Slashdot Log In
World's Largest Wind Farm Gets Green Light
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:39 AM
from the a-windy-tomorrow dept.
from the a-windy-tomorrow dept.
cliffski writes "According to the BBC website the UK govt has just given the go ahead to two large offshore wind-farm projects.
Between them the schemes would produce enough renewable electricity to power about one million households.
The larger London Array project covers 144 sq miles (232 sq km) between Margate in Kent and Clacton, Essex and will be the world's biggest when it is completed. The £1.5bn scheme will have 341 turbines rising from the sea about 12 miles (20km) off the Kent and Essex coasts, as well as five offshore substations and four meteorological masts"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
144 mi^2 !=232 km^2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:144 mi^2 !=232 km^2 (Score:5, Funny)
It was invented solely for the purposes of this article, and has yet to reach widespread use.
Parent
144 mi^2 != 103.5 mi^2 (Score:3, Informative)
The larger London Array project covers 90 sq miles (232 sq km) between Margate in Kent and Clacton, Essex.
The second wind farm, called the Thanet scheme, will cover 13.5 sq miles (35 sq km) off the north Kent coast.
I'd call it 103.5 sq miles (267 sq km).
"renewable" energy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know which is worse... the use of the term "renewable" (from an energy/mass-there-is-only-so-much-of-it point of view) or the use of the term "renewable" when you're talking about wind. The tides aren't renewable. Geothermal isn't renewable. Solar isn't renewable. These are all forms of energy that are simply used.
Trees are renewable. Oil is renewable (um, if you're really patient). How can we expect to get people to think more critically
Re:"renewable" energy? (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, language is about communication, and requires transmitter and receiver to agree on the meanings of symbols/words. "Renewable energy" is a well recognised term, and does its communciation job perfectly well, even if it doesn't quite match your idea of what "renewable" means. "Kick the bucket" similarly communicates an idea, despite having a meaning unrelated to do with kicking or buckets.
Secondly, the word "renewable" is entirely justifiable in "renewable energy". It refers to energy souces which are constantly renewed, so that extracting energy from them depletes the source only for a short period of time (months or years for hydroelectric, hours for tidal, possibly minutes or hours for wind.)
Finally, why should it be that harnessing solar power by photosynthesis is renewable, but harnessing it by photoelectric cell is not?
Parent
Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a MW output. That's a specific number that can be compared to other forms of electric generation.
Is that one million homes in the late spring (mildest time of year), when no one is running a/c or heat?
Or is that one million homes in the middle of summer when whole power grids collapse from the strain?
Specifics please.
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:4, Informative)
How about a MW output.
1.3GW according to the Register article.
Parent
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This should mean that the new media mesurement of 1Hp (House power) is equal to 1.33KW peak power....
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:5, Informative)
> be compared to other forms of electric generation.
According to the Register, it's 1.3GW
> Or is that one million homes in the middle of summer when
> whole power grids collapse from the strain?
You are confusing US power requirements with UK. Vast majority of UK homes don't have A/C so you don't see that massive summer energy consumption spike, in fact quite the reverse, with fewer houses needing heat and daylight from 6am-10pm (give or take) the electricity requirements in the UK typically drop during the summer.
Parent
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is that a wealthy and educated country like America sees air-conditioning as the solution to being too hot and not quadruple glazing. Insulation keeps you cool too (and makes it cheaper to run said air-conditioning if nothing else).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, the first thing I did when I bought my new house was to put another layer of insulation in the attic, and get a quote for having
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:4, Interesting)
In Georgia, however, the nights are almost as miserable as the days because the humidity in the air traps the heat...it's literally like a sauna...and leaving your AC off for hours means it has to work harder to cool things back off when you finally cave in and turn it on. It's probably still a net savings, but in July I don't even consider it.
I'm always interested in better insulation...The house has too many damn windows though, and I'm not planning on living there long enough to make my money back on replacing them, which is an issue. I've still done a few, but it's ~200.00 per window, not counting installation, so I'm not in any hurry.
Parent
Re:Such specific numbers, blah. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At high altitudes in AZ, you can get away with passive cooling if you have excellent insulation. You can open the doors and windows at night, and close them during the day, and keep your house livable. At low altitudes like Phoenix, however (~1500'), that's a fool's e
Mobile Farms (Score:5, Interesting)
Barges covered with solar cells. And reverse-gyroscopes that generate power from waves and currents. They anchor landmines, don't they?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, maybe you should have read the submission text, let alone the article. Let me quote for you:
According to the BBC website ehe UK govt has just given the go ahead to two large offshore wind-farm projects
Offshore, meaning, you know, not on land. On the water.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tides (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tides (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately I think most devices capabale of turning tidal energy into electricity tend to need to be built on a pretty large scale to worth while and this tends to totally destroy the eco systems in the immediate vicinity.
At least that is what I learned in Geograpgy lessons 15 years ago so things may have moved on since then !
Parent
Re:Tides (Score:4, Interesting)
There is tidal power being generated in the Bay of Fundy, there has been a 20MW generator operating for the last 20 years. However, it is expensive (operating in salt water isn't the most friendly enviromnent), and expanding it would put a large strain on the ecosystem.
This isn't a lot of power though. 20 large windmills could produce the same or more power, for much less cost. Incidentally, Nova Scotia, which borders half of the Bay of Fundy, has some of the world's strongest and most consistent winds.
Parent
The Problem with Wind Energy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not when the wind turbines are in different places
and unlikely to match demand
Cold winds -> lots of electricity to heat houses. Plus, UK houses can turn their heating on and off when the electricity company sends them a radio signal, which means you can modify the demand whenever you want.
Essentially, this means that wind farms have to be backed up with other, reliable, fast-switching power sources.
Like Dinorwig power station? (hydroelectric,
Wind power NOT significantly harmful to birds (Score:3, Informative)
Rather birds tend to fly into ordinary power lines and die. Climate change and pollution are also big threats to birds as other wildlife too, and their effect is often global.
Furthermore, bird enthusiasts even in America are supporting wind power, here is a link to a statement from the Audubon Society:
http://personals.salon.com/blog/1976/post_32241.h
It's one of the perpetual myths against wind power that surface every time the public discusses about it, I was sure it'd pop up here on slashdot...
Now just waiting about the "will the turbines ever recoup their construction energy cost?" (They will in a few months.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many environmentalists do! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see the blades spinning...
Parent
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, when you look at the numbers overall, turbine birdstrikes are not much of an issue at all.
Parent
Re:The question nobody's asked. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_i
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The question nobody's asked. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*breathes*
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:4, Insightful)
Typically in order to find out what the Unintended Consequences are things have to be built first, and while wind farms aren't exactly new neither are they common. As with most things the more widespread they become the more effort will be focused on correcting whatever problems they have.
A friend and I had a similar discussion about cell phone towers while hunting this weekend. He was complaining that the woodcock population has been down lately, and I mentioned that one factor might be the continued proliferation of cell phone towers in our area. Towers were going up with solid beacon lights that screwed up the navigation systems of some migratory birds. A simple change to blinking beacons seems to be fixing the problem. Of course we had to find piles of woodcocks dead around cell phone towers before we even knew it was necessary.
Parent
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:5, Informative)
Mans activity contributes to a vast number of bird deaths every year:
In December of 2002, the report "Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin" was released. The study was completed by Robert Howe and Amy Wolf of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, and William Evans. Their study covered a two-year period between 1999 and 2001, in the area surrounding the 31 turbines operating in Kewaunee County by Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E) and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) Corporation.
The report found that over the study period, 25 bird carcasses were found at the sites. The report states that "the resulting mortality rate of 1.29 birds/tower/year is close to the nationwide estimate of 2.19 birds/tower.16- The report further states, "While bird collisions do occur (with commercial wind turbines) the impacts on global populations appear to be relatively minor, especially in comparison with other human-related causes of mortality such as communications towers, collisions with buildings, and vehicles collisions."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm much more curious to know the impact to the waters. Hundreds of pillars built into the sea floor might affect sea life or water currents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the climate effects of sucking that much energy out of the wind?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power [wikipedia.org]
"An estimated 1% to 3% of energy from the Sun that hits the earth is converted into wind energy. This is about 50 to 100 times more energy than is converted into biomass by all the plants on Earth through photosynthesis." This gives you an idea of the scale.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, wait, I know what you're going to say, but it's obvious that youtube video was a fake.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about our fine feathered friends? (Score:4, Funny)
NO TERRIER
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative energy solution is "all of the above", solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, etc, etc, all of it in total. There will probably not be any one solution any time soon, we need the combination of vastly more energy efficient buildings and vehicles (really the number one place we should be working on) combined with alternate sources of energy combined with the traditional energy sources. That's the only silver bullet. Backyard mr. fusion is here if you recognize that the Sun works, it just works, and it is our only practical fusion power. Solar PV, Solar thermal, biofuels, and wind are all mostly factors of the Sun's output. If you are waiting for man-made ITER type reactors to save you you'll be shivering in a cold dark house for decades to come. Not to say we shouldn't still try and develop it, but reality indicates we need solutions to start now, not wait until it hits OMG crisis mode.
Parent
Wind farms are part of an answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why so many people (in particular Americans for some reason) feel that such a complex issue as energy supply need a single source as an answer. Some even dismiss all discussion of conservation with the "argument" that you can't totally eliminate the need of energy that way. Even though just going to EU/Japan level of conservation would eliminate 50% of the energy consumption. Maybe it is because people have been brought up in a world where only answers that can be expressed as sound bites are considered relevant by the media.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. Obviously we've been building windfarms on too small a scale up until this point. It's about time we fully embraced the technology and started building windfarms that can provide a comparable percentage of electricity needs. Let's get out of this "little windfarm" box and start making them the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry - the windmills aren't actually that efficient, nor do they cover a large percentage of vertical cross-section. They're spaced quite a bit apart and aren't that tall, vertically speaking. Chances are they don't end up being more disruptive to air currents than, say, the skyscrapers in NYC. And the weather in Brooklyn isn't *that* different than in the rest of the region.
-b.