Windfarms are...

[Zultra]

Negative in cutting CO2 emissions, and they cost us as consumers more says think-tank CIVITAS .

Full report here

Very interesting, I always knew those windfarms are a con, firstly you make heck of a lot of CO2 making the damned things, they cost a lot relative to what they produce and they aren't even reliable.

I went past a wind turbine a few weeks ago, the wind was blowing at around 30mph and because the turbines can withstand a rather low speed of around 35mph they where all shut-down.

A complete waste of money and it blights our countryside.

[Jon-86]

Unless you live in a country with lots of wind like Scotland :)

[gumOnShoe]

According to an alleged right wing think tank... what do you know?

[RydiaLockheart]

Regardless of efficiency, I can understand not wanting a turbine in your backyard like some people to the east of here do. They're huge and noisy.

That being said, if we're going to use natural power, aren't there other more efficient ways, like hydropower? Wind dies down and if it's cloudy, solar power is worthless.

[Zultra]

At 1/25/12 07:54 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: According to an alleged right wing think tank... what do you know?

What a load of nonsense, CIVITAS is a independent think-tank, unless of course you think a blog is a credible source.

Scotland may have lots of wind, if the wind gets to around 35mph then the turbines stop spinning.

[Zultra]

At 1/25/12 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Regardless of efficiency, I can understand not wanting a turbine in your backyard like some people to the east of here do. They're huge and noisy.

That being said, if we're going to use natural power, aren't there other more efficient ways, like hydropower? Wind dies down and if it's cloudy, solar power is worthless.

For a temporary solution, Nuclear power is the way to go, there are reactors being developed (I think it's Thorium reactors) that have little radiation or leave little-to-no fallout if it explodes.

[Iron-Hampster]

wind farms shouldn't be used for powering massive cities, they should be used to power farms where possible (as it saves money and natural gas won't be cheaper forever)

The one type of power I am interested in is Geothermal. Again, it doesn't work for all areas of the world, but you can say that for pretty much any power source out there except coal nuclear and natural gas, even though those would all be best off farther away from people, 1 is going to cost an arm and a leg pretty soon, one already does cost an arm and a leg, and the other is so ridiculously pollutant that nobody is going to want to live any where near it.

[Entice]

At 1/25/12 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Regardless of efficiency, I can understand not wanting a turbine in your backyard like some people to the east of here do. They're huge and noisy.

It depends on the situation. Where I live in Texas, there's literally thousands of windmills out to the west. They're not considered a problem because that area has such a low population.

That being said, if we're going to use natural power, aren't there other more efficient ways, like hydropower? Wind dies down and if it's cloudy, solar power is worthless.

None of those are really feasible as a replacement for all of our nonrenewable resources yet, but supplemental renewable energy is better than nothing. Modern windmills are placed at high altitudes, and always tuned to face into the wind. They don't take a whole lot of wind power to turn. If there's enough solar panels on a farm it generates an excess that can be utilized when it's cloudy out.

[djack]

At 1/25/12 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Regardless of efficiency, I can understand not wanting a turbine in your backyard like some people to the east of here do. They're huge and noisy.

That noise also disrupts bats hunting for bugs which costs the agriculture industry billions of dollars in pesticides and fertilizer to kill the bugs that would normally be eaten and replace the guano that would normally land in the fields on its own.

That being said, if we're going to use natural power, aren't there other more efficient ways, like hydropower? Wind dies down and if it's cloudy, solar power is worthless.

Pretty much every waterway in the U.S. that can power a hydroelectric damn already has one. There's enough desert in the U.S. that clouds aren't a problem for solar but it's still an extremely expensive and highly inefficient way of getting power on a large scale. So far nuclear fission, and eventually fusion, are the only cost effective ways of providing large amounts of power to a wide area for a long period of time.

[PsyhcoWalrus]

Aside from all the building costs, andsetbacks that windfarms have, they are actually very reliant and produce lots of electricity. In the long run, they're worth it. However if you've got a ton of environmentalists fearing that the building process and the barely audible noise the turbines make when running disrupts the environment, then there is more alternatives. For instance instance they have an offshore windfarm in the North Sea and it doesn't bother anybody and it's eco-friendly. See what I mean?
And if your township/city is against wind power for some reason then use solar power. It doesn't release any carbon emissions and it uses the natural energy from the Sun which is technically a never ending power supply. Plants use it, so why shouldn't we?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/25/12 08:33 PM, djack wrote: That noise also disrupts bats hunting for bugs which costs the agriculture industry billions of dollars in pesticides and fertilizer to kill the bugs that would normally be eaten and replace the guano that would normally land in the fields on its own.

There are so many better places to put them. Link, on top of buildings.

Pretty much every waterway in the U.S. that can power a hydroelectric damn already has one.

Not to mention that many species have been pushed to extinction almost solely because of the dams. Many damns, especially the older ones, wer ebuilt poorly and are in high risk of failing.

There's enough desert in the U.S. that clouds aren't a problem for solar but it's still an extremely expensive and highly inefficient way of getting power on a large scale.

Large solar is nice, but it is inefficient. The best solar is widespread personal photovoltaic. Photovoltaic solar works in both cloudy and sunny conditions. The personal benefit also provides a financial incentive (not a great one, but one nonetheless) for purchasing and intalling them.

So far nuclear fission, and eventually fusion, are the only cost effective ways of providing large amounts of power to a wide area for a long period of time.

True. They are much better opportunities to coal, gas, and oil plants which consume finite resources with some not so tasty output. However, with the recent goings on at Fukushima, you'll have a hard time getting a fear adiccted country like the US from opening up to Nuclear.

[djack]

At 1/25/12 09:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/25/12 08:33 PM, djack wrote: That noise also disrupts bats hunting for bugs which costs the agriculture industry billions of dollars in pesticides and fertilizer to kill the bugs that would normally be eaten and replace the guano that would normally land in the fields on its own.

There are so many better places to put them. Link, on top of buildings.

That's not going to provide the same amount of power as large wind farms though which is what the eco-freaks want to use to stop the use of coal and oil for power.

Pretty much every waterway in the U.S. that can power a hydroelectric damn already has one.

Not to mention that many species have been pushed to extinction almost solely because of the dams. Many damns, especially the older ones, were built poorly and are in high risk of failing.

Yeah, hydroelectric is definitely not the best way to replace current power systems.

There's enough desert in the U.S. that clouds aren't a problem for solar but it's still an extremely expensive and highly inefficient way of getting power on a large scale.

Large solar is nice, but it is inefficient. The best solar is widespread personal photovoltaic. Photovoltaic solar works in both cloudy and sunny conditions. The personal benefit also provides a financial incentive (not a great one, but one nonetheless) for purchasing and intalling them.

It's intake is limited even when it's sunny out (current commercial photovoltaic systems still only harness less than 10% of the energy from solar radiation) and the panels themselves are not only too expensive to be practical for most people but also require frequent repairs and maintenance that most people can't provide. I'll consider it a viable option when they get up to 30% and are relatively cheap otherwise the only people who can truly benefit are corporations with large buildings and electrical costs that can be mitigated by paneling the upper portion of the building.

So far nuclear fission, and eventually fusion, are the only cost effective ways of providing large amounts of power to a wide area for a long period of time.

True. They are much better opportunities to coal, gas, and oil plants which consume finite resources with some not so tasty output. However, with the recent goings on at Fukushima, you'll have a hard time getting a fear addicted country like the US from opening up to Nuclear.

People have been afraid of nuclear since '45. I still hear people try to use Three Mile Island as an argument against nuclear energy and claim that Chernobyl is a realistic possibility for every nuclear plant.

[morefngdbs]

I'm on th efence about large windfarms. THere is a lot of problems with wild life, noise etc.
WHat I believe needs more of a push is for homes to produce more of their own power. Using a combination of wind, solar, even heat pumps. Todays solar panels are able to produce power even on overcast days. THere are a lot of roof tops in our country, without using up 1 more square foot of land, we could put in millions of cubic feet of solar panels & those small windmills 4ft or so are really not noisy. My neighbor has some & all you hear is a fain tswishing sound, & when they wind blows stronger, you hear the trees more than his little windmill.

[Korriken]

looking at the modern windmill really makes me wonder "what the in the hell were they thinking?

I mean, look at the tiny blades they put on those. no wonder the things dont work with sub hurricane winds. why don't hey use wider blades that catch more air?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/12 08:45 AM, Korriken wrote: looking at the modern windmill really makes me wonder "what the in the hell were they thinking?

I mean, look at the tiny blades they put on those. no wonder the things dont work with sub hurricane winds. why don't hey use wider blades that catch more air?

Wider blades = more weight. More weight = more friction. More friction = more wind energy needed to spin the blades.

It's a delicate balance between getting enough friction to generate energy, whilst leaving enough slip to allow the blades to spin at all.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/26/12 08:45 AM, Korriken wrote: looking at the modern windmill really makes me wonder "what the in the hell were they thinking?

;;;
have you gone looking at all the different types out there ?

They have some now that look like small airplanes.
They are designed , so that as the wind increases, instead of the wind mill having to shut down from what is called over speed, the wings lift the nose of the windmill up, & it takes windforce off the blades & allows them to continue to make electricity in much higher winds than before. THe tech for the windmills is really advancing ...battery...not so much but still better than even 5 years ago.

[Camarohusky]

When it comes to things like this I am personally less interested in the carbon emissions and more concerned about the usage of economically integral, but very finite resources. Sure, som eof the steps to move us forward past oil and coal may not be as cheap as we would like, but they are very much needed. The quicker we find alternatives the quicker we can work to make them cheaper and hopefully find a replacement that will not run out.

Imagine how much oil and coal you use. Then imagine cutting that in half due to shortages, or worse, cutting them out completely. It ain't pretty.

[Jon-86]

At 1/25/12 08:20 PM, Zultra wrote: Scotland may have lots of wind, if the wind gets to around 35mph then the turbines stop spinning.

Read page 24, point 9 Some Scottish wind farms are paid NOT to produce energy because the infrastructures shite. So theirs a bigger problem right their.

You have a point that its pointless building them in places with no wind, but their are plenty other options. Underwater turbines that use the tide coming in and out are starting to make an appearance and theirs a a whole field of research dedicate to renewables up here because we have the climate for it.

The Co2 argument is a pointless one to make. America, soon China and other countries (even if we put out as much Co3 as we could) would still produce that much more than UK and so do a number of other countries not signed up to emissions treaties. Effectivly making ours look like a drop in the ocean.

But that one of Co2 cost to produce then gives you a permanently clean source. If renewable sources of energy reduce your bills then you canny argue with that and getting solar panels, proper insulation etc on your house dose!

The meter can spin backwards I've seen it happen :D

[LordJaric]

At 1/25/12 08:18 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: That being said, if we're going to use natural power, aren't there other more efficient ways, like hydropower? Wind dies down and if it's cloudy, solar power is worthless.

As far as I know the only source of hydropower are dams, those can cause enviormental harm to the aqua live.

[marchohare]

It doesn't matter what some far-right-wing organization like CIVITAS says -- and it is a far-right organization. Google it. Never mind blogs, read its own words. The future does not belong to the US and the UK. Take a look around. The cutting edge of physics is on the border between Switzerland and France. The US now has to hitch rides on the Russian Soyuz to get into space. Washington, city of corporate-owned sold-out whores that it is, is doing its damndest to suppress alternative energy research, and a great deal of biological research as well. Our position on the world stage is now as the capital of rampant consumerism and military intervention, and that position is not economically sustainable.

Hold onto your shorts. The collapse is coming.

If wind turbines, solar panels, tidal generators, hydrogen fuels, thorium reactors, nuclear fusion, etc. are viable, they WILL be developed -- if not by us, then by other nations, most likely China, India and Russia. Whoever gets off the petroleum tit first wins. We can't hold back the clock forever.

[Elfer]

Did anyone actually read this report? It's clear that the authors had a pre-existing bias against wind, and includes a lot of misleading selective use and blatant misinterpretations of the results of the Mott Macdonald paper.

For example, Chart 3 shows a one-day comparison of electricity generation from various sources, and claims that this indicates that Mott Macdonald's estimate of 25-31% load for wind power is too high, because sometimes there is very little wind. What they don't do is explain why they think that low wind days aren't incorporated into that load estimate, despite the fact that those load averages are supported by empirical data from actual wind farms.

If you look at Charts 4a and 4b, you see that they re-do the Mott Macdonald charts (which, incidentally, are only examined in 2 of the 10 cases from the Mott Macdonald report, in an attempt to make wind seem less appealing) with "additional costs" for wind tacked on top. Not only does the additional cost data not originate from the report cited, the report that it does originate from makes a lot of wild assumptions about transmission cost (it's based on the Beauly-Denny line upgrade to deliver renewable power from Scotland to England, and the cost estimate is based on current generation rather than potential line capacity) and the idea that Mott Macdonald didn't include intermittency requirements in the O&M costs of their wind farm model. They also make no attempt to explain why they don't include the cost of transmission network upgrades, etc. for any of the non-wind generation methods. It's clear that they've simply been trying to manipulate data to make wind appear very, very expensive.

To give you an example of how complicated the citations process and how easy it is to make numbers do what you want, let me explain the origin of one of "additional operations costs" from Table 1. These costs are added to the Mott Macdonald cost estimates, significantly boosting the operations cost of wind power.

- This data is cited as coming from a report by the Renewable Energy Foundation titled Energy Policy and Consumer Hardship.
- The REF report cites the data as coming from a report by Colin Gibson from the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, A Probabilistic Approach to Levelised Cost for Various Types of Electricity Generation, which incidentally also uses the Mott-Macdonald report for capital cost estimates.
- Gibson cites that specific element of the cost as coming from a Parsons Brinckerhoff report titled Powering the Nation.

However, if you look at the latest release on the Powering the Nation report, it shows Onshore Wind generation as being one of the most cost-effective power generation methods, and shows a similar proportion of operating costs for wind power as the Mott-Macdonald report.

So, what happened? Over the course of a few papers, we end up with a cost for wind generation that is based on two in-depth reports from Mott-Macdonald and Parsons Brinckerhoff, but is somehow much higher than the numbers predicted by either report, despite the fact that those initial two reports were in relative agreement with one another. However, the cause of this odd discrepancy is never examined by Civitas, and the author simply plunks the data into a bar graph, knowing that most people will be skimming the report, and likely nobody will think to ask why these results are so different from that of the material they're based on.

If you do your homework, you'll find all sorts of shenanigans like this in papers written by think tanks, but here's a tip if you don't want to go to the bother of due diligence on every news story you read: If the title of a paper contains a phrase like "The folly of wind-power," you might want to scrutinize their claims about wind power a bit more closely, because there just might be a bit of bias hiding there.

TL;DR: The report cited by OP is a rat's nest of bias, bad research, and poor assumptions. The conclusions of the report don't agree with the conclusions of the material it cites.

[Th-e]

Well, whether or not windfarms are efficient and useful, they cannot be the only alternative fuel source. Each of these sources has its limitations.

But how about this for a source: POOP.

Human poop, cow poop, elephant poop, you know, the brown stuff. I have heard of it being used for electricity in various regions.

Maybe energy does come out of your ass.