By Steven Goddard
In Wednesday’s Guardian, their lead environmental story made this bold claim about The Whitelee Wind Farm:
Europe’s largest onshore wind farm, which is already powerful enough to meet Glasgow’s electricity needs
There was no discussion in the article about how Glasgow would handle extended periods of cold and calm winds, such as was often seen this past winter.
If the wind isn’t blowing, the turbines aren’t spinning and no electricity is being generated. This tends to happen on the coldest days, when the electricity is needed the most.
The flaw in The Guardian’s logic is a failure to acknowledge that Glasgow needs a consistent power supply 24x7x365. The fact that Whitelee has a lot of windy days and a high annual energy potential, does no good on the cold, calm days. I’m going to try to help The Guardian out with their logic using a few analogies they should understand.
- On average, there is lots of ice in the Arctic during the year – but that doesn’t stop The Guardian from being concerned about the possibility of a few ice-free days.
- Penguin chicks may get plenty to eat most of the year, but during the times when they don’t, many of them starve to death.
- Getting a pay check nine months a year would not pay the bills for the other three.
- Having toilets available only five days a week would not be satisfactory to most people.
- Having only five days a week without being in an automobile crash would not be satisfactory to most people.
- The rainy season in Australia may produce floods, but that doesn’t stop animals from dying of dehydration during the dry season.
- Having your watch functional 90% of the time would not be adequate.
- The fact that a restaurant is not responsible for food poisoning on most nights, may not make you want to eat there.
- Being careful on the edge of the Grand Canyon 90% of the time may not be enough.
- Practicing safe sex 90% of the time is not recommended.
It would be disastrous for Glasgow if they did not have the ability to obtain 100% of their energy from conventional sources on any given day of the year, when the wind isn’t blowing. If The Guardian is attempting to propose that Glasgow could cut off their supply of conventional electricity sources, they should just come out and say that. The implication is both clear and incorrect. “already powerful enough to meet Glasgow’s electricity needs”
Is The Guardian part of the Climate Industrial Complex?
John Boy said;
“Wave energy has good potential and will contribute to sustainable energy especially in UK, Ireland, and other countries and it is becalmed less than wind power.”
Alas the word potential is all it is. I have just carried out a major study of wave energy in the UK and it is startling how little is being done. There is good work at the Wave Hub in Cornwall and the Wave energy Centre in Orkney is great, but the sad fact is that wave energy is at least 10 years behind wind power, which itself is only at a very early stage of development.
The Govt have realised that wave, tide and solar are not going to provide a measurable power supply for twenty years and so are betting the house on wind power.
As a proponent of wave power I greatly regret that it is not the saviour I had hoped. The only thing that will turn it around is a massive research and development programme akin to the US Apollo programme.
As for the Severn tidal barrage (I have assumed you are British) unless you are much less than middle aged I doubt it will be seen in our lifetime.
There is a yawning energy gap and I dont think those in authority have any real grasp as to how much power a modern economy needs. Hire a small generator and boil a kettle from its output. It is likely to trip out or at least complain. Try it with an electric oven. It won’t work. We need lots of power and renewables have potential buit are not a practical proposition unfortunately for our next generation needs over the next twenty years.
Tonyb
Peter Hearnden,
I’m sure you are aware that during a temperature inversion (like the first week in February) the winds tend to be calm at either location. On a cold winters day, you can see the steam from the coal fired power plants moving upwards nearly vertically. Be grateful they are there – they may not be in the future if the government doesn’t get a grip on reality.
Note how still the pond is in the photo from The Guardian article :
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/20/1242816478797/Whitelee-Wind-Farm-Scotla-001.jpg
Hamsters. Those little spinny wheels and hamsters.
This isn’t a straw man argument. Wind generators need a 1:1 back up generating capacity. The wind stops and as Goddard explains it stops at the most inconvenient times. Their is nothing hidden or exaggerated about this article. No reverse logic or misrepresentation. Its very simple, the advocates of wind energy are not being truthful about the practicality of alternative energy. Your going to waste huge amounts of money for something that will give you very little in return. People need to wake up to that. Demonizing fossil fuels is the straw man argument. Peak oil is another. We have been running out of oil since the 70’s and we have more demand and supply than ever. The lefties can visit this site all they want but no ones buying their straw man arguments particularly when the pot is calling the Kettle black.
Sandy (12:09:55) :
or other fuel includes hydrogen, doesn’t it?
Here are the same graphs for Prestwick on the seashore SW of Glasgow.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=4&year=2009&month=2&dayend=10&yearend=2009&monthend=2&ID=EGPK&type=6&width=500
Same story – calm winds.
Peter Hearnden
I think you are from Dartmoor (much of which is a beautiful upland area in Southern England at 370 metres or more for those that don’t know).
I am not making any point here, but would genuinely be interested in your view as to whether you would want such a wind farm on Dartmoor that would be big enough to power Exeter? Transmission lines would be needed as well, where there are none at present.
Personally I dont think you save the environment by trashing the countryside and in the UK so many inland ‘suitable’ sites are in beautiful areas.
Tonyb
Aron (11:15:00)
Our power will come from fusion within 5 decades and expand worldwide from that point. (Wind turbines) will all be knocked down and scrapped for being inefficient junk.
Aron,
I hope you are right. But we need to take steps in that direction – even steps that are not as efficient (as we’d like)or convienent (and cheap) as coal and oil. Then some of those turbines could go to museums and heritage sites. With respect to political gifting associated with coal and oil. I doubt ‘green energy’ will never equal THAT.
Daniel M (11:26:25) :
Do you honestly believe that the warmist crowd is simply setting a goal of “more sustainable energy sources”? Is that why they seek to shut down fossil fuel use by either making it illegal or excessively expensive? Is that why they distort scientific findings in order to frighten the public into accepting these actions?
Apparently, you are aware of ‘diabolical motives’ of GWers. They certainly have political and societal agendas because they could not create solutions to the danger they percieve as it necessarily entails challenging the existing Kings, oil and coal. (Yes, I know -no warming for the last ten years.)
What diabolical motives are you aware of?
I sure would like to know. Place them next to some of the diabolical things done in pursuit, exploitation, responsibility delay, evasion, obfusaction associated with oil .
A few off the top of my head – Chevron/Ecudaor, corrupting leaders of countries so as to be able to exploit their oil resources, Iran (Shah), Saudia Arabia, Iraq (Sadam – then we got him to buy our weapons systems!), etc. That’s just to name a few.
Maybe, the intentions of ‘greeny/GW Alarmists’ are AS or perhaps even MORE diabolical than that has already been perpetrated.
Even today (though making some small gains after years of raising the alarm), they lack the politcal and financial power to seriously challenge coal and oil industries (and their political puppets – Dingel for one).
Coal and oil attempt to thwart them (often successfully) at most every turn. (Kansas, Sebelius out, new governor compromises and the coal plant she resisted gets approved – albeit scaled down some, but still very large and not illegal.)
Or maybe GWers are naive and misguided – having been misled by a 25 year old, worldwide conspiracy across nations/languages masterminded by scientists/activist with diabolical intentions – into believeing that CO2 is changing climate in a dangerous way. Perhaps.
I am open minded. I’m not saying GWers have it all right – but I can’t dismiss them completely.
The Boy of John/John Boy/John’s Boy
Good Lord; You people sound like a bunch of old oil, and coal men. What are you all afraid of? If the stuff works as badly as you say people will figure it out pretty quick, and quit building it.
In the meantime, it’s not costing much; and, we’ll probably learn a little bit. Chill.
HE will generate energy from DARK MATTER. HE is very clever, HE invented INTERNET.
RMS Titanic, unsinkable 90% of the time…
That anniversary is coming up, by the way, which is perhaps rather fitting, given the direction our national leaders seem to be taking at the moment with regards to energy policy.
John F. Hultquist (12:19:50) :
For those of you that claim oil and coal will eventually run out .. . .
This seems like a good idea until you read “the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones.”
A good chuckle – (perhaps you are an inadvertent comedian?)
We didn’t burn stones in the stone age. We didn’t remove mountain tops, mine them, drill, blast them etc. OR build a society dependent on a supply of finite stones.
Oil and coal won’t run out. We will be forced to switch over because they will be increasingly difficult and expensive to get to. And LONG before that prices will skyrocket – perhaps that will be one of the kick in the pants that really gets us moving.
Bruce Cobb (12:23:44)
Wind is only part of the picture, solar, etc. and yes, oil and coal will for continue to be our biggest energy sources. A shift – gradual and measured will occur. In all likelyhood, no one will be left sitting in the dark or without an internet connection.
Aron (12:31:43) :
I don’t take anyone seriously if they use ‘children’ and ‘future’ in a single sentence. My BS detector goes wild when I hear or read such a thing, and then all the evidence pointing towards a charlatan pours out.
I wonder does that apply when our governments budget deficit is being discussed.
The Boy of John/Johns Boy/John’s Boy
Aubs (12:39:24) :
Hamsters. Those little spinny wheels and hamsters.
You made me laugh out loud.
Who knows, there may be something mightier than the mightiest hamster out there yet.
“In 2007 taxonomists – experts in the classification of species – recorded 18,516 species new to science. Professor Quentin Wheeler, director of the IISE, said: “Most people do not realise just how incomplete our knowledge of Earth’s species is or the steady rate at which taxonomists are exploring that diversity.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5368701/Top-10-newly-discovered-species-unveiled.html
Nature is awesome (but of course the science is settled)
It is interesting that people who claim to be worried about the environment are so happy to clutter it up with wind mills that kill birds and leaves large areas unusable for much of anything.
It seems that many of those who claim to be so sensitive to the environment are actually very urbanized people who spend little to no time actually in the wild open spaces.
They are driven by ignorance and a nostalgia for something they know nothing about.
Steven Goddard,
I very much doubt you think the wind climate 370 metres up a Scottish hill is the same as at sea level, if you do you need to visit said places in Scotland!
Tony B
Fwiw, I like windfarms, and I find them visually unobtrusive, and I wouldn’t oppose one if the case was good. However, if you look at the Whitelee site it’s clearly very well exposed to prevailing SW winds and I suspect there isn’t such a site ( Haldon Hill the closest perhaps) that is suitable in our part of the world.
Anyway, I don’t know why it is that a blog from California seems to spend so much time over UK issues and one UK newspapers. But, hey, there we are.
I have found it difficult to talk or explain electricity to people. So if the concept of (best case) 30% capacity factor does not bother people then, as painful and fruitless as this experiment will be, it will just have to run it’s course. An aside would be, what would happen if we did find a unlimited power source? I would say, that it would be the greatest calamity that environmentalist could ever envision.
And I would also wish, all stop this unending pompous attitude about saving it for my and your children. STOP it !! my descendants will be quite capable to fend for themselves….if not, evolution will run it’s course…..Go weave your dream catcher mubo-gumbo to someone else…..
John Boy,
You see this as “diabolical”:
I see it differently. I see countries that were not capable of extracting oil on their own, going into partnership with technologically advanced companies to produce that oil. Both partners benefitted enormously from their voluntary partenrship. The extremely expensive infrastructure was paid for entirely by the oil companies, but it is under the jurisdiction and control of the countries with the oil. The country has new assets and a steady income stream, and it didn’t cost them a penny.
The Left wants you to believe that this is “exploiting” poor countries. That is no different from saying the company you work for “exploits” you. It is a dishonest characterization, because neither the foreign country, nor the U.S. company, nor the company you work for, can compel that mutually beneficial partnership. It is in both parties’ interest, and both parties benefit from it.
The same dishonest Left [redundant, I know] constantly screamed “No War For Oil” and “No Blood For Oil” before, during, and after the Iraq war. You can still see the hypocritical bumper stickers on the Leftist useful fools’ cars. Which, incidentally, run on petroleum products.
But the U.S. never took the oil from Iraq that was truly there for the taking. Who could have stopped us? The corrupt UN? Some dollars in the right pockets would have shut them up fast. And Saddam, whom you refer to, used bribery for twelve years to buy off the UN, Russia and others: click. Everyone took Saddam’s bribes, then turned their backs on him and sold him out.
It just galls me when people uncritically parrot the anti-capitalist Leftist nonsense that U.S. companies “exploit” entire countries. It is insulting to portray the leadership of those countries as being so stupid that they allow themselves to be controlled and exploited. The truth is that they eagerly cooperate; they want the benefit of oil income. That’s how business is done, and it benefits everyone to produce new wealth where there was none before.
The fact that people repeat the bogus charge of “exploitation” shows how far down the corrupt socialist road the media and education system has taken a once great, “can-do” country that put men on the moon using only primitive vacuum tube computers and slide rules.
Kum Dollison (12:51:54) :
Good Lord; You people sound like a bunch of old oil, and coal men. What are you all afraid of? If the stuff works as badly as you say people will figure it out pretty quick, and quit building it.
In the meantime, it’s not costing much; and, we’ll probably learn a little bit. Chill.
It’s costing plenty and we’re learning the reality of wind power is far removed from its hype.
There are many technical problems to be solved and I’m sure most will be. Until then, wind power is an experimental, expensive, feel-good novelty.
Did Ford petition the government to force people to give up their horses and carriages in order to get more cars on the road? No, people bought automobiles because they wanted them. As cars became less expensive and more reliable, more people wanted them and eventually horses became expensive pets or hobbies.
But with these unreliable, expensive alternate energy sources, various environmentalist and industrial groups are trying to slam it down our throats, cost, reliability or practicality be damned. The former just want to feel better about themselves and control how everyone else lives while the latter just want to get fat at the public trough.
Kum Dollison
Not costing much? It’s putting 15% on my electricity bills. And that’s only so far.
Wind farms linked together can provide dependable baseload power, according to Stanford University:
“The findings are published in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. ”
“The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable baseload electric power. These percentages would hold true for any array of 10 or more wind farms, provided it met the minimum wind speed and turbine height criteria used in the study.”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html
No matter how many wind turbines are used for Glasgow the same amount of conventional capacity will be necessary for periods when the wind does not blow or is so strong above 25m/s that they have to be shut down. That conventional capacity will be either fossil fuel or nuclear. A huge increase in cost(£billions) will be the result as to obtain 100% electricity then 200% of installed capacity is needed so as to include wind power. Also wind power has at most a 20% load factor so if there is 1000MW of installed wind capacity there will be at most 200MW of actual electricity! note that the Dutch government has stopped all subsidies for wind power regarding it as too costly. also Germany has 17000 wind turbines which produce the grand total of 6% of its electricity. However debt struck Britain carries on regardless
even if there is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are NOT the cause of climate change.
I see the “conspiracy theorists” argument an awful lot lately. Still seeing “call to authority” and “do it for the children”, as well. Thankfully less of the “payroll of big oil”. “Pollutist” , although inventive, is still way off the mark. Still waiting for an explanation of WWUT, boy of John. Please don’t say typing error.
I hate windmills but can accept that there may be SOME places outside of Glasgow where they may be the best means of producing power:
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=26046
No goats here and the penguins don’t fly.
Peter Hearnden,
I’ve been to several of the large wind farms in Scotland, and during a winter inversion, like the first week in February this year, the winds are scarcely different from sea level. If you have spent any time on the west coast of Scotland, you know that it is normally windy there too – but not during an inversion.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=4&year=2009&month=2&dayend=10&yearend=2009&monthend=2&ID=EGPK&type=6&width=500
You are making the same mistake as the Guardian.
Terri Jackson,
No generation source is 100% reliable, so there has, for example, to be backup for a coal fired power station in case that fails, or back up for nuclear when they are shut down for maintenance.
The idea that it’s only wind power that needs backup is thus a myth.