News editor
This Thursday sees the start of stage two consultation on a proposed wind farm in Durham, a county that is said to derive 22 per cent of its energy from renewable sources.
E.ON wants to install 24 wind turbines at a site approximately 1.5km to the east of Newton Aycliffe in County Durham, extending from Morden in the east to Newton Aycliffe in the west and from Bradbury in the north to Preston-le-Skerne in the south.
If the wind farm receives planning consent, E.ON says it will set up a community benefit fund worth up to £190,000 per year, which will be used to support local projects – selected locally – throughout the lifetime of the wind farm.
Once operational, the company estimates the Isles Wind Farm will generate up to 63.5MW.
Sedgefield MP Phil Wilson isn’t convinced by the plans.
In a piece for The Isles Communities Turbine Action Campaign website he said: ‘When people look out of their window, they do not see the boundary between local authorities, they see pleasant countryside. That could change if all these developments go ahead
‘I do not want to see the landscape of County Durham to be reindustrialised again by dozens of massive and inefficient wind turbines cloned across the countryside; this time without the jobs.’
Still with energy and news that UK AD & Biogas 2012 takes place this Wednesday and Thursday at Birmingham NEC.
Organised by the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association, the event is billed as a showcase for AD as the ‘missing link to achieving efficient waste and resource management, carbon reduction, energy security, renewable fuel and energy generation, and job creation.’
Day two of the conference programme is entitled The Business Case for On-Farm AD, with the afternoon sessions taking delegates through creating a sound business plan for their AD projects.
Speakers include Richard Nuttall, business partner, Clydesdale Bank who will explain what banks look for in a business plan and what finance is available.
Similarly, Michael Hughes, investment director, Downing, will cover the same themes from the venture capitalist’s perspective.
Later sessions will then look at planning, building and commissioning of an AD plant.
Last week The Engineer ran a story about Venture Capital Unit, a new entity created by British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association and UK Trade and Investment.
Venture Capital Unit connects the venture sector with the UKTI’s global network of embassies and consulates and is designed to help companies expand globally and access new markets.
In a similar vein, Hertfordshire University hosts Innovation Matters on Wednesday, a free seminar that will take attendees through strategies for business success, including the expansion into international markets.
Organised by Enterprise Europe Network East of England in collaboration with the Intellectual Property Office and UK Trade and Investment, the seminar will inform attendees about the services available to help protect and exploit technology, including ways of partnering with companies and research organisations locally, nationally and abroad.
Finally, a series of events entitled Selling for Engineers – A Guide to Turning Technology into Revenue aims to instil a successful ‘sales mindset’ into those that attend the one-day training courses.
The first takes place in Cambridge on Tuesday and organisers Energi are confident that attendees will leave knowing how to turn their technology into revenue.
In a statement, Richard Blackburn, managing director of Energi and presenter of the course said: ‘In general, engineers and scientists are not very comfortable with the concept of selling. It often feels quite alien to them. This course is intended not only to inform, but actually to enthuse them about how critical sales and marketing is to any company and, at a professional level, what a rewarding career it can provide.’
As I drove through France a couple of weeks ago I did a quick survey of Wind turbine utilisation. My fairly rough estimate came up with 50% utilisation ie of all the turbines spotted only half of them were turning. This surprised me a little as I expected this to be worse (about 30%) but the northern and predominantly Flat countryside of France and the accompanying high winds probably contributed and I know its not very scientific. I do agree with the comments of the Sedgfield MP that in general this type of renewable energy is inefficient and as such it is unsightly especially when they do not turn and the loss of the countryside views is evidently for no gain.
A respected journal such as The Engineer really aught to be more careful about reporting the “weasel words” “up to …”. For example, your piece includes “up to £190,000 per year” and “up to 63.5MW”. These figure are meaningless PR nonsense. Any engineer reading this will ask “what are the likely real figures?”. In the context of wind turbines, the instantaneous peak power output under ideal conditions (which your “up to” figure undoubtably is) is deliberately misleading. The average output is likely to be less than a third of this figure. Even that figure does not cover the whole picture as at times of peak load on the grid the likely contribution from wind is zero.
Your journal should be the a vehicle for facts and informed debate rather than PR-speak and over-inflated claims.
wind farms survive because we have to pay a generous subsidy for their electricity.
Stop the subsidy and no-one would build them.
Generation which has to rely on subsidy is bad engineering and bad economics
There are many other additions to the collection of renewable (especially autonomous) energy generating systems.
The wind farms will likely fall into disrepair over time. I have always wondered by these engineering marvels had to be so large. Small strategically located VAWT systems are more easily installed close to the point of energy consumption.
Then there are other questions concerning the underlying direction of the controlling powers behind so called renewable energy technologies.
With more than 2,200 miles of water ways flowing over these green and pleasant lands, why no micro hydro?
British Waterways I hear have been pushing for a system for more than four years.
I entirely agree with the previous comments. Even a reasonably optimistic assessment of peak power, around 50MW, would produce one tenth of a standard thermal generating set. These sets are always installed in pairs so it would take more than twenty times more land to be covered in wind turbines to equal one typical conventional power station. But we are missing the point here as the British government signed up to the Kyoto agreement and measures such as this are the only way to achieve the Carbon reductions our planet requires. It won’t be enough. Now that the feed-in tariff for home-generation has been cut, new installations have slowed to a trickle.
If all available roofs had photovoltaic and solar heating systems, my rough estimate is that we would not need new wind farms. Except after dark of course!
The numerous sceptical comments in the Engineer on renewables and wind power specifically, is that we only get the hard sell never the hard facts. Until articles give readers some hard facts including historical operating parameters, efficiencies and load factors, there will always be negative thoughts.
I wonder if we will have an Aerobic Digestion and Biogas Association that will go head to head with the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association to argue which is the better form of biogas producer.
“”Peter Field |
The numerous sceptical comments in the Engineer on renewables and wind power specifically, is that we only get the hard sell never the hard facts. Until articles give readers some hard facts including historical operating parameters, efficiencies and load factors, there will always be negative thoughts.”
Plenty of data available- A short list of links & references to start you off:- ……………..Google is your friend.
UK electric demand & generation by fuels.
This site refreshes automatically, gives 7mths history.
(you can switch the different fuels on/off & enlarge- follow onscreen instructions)
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html
This site gives UK Grid status – demand & generation by fuels.….. now + Day, Wk, Mth, Yr, history.
Caution scales are all different so don’t compare at first glance !!! http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
UK energy statistics
Press release 29/3/12 (for 2011)pdf =13 pages http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-trends/4821-pn-12-032.pdf
Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics DUKES (2011)pdf = 268 pg
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2312-dukes-2011–full-document-excluding-cover-pages.pdf
Electricity generation and supply figures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, 2006 to 2009. – (2010) pdf= 9 pg http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/trends/articles_issue/1095-electricity-generation-supply-trends-art.pdf
Loads more available
Even acording to the DECC figs, efficiencies and load factors for wind are low.
The only reason why wind farms require subsidies is that they have to compete with fossil fuel generators that do not pay for the pollution that they cause. If coal and gas fired plant had to pay for the carbon they emit we would soon see that wind power is cheapest.
The main reason why every roof is not covered by solar photovoltaics and heat is that these technologies are very expensive. Wind is cheapest.
Calculations of the land taken by fossil fuel and nuclear generating plant compared to wind typically fail to take account of the land lost to mining these fuels. Uranium for example is very sparse and once the land take of mining that is included then nuclear power uses more land per MW than a wind farm does.
Engineers will know the difference between MW and MWh and will not confuse capacity with output. There is nothing misleading about the way wind power engineers measure and express these parameters.
I always wonder about the “ineffecient” calling of a windmill.
Yes, you need a lot to produce the same as a coal plant, so what?
I rather have 25 mills on my horizon than 1 smoking pipe. Knowing that my child will be able to see those same mills helping to keep her world intact instead of smoking it to pieces.
For fossil fuels we know that carbon and hydrogen give energy and we can calculate what theoretically is possible, and we pay for that cypher.
Wind is “free”, even a relatively inefficient windmill will produce power. The only cost is maintenance and land area used, or open sea.
So instead of hammering on improving the efficiency, maybe a way out would be to improve the sturdiness of the windmills so that they function with less maintenance and in higher windforces for longer time. At the end less costs.
Did anybody ever calculate the payback time for a coal powered plant? (Including the costs for health care on people who got sick from coal dust etc.)
Wind turbine efficiency is what needs to be described in articles – and readers should demand it. If the annualized production is considered with a 30% efficiency then 19.05MW/hour should be the discussed number, not the maximum potential.
Why do reporters not provide comparative numbers?
Bjørn,
The real gripe with wind is not that they are “inefficient”, but they are reliably spasmodic in output. What do you expect to happen when the wind drops? Are you happy to have your electric cut off? Most people are not, so the grid has to have some power source able to take over at the drop of a hat. So you have to have ‘spinning reserve’.
I understand the wish to show wind turbines as the panacea to all our ills, but unfortunately they are not, so confusing Capacity factors with Efficiency helps sell the idea, but doesn’t tell the true story. They are NOT the same. Allow me to clear the confusion and give some generally accepted UK figures-
source = Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics DUKES (2011) = 268 pg
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2312-dukes-2011–full-document-excluding-cover-pages.pdf
Capacity factor: (actual annual output as a % of max possible output).
Coal=84%. Gas=60%***. Nuclear=90%. Solar PV = 11%. British Wind= 27%.
Efficiency: (% of available power converted into useful work).
Coal=36%. Gas=50%. Nuclear=34%. Solar PV = 15%. Wind = 35%
(*** should be 85% ish BUT load following reduces it)
Totally in agreement with last comment.
If we look at the problem from a broader perspective we’ll realize that wind energy, right now, is a lot more efficient that coal derived energy. Wind technology is improving in efficiency and becaming cheaper and cheaper in time.
What concerns me is intermittency. Relying on wind seems to mean either massive interconnection (so massiave as unviable) or idle gas powered standby generators waiting for the gaps