Regular readers will know that I get disturbed by those outdoors people who are against wind power at any cost and in any location. But part of the problem is that we keep having to put up with completely inappropriate and insensitive sites.
Today Steve Perry passed me on this latest campaign against a new set of gigantic wind turbines in the Lakes. According to the campaign these turbines will be seen from many of the most popular peaks in the Lakes.
Wind power is part of the solution but sensitively sited – most probably off shore.
You can read more about it here:
A message from Chris Bonnington is here:
Wow, that’s a tough one. These devices need to be located in spots where they can maximize their efficiency (high winds), be accessible and be located near a distribution grid. The issue would then be, is there an alternative location that is equally efficient that could substitute and cause less visual pollution? I can´t answer that but I wonder if the campaign should focus on that as well, rather than solely on the fact that it’s an eyesore.
If I had to make a choice between windmill generators like this going up in a pristine area vs. construction of standard energy sources (hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, oil…), in a pristine area or not, I’d opt for the windmills. I know it’s harsh yet I’d weigh the urgency for less noxious energy sources outweighs the eyesore effect of these windmills.
They’re not natural, for sure. I don’t consider them ugly, however, and they’re rather quiet given the energy they supply.
There are a few windmill farms scattered around Spain. My initial reaction to them has been one of gratefulness that they’re there rather than grief at them being an eyesore.
The other issue is, why no one talks about reducing energy consumption overall, less electricity consumption, people should be using their cars less, not take cruise ships, be careful about the food they buy (local) and so on.
Tough issue, though.
I’d make the same choice Miguel. But the choice needs to be a sophisticated one. I’m not convinced we need to solve the problem in this way. All my electricity comes from wind turbines, located off the coast of North Wales. There is no visual pollution and very few other problems. In a very small island location is always going to be a problem.
As it happens, the New York Times just published a good article on criticism of wind farms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/business/23wind.html
Interesting article. The problem that the Scandanavian countries have is directly related to a great percentage of wind power. In many ways wind power is like nuclear – you may need to store it. Unlike nuclear there are days when you’re not generating much – although that depends on location,
In the UK we built pump storeage reservoirs to act as giant batteries to ‘store’ excess production from nuclear, We could be using these for wind generation. But that means that wind has to be used as part of a planned, mixed economy of power. Some people worry that in some parts of Scandanavia there is too much of it and that the unreliability of the generating source is too much of a problem.
Here in the UK we are a million miles away from having this problem because our wind base is so small. But it is something to be aware of – though not a reason to ditch wind.
But what really makes the difference – as you’ve said – is minimising usage. We just use too much energy and we are no where near efficient enough here in the UK!
I’ve made enough noise about this on The TGO and OM forums, so I won’t say much here.
I think most people are unable to imagine the mess we’re going to be in if we don’t do adopt renewables now. But I do think we need to strike a balance. I like this quote:
“”Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there, we can also know that we are still a rich nation, tending our resources as we should–not a people in despair searching every last nook and cranny of our land for a board of lumber, a barrel of oil, a blade of grass, or a tank of water.” ….. Senator Clinton P. Anderson
So for me it’s not a “yes” or no “issue”.
By the way Andy, whilst the pumped storage schemes do store energy, I don’t think their purpose is akin to giant batteries. My understanding is that they are there to provide short bursts of energy if needed. They can be producing power much quicker than any conventional power station can get up to speed. More akin to a capacitor than a battery.
I tend to agree John – a preference towards renewable but there has to be balance and sensitivity.
As for the giant battery theory, it is not so much a theory as a direct quote from a former engineer who worked on the Llanberis scheme.
This scheme was pump storage – it pumped water from the bottom lake to the top (usually) during the evening. He explained that one of the reasons it was built was to cope with excess production from the west coast nuclear plants. It was held there and could be released to supplement the grid during periods of high demand. What was interesting though – staying in a Cottage opposite for many weeks – was that often the water was released back down without turning the turbines – it was just taking off excess.
That mechanism could be used to sort out fluctuations in renewable supply I guess.