Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

Just to pre-empt people posting this.

 

Please read this.

 

We believe the wind power resources from MGK10, estimated as 17â€38 TW over land, are low by a factor of up to four due to the unphysical nature of MGK10’s calculations and the fact that such calculations are not comparable with dataâ€derived wind resources. Further, even if MGK10’s wind resources were correct and their scenario realistic, the climate consequences stated by the authors are overestimated by a factor of at least 50â€100. In addition, when their scenario is put in a realistic context whereby wind energy replaces thermal power plants, the effects of wind turbines can only be no net change or a reduction in internal energy added to the atmosphere and a significant reduction in other forcings due to the elimination of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and black carbon (BC) from such power plants.

And also:

 

This study provides inaccurate and misleading information about wind energy and its physical interactions with the atmosphere for the following reasons.

 

First, it states that the amount of power in the wind available for wind energy is 18-68 TW and that the climate effects of extracting all such power is equivalent to doubling carbon dioxide. However, wind power results in no net additional heat to the air since it replaces thermal power plants (coal, nuclear, natural gas), all of which directly add the same or more heat to the air than wind power directly through combustion or radioactive decay. These other sources also add carbon dioxide, which wind energy does not do during its operation. Even nuclear adds carbon dioxide continuously through uranium mining, transport, and refinement and, in its lifecycle, puts out 9-25 more carbon dioxide than wind.

 

Second, even if wind turbines did not replace thermal power plants, the actual heat resulting from converting 18-68 TW of wind power to electricity, which then gets converted to heat is 0.035â€0.13 W/m^2. The radiative heating due to doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2, a factor of 28-106 higher. As such, even if 18-68 TW of the wind’s power were extracted, it would affect temperatures by 28-106 times less than doubling carbon dioxide, not the same amount. However, as stated, wind displaces thermal power plants, so its net heat added to the atmosphere is zero.

 

Third, the world end-use power demand today is 12.5 TW. By 2030, this is expected to grow to 17.9 TW. Converting the world to clean energy and electricity reduces the world power demand in 2030 by 30% to 11.5 TW due to the efficiency of electricity versus thermal combustion. At most, half of this would be powered by wind, resulting in 5.5 TW required, not 18-68 TW. Thus, even if wind power added heat to the air, powering 50% of the world with wind would results in only 1/346th the heating due to doubling carbon dioxide. Again, though, wind adds no heat since it displaces thermal power plants, which directly heat the air the same or more than wind while increasing carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

 

Fourth, a portion of the heat generated by wind energy is converted back to potential and kinetic energy, so not all of it goes to heat. This was not accounted for by the authors.

 

Finally, the authors’ wind resource analysis is not based on physical principles or realistic calculations. It is based on simplistic calculations that are extrapolated over the world and unverified against observations. They significantly underestimate the resources.

[stilldellin]

^^I still canna see whit all the above has to do with the desecration o Shetland by VE !

[MuckleJoannie]

Wind farm efficiency queried by John Muir Trust study

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410

 

Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.

 

The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand.

 

The report, supported by conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said assertions about the ability of wind farms must be challenged.

 

It concluded turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.

[enkelt skapninger]

The John Muir Trust can't be considered as unbiased though.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

Neither can those who are pro VE

[Carlos]

The report itself

http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&nid=JMT-N10561

[ArabiaTerra]

The John Muir Trust are ideologically opposed to large scale windfarms. Yet they offer no alternative to fossil fuel power generation. Their point of view is therefore irrelevant, and so is their propaganda.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

^^ Quote AT...

"Their point of view is therefore irrelevant and so is their propaganda"

And so are you

[Seaflech]

The John Muir Trust are ideologically opposed to large scale windfarms. Yet they offer no alternative to fossil fuel power generation. Their point of view is therefore irrelevant, and so is their propaganda.

 

So to balance that argument, it would be correct to say that the point of view of any group, organisation or individual who is idealogically FOR large scale windfarms is therefore irrelevant, and so is their propaganda.

 

The John Muir Trust are not in the business of finding alternative fuel sources, from their website they seem to exist to protect wild places from damage and development.

 

It is OK to opposed to something without offering another option. I for one am opposed to knife crime, but I wouldn't offer knuckle-dusters as an suitable alternative

[unlinkedstudent]

The John Muir Trust are ideologically opposed to large scale windfarms. Yet they offer no alternative to fossil fuel power generation. Their point of view is therefore irrelevant, and so is their propaganda.

 

With all due respect AT, all views are relevant. Believe it or not, the majority of us have been brought up to believe that democracy exists and that voices will be heard and listened to; especially when compared to other countries. In essence, whilst some politicians may choose to ignore people's views (at their peril), they may well pay for it at election time. Is it not polite to listen to other people's views? I am a great believer in that we learn from each other.

 

Are you therefore saying that people do not have the right to air their views? Might I respectfully suggest you go and look up the meaning of a 'discourse'.

[exciseman]

The John Muir Trust are ideologically opposed to large scale windfarms. Yet they offer no alternative to fossil fuel power generation. Their point of view is therefore irrelevant, and so is their propaganda.

 

Are you therefore saying that people do not have the right to air their views? Might I respectfully suggest you go and look up the meaning of a 'discourse'.

 

While he's got the dictionary open he couald also look up 'zealot' and 'alarmist'.

[JustMe]

The John Muir Trust exists to protect the remaining wild environment within this country. Yes they have a policy on renewable energy schemes (not just windfarms) and I am sure that they would also have a policy against coal, oil or nuclear schemes in wild areas but it is not really their remit to say what alternatives to fossil fuel power generation might be best. Indeed I am sure within their membership views range from massive nuclear plants close to the cities that use most of the power down to all prisoners having to work 8 hours a day on a treadmill.

[Graeme_Storey]

..... down to all prisoners having to work 8 hours a day on a treadmill.

NOW you are talking

[Gaepshot]

..... down to all prisoners having to work 8 hours a day on a treadmill.

NOW you are talking

Instead of sentencing someone to years in prison they could be sentenced to kilo watt hours!

[paulb]

strangley the total plants peat disturbance has shot up and now they are planing to dig an hillside up to run their pipes. strangly sustanible have not made a sound.