|
muddy knees wrote: Wind technology must play a part in our future but wind farms are just another form of industrial power station.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that statement stands up to scrutiny. Let me start by pointing out that I've spent the best part of ten years studying patterns of energy production and consumption, and spent the decade prior to that working as an industrial systems analyst. Almost without exception (I'm including hydro here; certain geothermal projects provide the exception), all previous "forms of industrial power station" have had a significant negative ecological impact... usually in the form of pollution. Wind farms do not share this rather significant defining feature. This makes them anything but "just another form of industrial power station". To suggest otherwise is misleading.
>
> If we covered the whole of the UK with turbines we
> wouldnt come anywhere near meeting the UK demand.
>
Citation please?
And even if you can provide one, it's still an extremely misleading statement. First off, let's look at "UK demand". Pretty much everyone on this forum (leastways of those who post on this topic) agrees that massive reduction in demand is a key component of any future energy strategy. Indeed that seems to be the cornerstone of your own argument too. Yet you're criticising wind-power for an inability to meet current consumption. Right? Is that deliberate doublethink, or just a failure to think your argument through?
Worse than that, though, is the fact that you are completely ignoring offshore resources. According to every study I've read (point me to one that contradicts this if you can find it), offshore generating capacity alone is equal to between one and three times UK current demand. (*1) And that's without erecting a single wind generator on solid land.
>
> They are not little towers.
>
No argument there.
>
> They are not temporary.
>
Well that's debateable. As a big fan of The Long Now Foundation I tend to think of pretty much everything we do as temporary. But that's a question of perspective I suppose. One thing I would remark on, however, is just how remarkably quickly those massive electricity pylons began to disappear from our landscape when efficient underground cable-laying techniques became available. I can recall travelling around Ireland as a nipper and being utterly captivated by the vast network of overhead power lines. These days electricity pylons are a relatively rare sight.
>
> Some doubt that they would even offset the carbon
> generated required to design, manufacture, install and
> manage them.
>
"Some doubt"? Who? Well, whoever they are they clearly don't know how to undertake basic research. According to a study carried out by the UK Department of Trade & Industry, for instance, "... the average wind farm will pay back this energy [manufacture & installation] within 3-5 months and with a 20-25 year lifetime turbines will produce far more energy than they consume." (*2)
In fact, of 64 studies carried out on windfarms throughout the world, 63 of them reported an ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) of greater than 1 (with a single US study from 1981 reporting an ERoEI of 0.98). The highest, incidentally, was a Danish study in 2000 at the Fjaldene wind farm which reported an ERoEI of 76.92! (*3)
Put that in perspective... crude oil has an ERoEI of between 30 and 90 depending on the well. So anyone who doubts the energy return on windfarms, is doing so from a position of complete ignorance.
>
> Miles of new access roads,
>
Not if they're built on existing farmland or offshore.
>
> hundreds of deliveries from Germany on 'mega-lorries'
> (whatever they are),
>
Not if they're manufactured locally. Or are you saying that building a wind-turbine factory can't be done in Ireland or the UK? If not, why not?
>
> connection to the grid via over-ground pylons...
>
Why not via underground cabling like they do in Denmark? That's just a bizarre objection, frankly.
>
> for something with a projected life-span of less than
> a Nuclear Power station.
>
Hang on! First they're not temporary enough for you. Now they don't last long enough? I don't understand your reasoning at all, mate. Also, how the hell can you complain about wind turbines being trucked in from Germany and then use nuclear power as a counter-example? As I say, we can manufacture them closer to home, but there's sod all we can do about the fact that the uranium mines are all in Africa and Australia.
>
> One 'farm' estimated that the annual CO2 emission savings
> would be in excess of 100,000 tonnes over its lifetime - but
> compare this to the annual emmissions of a typical jumbo jet
> at 520,000 tonnes.
>
So because jumbo jets pump out huge amounts of CO2, the savings made by windfarms are irrelevant? Seems to me that's just an argument against jumbo jets not windfarms.
And again, I think you'll find most of the folks here aren't suggesting that jumbo jets are a good thing.
>
> Its not something that keeps me awake at night necessarily
> - we just need to be talking about it dont we?
>
Absolutely. But could I suggest that when we do talk about it, that we try to do so in an informed manner?
*1
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file17789.pdf
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/energy.htm
http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/offshore/overview.html
*2
http://www.earthpeace.co.uk/Wind/index.html
*3
http://www.eoearth.org/image/Wind_analysis_metadata_table.png
|
