Wind farms will continue to require back-up from other sources
Scottish Renewables (Letters April 24) persists in presenting wind-generated electricity as renewable. While the wind certainly is, the back-up need of windpower electricity isn't. Resorting to meaningless "smart design" jargon in relation to peatlands discredits the organisation further. The Whitelee wind farm, under construction 15km south of Glasgow (140 turbines 100m high) requires ground stabilisation work that involves removing peat 12 metres deep in places. How green is that? While Scottish Renewables has already said wind farms can't produce baseload electricity, the fact is that wind farms cannot produce any electricity which can be accurately called a supply. The result is the need for power station back-up to ensure reliable, continuous electricity. This defeats the purpose of wind farms.
Claims of saving CO2 emissions are just that: claims with no basis as fossil generation is not displaced. Wind farms are only built to access huge public and consumer subsidies and are only supported by misinformed environmentalists and politicians, and those who profit from them.
A R Nelson, Lanark.
In the panic over the threatened strike at Grangemouth, most attention has concentrated on the plight of road users. Yet fuel shortages could affect diesel and aviation fuel. A shortage of the former could affect Scotland's railways, which are over-dependent on diesel. Electrification schemes are in progress, but too slowly. First ScotRail is upbeat about improvements on the Glasgow-Edinburgh route, which Network Rail is due to electrify, but not until 2014. Not only should we accelerate such schemes, we should extend them to lines north of the central belt. An equally important reason for doing so is to reduce emissions of CO2 and other gases. We will never meet the targets set without such measures.
The dispute might be settled but the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels will not go away. What's more, no magic bullets are required. It is to be hoped we can source the electricity from renewable sources, particularly wave and tide.
Dr David G Guild, Edinburgh.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 10:51pm Thu 24 Apr 08
[quote]Claims of saving CO2 emissions are just that: claims with no basis as fossil generation is not displaced. Wind farms are only built to access huge public and consumer subsidies and are only supported by misinformed environmentalists and politicians, and those who profit from them[/quote] -A R Nelson, Lanark
This is a cut-out-and-keep job. You will never read a better, concise summary, of dead-eye accuracy, of the madness of windfarms. They are our local equivalent of chopping down rain-forests, or ploughing up paddy fields to produce biofuels. The penny is beginning to drop on that one. How long before windfarms cause a similar policy re-think?
Claims of saving CO2 emissions are just that: claims with no basis as fossil generation is not displaced. Wind farms are only built to access huge public and consumer subsidies and are only supported by misinformed environmentalists and politicians, and those who profit from them
-A R Nelson, Lanark
This is a cut-out-and-keep job. You will never read a better, concise summary, of dead-eye accuracy, of the madness of windfarms. They are our local equivalent of chopping down rain-forests, or ploughing up paddy fields to produce biofuels. The penny is beginning to drop on that one. How long before windfarms cause a similar policy re-think?
Posted by: GML, right here on 11:14am Fri 25 Apr 08
Cynicus
I enjoy a bit of cynicism, but this time I fear you are not being cynical enough. Most people who object to windfarms have rural addresses, regardless of the arguments they deploy. I think you could be cynical about that.
On the argument itself, there is a key difference between fossil fuel generation capacity and fossil fuel generation. Of course there has to be alternative backup [bold]capacity[/bold] to wind, as there should be for all modes of power generation (consider drought, calm seas, explosion in a gas pipeline, miners, dockers or seafarers on strike, whatever) - except maybe tidal generation, which looks pretty dependable. But having a backup system in place doesn't burn the fuel and release any CO2, unless it is actually used. Generating preferentially with renewables displaces other generation and the emissions associated with that. This is related to the all too often overlooked difference between MW and MWhr.
I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power (admittedly on a windy day on a holiday weekend.) That would have saved quite a few tonnes of coal being burnt.
You may argue that wind power may require more backup capacity than other forms of generation, and so may be a less efficient overall user of capital per MWhr generated, but I would like to see the detail on those figures before taking that as read. Scotland has carried a large excess of capital investment in electric power generation for decades already.
Cynicus
I enjoy a bit of cynicism, but this time I fear you are not being cynical enough. Most people who object to windfarms have rural addresses, regardless of the arguments they deploy. I think you could be cynical about that.
On the argument itself, there is a key difference between fossil fuel generation capacity and fossil fuel generation. Of course there has to be alternative backup
capacity to wind, as there should be for all modes of power generation (consider drought, calm seas, explosion in a gas pipeline, miners, dockers or seafarers on strike, whatever) - except maybe tidal generation, which looks pretty dependable. But having a backup system in place doesn't burn the fuel and release any CO2, unless it is actually used. Generating preferentially with renewables displaces other generation and the emissions associated with that. This is related to the all too often overlooked difference between MW and MWhr.
I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power (admittedly on a windy day on a holiday weekend.) That would have saved quite a few tonnes of coal being burnt.
You may argue that wind power may require more backup capacity than other forms of generation, and so may be a less efficient overall user of capital per MWhr generated, but I would like to see the detail on those figures before taking that as read. Scotland has carried a large excess of capital investment in electric power generation for decades already.
Posted by: mlyons, Edinburgh on 12:49pm Fri 25 Apr 08
[bold]I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power[/bold]
This story was actually about how Spanish windfarms had destabilised the whole Spanish electricity grid and so all had to be shut down. A similar escapade in Denmark and North Germany 18 mths ago saw black outs through much of Northen Europe.
This is our future.
I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power
This story was actually about how Spanish windfarms had destabilised the whole Spanish electricity grid and so all had to be shut down. A similar escapade in Denmark and North Germany 18 mths ago saw black outs through much of Northen Europe.
This is our future.
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 1:22pm Fri 25 Apr 08
"Wind farms will continue to require back-up from other sources", as does any form of power generation. How exactly cope when Torness and Hunterston were offline for all that time over the last couple of years? By back-up from other sources, including wind.
"Wind farms will continue to require back-up from other sources", as does any form of power generation. How exactly cope when Torness and Hunterston were offline for all that time over the last couple of years? By back-up from other sources, including wind.
Posted by: mlyons, Edinburgh on 3:19pm Fri 25 Apr 08
No Deasun the replacement electricity came from our our coal and gas plants which between 2005 and 2006 saw their output rise by 35%. This contributed to a rise in Scottish CO2 emissions of 14% - the highest in the developed world. Wind farms made a pathetic contribution to limiting this.
No Deasun the replacement electricity came from our our coal and gas plants which between 2005 and 2006 saw their output rise by 35%. This contributed to a rise in Scottish CO2 emissions of 14% - the highest in the developed world. Wind farms made a pathetic contribution to limiting this.
Posted by: Will07 on 3:40pm Fri 25 Apr 08
Re GML
"I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power (admittedly on a windy day on a holiday weekend.) That would have saved quite a few tonnes of coal being burnt. "
I note use of the word "would". However you provide no data to support this contention. To my knowledge, studies that have attempted to correlate the operation of wind farms with conventional generation suggest that fuel and emission savings attributable to wind energy are minimal or non-existent. Large scale wind generated electricity appears to create a surplus in electricity production, not a reduction in power station fuel and emission savings. Moreover, per capita carbon emissions from electricity generation:
Denmark (~ 20% wind generation) - 4.3 tonnes
UK - 2.6 tonnes
France (~ 70% nuclear) - 0.6 tonnes
Re GML
"I believe I read that Spain recently recorded more than 40% of baseload demand being taken by wind power (admittedly on a windy day on a holiday weekend.) That would have saved quite a few tonnes of coal being burnt. "
I note use of the word "would". However you provide no data to support this contention. To my knowledge, studies that have attempted to correlate the operation of wind farms with conventional generation suggest that fuel and emission savings attributable to wind energy are minimal or non-existent. Large scale wind generated electricity appears to create a surplus in electricity production, not a reduction in power station fuel and emission savings. Moreover, per capita carbon emissions from electricity generation:
Denmark (~ 20% wind generation) - 4.3 tonnes
UK - 2.6 tonnes
France (~ 70% nuclear) - 0.6 tonnes
Posted by: Will07 on 3:42pm Fri 25 Apr 08
Sorry
Re 3:40 above
"Large scale wind generated electricity appears to create a surplus in electricity production, not a reduction in power station fuel and emission savings"
should read:
.... fuel consumption and emission savings....
Sorry
Re 3:40 above
"Large scale wind generated electricity appears to create a surplus in electricity production, not a reduction in power station fuel and emission savings"
should read:
.... fuel consumption and emission savings....
Posted by: Jimmy fae the West, Embra on 3:59pm Sat 26 Apr 08
Are you guys including Hydro production as a fossil fuel or have I entered a strange dinosaur debate? Backup generation [bold]is[/bold] renewables. Nuclear, coal and gas powered generations belong to a past era. Only this brave Scottish government has been bold enough to halt the export of our greatest technology in green wave, wind, tidal, solar and gas exchange power production. How can anyone quibble about heavy subsidies for wind development when we have the erratic nuke stations costing untold wealth and threatening the security of the nation.
Are you guys including Hydro production as a fossil fuel or have I entered a strange dinosaur debate? Backup generation
is renewables. Nuclear, coal and gas powered generations belong to a past era. Only this brave Scottish government has been bold enough to halt the export of our greatest technology in green wave, wind, tidal, solar and gas exchange power production. How can anyone quibble about heavy subsidies for wind development when we have the erratic nuke stations costing untold wealth and threatening the security of the nation.
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (8)
