Wind turbines - can be DIY made?

[Mary Fisher]

'documented' can mean all sorts of things.

Everything dies. I'll die, but I doubt that it will be because of the solar panel on our roof. No doubt, though, some clever dick will make a link.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:15:50 +0100 someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

Nice try. Is the best that you can do?

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:22:31 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

That was what is reported about one of the Ayrshire ones. Before it was built the antis said that it would be a great visual intrusion, after it was built people said they liked looking at the turbines.

Not many people look at Drax or Torness for long.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:33:55 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

That was partly the case in the past, when things like synchronisation involved people operating manual controls and there was a lot of maintenance.

There was also political pressure to produce electricity at the cheapest price. The result was producing electricity a few percent cheaper, at the expense of being unable to use the heat for heating (which would have been a better use of the coal).

Together with institutional pressures within the CEGB and SSEB the result was a centralised system with a small number of large power stations.

However, that was then and this is now. Decentralised electricity systems now have many more advantages.

The lesser speeds are demonstrated in the DTI's wind energy database which gives average wind speeds for any square on the UK at ISTR three heights above ground level.

Fluctuations depend on the local conditions. Some sites are good, some bad, some indifferent.

However, none of this means local wind generation is not a worthwhile part of a decentralised system.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:14:33 +0100 someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

The former figure is a little low, though it depends on what one calls London.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:15:36 +0100 someone who may be Roger wrote this:-

Very well. Rather they work on more complicated statistical models, including forecasts of supply and demand, which are outlined in the UKERC report.

I note that you have yet to demonstrate a flaw in the report.

[Roger]

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Really? Be specific.

But if you were found on the ground outside your house with the your head bashed in and the blood stained solar panel in pieces beside you the man on the Clapham omnibus would have no difficulty believing the solar panel was the immediate cause of your death.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Why do I need to do that? It largely bears out what I have been saying all along.

[Brian Sharrock]

Oh for heaven's sake; get off your hobby horse and open your mind. Your "The advantage of Dinowgig is that it costs very little ... " is a rather mis-guided statement that doesn't bear a moments scrutiny. As you haven't been able to _SPELL_ the _pumped storage_ station's name correctly [it's DINORWIG actually; see ]

It's scarcely surprising that your other statements are false.

Dinorwig isn't a electric generator, per se, it's an accumulator!

{Apart from the diesel generator sets and huge battery of accumulators installed there for emergency use}

Electricity is generated elsewhere and transformed at Dinorwig into potential energy by the transfer of a medium (water) from a low height to a more elevated height. Once the Kinetic Energy has been accumulated it may be released and reconverted into Electrical Energy. Whilst one may marvel at the Engineering (both Civil. mechanical and Electrical) knowledge that has resulted in the erection of this huge accumulator; one shouldn't imply that the effort involved was, nor is, 'Carbon-neutral in anyway. Apart from the unintended and haphazard input of fallen rain. every milliWat of power emanating from Dinorwig started it's journey elsewhere.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Moving the goalposts again. Greater London is the City plus the 32 London boroughs.

"Greater London is the top level administrative subdivision covering London, England.

The administrative area was created in 1965 and covers the City of London and 32 London boroughs. Its area also forms the London region of England and the London European Parliament constituency.

It covers 1579 km² (609 sq. mi) and had a 2005 mid-year estimated population of 7,517,700. It is bounded by the Home Counties of Essex and Hertfordshire in the East of England region and Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Kent in South East England. The highest point is Westerham Heights, in the North Downs and on the boundary with Kent, at

245 metres."

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes, but they occupy about 100 times as much visual space for the same power output.

[Andy Hall]

No they aren't.

"Graceful" is a word that one might use in connection with swans or ballerinas; not industrial windmills.

[Andy Hall]

Which drugs are they using?

[Tony Bryer]

But if you look at a map the contiguous built up area extends well beyond the London boroughs: for example Surbiton (RBK:London) runs seamlessly into Thames Ditton (Elmbridge:Surrey). IOW if any sensible person was now defining what should be included in Greater London, the result would be significantly bigger than your definition.

[Roger]

The message from Tony Bryer contains these words:

Not my definition. The bits outside London are still part of the home counties. Urban sprawl is not confined to the capital. Accepting your argument would mean that Birmingham covers the whole of the West Midlands and beyond and Leeds is part of Bradford.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:01:17 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock" wrote this:-

You assume it is closed. Don't give up the day job and take up mind reading, you are not very good at it.

Not a statement that I made.

In the message I'm replying to the false statement is that claim that I typed, "The advantage of Dinowgig is that it costs very little ... "

However, I suspect that the person who did make that statement simply mistyped an extra letter, something I suspect that all of us have done. The way some contributors to this thread are concentrating on particular words is interesting.

Of course, which is why it always absorbs more electricity than it generates, if one is just considering pumped storage operation. The other three stations are the same. If the exclamation mark at the end of your sentence is intended to indicate that I would find the sentence surprising then it is misplaced. I have known that since the 1970s.

However, that does not detract from the advantages of such stations, some of which people have outlined.

There is no need to imply anything. People have outlined the case well. If we are simply looking at the current use of the stations and carbon dioxide emissions one of their tasks is to absorb relatively low carbon nuclear generated electricity and release it later (minus losses). The alternative would be even more inefficient use of coal stations, which would involve more carbon dioxide emissions.

If central government do the right thing their flexibility will be very useful at reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the future as well. For example they can be charged by various forms of fluctuating carbon free electricity, for example tidal and wind, rather than nuclear. Other forms of storage might just be possible in the medium term, but at the moment pumped storage is the only practical option. The advantages are such that it would make sense to convert some stations to pumped storage, Sloy being the obvious example.

The rain is not unintended, it is part of the design. How much output the rain provides depends on the station itself, but it will be a relatively small proportion of the total output with most designs. At Foyers the "straight hydro" turbine is 5MW, the pumped storage sets total 300MW and assuming there is no "straight hydro" output from the latter gives a lower limit for that station.

Quite rightly the operators have been trying to get ROCs for that portion of their output which is generated from rainfall. I have no idea how far this campaign has got but wish it well as long as there is not double counting.

Rain, like wind, isn't haphazard. Like the operation of any other station it has to be treated statistically though. Some years one will have more rain than other years, but forecasting is accurate enough to know what is coming.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:02:56 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Nice try.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:26:27 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

It is always reassuring when people adopt this approach, it generally means that they have no better arguments.

The surveys of public opinion indicate how many people agree with this view and how many disagree.

[Andy Hall]

Of course. it's really easy to get the answers you want by asking a range of questions and leaving out those that are not going to give the desired answers.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:34:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

We know that wind is diffuse and thus a wind farm occupies a large area. However, there is a difference with other stations. There is not a great big fence round a wind farm, with any spare land inside the fence being generally scrub or lawn. The photograph at

that other things can go on around a wind turbine. As with a number of large wind farms work at Whitelee, which officially started yesterday, will include maintaining and improving public access to the area.