Wind power

[Earthling]

Hi, kiddos

For the first time in a long time, the interweb godz have allowed me back into the monastery. I trust everyone is well and happy.

At my job, I'm pretty heavily involved with grid-scale windpower projects. They are pretty controversial up here, at least among a certain portion of the population who are convinced that windpower will be the end of civilization as we know it. These projects can be pretty impressive. I had some preliminary discussions about a project the other day, that if it goes through to completion will have over 60 turbines at 3MW each. The towers would be around 90 meters tall, and the blades would add another 50 meters or so to that at the top of the circle. This is fairly typical of the projects that are coming in these days, though the number of turbines is highly variable. Complaints typically center on visual impacts, noise, and environmental impacts, with environmental impacts further divided into bird and bat mortality and forest canopy/topography alterations.

I'm curious to learn how you folks view these projects. There are something like 165,000 functioning grid-scale turbines worldwide, with more going up almost daily. They are pricey to construct, but cheap to operate. They don't pollute while generating electricity. (arg, I'm biting my tongue here) I don't want to go into detail about the way we look at these projects from a regulatory standpoint or anything else, because I don't want to color your views with any of my inside knowledge. I'd like to get as much information as I can about how they are perceived by rational people around the world (that's you guys) as opposed to the single-topic screamers that I get at work.

Anyhow, I'll greatly appreciate any feedback, and I'll try to answer any questions you might have about these things.

[Griffin NoName]

Good to see you Earthling.

I am in favour of windpower and not too bothered about the landscape as we spoil that with so much other stuff anyway. But I realise I don't really know anything much about them. So maybe you know something that if I knew would change my mind. ?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Being a fan of renewables, I have looked a bit into it (although not as much as I would like, see, not that much wind inland in FL) and it would seem that the only downsides are related to bats/birds and the classic NIMBY issues, which I find almost ludicrous when you compare it with coal, or worse, nuclear power. I know that the price per watt has come down enough to be competitive with fossil fuels in the medium/long term and that a few studies have come out lately reviewing the potential impact on wind patterns if large scale implementation occurs (no impact). I even read a blurb in Scientific American in which there was a hint that if the towers were painted black there would be far less impacts with bats.

What the actual ecological impact with birds/bats would be if large scale happens is a legitimate question but we're talking millions of squared kilometers planted with turbines, and I imagine that both solar thermal and photovoltaics will be part of the solution (price per watt is higher and waste pollution problems a bit higher with those), plus where will those wind farms be located.

Considering that a) the impact of fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater, and b) it will take decades for the energy cartels to allow massive implementation, I believe that while those considerations are valid, they don't really apply to the short/medium term.

[Earthling]

As with most things, the more I learn about these projects, the more questions I have. They do kill birds and bats - but no one really seems to know how many. They make electricity, but not at 100% of their capacity, since wind is variable. They don't actually replace coal/oil/gas fired generation, but they probably help offset the need for new plants to keep up with growth in demand. They are subsidized by the government, but the money spent subsidizing big wind is a fraction of the money spent subsidizing the incredibly profitable oil companies. To build them, it is necessary to cut down a bunch of trees and build roads - but logging does that in spades up here. The pads and foundations have to be pinned to ledge, which requires blasting and leveling some area around each turbine - but large-scale metal mining (and even good old granite quarries) do that at much larger scales. They make noise - but so do ATVs and snowmobiles and chain saws. They certainly are visible on the landscape. Some people like the way they look, some don't, others don't care.

So, I suppose I might know something that might turn your view around, but chances are it would be a two-sided coin, and you'd have to balance a gain against an adverse effect.

[Swatopluk]

One medium term problem is that they need a much more extensive electrical grid than the classic fossil fuel plants.  The literal volatility of wind power can even out over large areas but only if the power generated can be reliably distributed over the same area. The grid must be dense and requires intelligent handling. The US are decades behind even Europe on that.

[Sibling DavidH]

I live a kilometre from a long, high slope which forms the 'horizon' of the lovely view from my house.  If they do start putting the dreaded turbines in our area, that'll be one of the first places.  Nobody here wants the damned things.  OK, call me a nimby, but why vandalise the landscape with these monstrosities which take FSM knows how much energy to make, for minor and doubtful benefits?

Not far from us is the Severn Estuary, which is the perfect site for tidal generation on a really major scale; they say 5% of the country's needs. Predictable, reliable, constant output.  No government has ever gone for it because they're frightened of the huge initial outlay, plus the bunny-huggers will start ranting.  So we get these bloody windmills because politicians can build them cheap and everyone can see that they're doing something.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One of the solutions to several if the issues of wind power, is to locate these well offshore-- not so far as to be beyond the continental shelf areas, but far enough that they are not that big a deal, visibility-wise. 

By locating them out there, they get pretty constant trade-winds coming onshore (or blowing offshore, as the seasons progress).   

Furthermore, the majority of birds, and all bats (AFAIK) , are coastal critters, preferring the tidal areas to feed on-- too close for these projects.

And finally, being so far offshore, you cannot hear them at all, over the waves hitting the beach.    About the only complaint, would be fishing boats would have to avoid them-- but how hard could that be?  With modern tools, any fishing boat worth it's salt has some sort of radar or sonar gear, either of which would bounce a lovely signal off these things, letting the captains easily avoid them.  More over, the ocean is huge, and there just wouldn't be that many turbines in comparison.

[Swatopluk]

Around here offshore installations can still be in the path of birds since both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (and the Mediterranean at least in parts) get crossed by swarms of them during yearly migration.
And offshore installations cost significantly more both in installation and maintenance.

Btw, the typical bird/bat death is not caused by them getting hit by the blades but by the turbulences trailing the tips. The sudden pressure changes can cause fatal lung and tissue damage.

Personally, I just want the next wind turbine to be far enough away that I don't get hit in case of a crash. Otherwise I am flexible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW2OLoth4

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The problem with offshore is that the cost of laying down a power grid for those towers is incredibly high (BTW, tidal is incredibly expensive to implement for similar reasons). The truth is that massive implementation isn't pretty, but then again, a large coal or gas plant isn't a pretty sight either. On that end self generation using both smaller turbines and photovoltaics is significantly more palatable for the NIMBY crowd.

The reality is that energy demand is always going up and some places will be used for energy generation regardless of what kind of power is used, no one living in the vicinity will like it, but more plants will go up regardless, usually in places where lower income people lives, in which case it is drastically better for their health to have wind turbines around than a coal or a nuclear plant around.

[Griffin NoName]

I think I heard we (UK) have more offshore than any other country. No stats on birds killed or knowledge of distribution.

Anyway, Boris wants a Thames Estuary Airport which will kill more birds, and people if the birds get into the engines, or propellors or whateverer (I''ve forgotten).

[Earthling]

There are both offshore and tidal projects under review at work right now. Tidal looks promising on the face of it, but there are potential issues with fishing vessels and with "bottom rights" claimed by lobstermen. Offshore wind, as Zono and Swatopluk point out, is pricey and inconvenient. Risks to bats are eliminated for the most part (I am unaware of any migrating bats that cross oceans), but birds are still at risk. Typically regulators are only concerned with species that are either endangered or economically significant, and I'm not up on the prominence of those species offshore, as I have not been involved in the offshore project yet (though I'm sure that will change). Tidal power generation has huge potential, due to its predictability and to the much larger amount of energy available in a given volume of moving water. If the pilot project can demonstrate that the hardware is durable and reliable, we will probably have several megawatts of generation on line by 2017 or so, and if they can sort out the fishermen, significantly more by 2025.

DavidH, I'm struck by the intensity of your reaction. Wind turbines are damned, dreaded, bloody monstrosities. Is it just the potential visual impact that gets your blood up? I'm pretty sure that a location within 1 km of a turbine is going to be protected somehow, most likely by noise regulation, and possibly by a physical safety setback requirement as well. Our regulations for physical setback require a minimum of 1.5x(maximum turbine height) setback from property lines and publicly accessible areas. Noise is regulated based on modeled sound pressure at protected locations (like your house). Typically, in the mountainous areas I deal with, noise levels attenuate to below allowable standards within half a mile or less. However in my experience, wind turbines don't make enough noise to disturb me, even right up next to them. Of course, I lived basically under a runway at Logan International Airport for five or six years, so I'm pretty used to tolerating loud noise.

At any rate, I'm wondering if you are the only one here who lives in a place where you might end up seeing some of these from your front yard? Are there city-dwellers here who don't consider the visual impact because compared to a city, these things are a minor to nonexistent scenic blight? Also, from a lay perspective, what sources do you consult for information about wind turbines? Are any of you already impacted by them?

[Griffin NoName]

I'm in a city so not really affected. In the rare occasions I see one, I rather like it. If there are several, I rather like the look of them. As you said, people differ on this.

I wonder if people objected to sight of the first castles built on top of hills?

[Sibling DavidH]

DavidH, I'm struck by the intensity of your reaction. Wind turbines are damned, dreaded, bloody monstrosities.

That's the attitude of most folks around here.  We see them nearby, eg just over the border in Wales, and we do not want them here.  They're horribly ugly and stick out like a sore thumb - you can't ignore them.

If they were clearly a useful asset, I suppose more people would grudgingly accept them.  As it is, add up all the CO₂ generated in making and installing the things, plus the extra power lines and so on - they probably won't save that much in their working lifetimes.  Anyway, a conventional station has to run all the time to back them up.

We have plenty of reliable streams high in the mountains which could each drive a Pelton wheel.  We have plenty of sites for tidal generators and for slow turbines in the rivers. Even in the UK we can do a lot with solar power. So why these wind things?  Politicians go for cheap'n'easy fixes which can be seen operating, and now there's a big industry with a stake in producing them.

I'd be surprised if you'd find a politician whose country home gets blighted by wind "farms".

[Swatopluk]

I am a big city dweller too but in the surrounding country there are a lot of installations. I might limit my approval slightly by saying that I like them when there are a few here and a few there, so they become part of the landscape. A windfarm 'monoculture' would be something different, at least if one would have to dwell near them. A long line or a small cluster can bring some excitement to a boring scenery (and the North German plain can be extremly dreary, esp. on cloudy days), a large area plastered with regular rows side by side like a parade is a different thing.

[Bluenose]

HI Earthling, good to see you here again!

I don't mind the look of wind turbines and I am highly suspicious of the claims of health effects caused by the low frequency sound they make.  However, one of my concerns is that I don't think the whole of life costs of these units has been done.  The cost benefit ratios I have seen always work on the assumption that once up they will stray up.  However, they are mechanical devices and like all other mechanical devices they will from time to time break down.  At least over here, none of the costings I have seen seem to make any allowance for repairs and maintenance.  Similarly what happens when they reach end of life?  As I understand it, wind turbines have a useful life of about 25 years.  What happens then?  Finally my main objection is to those who claim that wind power can provide base load power.  This is arrant nonsense as the wind does not blow continuously or at the same rate all the time.  Renewable energy is a great idea and I do believe we need to move to a much greater proportion of our power from renewable sources, but many of the proposed ideas have very serious environmental impact of their own which we need to take properly into account.  Tidal power, like hydro power can have major impacts on aquatic ecosystems.  Photo voltaic power has some not particularly eco-friendly process in its manufacture, wind power has some issues with visual amenity and potential direct adverse effects on bird migrations - although scientific testing in Australia ahas show that the impact here is mild.  In the end, as unpalatable as it may seem, I think the only available long term energy source may well be thermonuclear, in effect harnessing the power of the sun directly down here on earth.  I had hoped that we would have achieved sustained fusion by now, but it seems not much closer than it did 40 years ago.  Oh well...