There was an item on the beeb about it today.
At present professional installations are way over th hoped for eventual cost of them if we all splurge. In which case it would be worth while if you lived in a suitable area:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Jim" saying something like:
If you really want a constant thrumming racket, yes.
Sorry - I came to this late - I am seriously looking for a device to install here at home and it seems to me that only 2 makers are in the running, but I would like to be proved wrong.
Renewable Devices (hooked up with SSE to the tune of =A39M) and Windsave (currently looking to float for =A355M).
What sets them apart is the connection directly into the mains so they export energy when it is not being used internally (no batteries). Supposedly there is a quicker payback.
All the above auguments about efficiency, turbulence, noise, etc apply.
What makes them less than ideal consumer products is the price. I calculate that the RD genny comes in at =A39,000 installed. OK, grants & payback may offset that, but that is not an attractive price for
1=2E5KW.Similarly, but better positioned, is the Windsave at about =A31500 for
1KW.Come on. Whereas this thread is engineering based, due to the interests of contributors, and the 'big windfarm debate' across the country is landscape based, I feel this is a marketing issue. If these were made in volume the cost should not be more than a dishwasher. Every house should have one.
If you look at a micro wind generator there is not much that is more complex than is found in a DVD player or such common appliance.
The argument should be to get these into volume production, get people installing them and the energy equation will change rapidly.
The complexity for the connection apparatus to the grid system are one of the killer's price wise. Corners cannot be cut as back feeding after a system fault, particularly from numerous sources could kill. Also one thing conveniently overlooked is that the ratings quoted for wind turbines are *always* without exception hopelessly overstated.
Unless you want to go completely off grid forever and all that entails then the planning implications of huge (or even less than huge) amounts of wind generation are immense, the consumer will still need to stump up the costs for conventional plant lying idle for the day the wind drops. If wind renewable's expand significantly more than the current renewable's target and compose a large percentage of that total (as they currently do) the shit would start hitting the fan as reality bit.
So no amount of windmill building, even up to and beyond T B Liar's targets will keep the lights on. Tidal barrages might have some future but again the environmentalists will moan. The ONLY possible future is nuclear. It will really upset the environmentalists but unless action is taken now (a firm decision to press the button for a new generation of multiple nukes in the next 12-24 months) the lights will go out in a couple of decades (or less).
1kW peak perhaps. What do you really get?
Small windgens today dont pay back.
There are far more significant issues than that. Anyone who bases their argument on landscape is really missing it.
Yep, agreed. They would be much cheaper than dishwashers. But there are a number of issues to overcome.
much simpler, but it has to handle far higher powers.
The energy equation wont change greatly, house mounted mills wont contribute much percentage wise, but they can contribute some. They can save householders money if theyre cheaply mass produced, but not today. The block is the now point, no-one is buying so no-one is funding mass production. There are also blocks re planning, safety, legalities, noise, effects on house structures, and power feed issues. Hence no-one will invest.
Matt wrote:
Maybe someone else with more detailed knowledge can fill in, but is that not a case of suitable precautions not being in place on the supply companies side? IOW if mills became common, linesmen would never assume a circuit to be dead or stay dead, and working practices would need to change to deal with that. And could. If I've got this one right
- if - its todays practices that are not safely compatible with the occasional backfeeding mill.
There may also be ways to automatically check for mill problems and isolate any such sources from the grid when needed for work.
not so sure about that. There is always wind blowing in some places, not in others. Its true that utilisation is not very good, but there will be some saving, though not as much as is reflected by nameplate figures or eevrn average output figs. As gennies go theyre the worst kind, intermittent and unpreditable individually, but less so in bulk. I forget the actual figs, but ISTR something like 20% of a nations electricity could come from windmills, and domestic ones wont produce that much.
Not really, simply a case of less utilisation. If wind made up too high a percentage, which IRL will never happen, there would be times at which some generated energy went unused. But price policies will take care of that. Domestic windgens arent going to be big on output after all. Even a biggish 1kW mill will average what, somewhere vaguely ITRO
100w out.Just one part of the puzzle, it will add some.
I agree we need more nukes, theyre the most environmentally friendly option, and the one practical option for our ills.
Imho no lights will go out though, prices (and energy saving drives) will take care of that. Attitudes to energy may change as things get tighter and prices go up. There are various sources of energy not a whole lot above todays prices, those will come into play when prices rise. And most consumption will be much more efficient by then. And quite simply a lot of todays consumption just isnt needed.
NT
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:36:23 +0000 someone who may be Matt wrote this:-
The report at
On the myth of wind power being unavailable for long periods it has this to say:
"Low wind speed conditions affecting 90% or more of the UK would occur in around one hour every five years during winter; The chance of wind turbines shutting down due to high wind speed conditions is very rare - high winds affecting 40% or more of the UK would occur in around one hour every 10 years."
On the myth of wild fluctuations in wind output it has this to say:
"The most likely change in power output from a diversified wind power system from one hour to the next is less than plus or minus
2.5% of the total installed wind power capacity. Larger changes from one hour to the next do occur - a change in hourly output equal to around plus or minus 20% of the installed wind power capacity is likely to happen about once per year."Note that wind forecasting for the next hour or two is highly accurate and hydro and gas turbine plants can start within a couple of minutes. The anti-wind claim that coal fired plant running constantly in reserve is necessary in case the wind suddenly stops blowing is a myth.
As Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks is reported as saying:
"The only sensible debate about energy is one based on the facts. This new research is a nail in the coffin of some of the exaggerated myths peddled by opponents of wind power."
"Many people wonder what happens when the wind doesn?t blow. The truth is that the national grid system is already designed to cope with large fluctuations in supply and demand. It must deal with rapid surges in demand ? such as during the breakfast period or at the end of a televised football match when millions of kettles are used at the same time.
"National Grid Company has confirmed that accommodating significant amounts of wind capacity on the electricity system is unlikely to pose any major operational challenges. Indeed there?s no technical limit on the amount of wind that can be absorbed by the system ? the issue is simply one of cost.
"Wind power is becoming easier to predict. As it becomes more dispersed around the country it is increasingly unlikely that all the UK?s wind farms will be out of action at the same time. To cover for any shortfall will require a small increase in the ?balancing services? that are routinely used by the network operator. This, and issues such as grid reinforcement, will add a small amount to the cost of electricity, which is explained below.
"How will increased use of wind power affect my electricity bill?
"Let?s assume that by 2020, we have achieved the Government?s goal of generating 20% of our electricity by renewable means ? and this done solely via wind power. In this case, the extra cost to consumers of integrating wind power would be about 3.8% of the current domestic charge ? around £13 on the average annual UK bill. If the environmental benefit of reduced carbon dioxide emissions is calculated and included, the additional ?social? cost of wind power will be less ? possibly zero."
Those who want further information can go to the "Download our full report 'Wind Power in the UK'" link. Section 3 of the report is the place that covers this issue.
For some information specifically on microgeneration
The message from Matt contains these words:
Tidal barrages would be a much better bet than wind power. Not only would a relatively few schemes producing a serious amount of power suffice their output would be entirely predictable and if strategically placed round the coast provide continuous cover.
The message from David Hansen contains these words:
Never trust politicians statistics. It doesn't take anywhere near that extreme of wind conditions to cripple the power output from wind farms. And stationary highs with very light winds over most of the country (as at present) are a feature of the UK weather.
Rate of change in output is a red herring. What matters is the amount of conventional capacity that has to be kept on standby and/or used to produce the difference between wind farm capacity and actual output.
Has anybody got a figure for the actual average output of the current wind farms as compared with their theoretical maximum?
What it doesn't say is how much land will be required by these windmills to generate sufficient power to make the prospect of wind-power actually feasible. The authors of the report neatly sidestep the issue.
Rob
The amount of land taken out per windmill is negligible, about the size of a typical back yard. the area of land needed to accommodate a windmill is considerably larger, but can still be used for whatever it was used for previously. Less than 1% of a wind farm's land will be taken out of it's previous use.
A good location (for the raw material needed -- wind) is a short distance off the coast -- no land used there, but increased maintenance and capital costs involved, possibly recouped by greater utilisation.
Wave power is another possibility. I remember lots of work being done on 'nodding donkey' devices in the 70s, what became of them?
As a "for instance" the electricity selling price (not the cost of generation) just dropped straight through the floor around five years ago. As a result a major power station (7% of the installed UK capacity) went bankrupt and was repossessed by the bankers, fortunately they had difficulty offloading it as scrap otherwise we really could be in the shit. That same power station is now on the market and in a bidding war attracting offers around GBP2bn. Until there is a coherent national energy policy and stable market conditions no investor (other than one who has been siphoning off IMF funds) will contemplate entering the market.
The Tories started this off in the 80's with the persecution of the miners at any cost increasing dependence on imported fossil fuels, the waste of North Sea oil revenues on unemployment benefit was deemed more acceptable than state funded/assisted construction projects that would provide real labour opportunities and provide something long lasting and of value to the nation (like a decent rail system or 4 lane M1 etc) The Tories then carried it on into the 90's with privatisation of the gas and electricity systems and the phoney sell off of the nuclear industry. The tosser Tory Clone T B Liar can't even get his head around the rapidly impending crisis after "eight glorious years"
Those figures are just so ridiculous to be even considered. (see the current weather conditions in the UK and then go for a drive to observe the distinct lack of rotation of wind turbines)
That I do know to be incorrect, the people that do know the real facts have in recent years been marginalised to stop them kicking up a fuss (quite common in the UK energy business) In a future interconnected market with significant hydro generation import from Norway it might just be feasible but there IS a limit and suggesting there isn't is less than honest and technically incorrect. Even with a fully interconnected system the drawbacks of significant wind generation are being felt in at least three European countries. If anything they are now retreating from their previously declared intentions.
Look at the current weather pattern across the UK. A high pressure area such as is currently being encountered is rather common in winter. The wind speeds at the moment (5-6 mph across much of the UK as reported by the met office) are such that wind generation is making no useful contribution on what is quite probably the highest demand day of the winter so far. So either you swamp each and every hillside with turbines on the expectation of some wind, somewhere at enormous capital and environmental cost - or you will freeze UNLESS alternative generation is available.
From the BBC weather site, current and predicted conditions:
Friday:
Saturday:
Sunday:
Monday:
Nukes are the ONLY way forward.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:27:45 GMT someone who may be wrote this:-
Underwater turbines avoid the construction of a large dam and the objections of the bird lobby that this involves. An experimental one worked well enough to allow a second phase to be started. AFAIR this will be in Strangford Lough
The nuclear "industry" was asked to evaluate the most promising, Salter's Duck. Surprise, surprise they recommended against it and in favour of nuclear power stations. Since then there has been a degree of work and the first commercial wave farm is being planned/about to be built.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:31:24 GMT someone who may be Roger wrote this:-
I don't.
Are you suggesting that the University of Oxford Environmental Change Institute are politicians?
In the full SDC report I referred to one will read:
"3.5 Capacity and flexibility of wind power
"The need for reserves
"It is commonly assumed that adding significant wind power capacity to the electricity system will lead to a large expansion in the need for balancing services, particularly reserves. This is due to an implicit assumption that the intermittent output of wind power results in the need for large amounts of reserves devoted entirely to providing standby power for wind output ? this is often referred to as ?backup plant?. Therefore, if the average output of wind plant is 35% of its rated output (its capacity factor), the remaining 65% must be provided as reserve, or backup capacity.
"This reasoning is seriously flawed, for three key reasons:
"? No generating plant is 100% reliable. Therefore, reserves are required to cover for unexpected outages on all plants.
"? The rated capacity of the total installed wind plant is of minor interest to system operators, who make supply security assessments based on estimates of overall statistical probabilities for the complete generating mix. This leads to the concept of ?capacity values?, described below.
"? Wind power is often described as ?intermittent?, which implies a high level uncertainty as to its actual output, but it can be quite accurately forecast in the appropriate timeframes for balancing electricity supply. A more precise term might be ?variable?, especially when considering aggregate output, which benefits from the wide distribution of wind turbines across the country.
"Instead, system operators assign all generating plant a ?capacity value? (often called ?capacity credit?), which refers to the ability of that plant to contribute firm capacity to the overall system. High availability plant such as combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) can have a capacity value of up to 90%, meaning 10 GW of gas plant would be treated as providing the system with 9 GW of firm capacity ? the remaining 1 GW allows for outages, both scheduled and unscheduled. Existing nuclear plant in the UK has recently shown lower capacity values of 75%, due to a number of problems at individual plants.
"No plant has a capacity value of 100%, because there will always be some statistical probability that it will not be available when required. When determining reserve requirements, system operators make an assessment of the needs of the system as a statistical whole rather than considering the needs of each individual plant. This leads to a treatment of wind output that is different than if it were the only generating source available.
"Capacity value of wind
"Due to the variability of wind power, its capacity value is more limited, as it will not be possible to displace conventional generation capacity on a ?megawatt for megawatt? basis. The capacity value decreases as more wind is installed on the system; at low penetrations it has been put at roughly equal to the capacity factor for wind (30-35%), but at higher penetrations the value decreases. This is because with low penetrations wind output is hardly noticed on the system, but when this increases, the variability of wind becomes more noticeable and its ability to provide firm capacity is reduced. National Grid Company have stated that 8,000 MW of wind capacity would displace 3,000 MW of conventional plant, with 25,000 MW displacing the need for 5,000 MW. This means that wind power has a capacity value of around 35% at penetrations of around 6%, declining to around 20% at penetrations of 20%. These figures, along with other corroborating evidence, were accepted by the House of Lords Science & Technology Select Committee in their 2004 report into renewable energy.
"It is worth noting that the capacity value of wind is higher in the winter than in the summer, in line with seasonal changes in the capacity factor. This means there is a correlation between the capacity value and times of peak demand.
"Lower capacity values have been reported in other countries. For example, a recent report by E.on Netz, one of Germany?s network operators, with 44% of that country?s wind capacity, quotes an average yearly capacity factor of just over 15%. However the UK?s greater resource means that capacity factors and the associated capacity values tend to be higher than most other European countries and comparisons can therefore be difficult. In addition, the integrated nature of the GB electricity grid, differing trading rules (eg. gate closure times), and its wide geographical distribution, separates it from some of the other problems faced in Germany."
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:22:05 +0000 someone who may be Matt wrote this:-
Ah, proof by assertion.
The fact that some wind turbines are not generating does not mean that they all are not, for the reasons given in the Oxford report I referred to.
Ah, proof by assertion again.
Ah, it's all a conspiracy.
Ah, the E.oN Netz study.
From the full SDC report:
"A critique of the E.oN Netz study
"A recent report from the German network operator E.on Netz, ?Wind Year 2003 ? an overview?, appears to suggest that capacity values are much lower, and additional balancing costs much higher, than the figures quoted above. The report also highlights a low energy productivity of German wind. It claims that the utility needs reserve capacities amounting to 50-60% of the installed wind power capacity, and that the extra balancing costs (for 6% wind) were about ?12/MWh of wind ? over six times the estimates of Figure 6. On closer inspection, there appear to be several reasons why the numbers are quite different from the ?consensus? data discussed above.
"Firstly, low wind speeds in Germany mean that the system operators will experience more fluctuations in wind output than in windier regions. To illustrate this point, assume that the average capacity factor across Germany is 15% and the corresponding capacity factor in Britain is close to its long-term average of about 30%. To generate 8.5 TWh of wind in Germany requires 6250 MW of wind plant, whereas only half that amount of plant would be required in Britain. The power swings from 6250 MW of German wind would therefore be higher than from 3125 MW of wind in Britain.
"Secondly, it appears that some of the apparent difficulties the utility has with wind are more to do with administrative procedures and barriers; the network operators tend to operate independently, so some of the benefits of an integrated network are lost.
"Thirdly, plant commitments are made several hours ahead, and the extent to which schedules are revised nearer to ?real time? is not clear. The concept of a ?one hour gate closure?, as in Great Britain, or revising a schedule up to one hour before production, appears not to be used.
"It may also be noted that the report does not discuss the all-important question of the interaction between variations in consumer demand and variations in wind output."
Answered by the Oxford report I referred to earlier, which looked at the records of hourly average wind speed over a long period.
Ah, proof by assertion.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:42:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Rob snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Rob Summers) wrote this:-
Let's start off with the number of wind turbines.
"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."
Then there is the question of how much land they will occupy, which has been answered by someone else.
No, it isn't an issue.
You may be imagining a "power station", with a fence round it and so on.
The turbine I am admiring out of my window right now appears to be significantly under-delivering in the rotation department. It has been stationary all day. Even yesterday it was only achieving about half its minimum speed...
OK, it's just a sample size of one, but it does mean a 100% outage of commercial wind energy in the south east of England...
Andy.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:22:05 +0000 someone who may be Matt wrote this:-
In my earlier reply I forgot to add that Annex B of the SDC report I referred to contains a concise statement on the subject.
'Winter anticyclones
'These, it is alleged, frequently becalm the whole country and cause problems for the system operator, due to the absence of any wind power, especially at periods of peak demand. The capacity credit, it is argued, is therefore zero. However, the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford was quite clear when appearing before a House of Lords Select Committee:
'"We have looked at that [stationary anticyclones in the middle of winter over the British Isles] occurring in the wind data and the wind data does not show it."'
Of a sample size of two (farm of 3, but only two visible here -- about 10 miles away) one is rotating at normal speed, and the other is feathering.
my local wind speed is near zero, but these are on the top of a ridge.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.