Environmental Policy in Berlin said that the key to meeting the renewable energy targets as well as to cutting GHG emission cuts was reducing the overall consumption of energy in the EU.”
Talk about stating the blindingly obvious, but then she does work for yet another useless quango formed by our masters in Europe. In all probability drawing down a six figure salary for such crass statements.
She then goes on:”some of the EU renewable targets might not help cut GHG emissions:” Really? I thought that that was the prime reason behind installing these inefficient monsters by the Green lobby.
Still, at least the subject can be debated with you, Joe, unlike the majority on here who, devoid of any FACTS to back up their argument, just resort to insults, the first of which, I now await.
Offensive comment?
Thanks for responding folks.
However, I didn’t write the article to claim that we can solve all our problems with wind turbines – of course we can’t. But we can’t get out of the problems of climate change and peak oil with only one technology, whatever it is. We need a range of solutions – and probably they’ll include at least some wind energy. If we don’t use wind energy, then we need to use more of something else, and/or use less energy per person, and/or have fewer children so that the country as a whole uses less energy.
How we do that is what I was hoping people who don’t want wind turbines would discuss.
And I must confess I didn’t help to get the discussion off to a friendly start by using a photo of wind turbines. Maybe I should have fronted what I wrote with the solar water heating picture, which fewer people would object to. And I did put in that emotive word ‘nimbys’. Okay, apologies all round. I admit that if I thought they were ugly I’d perhaps be against wind turbines too.
But we do need to do SOMETHING.
Which brings me back to http://www.withouthotair.com/.
The beauty and power of David MacKay’s book is that he gives us the actual figures, so we can have a civilised and – crucially – an _informed_ discussion and make decisions accordingly.
For example, take a look at chapter 27, ‘Five energy plans for Britain’, http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_203.shtml.
He says
‘If we are to get off our current fossil fuel addiction we need a plan for radical action. And the plan needs to add up. The plan also needs a
political and financial roadmap. Politics and economics are not part of this book’s brief, so here I will simply discuss what the technical side of a plan that adds up might look like.
There are many plans that add up. In this chapter I will describe five. Please don’t take any of the plans I present as “the author’s recommended solution.” My sole recommendation is this:
Make sure your policies include a plan that adds up!’
Later he says
‘If you don’t like these plans, I’m not surprised. I agree that there is something
unpalatable about every one of them. Feel free to make another plan that is more to your liking. But make sure it adds up!’
I’ve requested David MacKay’s book from the library as well, so everybody can get a chance to look at it in the paper version as well as online.
So please – I’d really like to hear comments from people who’ve looked at David MacKay’s book, not just to reinforce their own views but to try and really understand the issues, who’ve grappled with the numbers, and then come up with suggestions for how we might actually DO SOMETHING.
Offensive comment?
You are completely right to post as you did….it is the NIMBYS who ignore posts and try to shout down every other post whilst ignoring what is said. We all know that wind won’rt replace fossil fuels, we also know that we all (even at local level) have to take responsiblity for our energy conservation AND production. But the NIMBYS ignore this and talk over you, constantly refering back to the same old, same old ‘wind is inefficient’ bind that they hope will mislead everybody into ignoring the issue.
On a local level, wind, solar, thermal, eventually tidal will all be necessary on a local level to help us play our part…..or find a site for a nucleur power station ….its not a joke…although those who drone on against it, are.
PS don’t try and blind them with Facts…they get upset and will just ignor eyou anyway
Offensive comment?
I do feel compelled to comment on the ”efficiency” of various forms of energy generation.
People state wind turbines of having an effiency of around 30%… this is completely illogical… efficiency is a measure of the ratio of the power in, to the power out. i.e http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/analysis-efficiency-coal-fired-power-stations-evolution-prospects/article-154672 states that the global average effiency for a coal fired power station is 31% (and they say wind is ineffiecient!!!) If for example 10 Kg of coal contains 1 KiloJoules of energy, and the effiecny is 31% then the power station will produce .31 KiloJoules from each Kilo of coal. http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/wind-enrgy.html this is a great article on wind turbine efficiency. but what is more important is the average power output, rather than the efficiency per se. as the wind is an infinite resource, unlike coal/oil/gas. for example, a 2MW turbine, in an area with a capacity factor of 30%, will, on average over its lifetime, produce .6 MW 24/7, i.e 14.4 MWh per day, 100.8 MWh per week, and 5.420 MWh per year. This is factored in to any developments budget and earnings from the turbines are calculated using these figures and the wholesale electricity price, (between 9 and 13p per kWh) therefore a 2MW turbine, running on a capacity factor of 30%, (producing 5,240 MWh or 5,240,000 kWh per year) will earn, @ 10p per kWh, 52,240,000 pence per year or £522,400 per year. The efficiency of the turbine is irrelevant as the wind is free and infinite resource.
also, power output is dependent on diameter of the blade squared, and velocity of the wind cubed, therefore ideally, we need huge turbines in the windiest areas to get the greatest ”efficiency”.
Offensive comment?