16,000 Additional Wind Turbines Required to Power British Electric Car Fleet

Ardrossan wind farm in North Ayrshire, Scotland Credit: treehugger.com

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova – According to Professor Jack Ponton of Edinburgh University, an additional 16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres (35,000 square miles) will be required to charge Britain’s electric cars, if Britain converts to an all electric car fleet.

Wind farms would need to ‘cover whole of Scotland’ to power Britain’s electric vehicles

SCOTLAND would need to be entirely covered by wind farms in order to power all of Britain’s electric cars, according to a leading academic.

By PAULA MURRAY, EXCLUSIVE

PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Oct 29, 2017

Jack Ponton, emeritus professor of engineering at Edinburgh University, said another 16,000 turbines would be required in order to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to phase out the internal combustion engine by 2032 – eight years ahead of the rest of the UK.

But Prof Ponton said that, even if the issues of power generation and charging points were sorted out, the National Grid could simply not cope with the increased demand.

He said: “It is a nice idea as electric cars are much more efficient, cleaner and actually simpler devices than the current internal combustion engine vehicles.

“Technically, it is an excellent idea. But the problem starts when you begin to think, ‘Where are you going to get the energy to run them?’.

“I’ve seen three different estimates for the amount of new generating capacity that we would need if were going to have all the cars in Britain running on electricity.

“The most detailed calculation says we’d be looking at five Hinkley nuclear stations to run this. It would be the best way, the most efficient way to get electricity because nuclear power stations can run 90 per cent of the time.

“If you want to do this with wind turbines, you are talking about 16,000 more wind turbines, four times as many as we have at the moment, and I’ve estimated that would occupy some 90,000 square kilometres, which is approximately the size of Scotland.”

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872470/Electric-vehicles-Wind-farms-Scotland-Nicola-Sturgeon-diesel-Britain

This isn’t the first time British academics have run the numbers and demonstrated that renewables are utterly impractical. Back in 2008, Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics, who also holds a PHD in computation from Caltech, upset advocates by running a few numbers and demonstrating how ridiculously inadequate renewables are to the task of powering Britain.

The renewables juggernaut rolls on regardless. Years from now, historians will marvel at how such eyewatering sums of public money were squandered on such a useless energy solution, and how people who claim they care about nature were seduced into covering the landscape with bird and bat killing industrial monstrosities.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
308 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Heath
October 30, 2017 5:10 pm

Died in vane. For Global Warming HOAX.

Gabro
Reply to  Jim Heath
October 30, 2017 5:24 pm

The environmental damage isn’t funny, but your pun is.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jim Heath
October 30, 2017 7:33 pm

30,000 square miles is 19.2 million acres, the exact size of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

G

pbweather
Reply to  george e. smith
November 2, 2017 2:10 am

Sadly there is a units issue or journalistic enhancement going onhere. The original quote in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/which-bright-sparks-came-up-with-this-ridiculous-proposal-1-4524452
stated an area required of 19000km which is 1/4 the area of Scotland.

Still significant and still made good points about where the extra power comes from.

rogerthesurf
October 30, 2017 5:11 pm

I have an idea.
Why not put a windmill on every electric car and let them generate their own electricity.
Just think, when the car gets up speed, the windmill would rotate faster and further change the batteries. Or maybe substitute the windmill with a wing sail and let every car have an America Cup performance!

Cheers

Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 30, 2017 9:26 pm

Just do it the Fred Flintstone way:

Patrick MJD
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 30, 2017 10:23 pm

Someone I was once in discussion with about climate change suggested to do this with aircraft. I am serial!

Steve Ta
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 31, 2017 4:06 am

Why not provide a generator for every home so people can run it to charge the cars overnight, and use all the spare petrol to run the generators!

Gareth
Reply to  Steve Ta
October 31, 2017 1:31 pm

Have you ever heard of domestic photovoltaic power generation? They are quite common here in the UK. You can actually use the power generated to charge your car batteries in the day time. Will wonders never cease?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Steve Ta
October 31, 2017 8:10 pm

Ah yes, Sunny London where you will have a whopping 9:40 of sunshine tomorrow and the sun will be 24° above the horizon at noon. Well, fortunately you can take the tube to work or school because your car will be home charging. Or did you leave oute the /sarc tag?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steve Ta
November 1, 2017 8:04 pm

Except, Gareth, my car is with me at work during the day. You know – work. That place most people go just about every day to earn a living. But maybe you don’t know anything about that…

David Gray
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 31, 2017 7:27 am

Believe it or not, there is actually a small wind turbine you can get for your car. You stick it out the window when going down the highway. It generates a small amount of power for your electronic devices. Somehow, idiots think this is using less energy than getting the power out of their auxiliary power socket, thus saving gas.

MarkW
Reply to  David Gray
October 31, 2017 9:46 am

A few years ago I saw an add for a solar powered fan that you could stick in your car’s window when parked.
Wish I had bought one at the time. I don’t remember how much they cost.

Yirgach
Reply to  David Gray
November 1, 2017 10:49 am

Soalr Fan at Walmart $11.85 free shipping…
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Solar-Power-Car-Window-Fan-Auto-Ventilator-Cooler-Air-Vent-Vehicle-Ventilation/547267422

[?? Those fans blow air through the car to cool it while parked. A true windmill-driven solar-powered car would use the solar panel to drive the fan to drive the wind turbine to recharge the battery. .mod]

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Gray
November 5, 2017 12:54 am

@Yirgach
Does it work with tinted glass? Do you need one for every window? Is the interior frozen stiff when they operate at full power? No? One more of these gotogarbage gadgets then…

StephenP
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 31, 2017 7:33 am

No wind today or yesterday, so car batteries can’t recharge. Time to take a day off as can’t get to work!

michael hart
Reply to  StephenP
October 31, 2017 12:42 pm

Exactly. Under current green schemes there would be times when peoples homes and factories were unheated and dark because of unreliable “renewable” power supply. This “improvement” would mean that their cars wouldn’t move either. They still just don’t get it.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 31, 2017 8:34 am

don’t forget to point the headlights at the solar cells. You can save even more energy that way.

graphicconception
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 31, 2017 11:49 am

“Why not put a windmill on every electric car and let them generate their own electricity.”

It’s been done. Again, China is leading the way!

Tom Halla
October 30, 2017 5:12 pm

There will be a fair number of politicians who will claim that they never had anything to do with renewables, just like western politicians and eugenics after WWII.

Sheri
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 31, 2017 8:59 am

As election time approaches, the rats are already moving in that direction. A politician that said “All of the above energy types” walks it back to “I’m pro oil and coal” because the state he allegedly represents is energy based. He voted for virtually every handout to wind there is every time one came up. Unfortunately, the state is probably stupid enought to reelect the lying twit. We get what we deserve, I guess. People want misery and vote for it over and over again.

Art
October 30, 2017 5:13 pm

Just another bit of reality that the MSM will resist covering.

Griff
Reply to  Art
October 31, 2017 5:28 am

The Daily Express, where the story comes from, is very much part of the MSM.

(though it also regularly posits that Princess Diana was assasinated)

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 8:17 am

Yeah sure Griff it was reported in Guardian it would be the truth. Perhaps you should fact check “Griff + Charlatan”

richard verney
October 30, 2017 5:16 pm

This is likely to be a vast underestimate of the amount of wind turbines required, given the intermittent and non despatchable nature of wind.

Reply to  richard verney
October 31, 2017 2:36 am

The intermittency of wind means that you can never rely on this as a source of energy. The mathermatics is simple: when you have no wind it doesn’t matter whether you have one windmill or an infinity of windmills you still get no electricity!

richard verney
Reply to  Newminster
October 31, 2017 3:27 am

I agree, but their argument is that the wind always blows somewhere.

That might be true, but somewhere can be a very very long way away, and there may even be no interconnect.

It would appear that these guys did not learn from the two winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 when a blocking high was sitting over the UK, and there was all but no wind for approximately 4 weeks. During this period, for the main part, wind produced less than about 8% of its nameplate capacity. But heck, the UK grinds to a halt when there is snow, so there will be no demand (or little demand) for cars, and of course, EVs perform badly in cold conditions (high demand on the battery, and battery performance is weaker in cold conditions). It has all been sussed out.

Trebla
Reply to  Newminster
October 31, 2017 4:47 am

I agree. You have no electricity when ther is no wind. You also have no electricity when the wind is blowing too hard. The power of the wind goes up as the cube of the wind speed. A gentle zephyr quickly becomes a turbine destroying, raging monster.

MarkW
Reply to  Newminster
October 31, 2017 6:36 am

The wind is always blowing somewhere, means we have to put turbines everywhere, in order to catch it.

Sheri
Reply to  Newminster
October 31, 2017 9:01 am

MarkW: Well said. I think I’ll appropriate your observation for future discussions.

SteveT
Reply to  Newminster
November 1, 2017 2:58 am

richard verney
October 31, 2017 at 3:27 am

I agree, but their argument is that the wind always blows somewhere.

Yes, and where it IS blowing will want to use the electricity generated. It is unlikely that there will be enough to share out around all the non-windy places.

SteveT

Non Nomen
Reply to  Newminster
November 5, 2017 1:01 am

No wind? Too much wind? A new business for the insurance wallahs: The Stormy Doldrums Underwriters are glad to accept any of these risks.

Gary Pearse
October 30, 2017 5:20 pm

Well at least academics are beginning to speak up. Their employers used to muzzle them. Even the most ridiculous statements by proponents were not challenged by cowed acads who were otherwise sane. It does say something about the kind of compromised life they are prepared to live. Few Soltzhenitsens or Sakharovs walking the halls of the once proud institutions of learning. Trump seems to be emboldening a few.

Jit
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 31, 2017 10:32 am

He’s an emeritus, right?

Latitude
October 30, 2017 5:21 pm

…and all that elec is free too

John Boles
October 30, 2017 5:21 pm

One wonders when all of this wind turbine insanity will die and the monsters will be taken down.

Reply to  John Boles
October 30, 2017 6:33 pm

But it will cost a fortune to do so, and the concrete foundation blocks may be left in place to pollute the surrounding soil (the concrete leaches substances that change the pH and so affect native pH sensitive plants). Unlike nuclear generation decommissioning costs are not included in any costing for wind and solar generation.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  detnumblog
October 30, 2017 7:17 pm

One has to wonder what ‘native’ plant this dude is smoking.

Concrete is insoluble which is why we use it as a building material.

In the nuclear industry we look what happens to materials over the long term and locally after an accident such as pipe break. The NRC asked a question, I said no problem because the material was insoluble. The NRC found in one of our tests that we got 50 ppm. I said yes that’s right it is insoluble. We agree on a change in my wording from no problem to no significant problem.

If you understand second order differential equations, you can understand that mixing high level waste from spent fuel into glass protects the environment. The radioactive material decays faster than it leaches from glass.

Nuclear power has decommissioning costs because we do not want children playing with highly radioactive material.

I am not too worried about plants.

RobR
Reply to  detnumblog
October 30, 2017 9:14 pm

Those foundation blocks would make nice foundations for new houses once the towers are gone. The wind farm owners can then do some construction that might actually be useful. House and view packages.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  detnumblog
October 30, 2017 9:30 pm

You need to know a bit more about concrete, and learn how to spell “leak”.

Asmilwho
Reply to  detnumblog
October 31, 2017 2:53 am
Retired Kit P
Reply to  John Boles
October 30, 2017 6:48 pm

When power produced with natural gas is too cheap to meter.

I have seen thousand of modern wind turbines and not one monster.

Sheri
Reply to  Retired Kit P
October 31, 2017 9:03 am

You can’t see that horrible toothy grin on the nacelles? Really.

John from Europe
Reply to  John Boles
October 30, 2017 10:37 pm

I expect it will die off with in a decade or so. But first they want to ruin the face of the planet. Then people will see what happened.

October 30, 2017 5:31 pm

Only the sodding SNP would make insane claims like replacing all ICE cars with electric ones, well, them and the rest of the UK’s Conservative government.

Seriously, what are they all dreaming about other than getting re elected on a green ticket. Sturgeon is as mad as her predecessor, Salmond.

Nor is this revelation news, as the article says, the late David MaCkay pointed this out long ago, and he was a self confessed green. But just highlight the insanity of all this bunkum, Matt Ridley did a nice article on it and the number of wind turbines required by the world simply to deal with the 2% growth in continuing energy demand is utterly staggering. It doesn’t, of course, include replacing the existing energy network; the numbers then get truly insane.

“WIND IS AN IRRELEVANCE TO THE ENERGY AND CLIMATE DEBATE” http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/

We sceptics are living amongst fools.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2017 2:50 am

Fossil fools.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
October 31, 2017 4:43 am

The Reverend Badger

Sadly, my misspent youth means I have access to some terms not nearly as poetic as yours.

Nash
October 30, 2017 6:04 pm

90,000 square kilometres. That’s bigger than Portugal

Bryan A
Reply to  Nash
October 30, 2017 6:45 pm

Perhaps it’s time to make life size slot cars

I Came I Saw I Left
October 30, 2017 6:17 pm

Those big windmills juxtaposed against tiny houses remind me of the Martian invaders in “The War of the Worlds”

Mike McMillan
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
October 31, 2017 6:32 pm

Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 6:21 pm

16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres
??? 2 square miles (8 sq km) per turbine?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 30, 2017 7:53 pm

I count 11 in the picture you show. It doesn’t look like a 22 sq mile patch.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 30, 2017 9:19 pm

Here is a picture of part of Whitelee, near Glasgow. Sure doesn’t look like 8 sq km/turbine. Wiki says they have 215 turbines on 55 sq km, and are looking to pack a lot more in. That’s about 4 per sq km, not one every 8 km.
comment image

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 12:43 am

Eric,
That is an image of the Horns Rev 1 farm. The square array has spacing of 560m between turbines. About 4 per sq km. Of course, land space is more at a premium than sea space.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 1:24 am

This is London Array

http://www.machinery-market.co.uk/images/news/3130.jpg

The turbines are placed 650m to 1,200m apart. Source: http://www.londonarray.com/the-project-3/key-facts/

Bryan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 2:03 am

I notice that Nick does not question the 16000 figure !

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 2:26 am

“Nick does not question the 16000 figure”
No. It sems reasonable. As I noted, UK has 8000 already.

Eric,
The Horn Rev array is 8 x 10. The vortices are notable in that pic because the wind is perfectly aligned. Mostly it won’t be. But anyway, shed vortices don’t reduce the energy of the oncoming wind much.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 6:39 am

Nick, the more you get, the further the average spacing has to be.

LdB
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 8:33 am

Nick you always go on at people for not doing basic reading, do your own. The two numbers you need are

1.) How many MW per square KM can wind generate .. use you own number
160MW from 19 square KM
2.) How much energy do cars in UK currently use
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/

Now you do the maths yourself.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 31, 2017 8:29 pm

How far apart do wind turbines need to be? The rule of thumb is 3 to 5 rotor diameters across the wind (N-S in most of the US) and that the rows need to be 5 to 7 rotor diameters apart. The rotor diameter of the large modern turbines is 200 meters. I would guess that they need to be spaced about 0.5 km N-S and 1 km E-W. You would need 8,000 sq. km for 16,000 turbines.Its only 10% of the land area of Scotland.

chrism56
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 10:39 pm

When covering a large area (like Scotland) there would be large areas like valleys where there would be little if any value in putting a wind turbine. That is what inflates the area figure.

Reply to  chrism56
October 30, 2017 11:26 pm

And the fact that they cannot be built near homes, roads, railways etc.

Reply to  chrism56
October 31, 2017 1:27 am

Nick,

perhaps you should read the good professors paper instead if idly speculating.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  chrism56
October 31, 2017 2:29 am

Paper? Is there a link?

AndyG55
Reply to  chrism56
October 31, 2017 2:33 am

The ANTI-ENVIRONMENT Nick Stokes , for all to see.

Doesn’t give ONE SINGLE STUFF about anything except this MINDLESS anti-CO2 agenda.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 12:55 am

According to Wiki, the UK already has 8023 wind turbines. And although they are certainly visible, I don’t think they are taking up 45,000 sq km.

Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 2:06 am

What do the cars do when the wind isn’t blowing – day off work perhaps?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 2:20 am

It would be a great day for cycling.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 6:42 am

Not everyone has the ability to cycle 10 to 20 miles per day. Or the time.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 1, 2017 8:20 pm

Nick,
I wonder how many of those existing 8000 UK turbines are of the size of those in the picture. Some are surely smaller; perhaps a great many of them are. I only point this out because the additional 16,000 needed are the large beasts. So saying, “there’s already 8,000 there, what’s another 16,000” is extremely misleading.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 4:14 am

Nick

I’m guessing here, but I would assume the Prof has factored in that you cannot put turbines in all sorts of places, like built up areas, forested places, low lying/sheltered, and so on.

Therefore, incl those areas, you would need 90,000 sq km to fit in 16000 wind turbines, though physically they would take up much less space themselves

Old England
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 4:36 am

You also need to look at the topography of Scotland – lots of hills, mountains and valleys – very stratified land and many places in natural wind shadow – i.e. wind will never come from more than a narrow part of the compass.

george e. smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 11:25 am

Nick you are forgetting the intake duct and exhaust duct that is needed for a windmill farm.
You need a huge unimpeded area in front of the wind farm, and an equally big or bigger exhaust area, for the exhaust.

It’s a “gas turbine” engine. You can’t obstruct the input or ouput areas. with any construction for other uses.

G

SteveT
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 1, 2017 3:11 am

Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 at 6:21 pm

16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres
??? 2 square miles (8 sq km) per turbine?

Fact checking the easy way: 90,000 / 16,000 = 5.625 on my planet
Where do you inhabit?
Perhaps I haven’t adjusted my calculation enough – if you have a suggested formula I’d love to see it.

SteveT

Non Nomen
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 5, 2017 1:14 am

2 sq miles convert to 2,588 sq km. But, afaik there is a legal limit in how dense the chopping asparagus stems may be packed and the minimum distance they must have from populated areas or houses. Although that number of 90k sq km seems high, it is not improbable.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Non Nomen
November 5, 2017 1:17 am

1 sq mile converts to 2.588 sq km…

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Non Nomen
November 5, 2017 5:10 am

Non Nomen

But, afaik there is a legal limit in how dense the chopping asparagus stems may be packed and the minimum distance they must have from populated areas or houses.

No, there is no “legal” limit for the distance between windmills, but some locations (very few, unfortunately) set restrictions on how far the new windmills need to be from houses and schools. But, usually, the “glamor” of the windmill industry overrides everything, and they take the landscape for the remote tax-supported political donor company regardless of the local resistance. And, of course, until the things are built, nobody locally feels the problems. After they’re built, nobody remote from the windmills cares. They got their tax-break and their construction bonus/subsidy, now move on and do it again.

However, there is a physics reason that ever-more area is required. For small towers it was thought 7 diameters between windmills was enough to avoid resonances and trubulence from the next tower upwind. After many failed due to swirls and stalling of the blades, that distance was moved to 10 diameters minimum. At the same time, the blade diameters got much, much larger as smaller towers and smaller blades proved inefficient – inefficient even by windmill standards.
Now, 10 diameters for a windmill distance is too small, and 15 is the new standard so the newest huge blades can rotate in stable, steady air. The result is that today’s fewer but much larger 2-5 Megawatt turbines need just about the same ground area as yesterday’s 0.25 to 1 MegaWatt wind farms.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Non Nomen
November 5, 2017 6:43 am

@ RACookPE1978
Sorry, it wasn’t clear I was referring to standards in Europe. You do have considerable molestations from wind turbines as sound/noise, reflection of sun/light, animal life and disputable unesthetical landscapes plus serious safety issues in the vicinity of airfields. So, mostly local, councils set up the rules they think adequate for that particular situation their community is in. These rules were often and still are disputed in court and only some minima became some sort of standard. Unfortunately, the subsidies handed out by various government, be it federal or state, are far too attractive to stop these greedy turbine builders. If necessary, generous compensation is handed over to local councils and that’s that, then.

Stephen Singer
October 30, 2017 6:34 pm

In short the Brits are bound and determined to destroy all scenic views in the United Kingdom. They don’t need any foreign tourists anyway apparently.

Retired Kit P
October 30, 2017 6:37 pm

Since I live in the US let me predict where you will find a BEV in 3032 in the US.

On a golf course, in a museum, collecting dust.

Eric W must spend his days searching the internet for silly attention grabbing quotes.

The only good reason to adopt BEV is for short commutes in a country with no fossil fuel resources and a heavy reliance on nuclear power. South Korea cones to mind.

I have estimated that one large nuke would be needed for every million BEV. South Korea can build new nuke faster and better than anyone I can think of but getting and keeping a million BEV on the road is just a pipe dream.

Here is an interesting article about the cost of importing fossil fuel in South Korea. https://www.reuters.com/article/south-korea-coal/s-korea-set-for-record-coal-imports-on-nuclear-outages-as-winter-looms-idUSL4N1N5234

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 30, 2017 9:34 pm

And where is the UN Climate (“Green”) Fund located? In South Korea:

http://www.greenclimate.fund/who-we-are/secretariat

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

StandupPhilosopher
October 30, 2017 6:42 pm

Now think of what it would take to power a hundred million electric cars in the United States.

Bryan A
Reply to  StandupPhilosopher
October 30, 2017 6:53 pm

By 2050 it will likely be closer to 300,000,000. Even more if you factor in Trucks, Busses, Ambulances, Fire Trucks, Police Cars, Motor homes, Airplanes, Jets, Motorcycles, etc..

Peter
October 30, 2017 6:49 pm

Aerodynamic research suggests 10-15 rotor diameters apart for optimum performance, i.e. less mechanical interference.

reallyskeptical
Reply to  Peter
October 30, 2017 7:11 pm

mechanical? you mean they can hit one another if they are closer than 10 rotor diameters?
???
Do you mean aerodynamic?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Peter
October 30, 2017 7:16 pm

OK, but Prof Polton thinks one every 8 sq km; must be long blades.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 7:35 pm

Yep Nick.. let’s just pack ’em in. !!

http://www.ifoxwind.com/images/Repowering%201.jpg

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 7:36 pm
ossqss
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 9:09 pm
ossqss
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 9:14 pm

Look at the modern trees Daddy!

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 10:19 pm

Oh Beautiful for crowded skies, dead birds and bats in glades,
For blighted mountain’s majesty below the Wind Mill’s blades,
America, America we’ll cover all of thee
And drown thy Dells with Solar Cells from sea to shining sea

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 30, 2017 10:31 pm

Lets not forget that each turbine behind the first receives “dirty wind”, and each turbine behind it receives less wind and so on…

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 1:24 am

You were told earlier what factors drive the area scaling. Your reading comprehension matches your physical intuition – both are rudimentary.

Griff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 5:32 am

andy, that first pic is surely photoshopped or manipulated.

and we haven’t built any turbines like those in your second shot since the 1980s.

In places like the EU/UK you have to provide for taking them down before they’ll let you put them up (the first offshore wind farm was dismantled this year after its planned 25 year life)

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 8:44 am

Nick you accuse everyone else of not reading or doing basic research and you can’t even get the number right. Last I did mathematics 90,000 sq km divided by 16,000 is 5.6 sq Km. Real Skeptic was a little better at least he gave 6 and Griff no doubt fact checked it (Yeah ok probably not).

Now this is an error in the printed story and it isn’t from the professor and lets give you a hint 5.6Km … 560m.

So lets see who can work out what the print error is first since you are all so good at fact checks.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 8:46 am

If Nick had half a brain he would be able to work out the print error because he knows where he got the 560m number from.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 10:01 am

LdB,
“Now this is an error in the printed story and it isn’t from the professor and lets give you a hint 5.6Km … 560m.”
Yes, it should be 5.6 km^2, not 8 (though 2 sq mi was about right). But I don’t get that hint. 560 m is the linear spacing in the Horn Rev array. It wasn’t a small issue though. The “big as Scotland” is the headline and leadin of the story, and it quotes the prof directly. And it seems at least an order of magnitude too high.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 31, 2017 12:23 pm

For Nick:
So just do the obvious Power/Area and use Horns to check

Horns:
160MW at 30% factor = 48MW
Area (5 km x 3.8 km) = 19 sqkm
Power MW per square km = 48/19 = 2.52 (Makes sense we said 2MW/SqKm)
Turbines 80 (10 x 8)
Power per turbine = 0.6MW
Turbines per square km = 2.52/0.6 = 4
Spacing on turbines = 500m (0.25 sqkm per turbine)

Proposed
24GW = 24000 MW
Area to generate 24GW = 24000/2.52 = 9523 square km (Out by 10)
Turbines required = 9523 sqkm * 4 turbines per sqkm = 38000 (twice quoted)

To get 160000 turbines each turbine must be bigger x2.375
Power per turbine = 0.6MW * 2.375 = 1.425MW
Turbines per square km = 2.52 / 1.425 = 1.76
Spacing on turbines = 753m (0.567 sqkm per turbine)

So easy to see the power numbers make sense the area is out by a factor of 10 …. QED

commieBob
October 30, 2017 6:50 pm

Dark satanic mills.

mairon62
October 30, 2017 6:52 pm

Is there a ratio? “16,000 wind-turbines” to power how many electric cars? Say a gallon of gasoline = 34 kWh, or diesel = 38 kWh, how much “fuel” expressed in gallon-equivalent does one of these monster wind-turbines produce in an average month? Like if a small community were to consider investing in wind power, they would do it if they needed to buy 3, but wouldn’t if they needed to buy 30. Meaningful numbers can be used to make comparisons…that was a joke!

LdB
Reply to  mairon62
October 31, 2017 9:20 am

Ah someone is thinking and trying to do the calculation. Here is one set of values the UK average car km/day looks high to me but start there.comment image

Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
October 31, 2017 2:30 pm

50GW at 2MW per turbine = 25000 turbines

reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 7:01 pm

“an additional 16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres”

One turbine per 6 km2? seems a not as dense as what I see driving across the states.
And the land can be used for anything, I mean, under the turbine. Cows, sheep, cheap housing…

a happy little debunker
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 7:16 pm

But not raising birds!

reallyskeptical
Reply to  a happy little debunker
October 30, 2017 8:05 pm

chickens.

AndyG55
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 7:33 pm

“cheap housing…”

Off you go, totallygullible….. cheap housing… I BET you wouldn’t go and live there.

Inner city latte ghetto for you, correct.. Fossil fuel heating in winter.

fossil fuel air-con in summer…. all the mod-CONs.

reallyskeptical
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 7:52 pm

You didn’t read the first word you copied: it was “cheap”
But you tend not to do any of that serious “thinking” stuff, do you?

Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 9:09 pm

rs is a bit off his feed today. I mean, letting slip his real attitude about the peasantry?

reallyskeptical
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 9:22 pm

Well, AndyG65 is not doing you guys any favors with his mindless trolling.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 10:21 pm

Only mindless troll here is you, totallygullible..

You just don’t like being called on it. 😉

It is noted that you don’t deny your inner-city ghetto living with all the fossil fuel electricity amenities.

Bryan A
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 10:22 pm

Chickens live in cheep housing

MarkW
Reply to  AndyG55
October 31, 2017 6:45 am

reallyGullible calling other people trolls. The irony abounds with this one.
Of course him telling other people to think was equally ironic.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 9:36 pm

These turbines have a safety zone, you certainly can’t build a house there….

Roger Knights
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
October 30, 2017 11:34 pm

I think the main risk is from throwing a big icicle, IIRC, or a blade.
Maybe greenies wouldn’t mind living close to the turbines (the ones that don’t mind the hum). Win-win?

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 5:07 am

Ever heard of infrasound….?

Sheri
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 9:28 am

Cheap housing because the value of the real estate is close to zero (okay, not totally, but property values dive). Great idea. More government spending for substandard living areas.

reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 7:02 pm

And I understand Trump has some property up in Scotland that might be used…

MarkW
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 6:46 am

Typical socialist. Giving away other people’s property.

Sheri
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 9:29 am

As a golf course. Scotland taught Trump how vile the wind industry is. We thank them for it, though it doesn’t seem to have taken enough ending the blight in the USA.

tom s
October 30, 2017 7:10 pm

Book smart, but not street smart. That is why otherwise intelligent people do such stupid things. No common sense.

Sheri
Reply to  tom s
October 31, 2017 9:29 am

Greed plays a big part.

Barbara
Reply to  tom s
October 31, 2017 2:14 pm

Energy Regulation Quarterly (ERQ), November 2016

‘An Overview Of Various Provincial Climate Change Plans Across Canada And Their Impact On Renewable Energy Generation’

Once laws and/or regulations are put in place for renewable energy, this creates a market for wind and solar. This has happened across North America as well.

This is governments at work to create markets for renewable energy and not about science/engineering.

http://www.energyregulationquarterly.ca/articles/an-overview-of-various-provincial-climate-change-policies-across-canada-and-their-impact-on-renewable-energy-generation

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
October 31, 2017 6:38 pm

State of Montana, November 19, 2007

Letter to Governors and Premiers

Re: Western Climate Initiative / WCI

Adoption of state EPS 15% of renewable energy by 2015 for Montana.

http://formergovernors.mt.gov/schweitzer/brian/wci112007.pdf

Begin with small percentages of renewable energy mandates and then increase these percentages over future years.

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 1, 2017 6:58 pm

Quebec

The Carbon Market

Western Climate Initiative: Between States and Provinces

Re: Use of regulations

Timeline: 2008-2013

http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/changements/carbone/WCI-en.htm

Chris Riley
October 30, 2017 7:52 pm

Electric vehicles are fine as long as they are recharged with electricity that is generated by fossil fuels. (preferably coal). To the extent transportation electrification results in a decrease on CO2 emissions it will increase hunger, malnutrition and starvation because it will reduce agricultural productivity to a level below that which it would be in the absence of the decarbonization. This targets only the very poorest of the world’s people. This is hardly the sort of “virtue” that civilized people want to signal.

When I see pictures of wind turbines like the one that accompanies this article, I don’t just see eyesore inducing bird blenders. I imagine a horror movie “The Pinwheels of Death”.

reallyskeptical
Reply to  Chris Riley
October 30, 2017 8:08 pm

“it will increase hunger, malnutrition and starvation because it will reduce agricultural productivity to a level below that which it would be in the absence of the decarbonization”

Why? because you can not drive your electric tractor over a field?

Chris Riley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 8:26 pm

CO2 is what plants eat. less CO2 = less food

AndyG55
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 8:38 pm

Trulygullible doesn’t realise that ALL food comes from CO2.

He thinks CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant or poison..

reallyskeptical
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 8:44 pm

Chris Riley says “CO2 is what plants eat. less CO2 = less food”

Wow. And we have a problem with not enuf CO2 now?
NOT.

Chris Riley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 9:03 pm

We have enough CO2 to keep everyone on this site well fed. We do not have enough CO2 to properly feed the little girl in sub Saharan Africa who went to bed without dinner last night with no dinner and will walk to school with no breakfast this morning. I am far more concerned with the interests of the little girl than I am with the egos of first world collectivist “virtue” signalers such as reallyskeptical who want to spend my money on insane projects such as covering Scotland with the pinwheels of death.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 30, 2017 9:10 pm

Yes we do. The optimum for the current mix of plants is about three times the current concentration. Just the increase we’ve had in the last half century or so is responsible for about 15-20% increase in greenery.

AndyG55
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 2:39 am

“And we have a problem with not enuf CO2 now”

Most certainly we DO have a problem with NOT ENOUGH CO2

Are you REALLY that ignorant that you don’t know enough biology to figure out that current levels of CO2 are only a small amount subsistence level.

WHY do you HATE plant life so much ?

What a putrid mind you must have to deliberately STARVE the very thing that gives to ALL life on Earth.

MarkW
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 6:47 am

reallyGullible, as has been pointed out many, many times. Greenhouses increase CO2 levels to between 1000 and 1500 ppm.
Your belief that we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere already is refuted by reality.

Sheri
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 9:31 am

There are places where they cannot farm within 300 ft of the turbines due to ice throw and the potential for blade breakage. Farmers lost large sections of land they were not told would be lost. The “you can farm all around these” isn’t really true.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 9:41 am

Sheri, think for a minute. Why would “ice throw” prevent a farmer from raising crops? Did you know that crops usually don’t grow when it is cold enough for ice to form on a turbine blade? For example, you will not find corn growing in Iowa in the middle of January.

Sheri
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 8:06 pm

Rob: It doesn’t keep farmers from growing crops, but it makes a three-hundred foot circle around the turbine off-limits year round. Ice throw doesn’t reduce crop production, but it does mean the 300 ft zone is in effect year round.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 8:22 pm

Texan cattle disrespect the “300 foot zone.” They ignore it.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 8:30 pm

Sheri:comment image

Sheri
Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 1, 2017 10:21 am

Rob: Yes, you can let your cows under the turbines. If ice drops and kills the cow, it’s your problem. I give up trying to explain. No matter how much I document, explain, etc you will still consider 300 feet of land no longer available for its original use no big deal. Apparently, you don’t farm or you got a huge handout to “host” the monstrosities. Otherwise, I think you’d understand. Maybe not. Anyway, forget it.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 1, 2017 10:39 am

Sheri: No matter how much I document………
….
???

Document? I don’t see your documentation???

Roger Knights
Reply to  Chris Riley
October 30, 2017 11:36 pm

“I think the main risk is from throwing a big icicle, IIRC, or a blade.
Maybe greenies wouldn’t mind living close to the turbines (the ones that don’t mind the hum). Win-win?”

Or “The Whirligigs of Woe.”

Sheri
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 1, 2017 10:23 am

Greenies don’t live next to the monstrosities or they probably would withdraw their support. Ranchers often love the turbines for the 5 figure “rental” fees and the rancher doesn’t actually live on the ranch, but in town. It’s surprising how many ranchers don’t really live on their ranches. They just hire workers to live there.

Reply to  Chris Riley
October 31, 2017 2:04 pm

Chris Riley: I suppose you think the South American rainforests can’t be sustained without coal and oil burning industry? Or that the 70% of the worlds oceans are stealing CO2 from the atmosphere in order to starve the children? Can you identify a study that shows that less than 400 ppm CO2 concentrations are somehow preventing crops from growing? Warming oceans (and coal burning power plants) cause more cloud cover, which prevents sunlight from reaching crops – which has a MUCH larger inpact that changing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

TA
October 30, 2017 8:10 pm

Building five new nuclear reactors is a much better idea than putting up 16,000 additional windmills.

It’s a no-brainer.

reallyskeptical
Reply to  TA
October 30, 2017 8:14 pm

Except politically.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 1:43 am

The Greenies-of-death are not going to be a political force for much longer. It is now apparent to everyone with more than a single neuron that their intent is nothing less than the termination of all multicellular life on the planet with the grizzly deathscape leered over by billions of whirling mechanical monstrosities.

This is what happens when ignorant people and their insane ideologies are allowed to rule unchecked. The Greens now resemble the Dark Lord Sauron and his hosts of orcs attempting to cover all the lands in darkness. With the obvious exception that they die along with everyone else.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 2:46 pm

“Except politically.”
I agree! The real answer would be to build five big splendid coal-fired power stations. The electricity would be cheaper (very good politically) , no radioactive waste or melt-downs to worry about and the farmers will be delighted with all that free CO2 fertiliser wafting over their fields. Cheaper food! What’s there not to like!

reallyskeptical
Reply to  TA
October 30, 2017 8:15 pm

Which TA are you, now that there are two of you.

TA
Reply to  reallyskeptical
October 31, 2017 8:17 am

Well, I think I am the original TA, at least for the last few years on WUWT. I don’t know what happened to the other person who used “TA” a few days ago, and as far as I know, that person only made one post. Perhaps they decided to choose another handle after seeing my comment.

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
October 30, 2017 8:50 pm

In Australia, they should just build a new HELE coal fired power station in each of the 3 main eastern states.

Sensible, practical, and politically a massive WINNER, except for the yelping of the far left ABC.

Now, if only the stupid leftist politicians in the Turnbull Party would wake up to reality !

Warren Blair
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 9:14 pm

Please just one opportunistic politician listen to Andy and take the landslide victory!
We have a thousand year + reserve of brown coal in Victoria alone.
Electricity could be free up to the first 100 kWh no kidding.
Thereafter 12c/kWh for domestic and 6c/kWh for industry (similar to China).
Australian’s are certifiably insane and I’m surrounded by them.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AndyG55
October 30, 2017 10:40 pm

As long as any candidate is not a dual citizen. How section 44 cannot have been checked on MP’s who have been in Govn’ for 9 years, that’s 3 terms, is crazy. But politicians are the best criminals anyway.

Warren Blair
October 30, 2017 8:57 pm

Ayrshire; get off my land!
http://www.blairestate.com/
Well not really . . .

ossqss
October 30, 2017 8:58 pm

comment image

Just sayin

ossqss
Reply to  ossqss
October 30, 2017 9:01 pm

Nick, your analysis on such numbers? Please feel free to use 2016 data.,

ossqss
Reply to  ossqss
October 30, 2017 9:05 pm

Then this , which has disappeared from the talking points over the years?

Ya think?

http://news.mit.edu/2010/climate-wind-0312

Reply to  ossqss
October 31, 2017 1:50 am

ossqss

How many models can he shoehorn into a single study?

I’m inclined to believe that massed ranks of wind turbines on land or sea would cause disruption but quantifying it like he has is nothing more than guesswork, on a laptop, to add credibility………….

Reply to  ossqss
October 31, 2017 1:47 pm

Great. Windmills can cause climate change, but CO2 doesn’t? Anyone see the irony in WUWT advocating that windmills will change the climate?

Probably didn’t get supported in any subsequent studies, that’s why it fell off the discussion maps.

RobR
October 30, 2017 9:11 pm

It might be of interest to long-time readers that news has come through that Keith Briffa has passed away. Condolances to his family and friends.

Reply to  RobR
October 30, 2017 9:31 pm

Sad to hear this. He was a pioneer of dendroclimatology, a field that deserved better than Mike’s Nature Trick.

Dr. Briffa stood up to Mann and NOAA’s Susan Soloman in one of the Climategate emails, when they seemed to be advocating retaliation against Anders Moberg. He struck me as a man of character, despite giving in to the use of Mike’s Nature Trick in an IPCC report.

Luc Ozade
Reply to  RobR
November 1, 2017 5:12 am

RobR

Are you sure? What is the origin of your news? Now, two days later, Wiki still has him as living (and they are usually very quick off the mark in updating their information); also Google didn’t turn up anything under news for his name.

Leo Smith
October 30, 2017 11:53 pm

The accepted figure for windpower when David Mackay wrote his book was 2W/sq meter land surface. Sure you can pack the turbines closer, but they get less efficient. Perhaps with today’s supersized ones reaching into the stratosphere its 3W/sq m.

If we take a capacity factor of 30% and the turbines are 5MW monsters, 16,000 turbines is 80GW installed capacity or around 24GW effective average capacity, which at 3W/sq m is 8,000,000,000 sq m or 8,000 sq km.

Methinks the prof has got his sums wrong. By a factor of 10. Or I have 🙂

The number of turbines sounds about right, but the land or sea area is an order too big.

John Hardy
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 31, 2017 12:42 am

Yes Leo – he has his numbers wrong. I’m an EV enthusiast for reasons quite unconnected to CO2, and I dislike wind turbines and nuclear for different reasons. If we need extra power build some gas or coal stations and be done with it.

The UK National grid (http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1264/ev-myth-buster-v032.pdf) concluded “…The recent government announcement on the ban of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 has resulted in some of National Grids FES numbers being quoted out of context. …The scenario which best fits the government’s statement is Two Degrees….The additional peak demand from EVs in that scenario is not 30 GW but more likely to be 5 GW….Nuclear power stations would not be the best option for meeting peak demand.

Jtom
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 6:58 am

Two degrees of what? They explain the scenario, but not the significance or meaning of ‘two degrees’. They also don’t explain the other three scenarios they modeled. In they one they favor, people will charge their cars not based on when the remaining charge of the vehicle, but when it is cheapest to do so. Since price is instantly variable based on current demand, cost would have the effect of smoothing out the daily demand curve. This assumes behavior contrary to human nature. When the remaining charge is low, people will want to charge their car immediately, not at some future time. The car is considered a necessity, and must be available for use virtually at all times. Perhaps you need to find a non-biased analysis.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 12:09 pm

So John where is the natural gas and coal going to come from?

When you build a power plant you need to think of about a 60 year supply of fuel.

“I’m an EV enthusiast”

Me too! The only problems is every time I look at the cost of an EV, I decide I would rather spend the money on a new sailboat.

Here is the problem with enthusiasm, When it comes to doing something, you have to pick. For most of us, there is not time or money to do everything.

There lies the difference between a hobby and practical vocations. EV and residential PV are examples of hobbies.

When it comes to the vocation of supplying electricity when and where people need it, there are only a certain number of ways of doing it.

Griff
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 31, 2017 5:34 am

Technology has moved on since then.

8GW is a standard offshore turbine, where 30% is a minimum capacity factor around the UK. 13GW turbines planned.

The article is meaningless as it does not quote a figure for EV demand, nor say what size of turbine was considered.

and wind is not the only renewable energy source… even today UK was getting 4% of demand from solar in mid morning.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:37 am

4% from solar in mid-morning, and may 11% from wind somehow translates to covering EVs at 100%. Can’t see the math ever working out. I do see a lot of stranded motorists and some ugly riots.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 12:17 pm

You mean 8 MWe.

When it comes planning, we 1600 MWe nukes with a 95% capacity factor and 60 year design life of 60 years.

So when it comes to best available technology, wind just fell behind by by 293 MWe.

Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 1:53 pm

More Wind power pays off in the long term with 25+ year life expected from new installations. These systems just keep on putting out power. And you don’t have to buy fuel to run them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/renewable-energy-electricity-new-record-uk-wind-solar-a7972266.html

LdB
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 31, 2017 9:27 am

@Leo Smith you are the winner the professors initial calc is right the conversion to area is wrong. Whether he made the error or the media I can’t say but I am pleased to see at least someone on the forum can do basic checks.

LdB
Reply to  LdB
October 31, 2017 9:28 am

We can all rest easy we only a tenth of Scotland needs wind turbines.

prjindigo
October 31, 2017 12:16 am

Not to mention the MASSIVE upgrade needed to their power grid to do so.

J Mac
October 31, 2017 12:25 am

City and urban ‘renewables’ become obscene rural blight. The ‘environ-mentalists’ rant about clear cutting mature forests sections, that subsequently renew browse for elk, deer, beaver, rabbits, and support large and small predators…. and then applaud with-standing-ovation installation of ridge top raptor chopping, eyesore windmills. How they resolve the logical conflicts, I can’t fathom…. beyond ‘The Ends Justify The Means’ indoctrination.

Reply to  J Mac
October 31, 2017 1:54 am

J Mac

And just try to build housing on the greenfield sites chosen for wind turbines. All of a sudden rare newts begin to appear.

Sheri
Reply to  J Mac
October 31, 2017 9:40 am

Environmentalists in the early 2000’s decried oil and gas “destroying open spaces”. Yet wiping out thousands of acres with permanent 400 foot monstrosities is somehow okay now. They LIED. They always lie. They care not a whit about wildlife or open spaces. They want to destroy society. I see no other explanation for the behavior.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Sheri
October 31, 2017 12:21 pm

“I see no other explanation for the behavior.”

A short coming on your part.

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
November 1, 2017 10:24 am

Retired Kit P: How about enlightening me then?

John V. Wright
October 31, 2017 12:25 am

The UK has a peak power generating capacity of 61 GW. According to the National Grid, the people who run the network, the additional peak demand to cater for an all-electric car market is 30 GW. The UK is building just one new nuclear power station (Hinckley Point C). Because of environmental, planning, capital and engineering issues it has been 20 years in development and is not due to come on stream until 2025 at the earliest). According to National Grid, we will need 9.6 of these plants (not 5) to sustain peak load for an all-electric car market.

Look, it’s not going to happen. I have driven a plug-in hybrid for the last three years – the technology is excellent and it delivers confidence because it has a petrol engine alongside its electric motor. The battery for the electric motor is charged via the National Grid and fossil fuels. By the way, what if the wind isn’t blowing when those 16000 turbines are built? Does Britain just not go to work on that day?

John Hardy
Reply to  John V. Wright
October 31, 2017 1:19 am

John Wright – not 30, more like 5 and nuclear is not the best option (see my quote from the National Grid in my reply a couple above yours)

By the way, what plug-in vehicle do you have?

Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:00 am

John Hardy

“and nuclear is not the best option”

If the obsession with Co2 continues, nuclear might be the the only realistic option.

From the horses mouth, so to speak. And can you sense the contempt for renewables dripping from this presentation?

Bryan
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:17 am

Official uk figures for 2016 give transport as consuming 40% of total uk energy output

ralfellis
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 3:09 am

Bryan.

Yes, it is more than I expected. It was 27% last time I looked, but more like 40% now. See chart 5.

https://archive.uea.ac.uk/~e680/energy/energy_links/statistics/UK-Energy/ECUK_Chapter_1_-_Overall_factsheet.pdf

R

John V. Wright
Reply to  John Hardy
November 1, 2017 3:59 am

Hi John – Sorry for this late reply. Interesting to see the National grid roll back on their initial figure. More likely they have had their fingers rapped for inadvertently telling the truth.

I drive a Mitsubishi Outlander Phev. It’s a company car and the deal in the UK for buying and running one was unmissable good. They gave us £5k towards the purchase price, charge no road tax, BIK comes out at 2% as opposed to, potentially, 15% and we offset the entire purchase price against taxable profits in year one. And all because the UK Government has bought into the plainly ridiculous CO2isevil movement. At the same time, thanks to the EU, they encouraged people to buy polluting diesel cars over petrol-engine cars. There’s no cure for stupid. By the way, we love the car and it is very fuel-efficient. I believe in the UK that it accounts for some 50% of the whole plug-in market.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  John V. Wright
October 31, 2017 12:39 pm

The power industry is always planning ahead. Just a few years ago there were 30+ new nukes in the planning stage in the US because we were building LNG terminals to import gas. Now we are turning the LNG terminals into places to export gas.
The US will be happy to supply the UK with all the wood chips, gas, and coal you need. We also keep the sea lanes open for you.
I suspect the reason to build new nuke in the UK is to avoid seeing how many jobs can be created in the US.

climatereason
Editor
October 31, 2017 1:39 am

There are some great photos above of densely packed turbines.

any idea as to the effectiveness of those in the front rank of generating power, compared to those in the middle of the pack and at the back?

tonyb

Griff
Reply to  climatereason
October 31, 2017 5:36 am

One of them is certainly manipulated and the other is of obsolete designs. Not typical/real

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:41 am

It’s manipulated because you don’t like it? Really, how foolish a comment is that?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 2:10 pm

not half as manipulated as skepticalscience…

Just shot with a telephoto

packing tight reduces turbine output but maximises output per unit land area.

Its been done, where land area was limited and subsidies were generous

fretslider
October 31, 2017 1:55 am

In my part of Wandsworth in London the council installed 3 charging points acouple of months ago

They’ve never been used

John Hardy
Reply to  fretslider
October 31, 2017 2:10 am

Yes installing slow charge points in city centres is silly box-ticking. If you drive an EV you need fast charge on long distance routes and destination charging (hotels and maybe restaurants)

John Hardy
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:13 am

Fast charge example:comment image

Griff
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 5:37 am

I suggest you check the stats on car journeys in the UK… the overwhelming majority of them are for short distances.

LdB
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 9:03 am

comment image

LdB
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 9:07 am

That is 56 km/day per car. Whether the number is right I have no idea but if you want to argue provide an alternative.

John Hardy
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 1:20 pm

Griff “I suggest you check the stats on car journeys in the UK” That is a bit patronising: I am very familiar with these numbers – approximately 21 miles per day for private cars. My comments on charging stations are based on close to 5 years experience using an EV. Kerbside slow charge in city centres is a waste of space as most charging is done at home and you only need other chargers on long trips

Leo Smith
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:24 pm

dear griff. I suggest you check the stats for aircraft journeys. the vast majority of them are at less than 1.5g, so there is no need to spend huge amounts of money building aircraft that can withstand 4-5g

Griff
Reply to  John Hardy
November 1, 2017 2:28 am

Then, John, I do not see why you are emphasising long distance charging… it is a minor part of driving for people most likely to consider an EV. And there is a roll out at service stations underway.

Destination charging is surely coming too: in Norway, for example, where EV take up large, charge points are going in at IKEA stores.

I can’t imagine hotels will pass up on this (though I find a lot of UK hotels don’t have much in the way of parking, strangely!)

John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:08 am

Hot Scot: “and nuclear is not the best option”. I was quoting the UK National Grid paper directly. If you look at the paper they say of one of their scenarios “The peak demand is met with a combination of more flexible electricity generation sources with the predominate one being gas.”

October 31, 2017 2:17 am

Can someone explain why wind farms nowadays keep on replicating the vintage Dutch windmill design with propellers. What holds up the development of vertical axis wind turbines a bit further from this

http://www.rooftopwind.biz/images/urbanite_wall_mount_1kw_rooftopwp.jpg

This should enable harnessing the already constructed urban wind tunnels, preferably in the proximity of the organisations sustaining the cAGW illusion e.g. banks in Canary Wharf:
comment image

John Hardy
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 31, 2017 2:34 am

There are a number of different designs around, and mooted. Here is a mildly light-hearted look. https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/05/six-innovative-wind-turbine-designs/. I’m not a fan of any type I’ve seen to date. Give me roof-top solar instead

Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 2:56 am

Thanks John. I agree. Especially the helium-filled floating wind turbine looks like a prank. Albeit would look perfect hooked to the tallest tower in Canary Wharf.

TA
Reply to  John Hardy
October 31, 2017 8:41 am

The Vortex Bladeless wind turbine design looks interesting.

Calvin Grier
Reply to  John Hardy
November 1, 2017 7:22 am

vertical turbines are not as efficient as windmill designs, so the installed cost per kW is higher.

ralfellis
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 31, 2017 2:45 am

The answer is efficiency. I’ll give you a clue. Show me any aircraft, that has a vertical axis propulsor on the front……

R

Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 3:12 am

You lost be there for a few reasons

http://www.uno.edu/campus-news/2016/images/helicopter.jpg

Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 3:14 am

be=me

Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 3:36 am

Ali Baba had this Chinese design. Perhaps one of the US courier companies are using it already
comment image

But Boeing CH-47 Chinook is among the heaviest lifting

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5032af6aeab8eab05e000015-900

nc
Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 8:36 am

A helicopter is very inefficent compared to a fixed wing aircraft. More fuel used when comparing distance and payload.

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 9:07 am

I meant a rotor like the one illustated above by Jakkok. (Like a fan-heater rotor). Tney are hugely innefficient.

A helicopter rotor is simply an aircraft rotor (wind farm rotor), in the vertical position. And yes, they are efficient because of their diameter.

R

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 31, 2017 1:42 pm

Vertical turbines are not as efficient. So installed cost per kW is much higher.

Leo Smith
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 31, 2017 2:15 pm

it the same reason cars don’t have square wheels

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
November 1, 2017 2:08 am

Okay. Propellers being the most effective form of wind energy, installation in the city centre can be excluded. Majority of EVs being in the south-east of the country and to prevent energy lost in the transmission, about a 16,000 km2 of propeller coated doughnut would be required from M25 onwards. Even with a hypothetical average of 1 propeller/km2 it would be an impressive testament to the green blob raspberries. Griff 3…2…1…3/4….

Andrew Worth
October 31, 2017 2:28 am

Though uncommon in Western Europe the White Throated Needle Tail is not rare or endangered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-throated_needletail

Griff
Reply to  Andrew Worth
October 31, 2017 5:38 am

yes. this one was way off course and would probably have perished anyway.

ralfellis
October 31, 2017 2:43 am

That figure of 16,000 wind turbines does not include the storage facility. You would also need several pumped starage systems, to go alongside these wind turbines. And since the wind can go offline for ten days or more, the pumped storage system would have to cover this span of time. It would have to be immense.

To cover ten days of charging cars and trucks, the UK would need 12,000 gwhr of energy storage (50 gw for ten days). One of the largest storage systems is the UKs Dinorwig plant, which can store 10 gwhr. So we would require 1,200 Dinorwigs to cover ten days without wind. And since Dinorwig was one of the world’s most expensive power plants, building 1,200 of them would be impossible).

And this is just for transport. We would require another 1,200 Dinorwigs for domestic electrical usage, and another 2,400 Dinorwigs for space heating). So that is 48,000 Dinorwigs, times 3 billion pounds each, or 144 trillion pounds. Prof McKay proposed reducing this figure by flooding many Scottish glens (valleys), and using quantity of water rather than height of water for storage. But that proposal would go down like a lead balloon in the Scottish parliament, as you might imagine.

Something tells me that this is looking-glass technology, powered by rocking horse sh!t.

Ralph

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 3:02 am

It’s a rocking UNICORN with rainbow coloured fur.

Griff
Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 5:39 am

The wind does not go offline for 10 days or more.

And the UK will have up to 10GW of links to other countries in the 2020s.

ralfellis
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:09 am

Griff. Look at any wind velocity chart for Europe, and you will see very large outages in it. Ten days is not unusual. (Hint – generating at 10% capacity is no good for anyone.)

Ralph

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:15 am

You demand is currently 40GW as I look at the numbers
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
You couldn’t afford to have to much go wrong on your island even with that.

ralfellis
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:23 am

See if this address works. This is Eastbourne, on the UK south coast. It had a zero average wind for the whole of April, in 2016. Thirty days, with no wind generation. I will look out for regional graphs.

https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-station/dashboard?ID=IEASTSUS51#history/s20161030/e20171031/myear

ralfellis
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:32 am

Griff.

Look at fig 8 in this paper of wind power in Denmark, where there are several whole weeks below 10% generation. And in February, there is at lest ten days below 10% generation. How does Denmark cope with no electricity for ten days? (This may be 2005, but wind is wind).

At present, Denmark asks Scandinavia very nicely if they can borrow some hydro (which is not renewable – apparently). But Scandinavia charges treble the price. that Denmark got, when it lent its wind power to Scandinavia. Hence Denmark has the highest costs i. Europe.

http://incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf

Ralph

Griff
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2017 2:30 am

And it is as I respond LdB – with wind meeting 12% of demand, solar 2% and foreign interconnectors 7%

and the wind capacity will more that double in the next 10 years

Andrew Worth
Reply to  ralfellis
October 31, 2017 12:04 pm

Can someone point out where it has been proposed that a British fleet of electric vehicles would be powered by 16,000 wind turbines rather than a mix of power generation systems?

Calvin Grier
Reply to  Andrew Worth
November 1, 2017 7:32 am

using reality based calculations would not grab headlines like scenarios where all power generation switches to wind. But wind is doing just fine right now, 30% of UK electricity in latter part of 2017.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/renewable-energy-electricity-new-record-uk-wind-solar-a7972266.html

willhaas
October 31, 2017 3:42 am

What the UK needs to do is to gradually reduce its population so that it will not need so many electric cars. Going back to animal power will also help to reduce the number of electiic cars that will be required. However even if the UK cut CO2 emmissions to zero, the effort would have no effect on global climate. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. According to the paleoclimate record and the results of modeling, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no contorl. Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of our current climate.

October 31, 2017 4:01 am

It is reported that Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.” And that was before the internet.

Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf

New study yields better turbine spacing for large wind farms
http://www.gazette.jhu.edu/2011/01/18/new-study-yields-better-turbine-spacing-for-large-wind-farms/

Although the internet tells us that it didn’t originate with Mr. Stengel …

Randall Short credits “You could look it up” to Casey Stengel. It is true that Stengel often said it in monologue with those he called “my writers,” but it probably originates with James Thurber.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/03/books/l-you-can-look-it-up-577891.html

Peta of Newark
October 31, 2017 4:10 am

Quick calcs using 5MW turbines at 20% of nameplate (land based, sea-going mills do better), 30 million cars doing 10,000 miles each per year and using 0.33kWh per mile – it works out about right energy wise.

Area wise and considering Scotland…
The wind blows from the south west mostly and Scotland is hilly.
By definition, half the [place is on the wrong side of the hill.
Then you have valleys, lakes (lochs), towns and cities, roads and railways, existing transmission lines, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Beauty, golf courses all reducing the available area.
Then there are oddities like the Seismic people at Eskdalemuir (looking for earth tremors etc etc) and you’re not allowed a turbine within 50 kilometres of them.

With regard spacing, lets imagine we want to build a shelter-belt for our houses, gardens, animals in a field or wherever.
We might plant a hedge or build a wall and the general guidelines say that you ‘get shelter’ behind the wall for a distance equal 10 times it height. You even get shelter in front of the wall for a distance of 2 times its height.

Of course folks look at windmills and see 3 big blades with huge space between them.
What the wind sees is effectively a solid disc, just like a wall. It will ride over that disc even before it gets there and for a distance 10 times its height afterwards.
At a guess and because the wind always comes from the same direction in Scotland, the ‘front of wall’ figure will apply sideways too

*There* is you turbine spacing calculation.
You very quickly run out of space.

Editor
October 31, 2017 4:10 am

What the UK Govt and National Grid have been very careful not to tell the public, is that their estimates of how much extra power is needed is based on the assumption that there will be many less cars on the road than now.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/ev-power-scenarios/

Jtom
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 31, 2017 7:34 am

This, I think, is their true agenda in the UK, i,e., figuratively banning cars to the middle and lower classes. If you look at all the pieces – growing population, growing number of cars, massive traffic problems, massive lack of parking, no plans to reinforce the grid, no plans for quick-charging points, variable and instantaneous electrical pricing made possible by the quasi-forced acceptance of smart meters, and no way for the millions who own cars, and rely on street parking, to charge their cars – I can only conclude that the ruling class has no intention of allowing others to own cars.

An outright prohibition would be political suicide, but they can achieve the same goal by making car ownership cost prohibitive via electrical pricing. “Yes, electrical prices must be high, but that is so we can save the world from climate change. Think of the children! You can’t afford to charge your car? We’re sorry, but think of the children!”

Notice they couldn’t get away with simply charging still more for petrol. Their intent would be too obvious when compared to petrol costs worldwide, but by making it AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of pursuing a green energy policy, they can reclaim the roads for themselves and ‘drive’ us mere mortals away.

Auto
Reply to  Jtom
October 31, 2017 5:21 pm

jtom,
Certainly some London Borough Councils – I live in the London Borough of Croydon – seem to be strongly discouraging cars – and other vehicles, except cycles.
We have had a proposal for new flats on our main town car park – formerly over 220 spaces.
There will be ‘152 flats’ – mix of 1, 2, and 3 bed flats is to be determined.
Also – mix of private sales, ‘affordable’ [in London – dream on!!!] and part-but, part-rent; and social housing to be determined, also.
Now the architectural design of the new flats is actually – IMHO – very nice.

But –
Car parking – a BIG problem.

The 152 flats – note, easy walking distance to either of two decent rail stations for commuting to London, and also several bus routes covering a decent part of Southern South London – will get 560 parking spaces.
The public car parks will be restricted to – if no second storey is provided [per the plans] – at most 100, and probably <90.
There are already issues relating to – amongst others – access to an electricity substation . . . .
These issues will cut the provision.
A decent methodology indicates that my town actually needs an additional 150-200 car parking spaces.
And the Council intends to cut provision – already greatly reduced from 220 to 124 [at best] – by a further 30 or so [noted that a few extra spaces – four, six, maybe ; could be found by Dobles Close, and, possibly a handful more- three or four -in the town].
Lesson – How to Kill a Thriving Town 101 – see Coulsdon.

So – yeah – if you can't afford a chauffeur to drive your car whilst you go to the shops, doctors', dentists', restaurants, IFAs, you need to use public transport and walking.
Public transport here is pretty good – but imagine doing the weekly shop- 5 Kg of potatoes, another 3 Kg of other veggies – rice; water, wine, etc., plus some luxuries like tampons – and some of the hills here – in the North Downs – are fairly long and steep.
Of course folks will take the car!

Auto – bemused at the ivory towers some politicians – as well as academics, obviously – live in.

Auto
Reply to  Jtom
October 31, 2017 5:39 pm

Sorry – typo. My fault.
“The 152 flats – note, easy walking distance to either of two decent rail stations for commuting to London, and also several bus routes covering a decent part of Southern South London – will get 560 parking spaces.”
Should read –
“The 152 flats – note, easy walking distance to either of two decent rail stations for commuting to London, and also several bus routes covering a decent part of Southern South London – will get 50 parking spaces.”
A difference.
A difference of 510 car parking spaces!
Sorry

Auto.
Truth is, proof-reading what you, yourself, have typed – is very difficullt.
I should have picked that up – but didn’t. Apologies.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jtom
October 31, 2017 8:56 pm

“Auto October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm”

Sunny Croyinge (Croydon) going down the eco plug hole eh? Shame. Know the area well, North and South Downs too know it better than Sydney, Australia, I was born there after all. East Croydon station is very quick commute in to London.

Griff
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 1, 2017 2:31 am

which may not be unreasonable: young people drive less and car sharing (Zip car etc) and improved public transport in some cities is reducing use

Calvin Grier
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2017 7:36 am

Land use is something that governments have to plan for and manage. There’s literally no other way to adapt to increasing numbers of cars, roads, and people. This is a worldwide problem for cities, not just in UK.

Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2017 4:11 am

OR, they could build more Drax plants. After all, we in the US have millions more trees that could be chopped down, ground up, compressed into pellets, and shipped over, and just think of all the trees elsewhere, once those are gone. Problem solved!
I know what you’re thinking – what will the ships be powered with? I’m glad you asked.
Unicorn farts and pixie dust, of course.

Griff
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2017 2:32 am

Drax is cutting back and may convert some capacity to gas: UK govt is not in favour of Drax/wood chip currently

cedarhill
October 31, 2017 4:54 am

So the Scots really, truly, and simply hate birds.

Griff
Reply to  cedarhill
October 31, 2017 5:41 am

More birds of prey are shot in Scotland than are killed by wind turbines (very low figures, thankfully)

More white tailed sea eagles have been killed by trains than wind turbines.

wind turbines in the UK are only allowed after a year long survey of birds in the build area and are regulary refused permission where birds would be impacted.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 6:55 am

The average serial killer kills 20 people. Therefore it doesn’t matter if I kill one or two.

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 9:16 am

Haha 🙂

heriotjohn
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 10:53 am

What a load of ill informed tendentious nonsense from Griff. the figures on raptor deaths are a closely guarded secret, because although returns are made, they are collated by the RSPB who will not release them, citing “commercial confidentiality.” RSPB is of course hugely in favour of [turbines] as they are “green” — unless you are [talking] about a couple of offshore wind farms, where they have suddenly turned into the opposition because of feared sea [birds] deaths. there is a very major court case wending its way to the UK Supreme Court on this issue.
I have tried repeatedly to get these numbers released, as we know full well turbines kill raptors in large numbers. And guess what? Birds like the red grouse have learnt this, and congregate in considerable numbers on upland wind farms — as i know from personal experience. One famous grouse shoot even has lines of butts (for the guns/ shooters) under the turbines of a very large wind farm in the Scottish Borders.
There has been a survey done in Norway on sea eagle deaths. And guess what? It showed that one wind farm sited on an group of island with a major sea eagle population has killed 70 of them over a period of about 5 years.
And as for wind farms being refused when birds will be impacted? Oh then RSPB says nothing — as with a local scheme here where developers want to put turbines on moor with 7,000 wintering geese. So much for birds being protected.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 3:14 pm

When griff says something, you KNOW that it is going to be at least 97% utter BS and arrant nonsense.

Its as though he just makes up his own version of the truth as he goes. PURE FABRICATION.

roger
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 4:12 pm

I live in Scotland and see both on and offshore wind turbines every day. Do you live in Scotland? I certainly don’t recognize any of the crap you have been uttering above.
You are a total twat pushing somebody’s agenda

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
October 31, 2017 5:30 pm

“roger October 31, 2017 at 4:12 pm”

Griff constantly comments on countries he does/has not lived in. A popular one for him is Australia, and in particular the state of South Australia in fact as that state is his poster state for renewables. They are building the biggest Li-Ion battery, supplied by Tesla!

Griff
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2017 2:36 am

heriotjohn

The Times tells me RSPB doucumented 80 cases of verified raptor death in the UK last year from shooting and poison.

The Norwegian site is an exception – all authorities, including the RSPB told them not to put it there. We would not site it in the UK like that.

The RSPB has objected to multiple wind farms and got them cancelled/restricted (e.g. London Array extension)

both points covered here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rspb-warning-as-wind-turbines-kill-sea-eagles-6110557.html

Calvin Grier
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2017 7:38 am

You left out bird strikes on buildings, and cats. It is amazing we have any birds left.

October 31, 2017 6:11 am

Remember the Kennedy family leading protest against off-shore wind-farm near their compounds? Their ancestors lived in Ayr (and Wigtown…) shire. Notify them so they can go back to protest there (and leave us free).

beng135
October 31, 2017 7:01 am

16000 pinwheels? The entire island will be vibrating in damaging infra sound.

MikeW
October 31, 2017 7:35 am

Wind power is social virtue signaling that is limited by the environmental destruction that it causes. From the rare earth mining operations in China, to the cobalt mines in Africa, to the slaughter of millions of migratory birds and bats, to the toxic poisoning of landfills, wind power wreaks extreme environmental damage that would not be tolerated by any fossil-fuels operation.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  MikeW
October 31, 2017 7:43 am

Wind turbines do not use cobalt.

Do you know the difference between a wind turbine an a battery?

beng135
Reply to  Rob Bradley
October 31, 2017 10:22 am

Permanent magnets in the turbine generators in fact use cobalt. Use a search engine.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  Rob Bradley
October 31, 2017 10:29 am

Turbines with gearboxes don’t use permanent magnets.
..
Permanent magnets can be made without cobalt.
….
Googlists like you think you know something.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Rob Bradley
October 31, 2017 2:17 pm

cobalt is a possible magnetic material.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rob Bradley
October 31, 2017 3:39 pm

Not magnets that use cobalt?
What do they use instead?
Where does it come from?
What are the living conditions where it’s mined?
I haven’t noticed any my refrigerator magnets missing.

Just what type of magnets do wind turbines use?

François
October 31, 2017 7:53 am

What is the math?

KZB
October 31, 2017 7:59 am

There’s 400bn vehicle-km per year in the UK. That’s cars and taxis only, does not include commercial vehicles.

I calculated an extra 80TWh per year needed for this without storage. With energy storage at say 70% efficiency you need up to 114 TWh per year.

All new wind development in the UK will be offshore, where the capacity factor averages 37%. Larger turbines will increase this.

It works out to an offshore area the size of Yorkshire.

TDBraun
October 31, 2017 8:22 am

I don’t get it. 16,000 wind turbines would need 90,000 square kilometers? That’s nearly 6 square kilometers per wind turbine. Why so much space? You can fit wind turbines a lot more densely than that. This guys figures seem bogus to me.

LdB
Reply to  TDBraun
October 31, 2017 9:09 am

There is an error 5.6km versus 560m .. can you be the first to work out whats wrong.

justadumbengineer
October 31, 2017 8:38 am

I just don’t get this religious fascination with wind. its not reliable, its not cheaper without subsidies or feed in tariffs or required wind energy requirements, its ugly, it is inefficient, it takes up a large amount of area, it consumes a large amount of resources to build and maintain. Are we competing for some award for “im spending more money for green energy than you are?” All for some false save the planet from more co2 game? Do people realize if we took all the money we put into green energy in say the last ten years and instead put that into feed the hungry and saving lives from various diseases, how much of a bigger impact on humankind we would have been able to accomplish. No, let the hungry and sick suffer so we can pretend we are saving the planet by installing more wind turbines….what a waste.

beng135
Reply to  justadumbengineer
October 31, 2017 10:28 am

You answered your own question — religious.

nc
October 31, 2017 8:46 am

So if IC vehicles are banned how will people be able to tow their caravans? While towing range will be drastically reduced.

Non Nomen
Reply to  nc
November 5, 2017 1:49 am

Teslas are not even allowed to tow anything. Too heavy by weight and too light by construction.

Resourceguy
October 31, 2017 9:16 am

It’s starting to look like Titusville, Pa.

Coeur de Lion
October 31, 2017 9:35 am

Where can I get a position in lithium futures? Dead cert.

Sheri
October 31, 2017 9:48 am

Wind energy reminds me of an Edsel owner that keeps fabricating parts, adding parts, repainting, rebranding and insisting that the car is the ‘best one ever made”. He keeps an SUV in the garage for those times the Edsel fails (which is over 50%) and yet keeps trying to sell everyone on the belief that his Edsel is the BEST ever way to travel. It’s some kind of delusion, unless you through in the government giving him huge checks yearly for preserving and promoting the car. It’s still wrong and the car is complete disaster, but his motivation of money at least is typical. Without it, it’s amazing the deal would sell to anyone. Yet, wind does, so who can tell?

[Rather, a Model T? .mod]

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sheri
October 31, 2017 10:10 am

Hey, stop picking on the Edsel. We owned one for a while (a couple years I think) when I was a kid. It was an excellent car, although there was the time we were driving down the highway, and the steering wheel came off. I was in the front seat, so my mother, who was driving, handed it to me.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2017 1:47 am

You got it fixed or trashed the Edsel??

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
October 31, 2017 8:17 pm

Model T, Jugo, Pinto, Gremlin—Substitute your own favorite for worst car into the narrative.

KZB
October 31, 2017 10:11 am

http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors

This site gives 2.5W/sq metre as the energy density for offshore wind around UK.

Average capacity factor 36.9%.

Not clear if the energy density uses the nameplate capacity or it includes the capacity factor

LdB
Reply to  KZB
October 31, 2017 12:40 pm

Nameplate is the maximum output power it is an absolute all other factors including average capacity go down from there. The 2.5W/sqm includes the average capacity factor of 30% it’s basically what you expect to get. The easier way to express it is 2.5 Million Watts per square kilometer.

KZB
Reply to  LdB
November 1, 2017 8:38 am

Thanks for clarifying that. But notice there is no more onshore wind allowed in UK, it will all be offshore going forward, and the capacity factor will be higher than the 30% or 25% some on here assume. The 2016 UK offshore average was 37%.

Resourceguy
October 31, 2017 10:42 am

Question. How many windmills will it take to stop clear cutting forests on other continents for British vanity and appearances?

Crispin in Waterloo
October 31, 2017 10:52 am

Similarly, after 1994, it as difficult to find a White person in South Africa who supported Apartheid. We should not be surprised by this. Paradigms die when support for it erodes from within, then comes the collapse. At present, there is less and less support for the Western consumptive way of life, in the West. The tolerance of “renewables” is part of a desire to get out of the current paradigm and enter “something different”, Frustrations about all sorts of things, but especially a loss of faith and trust in government, lead people to ‘try anything’ that looks different, even if it is accepted that it will not be better. Frustration is a combination of expectations and observations, in short, un-met expectations.

Apartheid was stupid and most people knew it but feared any alternative and feared any loss of control. Consider how people feel about decades of government corruption in the communist and capitalist worlds. The average person is not content about it and does not plan to ‘join the system’ to ‘get ahead’. They want to live in a just and fair world and are not getting it, therefore: un-met expectations. So anything that comes along that has a modicum of reasonableness is grasped, one after the other, hoping for a better outcome.

Renewable energy sounds like a really good idea. Who could be against something that is ‘renewable’ forever? What the public are generally denied is the information and tools needed to make a thorough analysis of whether the promise is matched by the reality.

If we were all hunters for our food, and this poor bird was killed by a shotgun, what would we do? Ban hunting? Ban hunters? Ban birds? Ban food? It is surprising to me how many would vote for banning humans. That is true self-loathing.

RCS
October 31, 2017 12:27 pm

One shouldn’t attribute actions to malignancy when stupidity is a perfectly good explanation. In my experience politicians cannot handle numbers when it comes to physical quantities (not that they are that good with money on a large scale).

I suspect that most of the politicians’ ideas are based on inumerate wishful thinking.

Retired Kit P
October 31, 2017 12:58 pm

“It’s manipulated because you don’t like it? Really, how foolish a comment is that?”

Pictures are always being manipulated to present a positive or negative view. My favorite view of a nuke plant has a sail boat in the foreground.

If you are promoting that you environmentally friendly you need a picture of a single wind turbine with a dairy cow grazing on green grass. If you look in the tables of a power company annual report, you would think they are in the business of making power with coal but not one picture of a coal pile. The picture of the coal pile and power plant stacks depicting water vapor as pollution are provided by Friends of the Earth.

Sheri
Reply to  Retired Kit P
October 31, 2017 8:24 pm

Griff seemed to be implying that their was actual photoshop manipulation of the picture, which is what my comment addressed. I am well aware of how one photographs angles and lighting to make an area look better or worse. I have posted pictures on my blog showing just that—how to make turbines look naughty or nice with proper photographic techniques (no photoshopping). I have also had a person accuse me of lying with a photo because it didn’t look like the picture of the deer on the hillside under a wind turbine but rather it was on an open prairie area and that made it look bad. I should not use anything but nice photos or I was a bad person, I guess. The turbines really were on prairie land, but that did not seem to matter.

Griff
Reply to  Sheri
November 1, 2017 2:38 am

I think it has at least been shot so as to make the turbines look crowded together

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
November 1, 2017 10:17 am

Griff: Okay, I’ll go with photo angle, but that’s not the same as manipulated.

October 31, 2017 1:31 pm

They forgot to mention that windpower is increasingly put off-shore.
Also forgot to mention it still costs about half of what nuclear costs. Not saying nuclear isn’t needed, but Wind could off-set the need for nuclear, especially if it is deployed with shared battery storage and solar.
Actually the “professors” calculation neglects any kind of analysis of peak vs off-peak use, so grid loading during low-load periods doesn’t seem to enter the analysis. Funny, most electric cars are charged overnight – so his math is WAY off.

Typical.

Jack
October 31, 2017 2:51 pm

The energy power required to charge a Tesla car “S” type is 100 KWh
Usually people want to charge their electric car when they are sleeping, during night. Then the photovoltaïc panels are useless.

Griff
Reply to  Jack
November 1, 2017 1:59 am

Or they charge them at work, while at the supermarket or during a break in a motorway journey.
Or at station car park when commuting.

Or IKEA
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/11/28/ikea-locations-norway-feature-ev-fast-charging-stations/

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
November 5, 2017 1:31 am

Do you say that photovoltaic panels are NOT useless during night?