Wind Farms: NLys - Viewing Profile

I think you've made a good point. There are two sides to the sound issue, one involving physics, the other involving psychology.

In other words, there's the science of acoustics, and then there's perception.

Jane Davis's statement to the Commons suggested that some degree of 'resonance' has been claimed of somewhere between 5% and 20% of windfarms.

There are, potentially, factors which could cause this, the most obvious being turbines 'synchronising' with each other. The thing to watch out for there would be the positioning of the turbines. Windfarm developers know that aligning turbines tends to effect their capacity, so they usually avoid it, although in older windfarms this may not always have been the case.

But the real problem with the 'resonance' issue seems to be that it's so difficult to pin down. Which brings in the problem of perception. There is evidence that some people hear a continuous noise (the 'Bristol' effect) in areas where no windfarms are present, and this is far from being understood. Evidently, it would help if this syndrome were understood, because the effects are identical to those reported with regard to windfarms, and it would be silly if windfarms got the blame for something that has been reported in a wide variety of other locations.

What worries me most about the protesters and their campaign is that it is priming people to find the windfarm noisy. This is a rather dangerous game to be playing, because - if the Lenchwick Windfarm does get built - there may be people who have become convinced that they will hear 'noise', regardless of whether such a noise is present or not. The protesters, then, could be creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The video on the VVASP website, I believe, shows the result of this kind of thing. The first person to be interviewed on it, an elderly woman, can, by her own admission, not see the windfarm, which is over the hill from her house. It's pretty evident from the interview and the soundtrack that she can't actually hear it, either. And yet, she seems to be convinced that she can, and it's upsetting her.

Jane Davis accepts that reports of 'resonance' have been made with regard to, at most, one fifth of the windfarms in the UK. As you note, sound can be affected by many conditions, and some of these are understood and can be compensated for or effectively negated by careful planning. But I do fear that a kind of 'feedback' effect has and is being created, not by the turbines themselves, but by the protesters promoting the assumption that there will be resonance, leading to the belief that there is resonance.

I'm not suggesting that the minority of individuals who claim to have been affected by windfarm 'resonance' are lying, but this 'resonance' does seem to be extremely elusive, has never (to the best of my knowledge) been recorded, and may be more a perceptual problem than an acoustic fact - the result of being convinced that a windfarm will generate noise which will affect you, even though you can't see it, can't hear it, and there's even a hill in the way.

Will

Three new reports counter the argument that the 'unreliability' of wind make windfarms 'inefficient':

http://www.theecolog... nd_message.html

The last red kite I saw was at a windfarm in Northamptonshire. It was a local resident, and we watched it flying around the turbines, swooping between the blades (which were turning at full speed) and generally amusing itself. At the time, I was talking to local residents who have seen the kite playing like this on many occasions.

Cancelling membership of RSPB because they have approved windfarms in general is based on a misunderstanding of windfarms fostered, I suspect, by self-interested protest groups. Does anyone REALLY think that RSPB are hoping to make money from windfarms??? No - they've just recognised that windfarms are one of the answers to our growing energy and climate change crisis, and that to keep inventing spurious grounds for opposing them gets us nowhere.

Will

Er ... where did you hear this?

A modern wind turbine completely recoups all the costs involved in its construction, transportation and installation within its first twelve months of operation. Thereafter, all the electricity it generates is effectively free. Latest figures show that electricity generated by onshore wind turbines is the cheapest going.

Small domestic turbines are often erected where they don't get the best benefit of the wind. The idea that wind power's 'costs outweigh its benefits' suggests that you've been talking to a protest group like VVASP. Perhaps you need to get some more reliable information first.

Will

Onshore wind generation is the cheapest renewable, but with back up, it costs two and a half times as much as gas or nuclear.

In a report published on 10 March, the UK-based Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) reveals that electricity from offshore wind farms, currently the most viable renewable source, will cost at least twice as much as that from conventional sources.

The independent study, commissioned from international energy consultants PBPower, puts all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources. The cheapest electricity will come from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms.

"This may sound surprising," said RAE vice president Philip Ruffles, who chaired the study group, "especially as we have included the cost of decommissioning in our assessment of the nuclear generation costs. The weakness of the UK government's energy white paper was that it saw nuclear power as very expensive. But modern nuclear stations are far simpler and more streamlined than the old generation - the latest are only about half the size of SizewellB - and far cheaper to build and run."

In the case of wind energy it is also necessary to provide back up capacity for when the wind does not blow. In this report, the RAE says it has been rather generous with the wind generation figures - assuming a need for about 65percent back-up power from conventional sources. The RAE has previously called for even higher back-up, more like 75to80percent. Even so, the cost of back up capacity adds 1.7p/kWh to the costs.

(August 4, 2006 in European Process Engineer Magazine)

'In a presentation to its investors, the transmission system operator [National Grid] said the plan represented an annual spend of £3 billion on the electricity network for mainland Britain. And beyond 2012, the company said "that investment will continue at least at that level for the foreseeable future".

‘National Grid said yesterday it has earmarked an extra £2 billion of capital investment in the UK transmission system up to 2012, above and beyond the £16 billion already announced.’(‘National Grid to boost transmission investments by £2bn a year.’ New Energy Focus, 8 October 2008).

To start with, a few facts to get your teeth into:

Every unit of electricity generated from wind turbines displaces one from conventional power stations that use fossil fuels.
In January 2009, wind turbines in the UK had the capacity to prevent the emission of 3,683,563 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per year.

Wind has been the fastest growing renewable energy source in the world for the past 7 years; this trend looks like it's going to continue. Mainly due to the falling cost of wind energy and the International need to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent climate change.

I have looked around the forum and have read that there is a real concern for our bird populations and the effect wind- farms may have on them.

Although there is evidence of bird strikes on the blades of the turbines, I think we need to look at the bigger picture. I have even noticed that people are feeling the need to cancel their RSPB memberships of many years, WHY?
Our fossil fuels are slowly running out, depending on what you read this could be anything from 50 to 100 years, this means we need to look for other green ways of producing electricity for our energy needs.
That said, we can't ignore the possible impact that wind farms may have on our bird populations but with careful planning of their location, the risk to birds can be greatly reduced.

The RSPB, who are there to protect our birds, view climate change as the largest threat to wildlife and therefore support a mix of different ways in which we can produce renewable energy. The RSPB have even stated that correctly positioned wind farms have no adverse effects on the bird population. The flip-side of course means badly positioned wind farms can have major impacts on bird populations and have objected to many wind farm applications and will continue to do so. It’s important to remember that the RSPB insist that wind-farm proposals are subject to rigorous environmental assessment before development is permitted. On these grounds they object to approx. 7% of applications.
In terms of the impact on the environment, we need to look beyond the 'now' and try to embrace the idea of renewable energy before it's too late.

Wind-farms are just one form of renewable energy, an example of 'forward thinking' would be Denmark who already get approx. 20% of their electricity from wind power, we in the UK, just 2% ish.Things must change, whether we like it or not our fossil fuels are running out and we need to act now.

There are other options to consider for renewable energy:

* Solar Thermal-to heat water.
* Solar Electricity-Photovoltaic panels that turn solar energy into Electricity.
* Hydropower-Energy potential harnessed from moving water.
* Geothermal-Using the heat from the Earth.
* Nuclear Power-Yes an option but with major risks.

A possible way forward would be to strike a sensible balance of the above options, so we are not overwhelmed by any one!
For me personally, Nuclear Power has too many dangers associated with it, the Chernobyl disaster being a prime example!.Not only that, but the Nuclear waste will remain a threat to our health and environment for thousands of years.

How about some serious proposals from the government, subsidising the installation of solar panels in our homes?
Don't think I'll hold my breath on that one.

For me , the bottom line is that we need to do something about our future energy, fossil fuels can't last forever.It's important to do what we can now to protect our planet and the future of our children.This issue will NOT go away....

We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.

However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced.

...

Generation and demand in an electricity system must be balanced at all times. Traditionally, the balance between demand and supply is managed by flexible generation. On average, the system operator in the UK commits about 600MW of dynamic frequency control, while about 2,400MW of various types of reserve is required to manage the uncertainty over time horizons of the order of 3-4 hours. These values could be significantly changed for the future UK decarbonised electricity systems, considering that renewable generation is both variable and unpredictable.

Statistical analysis of the fluctuations of wind output over the various time horizons in this report show that magnitude of this variation can be significant. The magnitude of wind output variations will also strongly depend upon the time horizon and wind penetration level. Clearly, the magnitude of wind fluctuations increases as the time horizon under consideration becomes longer. Penetration of wind generation will therefore impose additional requirements on the remaining large conventional plant to deliver both the flexibility and reserve necessary to maintain the continuous balance between load and generation, which will inevitably have cost implications.

...the capability of wind energy to replace conventional power plant capacities is diminishing in percentage terms. If some 8% of wind energy output contributes to Germany’s secured total output today, this figure is set to fall to 4 % by 2020 if the predicted expansion of wind power goes as forecast. In concrete terms, this means that wind power plants with a 48,000 MW output will only replace a secured 2,000 MW of thermally generated power – the equivalent of just two new-generation coal blocks.

ESSEN, Germany, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Germany must press on with building up conventional power generation alongside its push for a renewable energy expansion to avoid supply shortfalls and rising prices, German energy agency Dena said on Tuesday.

Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.

...

Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity [0.05%!] was active.