Scotland’s Hebridean Isle of Lewis is a beautiful place, noted for its wetland habitats and Golden Eagles. The Standing Stones of Callanish are an ancient monument erected around 3000 years ago, hewn from billion year old rock. By 1857 peat had grown across the site to a height of 6 feet, and was cleared. This is evidence for climate change. When the stones were erected the climate was too dry and warm for peat to grow. By 800 BC peat had been growing for 500 years. Lewis is now a place where evidence of past climate change meets the environmental consequences of concerns over current warming, in the form of wind energy. The UK has only built 200 miles of motorway in the past 10 years, yet hundreds of miles of road could be built on Lewis just to service wind farms.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust released this PR on 2nd February 2007:
World Wetlands Day plea to leave Lewis alone
The Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) on World Wetlands Day (Friday 2 February 2007) urged the public to help prevent irreversible damage to one of Scotland’s most important wetland sites. Proposed plans for an industrial scale wind farm on the Isle of Lewis are being considered that will destroy some of the most extensive and intact areas of blanket bog on the planet. Objections to the proposal must be lodged by Monday 5 February 2007. In December 2004, SWT objected to the installation of 234 turbines and construction of 104 miles of road on the Isle of Lewis. Despite huge outcry from environmental organisations and the local community, developers (Lewis Wind Power: British Energy/AMEC) resubmitted plans just before Christmas 2006 (12 December 2006) for 181 wind turbines each 140 metres high and 88 miles of road network on an area designated for its special wildlife. Stuart Brooks, SWT’s Head of Conservation said: “While the Scottish Wildlife Trust supports the use of renewable energy alternatives, this is the last place the Scottish Executive should be considering an application. Lewis is one of the best sites for wildlife in Britain.” “It is not just the wind turbines that are the problem. More lasting environmental impacts will be caused by the infrastructure to support the wind farm such as cabling underground, turbine foundations, roads and electrical substations. Peat takes thousands of years to mature and is an effective mechanism for fixing and storing carbon. If peat bogs are damaged they can release this stored carbon as carbon dioxide adding to global warming.” He continued: “Lewis peatlands has been awarded the highest levels of protection through the Ramsar Convention and European Habitat Regulations. Damaging them in this way contravenes and undermines the legislation set up to protect them. Should this application go ahead, the development will have significant impacts on wildlife particular birds such as the golden plover and the dunlin that breed on the site. On World Wetland Days, we are asking people to support our objection to this proposal by sending an objection letter or email to the Scottish Executive.”
Now more than 700 Lewis crofters face a court battle to keep their land as they fight plans for one of Scotland’s biggest proposed wind farms.
A note from Dina:
The indigenous people of Lewis have a specific and very emotive attachment to their land, which is also the common grazings on which Lewis Wind Power plans to build their 181 monoliths etc. We also now have a third wind farm application on the desks of the Scottish Executive, to add to the LWP scheme, and the Eisgein one for 55 turbines on the Eisgein estate in South Lochs. The Pairc wind farm application has just been submitted by Scottish and Southern Energy, for another 57 gigantic (145 metres) wind turbines, also in South Lochs. There are now applications submitted to planning for around 300 wind turbines on this island, it is an abomination, and an insult to the integrity and honesty of particularly the rural communities of Lewis, who would suffer if any of these projects were consented, but whose voices, united in protest and opposition, have been silenced whenever the officials found it possible to do so. But now the crofters, whose land is required to build the LWP scheme have spoken out loud and strong, and they will not flinch from that position no matter what is thrown at them!
Regards
Dina
More links:
Crofters’ legal vow on wind farm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This insanity about windmills, it all started with Cervantes.
I hope nobody is surprised at this.
The antis want wind power, then protest against it. They want water power, then protest against it. They want biofuel, then protest against it.
They are called… “the antis.”
In the pictures I saw power lines which need to be removed as they kill hundreds of birds per year. Also I am sure that they have mobile phones on the island which also need to be removed as mobile phone towers also kill birds – cars need to be banned as they disturb the natural beauty and kill wildlife. Its funny how environmentally minded people become when wind farms are mentioned after ignoring ‘normal’ environmental damage.
Wind turbines usually need only one small unpaved service road. Properly sited turbines can minimise the amount of service roads necessary. Also the wind farm builders might be persuaded to site the turbines in consultation with the crofters as:
“The wind farms have split opinion on Lewis. Council leaders said renewable energy schemes will help safeguard the island’s economic future, but critics insist they threaten the island’s natural beauty, its ecology and wildlife.”
I thought jobs and economic future for the island was important.
The ugliness of wind farms should not be ignored. Too many people brush aside aesthetics, which are subconsciously important for our well being. Here in NSW there was a court battle over a wind farm near Taralga in the southern tablelands. The court ruled in favour of the project, despite it being of marginal viability and ugly. The public interest was said to outweigh other considerations. Our forever smug and arrogant planning minister Frank Sartor said that the ruling will teach a lesson to anyone else opposing winds farms. Now land holders and visitors to the area will have to put up with these hideous things in the name of “green power” for the masses in the Sydney Basin. Yet, this particular wind farm will contribute at best (because it won’t be available all of the time) less than 2% of NSW electricity needs. I have also read that large wind farms may materially alter local climate through their effects on wind. I reckon they ought to build wind farms at Bondi Beach instead – it couldn’t worsen what is already an ugly conglomerate of shabby apartments and houses.
The Scots are not alone. The Welsh are battling against destruction of beautiful landscape by ugly wind farms. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/
I have often wondered why there is so little reference to the Caithness Windfarm Site:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/
. 364 accidents are recorded by May 31 2007. This is thought to be “The Tip of the Iceberg.”
These include falls and injury during maintenance; blade failure; Fire; Structural failure; ice throw; transport and environmental.
47 fatalities are recorded and 16 cases of human injury including to members of the public.
In the five year period1999 to 2006 the rate of accidents was 34.8 per year.
Given the increasing propensity to build wind farms one must expect the accident rate in the wind industry to increase.
Robert – “The ugliness of wind farms should not be ignored. Too many people brush aside aesthetics, which are subconsciously important for our well being.”
Absolutely correct Robert and coal mines and coal fired power plants are places of unique natural beauty. They do have the advantage of being far away from you so you can avoid the responsibility of the electricity that you use.
Wind turbines are a thing that you either love or hate. I happen to think that wind turbine look alright.
Ivor – “In the five year period1999 to 2006 the rate of accidents was 34.8 per year.
Given the increasing propensity to build wind farms one must expect the accident rate in the wind industry to increase. ”
Yes and that should be a reason to ban them???? I really think that it just needs a safety review and tighter standards.
They are still looking for those missing rocket launchers, aren’t they?
I wonder who has them?
Wind turbines make an interesting target, don’t they?
Do people hate them that much? You couldn’t blame them if they did, could you?
Na!, don’t have to go that far. Draining the oil out of their gear boxes would do almost as much damage, & the greenies have already set a precedent, doing that to the loggers, & got away with it as civil disobedience.
Hasbeen – “Na!, don’t have to go that far. Draining the oil out of their gear boxes would do almost as much damage, & the greenies have already set a precedent, doing that to the loggers, & got away with it as civil disobedience.”
I would really like to see that. Good way of getting rid of such drags on the gene pool. Be a bit of a bummer if they climbed a 40m tower and found that it was a variable speed turbine that does not have a gearbox. I think then they should be allowed to play with the high voltage power electronics – 50 or 110kV should get rid of the rest.
“47 fatalities are recorded and 16 cases of human injury including to members of the public.”
Great beat up. To a large extent, it assumes that if there was no power station, there would be no fatalities. The coal mines and power stations that exist to create power are injuring and killing plenty of workers too. Also, if the workplace is unsafe, you make it safe, with safe work practices. I would be wondering if the work is just subcontracted, with all the risk assumed by untrained individuals. Cost and risk shifting at it’s finest.
ENDER, SIT: I believe that your interpretation of my earlier posting on fatalities associated with wind farms is entirely bizarre. I will make the point that the collection of statistical data is an important public health duty.
I fail to see how accidents especially if they are associated with fatalities and human injury can be called “a beat up.”
The point to acknowledge is that acceptable human activities may also have fatality rates and there is usually no call for bans. Example must include various sports; transport (cars, planes, trains, ships etc); industrial activity of all sorts and much more.
Let face it the slogan “clean and green,” does not obviate against fatal accidents.
The Uranium Information Centre [Briefing Paper 14] lists number of fatalities associated with power generation in the period 1970-1992 as follows:
Coal 6400; Natural Gas 1200; Hydroelectric 4000; and Nuclear 31.
Normalised to deaths per TWy.
Coal 342; Natural gas 85; Hydroelectric 883; Nuclear 8.
I would be interested if anybody has data that can normalise wind farm fatality rate to Giga Watt year of electricity generation.
A final point in terms of safe working conditions nuclear power generation is with out peer.
Ivor – “I believe that your interpretation of my earlier posting on fatalities associated with wind farms is entirely bizarre. I will make the point that the collection of statistical data is an important public health duty.”
I completely agree with you however are you suggesting that we shut down all coal plants and coal mines because they are too dangerous? Why pick on wind power?
Ivor
coal is mined at great risk to fuel power stations. You are assuming that if there were no wind farms, no one would be suffering industrial accidents. That isn’t the case.
As for including such deaths as road accidents of people driving past, or suicide because they don’t like the idea of a wind farm.
These wind nuts say that the energy produced is “green” energy and that “green” energy produces jobs.
Well I’m sure that if we used bicycle powered generators there would be full employment, but no money to pay the pedallers.
Argument ad absurdum Rog?
Well you tell me SJT, how can a wind farm produce energy that is as cheap as conventional sources.
If wind power stations are so benign why aren’t they being built in urban areas.
In Sydney they could be sited at North Head around the sewerage farm located there, Kurnell by the De-Sal plant, at Malabar’s sewerage plant.
Long Bay could be a good site.
Nice and close to the prerequisite access to the power grid, transport and construction resources.
Cant say it isn’t windy on the coast.
And close to the customer!
In Canberra there are plenty of hill’s in the city area that could support wind turbines.
Plenty of infrastructure to support their construction.
And since all the ranges around the ACT seem to have wind power stations proposed for them, you have to assume that there is a good wind resource blowing across the ACT.
But I suspect that the city dwellers would not tolerate the construction of wind power stations for the same reasons as those in rural residential areas object to them.
Is it one rule for the city and another for the country?
In general a “mix” of power generation methods is required. Wind is clearly part of that mix. So too,(available in many parts of the world), is nuclear.
I was just pointing out that windfarms like other modalities is not without problems in terms of health and safety.
Alan, I can tell you that for most of the time it is not windy.
Eg, in summer on the coast it becomes very hot and humid in the morning with a NE sea breeze moving in after lunch and blowing like the clappers by mid afternoon and petering out after dark. And thats most days, other days there is no wind at all, the water is like glass and everybody complains about the oppresive heat. February in particular.
And on some other days there is a southerly which may blow hard for a day, or two. Or maybe a westerly.
Not much room to move on that one.
Allan – “If wind power stations are so benign why aren’t they being built in urban areas. ”
I am not sure what you know about wind power but for a site to be viable for million dollar wind turbines then it has to have an average of 6 m/s wind speed or more before it is considered. The other thing that affects wind turbine power yield is turbulence. Certain country sites have cleared land with good wind speed that can be leased for dual use as farmers can continue to farm land that wind turbines are build on.
Most capital cities do not have the required average wind speed and with all the tall buildings are very turbulent.
Here’s one for the energy experts. If a ship were rigged with windmills, instead of sails, would they generate enough electric power to move it? If not, doesn’t that tell us something about the efficiency of generating electricity from wind?
Don’t strain your brain cell, Davey. The same pointless argument could be used about hydro power and ships.
I also think wind farms look alright. I’ve seen plenty of uglier structures.
Davey -“If a ship were rigged with windmills, instead of sails, would they generate enough electric power to move it?”
Yes of course it would. The problem is that fossil fuels are such a concentrated form of energy that it very difficult for renewables to compete in this situation. A container ship can steam at 25 knots 24 X 7.
Sails on small boats generate 5 or 10 kW of power – enough to drive the yacht to a maximum in a strong wind of 14 or 15 knots. Multihulls do rather better as they are not carrying tons of lead. A wind turbine on a yacht would work however the perennial problem of all advanced drive systems for yachts is the marine environment and reliably furling the sails in bad weather.
Davey
You can distribute the windfarms around the likely wind spots, as Ender pointed out. The ship’s power supply is exactly where the ship goes. You can also have a mix of solar, wind and other renewables, with a smaller fossil fuel component. At the same time, public transport could be brought into the 21st century, where much if it hasn’t been improved or extended for over a century. Houses can be insulated better and be fitted with solar hot water heating. There is a lot that can be done, that wouldn’t cost a fortune.
It’s going to cost money, but I note that we were warned of the dire consequences of increasing taxes on fuel to improve public transport. Oil prices have shot up, and the economy hasn’t blinked.
As far as the UK is concerned wind power could contribute 10% to 20% to electricity generation. A problem is the other 80%. The record of our wind farms is to produce less than 30% of the claimed capacity. Most power is needed in areas of large population such as Manchester, West Midlands, and of course London/South East.
Look at Lewis – where it is, and how small it is.
The antis are against any sort of power generation.
If you could generate electricity from pure vacuum, they’d discover a way to protest against it.
We should have a system where Greens should register themselves, and be denied non-green electricity and other non-green things.
They’d squeal like pigs. Their lights would go out after sunset, unless there was a wind. They couldn’t burn wood for heat, because that releases C02. And so on…
The green-freaks want to dictate terms to society–what if society told them to live according to the green-freak demands?
I propose a solution. Everyone who thinks they are Green are exempted from all government taxation. Conversely, they may not receive any government benefits. No roadways, no electricity, no petroleum. No medical care that uses plastic things. Only organic food. Only medicine from herbs and incantations.
They’d squeal like pigs.
Paul Biggs – “As far as the UK is concerned wind power could contribute 10% to 20% to electricity generation. A problem is the other 80%. The record of our wind farms is to produce less than 30% of the claimed capacity.”
I don’t know how many times I have encountered this misinformed argument. Wind’s capacity factor is around 30% however it can rise to 40% in good wind areas especially off-shore. Why is it not a problem that old fossil fuel power plants have a capacity factor of 75%. Do you ask then what do you do for the other 25% of the time? Do you also ask what does baseload power do when peaking loads are demanded. Does anyone decry the fact that baseload power must be backed up with peaking plants?
Normal operational reserves can cope with up to 30% wind power without any extra capacity. Any renewable solution must start with large energy efficiency gains. Measures such as banning any appliance under 6 stars, charging electricity by volume of use can drastically cut the amount of electricity needed. A mix of renewables, geographically distributed with strategic storage and local generation could increase the renewable penetration to 80% or more. A small fossil fuel component of 20% or less will allow atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to stabilise.
It only requires us to change a little bit. Look at Carbon Cops last week. A family with only small changes cut their greenhouse emissions from 70t per year to 14t without any compromise to their lifestyle.
Schiller – “The antis are against any sort of power generation.
If you could generate electricity from pure vacuum, they’d discover a way to protest against it….”
You really are a special case aren’t you? So to you, all people that are aware of the environment want to live in caves and eat organic tofu??? Is that really how small minded you are??????
I am not anti wind farms – I think they look rather nice. I am quite happy to use green power from solar and wind to maintain what technology I use.
“They’d squeal like pigs. Their lights would go out after sunset, unless there was a wind. They couldn’t burn wood for heat, because that releases C02. And so on…”
Really would we??? Have you heard of a new invention called batteries. They were invented in about 1850, about where your head is, and they can store electricity – amazing what we can do nowadays. How loud do you think you will be squealing when people like us with solar powered houses are sitting in light with computers on when stone age people like yourself are in darkness from shortages of fossil fuels. I am sure that you know that many of the peaking plants are powered by distillate that comes from Malaysia. No distillate – no peaking power – Schiller in darkness as load shedding occurs.
Better yet if you are going to segregate people then you can opt to never use green power. All non-fossil fuel power will be denied to you to ensure that when supplies become tight you will remain in darkness while the rest of use use power from the wind turbines and solar thermal plants. You should get on the brown power register right now.
We had proposed in our neighbourhood a 16 tower power station by Macquarie Energy.
Two households were to have towers within 800 metres. One tower was hard against the boundary of a local NPWS Nature Reserve.
We spent much time researching wind energy, travelling to wind power stations at Lake Bonney in SA and Codrington in Vic , both on the coast and both having 2 Mw generators.
We also spent considerable time observing the development process at the Woodlawn mine site outside Tarago which is an excellent site for such a power station.
I am certain that the wind blows at least a third of the time in Sydney, which is the minimum requirement for the power stations.
And each wind power station is tailor made for each site whether it is in the howling gales of Davis Station in Antarctica or the gentle zephyrs of Kooragang Island in Newcastle.
I fully accept that you can hold a conversation at the base of a turbine tower without straining your voice but I can also do that beside a car playing doof doof music. Neither back ground noise is pleasant.
At Codrington you can stand in a small valley out of the wind and listen to three turbines within a kilometer going flat chat.
The resultant asynchronous drum beat as each blade passes the hollow tower is something only a city dweller use to city noises could ignore.
Macquarie Gen dropped its proposed plan in my locality mainly because of the cost of getting the power to the grid.
I suspect that the objections of nearby neighbours would of been ignored if the economics had been better!
I don’t mind where they put them up as long as the neighbours aren’t disadvantaged.
The landholders are monetarily compensated when they accept a wind power station on their property.
Snowy Hydro has a great site along Talbingo Dam wall. The katabatic wind that blows from the high country down along the lake each night and morning is a great resource. And the grid is just a short distance away!
Ender, you have exposed yourself as an economic illiterate. The key driver of the efficiency of capital is in the number of hours each week/year that the equipment can be used. So the economics of base load equipment is heavily dependent on it being run as many hours as possible to get the hourly cost as low as possible.
The peak load equipment is invariably much less capacity and much lower capital cost than the base load equipment. So the peak load equipment can be run at a less efficient rate but still not compromise the economies of the base load plant.
The problem with wind power is that it comes on stream whenever the wind blows which often disrupts the supply from the base load equipment. The option of energy storage from the windfarms still involves a cost which must be drawn from the economies gained by the base load facility.
The spruikers of wind energy never include the lost economies of scale that wind energy passes on to the base load facility through reduced operating time. A proper allocation of costs would place these lost efficiencies squarely at the feet of their cause, the wind turbines.
Melaleuca,
Yes, the lone brain cell is struggling with all the high-powered (wind-driven?) intellect around here. Perhaps you would like to comment on the relevance of the Central Limit Theorem to wind power? Or perhaps Chebyshev’s Inequality? How will the inevitable AGW affect wind speed and reliability? Luke may care to come in on this one. Then again, perhaps he is out measuring soot albedo on the snow in the Victorian Alps. Was it caused by bushfires in Hungary? What does Senator Kerry Nettles say? My God, will we ever get to the bottom of this? (Drinks plonk to obliterate final brain cell – exit left, staggering)
Ian Mott – “Ender, you have exposed yourself as an economic illiterate.”
Really sunshine??? It never ceases to amaze me how you can attack without provocation. Is it to hide that fact that you actually don’t have anything to add other than bile.
“The key driver of the efficiency of capital is in the number of hours each week/year that the equipment can be used”
Yes that is true however thermal coal cannot do anything else because of the fundamental physical constraints of how it generates power. It is baseload only and nothing else. Also at the moment environmental costs are externalised and ignored.
“The peak load equipment is invariably much less capacity and much lower capital cost than the base load equipment”
Yes however peak plants exist because baseload cannot do peak. Peaking power attracts a huge price premium and makes the peaking plants attractive despite higher per kW capital costs of a gas turbine or diesel plant over thermal coal.
“The problem with wind power is that it comes on stream whenever the wind blows which often disrupts the supply from the base load equipment.”
Not sure you know what you are talking about here. NEMMCO takes bids from whoever has power to sell every hour. If the wind is strong the wind farm can sell the power cheap and undercut the thermal coal or undercut peaking plants for the hour. I think you have some 1890s idea that wind turbines cause the baseload plants to shut down or something. There is 900MW of operational reserve in the system which is enough to cope with wind fluctuations.
“The option of energy storage from the windfarms still involves a cost which must be drawn from the economies gained by the base load facility.”
Variable speed wind turbines use sophisticated power electronics to make 50Hz AC. The cost of adding storage to such electronics is dropping all the time and a lot less than for geared constant speed turbines. Having storage allows a wind farm to bid for the very lucrative ancillary service market of phase and frequency stabilisation which is even more expensive that peaking power. Such returns will soon quickly repay the smart operators of storage equipped wind farms. Solar thermal can store heat in molten salts for overcast times and in a last resort use natural gas. As solar neatly follows the peak times storage is not greatly needed.
“A proper allocation of costs would place these lost efficiencies squarely at the feet of their cause, the wind turbines.”
A proper allocation of carbon taxes to internalise the costs of fossil fuelled power stations would even up the REAL costs of generating electricity. Fossil fuels have had a free ride for too long.
Allan probably saw the Guardian item by Ian sample in The Canberra Times today. “Green energy would cause landscape destruction”.
“Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a leading scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of the amount of land that renewable energy resources, including wind farms, biofuel crops and photovoltaic solar cells, require to produce substantial amounts of power”
Considering the little home state Allan, collecting from any source is likely to cover vast areas in future. We will get used to it. See some power schemes compared here
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2134067,00.html
not only is Ender an economic illiterate, he is a complete dill.
Ender, you dont “furl’ sails you reef them.
Anyway, to replace a large aerofoil (sails mast etc) that generates lift which provides forward motion with a smaller foil mounted on a pedestal which only provides electrical energy to a motor which drives a propeller is absurd.
Imagine heading south at 6 knots with a north wind blowing 10 knots. Once sufficient power had been produced to move at say 5 knots all of a sudden the apparent wind has dropped to 5 knots halving the available energy.
Its as dopey as perpetual motion.
rog – “not only is Ender an economic illiterate, he is a complete dill.
Ender, you dont “furl’ sails you reef them.”
Really rog – I would like to see you in a 50kn gale with reefed sails especially in a multihull. We would not then have to put up your inane comments. Yes you do reef sails however when the wind get beyond a certain point they need to be furled and you lay to a sea anchor or run free downwind with bare masts or go below and leave to boat to its own devices. A large wingmast, again especially on multihulls, can be extremely dangerous in heavy weather as just the wing, which cannot be furled, will give considerable drive and not allow the yacht to heave-to, lie comfortably to sea anchor run slowly before the wind. A multihull in these conditions can pitch-pole or capsize.
“Anyway, to replace a large aerofoil (sails mast etc) that generates lift which provides forward motion with a smaller foil mounted on a pedestal which only provides electrical energy to a motor which drives a propeller is absurd.
Is it really? It has been tried – perhaps you should read this.
http://uk.geocities.com/fnsnclr@btinternet.com/yachts/auto/index.htm
“Imagine heading south at 6 knots with a north wind blowing 10 knots. Once sufficient power had been produced to move at say 5 knots all of a sudden the apparent wind has dropped to 5 knots halving the available energy.”
Which is what happens on fast multihulls that can easily achieve wind speed downwind. Wind on the deck can be zero however the boat still powers on. According to your theory the boat should stop. The key is that the sails are interacting with the stationary water which is what the wind turbine would do. In fact this is a real trap for catamaran beginners. Running with a 15kn wind at 15kn it is very easy to forget that there is still a strong wind blowing. The inexperienced helmsman can then decide to turn up wind and suddenly the whole 15kn is readily apparent and if they are not fast enough releasing the sheets the boat can capsize in a trice. An experienced helmsman will depower the sails before turning. Large fast multihulls can sail faster than the wind on a beam reach. Their forward speed draws the wind aft and the VMG can be greater than windspeed.
Maybe you should read about the aerodynamics of sailing before calling people dills or economic illiterates. Mott has yet to reply to where I countered his rubbish on baseload power.
Sure Ender, how you going to “furl” your windmill on a heaving deck in a 50 knot gale? Better off leaving the furling to magazines, flags and umbrellas
Yes, I know of AYRS and some of the persons mentioned; they havent continued with the experiment as it did not work well at all. AYRS are full of innovative ideas, a lot of them dont make it past the drawing board and those that do have limited success. Which makes you even more of a dill for quoting them without research or even properly reading the article.
Just run that past me again, your 2nd last para, and tell me how the windmill on the boat works running downwind?
Wind power is vastly inefficient and highly unreliable. If windmills were better than coal, natural gas or nuclear, the windmills would be everywhere–because they’d be a more efficient use of resources. The windmills would put the other things out of business.
This is why Ender is stuck arguing in favor of “A proper allocation of carbon taxes” to make inefficient, unreliable crap become economically viable.
We should all be interested to learn that it takes punitive taxes to make us to go back Medieval technology.
Ender, lay down your computer and start penning manuscripts with oak gall and sheep skin.
rog – “Sure Ender, how you going to “furl” your windmill on a heaving deck in a 50 knot gale? Better off leaving the furling to magazines, flags and umbrellas”
sigh… Yes rog and that was my original reason for saying that wind turbines on deck are not a good idea when you got reefing and furling confused. And yes I do know they did not work properly however the original question was whether they would work at all which they will.
“Just run that past me again, your 2nd last para, and tell me how the windmill on the boat works running downwind?”
Sorry too far off topic even for me. I can recommend a good book though:
Marchaj, C.A. Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing. Dodd, Mead & Company, 1979.
It is a bit technical however it is probably the textbook on sailing aerodynamics – should be in your local library, it is in mine. Just a hint – stop calling people dills because it just makes you look stupider than you have during this discussion.
Schiller – “Wind power is vastly inefficient and highly unreliable. If windmills were better than coal, natural gas or nuclear, the windmills would be everywhere–because they’d be a more efficient use of resources. The windmills would put the other things out of business.”
So bereft of any substantive argument or real data you of course resort to crap. I take it then you have nothing further to add and I will ignore further spoutings from you.
Contributors on this thread should know about the Australian windmill and its history in this dry continent also how remote settlers depended on windmills to survive. In the past these simple machines were widespread.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/170.html
More History, see the windmill journal for lots of illustrations
http://members.westnet.com.au/caladenia/ManuInt.html
There is nothing new under the sun!
It seems to me that if windmills were even reasonably reliable as a sustained energy source, they would have long ago replaced sails on boats. You would not need electricity – just a few gear wheels to a propellor, or side-paddles. However, windmills have been historically confined to intermittent tasks, such as water pumping or grinding corn, when the wind blows. Now tidal energy, that’s interesting … unless AGW causes the moon to explode (Heh! Must leak that one to the media…)
Davey
I just pointed out, we can choose where we put wind farms, based on records, and we can spread the load across the favoured locations. A wind powered craft does not have that advantage, it has to take whatever is available.
Just for the uber-dills like Ender, AYRS are quite clear in that windmills on boats can only ever work upwind not downwind.
rog – “Just for the uber-dills like Ender, AYRS are quite clear in that windmills on boats can only ever work upwind not downwind.”
“He used a 16′ diameter 2-bladed rotor fitted to a helicopter tail rotor hub on a 18′ Blackwater sloop named FALCON. He tried a variety of different blades – twisted, straight, cambered, at different pitch angles, and tried them both as autogiros and driving propellers. The boat sailed at all directions to the wind, including directly upwind. It did not go very fast, but then that was not the idea – it was meant for fuel saving on commercial shipping. It did about 5 kn in a 15 kn wind. He also found gyroscopic force coupling effects – e.g. if a boat travelling upwind yawed to port, this made the bow pitch downwards.
Neil Bose is now the Professor of Ocean Engineering at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, and can be contacted on nbose@engr.mun.ca”
Uber-dills rog??????
Not only are you an uber-dill Ender, you are a numb nut and a cyber clown.
Do I care what Bose or whoever or whatever said? People say all sorts of things all the time, for whatever reason, but put.it.into.action. Ender.
You like the concept of alternative energy but just cant make the break and do it. Maybe not your choice…
Dont waste your life punching the keyboard firing bullets primed by others. Like that schozophrenic clown Skywalker.
rog – “Do I care what Bose or whoever or whatever said? People say all sorts of things all the time, for whatever reason, but put.it.into.action. Ender.”
So like Schiller when you are completely proven wrong you resort to bull—- and insults. I take it you also have nothing further to contribute.
How did Rog know I was wearing a clown suit. Wow that’s freaky. Just when I was about to dismiss him as some vacuous cocksucker too.
Ender, dont be insulted by my questioning, be insulted by your own brain dead comments viz
“Running with a 15kn wind at 15kn it is very easy to forget that there is still a strong wind blowing”
No well of course knot you dimwit, you just dont know which way the wind is blowing, do you?
I can just see Ender on his windmill powered banana boat chasing those just right winds with his hold of ever ripening fruit, get a grip on that banana Ender!
!Phil!
best mate on the good ship SS Deadender. Course, as I see it.
Furl that mill, and we’ll be in port by this year, or maybe next.
So how’s feel to give nothing of yourself Rog and just a smarmy little prick with never anything positive to say. Feel real dead inside hey Rog. Just remember Rog – you’re here – not elsewhere.
rog – lol
People saying ‘lol’ and ‘dill’ don’t contribute much. Nor do those who say ‘smarmy’ and ‘prick’ and so forth.
No wonder there are complaints about the AGW debate going down the toilet.
There is a case for windmills, pumping water.
We have six windmills operating on the property here, supplying approx. 30% of our stock and domestic water needs. The secret is to have ample water storage for the mills to pump into, from where the water can reticulate to points of usage. Ample storage means enough to cover for at least six windless days.
A well designed windmill pumping system provides a reliable, low cost water supply system.
However, the problem with wind generated electricity is that..-
a. It can never be a base load source of supply.
b. It cannot be a reliable peak load source of supply, because alternating current cannot be stored; (like water can). eg. what happens if the wind isn’t blowing when the peak demand hits?
So wind power itself would need a reliable backup readily available.
The only such source would be hydro, which becomes available with turning on a tap. (The problem here is that Green Fundamentalism fanatically opposes the construction of dams necessary for hydro generation.)
So wind and hydro would be a good peak load mix. When the wind is blowing, we save water, when it’s not we don’t.
Until human technology advances further, the most reliable and cost efficient source of supply for power generation will still be coal, followed by nuclear.
With approx. two billion people at present without the benifits of electricity, there is a need for many such base load power stations to be built. But of course this gets to the crux of the matter, the AGW Believers don’t want these power stations built. They don’t want two billion people lifted out of povety, and enjoying cheap electricity, and the rise in living standards it brings.
That’s fucking crap – the suggestion that AGW believers want to commit people to poverty is pure nonsense put out by denialist turds like Sid who we know by now can’t lay straight in bed. Neither do we wish to condemn them to problems of drought and climate extremes.
Macquarie generation want to put in another power station to meet increased demand – which puts the AGW govt in a nasty spot and the greens say no!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/power-generator-calls-for-coalfired-station/2007/07/12/1183833688120.html
Gavin, the point that I am trying to make is that if wind power stations are so good, build them near the customers ie the cities.
The sites that I identified earlier in the string
North Head, Malabar, Kurnell, Long Bay all have good wind resource.
I seem to remember from my 25 years of living in Sydney that all these sites have a big flat surface to the east called the Tasman Sea. Kurnell has a big flat surface to the west called Botany Bay as well.
The sites in Canberra are all well above any turbulence generated by structures.
Canberra already has Telstra Tower on Black Mtn that gives a good visual on the height of your average 2MW turbine tower (Blade top dead centre being two thirds the height of Telstra Tower. You have to imagine the forty metre radius swept area)
Yet no wind power station proponent will dare suggest their construction at these sites because they know that the residents will not tolerate them, especially since Bob Carr killed the one suggested for Kurnell.
WHY are you surprised at the same reaction from people who will be neighbours to wind power stations in the rural areas!
If they build a sixteen tower, 32Mw power station at Kurnell to power the De-Sal plant, I will look on wind power stations more kindly.
I understand that the wind monitoring tower that Tarus Energy had established on Snowy Plain has collapsed during one of the blizzards that has passed through the area.
No doubt they will take this into account when they build that particular wind power station.
Allan is right to suggest that wind-farms will never be built in urban electorates, due to voter backlash (NIMBY). If built in the bush, will all native vegetation (‘biodiversity’) for, say, a kilometre radius around be cleared? If not, what will a wind-farm look like after a firestorm has gone through? Stromlo Observatory? Am I being alarmist, or are firestorms actually occurring more frequently in Australian bush, for well known reasons?
Sid – “However, the problem with wind generated electricity is that..-
a. It can never be a base load source of supply.”
No because base load is a type of power generator like thermal coal and nuclear. Wind can be baseload, intermediate or peaking depending on conditions.
“b. It cannot be a reliable peak load source of supply, because alternating current cannot be stored; (like water can). eg. what happens if the wind isn’t blowing when the peak demand hits?”
AC cannot be stored but DC can and is. Vanadium flow batteries can store large amounts of electricity to smooth the output of wind farms. Solar thermal can store heat instead of storing electricity.
“Until human technology advances further, the most reliable and cost efficient source of supply for power generation will still be coal, followed by nuclear.”
Technology has progressed well beyond both of these 19th century power sources. Nuclear is just a 20th century method of boiling water for 19th century steam. The last thing we need is yet more inflexible dinosaurs of baseload generation. The Third World need flexible local generation systems like solar and wind that do not tie people to grandiose pork barrel projects like large central power stations that only end up benifiting the corrupt authorities that build them and let them run down after they have skimmed the projects money for maintenance.
Allan – “North Head, Malabar, Kurnell, Long Bay all have good wind resource. ”
Did you actually look at the data before making this pronouncement? When siting a wind turbine normally wind measurements are taken for a year or more and generally the wind needs to average more than 6m/s for the wind farm to be viable. Also when siting a wind turbine the 10 minute averages for the year are plotted to determine an area’s wind curve that also determines the siting.
Sydney’s average wind speed is much less than this at around 4.5 m/s. No-one would site a wind turbine in Sydney.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/
Oh Ender you are so stereotypical – how about some acknowledgement of basic facts, we are miles away from green energy utopia as you see it and no end of market distorting green taxes will fix that, when the lights must come on, the hospital operating theatres must function and the average punter gets home from work on a cold night, the power MUST be there. Its an expectation of our civilised world and a dreanm of the third world that you and your ilk are so determined to deny them.
If you really want to see what it takes to power a nation, get out an inspect a few coal powered generators, they are huge, they run 24/7 and they are reliable. Then go past one of your utopian wind farms and consider that at any time, no matter how big the installation, the wind might drop and hey presto – no more heart surgery.
What makes it worse is that we are taxed to support this dream world by having to subsidise inefficient wind power companies.
Please call a spade a spade, if you want wind power install your own generator and dream away, leave us to our dirty coal powered world of bliss.
Luke,
AGW believers believe in “selective impoverishment.” That is to say, those who emit politically incorrect versions of CO2 should be taxed into poverty.
Check it out, dude.
Schiller – you’re just a neocon fuckwit. AGW believers believe that man’s emissions from use of fossil fuels, agriculture and land management are warming the planet.
What to do about it is a policy response. Don’t shoot the science because you don’t like the policy response.
Luke,
I only pointed out that the policy response is to selectively impoverish those who emit politically incorrect versions of CO2.
Some, such as yourself, might call that a scientific claim, as it’s a provable fact. But I’m not arguing with it.
By the way, many thanks for the “neocon fuckwit” remark. I shall forever prize it as emblematic of the level of discourse for AGW believers.
John Adams – “Oh Ender you are so stereotypical – how about some acknowledgement of basic facts, we are miles away from green energy utopia as you see it and no end of market distorting green taxes will fix that, ….”
Oh Jon you are so stereotypical of hidebound people that think fossil fuels are the only source of power. I still encounter people like you in deserted mainframe halls left behind in the world of computing still claiming only mainframes are real computers.
Coal fired power plants are reliable however they are dirty, polluting and inflexible totally unsuited to todays power regime. In actual fact the market is distorted to supporting them as the real cost of coal in never paid and they are allowed to pollute for free.
“If you really want to see what it takes to power a nation, get out an inspect a few coal powered generators, they are huge, they run 24/7 and they are reliable”
They do not run 24X7 as they need maintenance, they fail and they run out of cooling water in very hot conditions. A large operational reserve has to be maintained to cope with failures because they do not operate 24X7. They also cannot cope with peak loads so further expensive generating capacity that can react to peak loads has to be built and maintained.
“Then go past one of your utopian wind farms and consider that at any time, no matter how big the installation, the wind might drop and hey presto – no more heart surgery.”
Which is exactly what happens now when there is a failure at a coal plant. The NEMMCO calls up reserves, that are already there, and the grid chugs on. We do not have to eliminate ALL coal power, just gasify it so it can be flexible and reduce the need to under 30%.
“Please call a spade a spade, if you want wind power install your own generator and dream away, leave us to our dirty coal powered world of bliss.”
Its tempting to do just that. People this ignorant deserve what they get.
Hey Ender, I just looked at the NSW wind atlas and along the coast at Sydney it is indicated that there is a wind resource of 4.5 to 8 m/s.
I believe this is an average of 6.25 m/s.
Also if you look at BOM site 66037 (Sydney Airport) and check out the wind rose (observations from 1939 to 2004 at 9am) it indicates that it is calm for 10% of the time and roughly between 20 to 30 kph for 30% of the time.
Point is that NO ONE will put up a wind monitoring tower at the specific sites at the specific heights (40 meters and 80 meters agl)to test the resource because they know public opinion will not allow wind turbine to be built in Urban areas.
How about Stanwell Tops to Jamberoo along the Illawarra Escarpement. Private land except for some Sydney water catchment land.
Close to the market!
Paragliders and hang gliders will just have to fly a little higher.
Sciller – for a bloke who doesn’t even know how his livestock work – your opinion on all issues is now classed as worthless. You are a stupid neocon fuckwit. The end !
Why not put wind-farms in National Parks, which could be renamed Biodiversity, Renewable Energy & Uncontrolled Immigration Conservation Parks? Anyone wanting wind-power could go and live in those areas. Only rain or creek water allowed. No trees to be chopped down. No timber products. No hunting or trapping. Since many of these people would be enthusiastic about uncontrolled immigration from chaotic nations in Africa and the Middle East, they could also provide homes (caves, mud huts?) for these migrants. All fruits of evil capitalist global commerce to be cut off. No fire brigade. No bungling, fascist police or immigration. No hospitals. How noble! Bob, Kerry, Rachel, Giz, show us the way.
Allen – “Hey Ender, I just looked at the NSW wind atlas and along the coast at Sydney it is indicated that there is a wind resource of 4.5 to 8 m/s.
I believe this is an average of 6.25 m/s.
Also if you look at BOM site 66037 (Sydney Airport) and check out the wind rose (observations from 1939 to 2004 at 9am) it indicates that it is calm for 10% of the time and roughly between 20 to 30 kph for 30% of the time.”
Yes that may be the case however however just the average is not good enough for wind turbine siting.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm
gives an idea of what is involved. Mind you I have no problem at all with turbines placed where you say because I live in Perth. There is no conspiracy to only put wind turbines in rural area it is just the the economics usually work out better. Kurnell could be the best wind site in Australia for all I know however it would have to be monitored. An again a large wind farm producing power for the desal plant could work. I just do not think that Sydney has enough wind.
Babcok + Brown are happy to invest in the wind, southern states have the most consistent breeze, Perth is one of the windiest cities in the world.
Luke,
More thanks for extending your cleverness with the “stupid neocon fuckwit” remark. You added another word to the phrase.
As you might imagine, this increases my estimation of you and yours.
Wind power is exponential, using the formula w = 0.625 A v3 (where w=watts, A=blade area and v is wind velocity in metres/sec and v3 = v to the third power)
the power generated by a 10 km wind is less than a third of a 15km wind and an eight of a 20km wind.
Or a 5km wind provides 10% of the energy of a 10km wind
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-01_print.html
Clever operators will be looking to harvest the subsidies.
There seems to be a lot of contributors here who don’t have children. Either that or they don’t give a rats about them. And you creeps reckon environmentalists don’t care about people? You are so far up you’re own unsustainable backsides you are prepared to take us all with you into the bog hole. Maybe we should be making energy from your crap – it’s renewable, sustainable and always on tap.
Not sure who you refer to, Lisa, but I have two children (I believed all that zero population stuff in the 1960s) and four grandchildren. I care very much about their future. That’s why I am, in the landscape sense, a greeny. In the economic, political and social arenas I am not. I think technology is wonderful, but needs caution. I am sceptical about science (and ‘refereed papers’) because I am a scientist. I am very sceptical about green politicians because I have been on earth for nearly seven decades, and I’ve heard most of it before, in various guises. Would you care to tell us a bit about yourself?
It is not a prerequisite for commenting here. I refuse to divulge information about myself and my credentials when there is a proven track record here of personal attack on and disrespect for contributors, particularly if they favour environmental practices. Suffice to say I have children and grand children, biological and adopted.
Okay Lisa,
Just asking out of interest. I think a thumbnail sketch now and again may help contributors to see each other as humans, with all our failings and inconsistencies. Seeing people as members of some alien group (xenophobia?) is unlikely to lead to fruitful exchanges. Also, bad manners are a sign of weakness, not strength. I’m sure I am as guilty as anybody. How about you?
Hang in Lisa – we’ll look after ya. And jeez I thought Davey was a spriteful 30 year old dynamic researcher. I wouldn’t have been that rude to him if I knew he was a mature person. 🙂
Must say I admire Lisa’s form: Appears on forum and aggressively hoes into anyone anti-AGW – terms like “crap”, “creeps”, “bog holes” and “backsides” abound.
Then Lisa complains about a “proven track record here of personal attack on and disrespect for contributors..”(!!!!).
Luv ya stuff Lisa, lets here more from you.
Ender – You claim (some distance above) that normal operating reserves can cope with “up to” 30% windpower. But 30% would only be practicable in a network with a lot of quickly available reserves, (which means hydro and gas). That would be the case in Tasmania, where most power is hydro, but in mainlamd states 15% would be a more reasonable maximun for windpower.
Also you dont specify what would be in your other “mix of renewables” to get to a total of 80%. Unfortunately wind and hydro are the only renewables that can produce sizeable amounts of power, particularly at anything like a reasonable cost.
Lisa – I wrote this blog post – I have children and a grandchild on the way – I don’t think you’re making a valid point.
What about Eagles?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
“Chick numbers at the species’ former stronghold have plummeted since the wind farm was built, with breeding pairs at the site down from 19 to one.”
Probably down to none by now.
Wind Farms carefully sited with respect for the environment can contribute to our energy needs, but they are not a ‘magic bullet.’
Davey Gam Esq. bad manners here breed bad manners here it would seem. I have lurked on this blog and seen many contributors fail to see others as humans. Bill Currey if you can identify a personal attack amongst your chosen choice bits it’s pretty impressive. Paul Biggs the fact you don’t think my point about safe guarding future generations is valid validates my point.
Ender has addressed the issue of birds and other wildlife being affected by wind turbines. He has made good comparisons to other everyday man-made things that also take their toll on wildlife but we have come to accept and even ignore. Innovation is not an impossibility when it comes to mitigation.
There is a tendency for so-called deniers to howl down any sort of technology that does not involve mining or other industry and hence may affect their current standard of living. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting get rid of all industry and make people suffer. Those sorts of dumb-ass comments from people support my idea of harvesting their crap and hot air for fuel. Instead they are saying we can’t honestly keep using only non-renewables, and are providing supporting evidence for suggestions that are out there which are renewable. Better responsibility and accountability for our actions on a global scale are required. We owe it to our children to think beyond our own bloody health insurance and burial plots and ensure they too can live in a healthy world and still enjoy luxuries such as travel, infrastructure and the natural world.
Lisa looking for creeps is a new twist in the power debate on this blog. That I say is due to great probability she is a rather original woman when it comes to sifting crap.
There has been no real input on grid operating factors like thermal lag, phase shift, load shedding, stored energy and our capacity to match and mix various demands on the line.
Any discussion about the suitability of wind generation must take account of its distribution and potential to supplement stored energy over any 24 hr period. Stored energy in Australia is more likely to be gas than hydro and this should leave us discussing the merits of various turbines including steam. Only in this context does a wind farm become an efficient transducer for any load.
Hey, has anyone else noticed it’s pretty hard to store steam?
Paul: Base load linked to a coal mine doesn’t leave us a lot of future options either.
Bill – “That would be the case in Tasmania, where most power is hydro, but in mainlamd states 15% would be a more reasonable maximun for windpower.”
The NEMMCO that runs NSW, Qld, Victoria and Tasmania’s power is mandated to keep 900MW of operational reserve available. This is not peaking power available in minutes but online generators are able to support the grid within seconds in the case of a generator dropping out. At the moment it is done with spinning reserve which is large coal fired plants keeping a generator spinning at just under or over synchronous speed so it produces no electricity but is able to come on-line within seconds. This is a very wasteful method. However it means that any single wind farm, typically 100MW or less can drop in and out with no effect on the grid. This means that with a coal fired grid all the carbon savings of renewables is not realised as we have to keep the coal fires burning anyway to provide operational reserve.
“Also you dont specify what would be in your other “mix of renewables” to get to a total of 80%. Unfortunately wind and hydro are the only renewables that can produce sizeable amounts of power, particularly at anything like a reasonable cost.”
The problem is that people think to be useful power stations have to be large. 2kW of power on your roof in some respects is better than 10kW 100km away because there does not have to be 100km of distribution system between you and the power station. In the past only large power stations were efficient enough to generate economical power. That is not true today as 1kW co-gen turbines are just as efficient as 100MW ones. Solar panels provide just as efficient power at your home as in a huge solar power station. The problem is that a lot of people are wedded to the past and cannot see how millions of distributed power stations can add up to a reliable and scaleable grid solution. This is pretty much the same as mainframe computer people could not see how pathetic PCs could ever do serious computing and mainframes would always be the computer of choice for serious computing. While mainframes hold sway in some niche areas the vast majority of everyday computing is done on PCs now. If it was left up to mainframe people we would be having this conversation on green screen terminals.
Which is exactly why we cannot leave future power up to big coal and big nuclear. They will just perpetuate the big central power station as the be all and end all of electricity generation. We will get left behind in a world of smart renewables and smart power grids. Australia is an ideal renewables laboratory.
My ideal mix is solar thermal including hot water systems, small scale solar PV, wind, and geothermal connected by advanced High Voltage DC power distributers with flow batteries and superconductor storage rings providing something like 60% to 80% of Australia’s demand. Gasified coal and natural gas can make up the remainder. My solution has electrified transport providing grid storage (V2G) and a partial solution to the problem we are going to have with oil supplies.
gavin – “There has been no real input on grid operating factors like thermal lag, phase shift, load shedding, stored energy and our capacity to match and mix various demands on the line.
Any discussion about the suitability of wind generation must take account of its distribution and potential to supplement stored energy over any 24 hr period. Stored energy in Australia is more likely to be gas than hydro and this should leave us discussing the merits of various turbines including steam. Only in this context does a wind farm become an efficient transducer for any load.”
In this respect renewables with storage have it all over any other form electricity generation. With large amounts of storage and the advanced power converters that are part of the storage the ability of these converters to maintain grid quality is immense. Storage power converters can, on seconds notice, change phase, frequency and output automatically in response to grid instabilities. They can be networked and intelligently manage grid stability. In this respect the smart grid should be vastly more stable and of higher quality than the present grid. Even down to your house one electric car in the garage can mean the end of blackouts as the car’s inverter can seamlessly carry the house loads if the grid drops. If you have panels on your roof they can charge the car in the case of extended electricity outages.
Ender,
In the early 1980s I suggested that my then employer should plan for desk tops instead of the mainframe with many dumb terminals then in vogue. I was told, by the then computing guru, that ‘micro-computers’ were strictly for Mickey Mouse. Time has shown the realities of that matter.
So I agree with distributed power generation. I don’t see wind as feasible, for a number of reasons stated above. Solar cells on every roof appeals to me, but I went into costs a few years back. In round figures, it would cost $10,000 to instal. It would save me $5 a week in electricity, so it would take 40 years to break even, assuming no rise in cost of electricity. The government has now chipped in with a $3,000 (I think) subsidy, but it still does not make economic sense to me. Am I getting my sums wrong?
P.S. Does the Central Limit Theorem apply, Luke? (:
Davey – “Solar cells on every roof appeals to me, but I went into costs a few years back. In round figures, it would cost $10,000 to instal. It would save me $5 a week in electricity, so it would take 40 years to break even, assuming no rise in cost of electricity. The government has now chipped in with a $3,000 (I think) subsidy, but it still does not make economic sense to me. Am I getting my sums wrong?”
Firstly wind does make sense particularly with storage that is being added to the newer ones.
http://www.vrbpower.com/docs/news/2007/Ireland%20Feasibility%20study%20for%20VRB-ESS%20March%202007.pdf
Rooftop PV are great however they cost can cost $10 000 for a 1kW system using really cheap Aten solar panels up to $40 000 for a really large system. You get $8 per watt capped at $8000 from the government now. This makes 1kW systems the maximum rebate for the minimum outlay. Using Aten panels you could have a system for $2000.00.
In Perth in summer a 1kW system will give around 10kWh per day and in winter around 4kWh. You need to get your daily energy use down to get a reasonable payback.
Davey – that is for a 1kW system
30 X Aten solar panels AUD$4725.00
1 X Sunny Boy Inverter AUD$2165.00
Installation $2000.00
Total $9871.00
Rebate $8000.00-
Total $1871.00
You would have to import the panels from Aten Solar in the USA however they come by the crate so this is not a huge problem.
http://www.atensolar.com/m5_view_item.html?m5:item=ATPV-42-32
Sunny Boy Grid Tie Inverter
http://www.renewablestore.com.au/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_23&products_id=23
Having a personal power station on your roof with storage in the shed (usually deep cycle lead acid batteries)works well if you have the discipline to reduce your electrical suck (no plasma tv with home theater sound,,,,, bummer!).
But also consider that other place where we spend a lot of time, our workplace.
All those places that consume huge amounts of energy which also provide employment.
Peak electrical load in my factory that currently provides employment for four is 25kW which is not a lot in the scheme of things. I use gas for my bulk heat needs.
If there is a proposal to power the work place from all these home power stations we will still need a power grid to aggregate the available power.
Wonder how many PV panels it would take to power the new synchrotron just opened in Melbourne?
All those high energy physics experiments.
My bet is that with all the ten’s of millions of govt dollars that have been invested in the geothermal power recently this seems to be a great hope for non-CO2 emitting base load power.
Thanks for all the information, Ender and Allan. I will revisit the matter. Will have to stop wife using infrared lights in the bathroom. I forgot that Western Power also wanted $700 for a ‘smart meter’ which would read either way.
Lisa – future generations need protecting from policies based on incomplete scientific knowledge and groups that are anti-human.
Lisa – future generations need protection from climate risk arising from fossil fuel emissions and groups that put profits above people.
‘Mad’ fines of £200,000 jeopardise Scots green energy sector
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1170522007
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004388.html