Come off it, they're great!
They’re either a symbol of progressive, clean energy production - a visible indication of the UK’s commitment to renewables, or a blot on the landscape, wrecking the appearance of our delicate and fast-shrinking countryside. While not everyone will agree on the aesthetic qualities of wind turbines, some of the arguments concerning their impact on the environment are faintly ridiculous. Oh, and anyone who says wind turbines are ugly is wrong…
Labour has committed itself to offshore windfarms as the future of clean energy, though the goal of 7,000 turbines is already looking optimistic and pressure is growing to move 4,000 of them to dry land. Off shore units are by some distance the preferable option, being away from communities and having a more reliable supply of wind, but they are much more expensive to put into commission and maintain. So we are likely to see many more of these ghostly structures dotting the landscape, but is that such a bad thing?
Writing on the Guardian website’s Comment Is Free section a couple of weeks ago, composer Michael Berkeley argued vehemently against an application for four turbines at Reeves Hill near where he lives in the Welsh Marches. His argument culminated in the statement:
“We need a better and more objective way of defining areas that demand to be protected as part of our national heritage, not only because they themselves are ravishingly beautiful, peaceful and full of protected wildlife, but because they are overlooked by important and priceless countryside.”
The word ‘NIMBY’ comes quickly to mind.
I love the British countryside and take great interest in natural history, but we should not defend our rolling hills in the belief that they are a pure and unspoilt product of nature running free. Our countryside as it is seen today is engineered by farming in all its forms and since humans began settling we have used the land to cater for our needs. At the moment we appear to be in need of clean forms of energy, so why should be balk at using the land once again? Because it looks nice?
It does look stunning, I agree. But there really is plenty of it and some people are inevitably going to end up with one plonked near where they live. I suppose these people can either let the new whirling structures turn them into a seething mass of righteous indignation or take another look at it and see it for what it is. A thing of beauty.
Sleek, white and designed precisely for their function, they could have come straight off the Apple production line. And much like an ipod, they’re not going to last forever. With the current rate of technological advancement a new renewable source could be in vogue within a few years and the turbines could be removed as quickly as they appeared, leaving the land much as it was. So, enjoy them while they’re here!
Unfortunately, expansive, open areas of countryside are often picturesque and equally ideal places for turbines, so conflicts of interest are going to be commonplace in the future. I’m not suggesting there should be no debate concerning the impact on sites of real beauty by windfarms, but I do believe people should put things in perspective and be a little less eager to wrap the countryside in cotton wool, especially when these structures are not permanent. If anything, having a windfarm in an area of countryside will prevent more permanent building projects being planned in the region. See, they’re defenders of the countryside too!
Enjoy the newsletter,
Richard Scott
Editor
Your Comments:
Richard,
I am one of a number of folk who are not adversely concerned about the ‘Sleek, white and designed precisely for their function’ wind farms across the countryside, even though I am a country lover in Northumberland.
However I find that the arguments for and against seem to be increasingly subjective, and, as you comment, the acronym NIMBY nearly always creeps into the defense. I am concerned that the objective arguments should not be forgotten, such as the clean, cheap renewable energy sources that this country needs to supply the grid.
So then, let us consider manufacture, installation and commissioning costs. Then the return on investment (ROI) and the efficiency factor. How many wind turbines do we need to supply the grid so that eventually all fossil fuel powered stations can be decommissioned? I fear that, having read recent articles on this very subject, they are very inefficient and the ROI is poor. The figure mentioned of 7,000 would fall far short of our actual needs.
I end up wishing that Labour had listened to the advisors who ‘knew that of which they spake’ and had gone for the very clean, very efficient nuclear option. Confidence would have been high that Britain would have full capacity power for many decades to come instead of the daunting prospect of planned power outages such as China and South Africa have recently experienced.
Martyn Chapple
Design Engineer
-----------------------------------------
Richard,
In light of the bad press that usually accompanies proposals for wind turbines I would like to see a proper academic analysis of the pros and cons. We have 13 turbines situated in open fenland just 2 miles from us and opinion in the surrounding villages now that they are operational is mixed. There is strong support from many quarters that our locality is contributing very positively to reducing carbon emissions and there is a lower level of opinion concerned about the visual impact. Not much has been said about noise since they became operational but there has been bad publicity on this issue from another installation nearby. We are not far from the Lincolnshire coast which already has 54 off shore turbines and more planned although the Skegness field is not yet operational so most anti comments are against the visual impact. Many others from beyond the town think that off shore is where they should be.
What we really need is some proper science and not ‘sales’ comment. I feel that the following areas need to be properly addressed.
1. The actual value of the turbines is always stated at the number of homes that can be powered by the turbines, This hides the fact that the average non electric heating home consumes on average just 1.5kW of electrical energy and the figures therefore in sheer terms of numbers look good. However, they usually assume that the generators work at full load 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is clearly not true. Utilisation figures are never quoted as they do not look as good when ‘selling’ the ideas but are nonetheless important in judging the true value of the turbines. It would be useful to see an analysis based on MWhrs output per year and also the % contribution of to the total GWhrs for the country as a whole. In this way it would be possible to estimate the number of turbines required for the government target of 20% for 2020. A similar percentage would indicate the Kg of carbon saved per year compared with the total for the County’s electricity generation each year
2. There is some concern about the nations ability to meet the maximum demand required on the peak day each year and how much of the total contribution towards this is totally dependent on wind power. This is a risk factor which needs to be demonstrated as ‘low’ for the coming years. The aim is to create a smart grid that though smart metering could reduce the demand for short periods but the move towards smart grids, etc. will not happen in an open market so coupled with this analysis of maximum demand (margin) risk needs to be some reporting on smart grid development and one without the other will not work.
3. Noise is perceived as a problem. Therefore in order to gain support a proper charting of noise levels due to turbines at various wind speeds needs to be produced. Noise is wind speed dependent and probably worse at lower wind speeds when ambient noise levels are low but at what distance? I have not seen any academic work in the public domain on this issue. Has this been modelled? Have studies been carried out on real sites?
4. The number of bird strikes can become an emotive issue. Is there any real evidence collated to demonstrate the frequency of bird strikes?
5. Much has been said about the carbon emission during manufacture and transport to site. In overall terms this means that on day one the actual carbon emission saved is a negative. How many years are required for payback. Is there any research? I understand that this is a real issue with small power wind generation. One local school is collating ‘carbon saving’ statistics with their students for a small power wind generator but they have not taken any account of the carbon cost during manufacture and transport. The students are therefore being wholly misled by the technology staff who are running the programme.
I suppose if all five points were favourable towards wind generation then there would still be many folk against it, especially on a NIMBY basis. However at least we will be informed. If, as I suspect answers to the five points will not be totally favourable towards wind generation, proper judgements can be made by government Planning Officers, landowners and operators. However suspect that we will never see adequate answers to these points.
Another issue that is at the back of my mind is that we can make huge jumps towards carbon saving by sensible elimination of waste. I frequently travel to London. It never ceases to amaze me at the number of lights left on in empty office blocks. My train passes Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium which has all it office lights on day and night 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When will we see a thrust to reduce waste. Someone, somewhere is pulling my leg when we make a big fuss of the 20Watts that my TV, Video, DVD and Sky box consume on standby, a mere splinter compared with a single illuminated empty office to say nothing of advertising signs, shopping precincts, streets, etc with fantastic lights and no people for at least 8hrs a day if not more.
Your comments would be welcome.
John Hewitt
Engineering Services & Consultancy
Ed. - I totally agree that output figures for renewable energy sources seem to be skewed to the point of being entirely misleading by using '100% use' as a benchmark. There really needs to be standardised formula for a 'normal' or 'probable' use figure so the public are aware of what they can reasonably expect in terms of power generated.
With regard to bird strikes, a quick scout around the internet has not produced much information that indicates birdlife will have more to worry about. The RSPB didn't seem to think wind turbines were a greater hazard than jet engines or conservatory windows!
-----------------------------------------
Richard,
I have read with interest your article on wind farms and the response from Martyn Chapple.
I live in the next village to a proposed site of three windfarms and have watched with interest the campaign against this proposal. If they were to be at the bottom of my garden I am not sure how I would feel however as a father and a grandfather I feel that we have a responsibility to future generations whether we like it or not.
We have lived through a very exciting and possibly the most innovative period in man's history. As an engineer I have had a great time. For many years we in the developed world have lived in society where energy has been plentiful. We have however all lived for today rather than looking to the future and the time of reckoning is approaching fast.
The Global warming argument will probably rage on for years, especially as politicians seem to have latched on to it as a possible vote winner. Plain and simple common sense however tells us that we cannot keep using the finite resources of the planet we live on at the rate we are, be they oil or rainforests.
We as engineers are better placed than many to understand the arguments both for and against new technologies so we should speak out. Yes, given the chance we would all like to keep the country as it is however since humans walked the earth we have used the land to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves.
People talking about efficiency - I always understood that efficiency was a ratio between the energy you get out of a system verses what you put in. Surely the wind is free and should be never ending.
We get energy out of a wind turbine without us having to put anything in, that is except some lubricants, maintenance etc. So surely the efficiency must be close to 100% even when they are working at below maximum capacity.
There is a cost of making and installing the things but so is there with nuclear fuel and other conventional generation systems. Wind farms as you pointed out can be unbolted and removed and the materials used can in the main be recycled. That is not the case for a nuclear plant and if one of those things goes wrong the results can be catastrophic. Also If you take into account the cost to build and decommission the economic argument starts to unravel.
Nuclear energy is one of the best examples we have of ignoring the possible problems we might be creating for future generations.
The "Nimby" argument is an interesting one because when a straw pole was taken of people who live in the next village, where the windfarm is to be sited, almost all of them were in favour of wind farms so long as it was not in their village.
There are many forms of renewable energy. Unfortunately until the politicians (of all colours) are brave enough and willing to actually put OUR money where their mouths are instead of endlessly wasting it on committees and talking about the "environment", a solution will not be found.
That is until we all wake up to the fact that we either have to pay greatly increased sums for our energy and/or worse still we start to run out.
I am no supporter of the labour government, or the current crop of politicians generally, however whether we like it or not I suspect that the only way that these problems will ultimately be solved is by the government of the day telling us where the wind farms and other renewable generation systems will be sited.
So perhaps some of the people who see their purpose in life as protectors of the countryside might choose to consider which is the better option.
To accept that we need to live with these "sleek, white designed precisely for their function, wind farms" whilst they have a choice vs. the maybe not too distant future where we are told where they will be sited regardless of our views.
When the power goes out in the cities the "towns people" will not be very sympathetic as to the views of the country dwellers.
Bob Agnew
Mechanical Engineer
-----------------------------------------
Richard,
Further to your article about wind farms. I have no strong opinion regarding the virtues of wind turbines. However I do question whether an individual unit will generate enough power to pay back the actual cost in energy used to build it. I am concerned that we are burning the earth’s resources willy-nilly RIGHT NOW in an effort to pacify the green lobby as part of the short term government policy. You talk also about the cost of removal of the turbines when they are redundant. Is that cost being built into the returns equation?
It is a fact that as much as we see the inefficiencies of steam turbines there is no doubt, even so, that they have the capability to supply our energy needs without the complete destruction of these isles. The heat source nuclear (which I favour), coal or gas (or maybe the sun) all have there bête noirs but we have the skills and ability to work on these and improve on their conversion ratios.
David Risley
Electrician
-----------------------------------------
Richard,
There have been a number of comments relating to cost effectiveness of wind turbines so I will try to put some quantitative figures on them.
Government indicated that the 7,000 turbines proposed would have a capacity of about 33GW (32GW-35GW depending on which article you read) which gives average of 4.5MW-5MW per turbine which would be typical of the current larger units. What they DON’T say is that this is the PEAK power output. Wind turbines generally produce an average of about 30% of their peak rating so the average power output from all these turbines would be about 10-12GW
The UK’s current average Electrical power consumption is about 45GW (Dukes tables from the BERR site) so 7,000 turbines will produce 20-25% of our electricity on average. However with this amount of capacity there will be times, on a windy night, when output will be much higher than average and the demand will be much lower so there is the possibility of excess capacity which, unless we have substantial storage, can not be utilised. This problem is exacerbated by the base load power stations, particularly nuclear and coal fired, whose output can not be turned up and down quickly which reduces the share available for wind power and also other renewables.
Costs: A quick scan of the net indicates costs between £1 & £2 per MW, presumably installed capacity. Therefore at nominal output of 300KW/MW installed and a selling price of say 10p/KWh, average earnings are about £30/h per MW installed or a bit over £250K/MW/year or 17% of capital cost (£1.5M nom) per MW. However 10p is probably closer to retail price and I have not taken account of operational costs or capital repayment costs so pay back period is probably in the region of 20 years. Ultimately the economics will depend on how long the turbines last, i.e. will they last longer than their payback period. Hydro power, for example, also has high capital costs but lasts a very long time compared to most other technologies. Because of this all the UK hydro schemes have now paid for themselves and, according to a reliable source, are producing electricity at about 0.25p/KWh!
Regarding Bob Agnew’s comment “until we all wake up to the fact that we either have to pay greatly increased sums for our energy” I personally don’t go along with this view, not for the long term anyway. We have huge amounts free Solar energy (which includes wind) and Lunar energy (tides) about 10,000 times more than the human race currently uses, the challenge is capturing and distributing it economically. My own view is that the way to achieve this is probably through solar energy capture in desert areas, try Googling DESERTEC & TREC to get some ideas.
The main stumbling block to cheap renewable energy is predominantly political and not technological. i.e. it may require cooperation between hot and temperate countries, e.g. North Africa and Europe, and indications are that this is beginning to happen slowly.
Nick Cook
Technology Analyst
More information...