Given the possible scenarios, system-wide carbon emissions offsets are likely to be miniscule throughout most of the nation’s grids. The Electric Power Research Institute in California affirmed this circumstance, agreeing that it is technically incorrect to assume that wind energy will displace fossil generated power and decrease CO2 emissions on a kWh for kWh basis. Its report concludes that in a real operating situation, because large- scale storage of electricity is not possible, any CO2 saving will be small.

Consider an analogy between the internal combustion automobile and a hypothetical windmobile. The auto has a Capacity Factor of about 25%, limited by a combination of operator choice (people generally don’t drive them 24 hours a day each day of the year) and by the need for ongoing maintenance and continual refueling. However, when it is asked to work, it will do so with a high rate of reliability—99.9% of the time. This is its Capacity Value.

Contrast this with the windmobile, which one can never be sure if it will start or not. If that wouldn’t be annoying enough, most of the time its speed lurches between extremes, often stopping without warning. And if the windmobile became popular (due to substantial federal and state financial incentives), there would soon be an array of traffic accommodations created to enable it, such as requiring a host of new traffic controls and patterns, not to mention the borrowed cars, buses, taxis, and late appointments involved in going hither and yon. This activity corresponds to the way the grid is increasingly called upon to provide special means to integrate wind’s unreliable volatility.

A 1600MW coal plant produces a reliable, steady stream of 1600MW day and night throughout the year. It is also contained within a relatively small area and can be equipped with scrubbers to eliminate most noxious emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and mercury. Contrast this with a wind plant consisting of 2650 turbines, each rated at 2.0MW stretched out for hundreds of miles, delivering a skittering annual average of 1600MW based upon a 30% Capacity Factor—but producing no Capacity Value.

Although the annual energy contribution of the two facilities would be equivalent on paper, the wind plant could never replace the coal plant in terms of its capacity. In fact, one should ask how many such wind facilities must be built to equal the Effective Capacity of that single coal plant. Or any conventional generating plant. And then one should ask about the thermal implications, as well as the environmental consequences, of such a vast enterprise.

The essence of “green” technology is that it strives to leave no trace. Wind is not a “leave no trace” technology. The premise behind the idea of whether we should have wind installations instead of conventional generation is badly skewed. Better to ask whether we should have phlogiston instead of oxygen in the air we breathe. Wind is a supernumerary producer of electricity enabled because the slap and tickle of wind propaganda flatters the gullible, exploits the well intentioned, and nurtures the craven. It is made possible because there’s no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace.

Download “Why Wind Won’t Work”

11 The most important consideration for the future electricity supply has to be security of that supply. …

12 Security of supply implies firm generation capacity with a margin above the peak (winter) demand. The firm generation is supplied by baseload power stations (such as nuclear) and despatchable (controlled by the grid) power (such as coal, gas and certain renewables such as hydro-electric — including pumped-storage schemes such as Dinorwig). Neither on-shore nor off-shore wind power stations contribute significantly to the security of supply because the electricity is intermittent, unpredictable and embedded on the grid (not despatchable). Invariably peak winter demand occurs during extreme cold weather when a high pressure system settles across northern Europe and drags in cold continental air with little wind. Even with wind turbines distributed widely across the UK, under these low wind conditions, little electricity would be generated by wind turbines. …

15 In answer to your second issue, the barriers to greater deployment of wind power stations are suitable on-shore sites, supply of wind turbine components and shortage of equipment needed for off-shore construction. In addition, serious planning issues confront on-shore wind power stations. These include the visual (landscape) and other environmental impacts, military objections (radar interference) and more recently the effect from the current large wind turbines (heights in excess of 100m) of noise and its consequential health impact. …

17 I now turn in greater detail to the technological concerns with wind turbines. As a physicist, it offends my learning, experience and intelligence to attempt to produce electricity on a large scale from wind power. This is for four reasons. Firstly, because of the very low energy density of wind (the energy per volume of moving air): For comparison and in round terms, the energy density of moving water is about 1,000 times as great, that of fossil fuels (coal, oil, liquefied gas) is about 1 billion times as great and that of nuclear is about 1 million billion times as great. Thus wind turbines have to be enormous to capture a useful amount of energy. [emphasis added] Secondly, because the power of the wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed, the electrical output is very sensitive to the wind speed. Thirdly, because of the variability of the wind, wind turbines only produce electricity at about 25% to 30% of their rated output (capacity or load factor). Fourthly, because of the intermittency and unpredictability of wind, the electricity production bears no relation to the demand for electricity. In summary, wind turbines are enormous, produce a pathetically small amount of electricity, intermittently, unpredictably and not when it is most required. [emphasis added]

18 The CO2 emissions saved by wind turbines have been calculated based on the CO2 emissions from displaced plant (coal and gas-fired power stations). A consensus figure of 430 kg/MWh is currently used. However, this figure is only part of the equation needed to calculate the CO2 emissions saved. Also to be included in the equation are the CO2 emissions resulting from the manufacture and construction of the turbine (estimated by various people at the equivalent of between several months to many years of operation — the payback period); the electricity losses down the low voltage distribution line to the consumers (estimated at between 5% and 15% of the electricity generated, due to the long distance as the result of the remoteness of many turbines); and the CO2 emissions produced by conventional power stations operating very inefficiently on standby (and burning fuel) ready as backup to meet the electricity demand when the wind drops. Evidence from Denmark and Germany suggests that CO2 emissions savings from the use of wind turbines are at best small and at worst, they may actually lead to an increase in CO2 emissions. [emphasis added]

19 Although the wind is a renewable source of energy, wind turbines can only operate on the grid in conjunction with backup generation to ensure demand is met when the wind fails. For this reason, it has been claimed that wind-generated electricity cannot be classed as renewable.

20 Because of the intermittency and unpredictability of the wind and thus of the electricity generated by wind turbines, wind turbines cannot replace a significant number of conventional power stations. Thus wind turbines are being constructed as a secondary source of electricity. In essence, the consumer is paying for two sets of electricity generation; the conventional despatchable power stations, necessary to meet demand at all times and wind turbines which operate only when the wind blows and which then displace despatchable power stations.

21 Wind turbines are usually connected to the low voltage distribution grid, rather than the high voltage transmission grid to which conventional power stations are connected. Wind-generated [power] is embedded on the grid as it is not despatchable and cannot be controlled. The national Grid was designed so that electricity flows from the power stations on the efficient high voltage transmission lines and is transformed (stepped) down progressively on the distribution grid to consumers. Thus electricity flows one way and by the most efficient route. However, embedded electricity can flow the wrong way if there is not sufficient downstream demand. This can cause grid problems.

22 Electricity cannot be stored on the grid and grid voltage and frequency are maintained in tight margins to protect sensitive equipment. This is not normally a problem, the grid having operated successfully for over 60 years. This is because demand is accurately predictable and despatchable power sources of various response times are available to match the grid. However, with increasing amounts of intermittent and unpredictable embedded generation on the grid, control becomes increasingly more difficult. This can lead to grid failure and collapse as has happened recently across a large part of Europe and in Texas.

23 In answer to your sixth issue, because of the low energy density of wind and the large separation distance required between individual turbines, the area of land affected by wind power stations is proportionally greater than that of traditional power stations. For example 100m tall wind turbines of 2MW rated power need to be spaced several hundred metres apart and not close to dwellings and roads. Thus except in remote areas, about four wind turbines can be accommodated per square kilometre of land. This is not dissimilar to the figure for nuclear power stations or gas-fired power stations. For comparison purposes, and taking into account capacity (or load factors), the land area covered by a wind power station of the same energy output as a nuclear power station would be about 2000 times as great (or an area of land 20km by 25km would be covered by wind turbines to produce the same electrical output as one nuclear power station occupying an area of land 500m square). Furthermore, the wind turbines are of greater height and rotate so that their visual impact is amplified. A considerable infrastructure in terms of possibly improved roads and access tracks is required for wind turbines. In addition, the wind turbines provide few if any jobs in the district, and possibly destroy employment due to the loss of tourism-related business. …

These external costs in terms of environmental and other impacts should be compared in terms of benefits and disbenefits for each technology on a like-for-like basis … The like-for-like basis must be in terms of energy output (i.e. MWh, GWh or TWh of electricity generated per year) rather than installed capacity (MW). Thus, for example the benefits and disbenefits of a nuclear power station of 1600MW rating with a capacity factor of 90% producing 12.6TWh of electricity per year should be compared with a wind power station consisting of 2880 2MW turbines with a capacity factor of 25% also producing 12.6TWh of electricity per year. …

Dr P A W Bratby
15th May 2008

Download “Evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee inquiry into ‘The Economics of Renewable Energy’”

“Conclusions: It seems probable that there are two distinct mechanisms in operation to create amplitude modulation. The first is swish which is a function of the observer’s position relative to one turbine. The second is thump which is due to turbine blades passing through uneven air velocities as they rotate. In the second case the uneven air may be due to interaction of other turbines, excessive wind shear or topography. These two mechanisms are entirely separate though it is possible that they interact.”

Download “Amplitude Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise”

Two turbines were destroyed by lightning in April.

A member of Higasi-izu town assembly took these photos.

He said there was plywood in the blades (which can be see in the photos). In general it is said that wind turbine blades are made of fiber-reinforced polymer. But in fact these are made with plywood inside.

The turbines were made in Germany or Denmark (not Japan).

[The blades were made by LM Glasfiber, and the wood is probably balsa.]

‘Apart from being rational, the arguments used in a debate should also be underpinned by numbers. And it speaks for itself that no disadvantage of the use of windturbines should be concealed. The following story is a discussion on the main questions that play a role when appraising windturbines, which are their characteristics, the benefits and their serious disadvantages which, sadly enough, are often purposefully hidden.’

Download “Windenergy: the whole truth”

Download “Windmolens en wat meestal verzwegen wordt”

Go to: windenergy-the-truth.com, wind-energie-halkema.org

“In case of a fire during an uncontrolled operation, do under no circumstances approach the turbine. Evacuate and rope off the turbine in a radius of minimum 400m (1300ft).”

View: “Vestas Safety Regulations for Operators and Technicians: V90-3.0MW/V100-2.75MW, page 3″

Download complete “Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual: V90–3.0 MW, VCRS 60 Hz”

Sirs,

Following the consultation that you asked for, here is the estimate that we propose for the dismantling and demolition of wind turbines in the commune of Saint Etienne de Lugdares.

The dismantling and demolition require the presence on site of:

• One 700-tonne crane and two 50-tonne cranes.
• A Copex CVM 500 metal press and shredder.
• A team of five people for 30 working days for unbolting, blow-torching, and shredding the metal parts.
• Class II disposal of the nonrecyclable parts of the turbine. The nearest disposal site appears to be in Bellegarde.

The recoverable iron remains in our possession.

The total for an operation of this scope comes to 900,000 Euros [c. US$1,350,000] before taxes. The company that we would give the work order to must be assured of timely payment for the operation. A deposit of 30% will be required to start.

Our price is for a wind turbine of 3 megawatts. If there are several turbines of the same type to dismantle at the same time, the price may be reduced because of the presence already of the 700-tonne crane.

This price applies for the year 2008 and concerns only those wind turbines situated in the commune near the city. Demolition of the concrete footings is not considered in this estimate. [emphasis added]

This estimate does not take into account expenses engendered by obligations imposed on us by the DDE [infrastructure department] for the route or for setting up the various materials on the site. These expenses would be in addition to the stated estimate.

We remain at your service, for more information, and we ask that you accept, sirs, our sincere greetings.

J. Malafosse
President
Saint-Pierre S.A.S.

Télécharger/Download “Devis pour la démontage et la démolition des éoliennes”

Thanks to Fédération Environnement Durable for providing this document.

Download “Electric industry terms”

Download “Some Facts About Energy & Wind Power”