How Wind Turbines Increase Global Warming

Below, using some peer reviewed data I hope to show you why an Industrial Wind Turbine, replacing coal plant, will actually increase Global Warming for well beyond the lifespan of the Industrial Wind Turbine itself.

First of all, just to be nice, we are going to assume that some highly dubious pro-wind propaganda is true.

We will assume a turbine has a productive life of 25 years.
We will assume that it directly offsets coal plant on a one-for one basis.
We will assume it needs no spinning reserve at all.
We will totally forget about the concrete/Neodymium mining/ steel/fibreglass/copper etc.
We will ignore the methane ( a strong greenhouse gas) that gets released from disturbed peat bogs where IWT's are sometimes placed.

Most of all we will completely forget about the environmental damage to wildlife. We will also totally ignore those pesky Human Beings who think they have a right to have a say about what gets built near them (Nimbys - damn them all!)

For those of you who are either falling about laughing or about to burst a blood vessel at this point, please bear with me and read on.

At this point we need to bring in the current ruckous over shale gas.

The data here I use here is taken from this paper: Coal To Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage by Tom L. Wigley of the (U.S.A) National Center for Atmospheric research.

The main thrust of Wigleys research was to study what effect different rates of Methane loss (rogue methane) would have on a coal to gas conversion. His initial paper dealt with only a 50% coal replacement over 50  year period with a linear rate of replacement. The electronic suppliment dealt with a much more drastic changeover where coal was totally replaced by gas in 50 years.

The surprising outcome from this research is that in the first 40 -60 years or so, as gas replaces coal the main driver of global warming is the reduction in Aerosols emmitted from coal plant. A primary constituent of coal Aerosols is Sulphur Dioxide which is a very potent anti-greenhouse gas. So the removal of the aerosols actually increases global warming. It is only after about 60 years before the reduction in Carbon Dioxide overwhelms this warming.

The best graph to illustrate the problem is actually in the electronic supplement to this paper (see graph ESM2) This graph assumes total replacement of coal with gas over 50 years.

This is the graph (the top half refers only to proposed global temperature increase and is irrelevent here)

Notice with Natural Gas there are three issues surrounding it's affect on Global warming:

1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) reduction by displacing coal (causes reduction)
2. Seepage of Methane (CH4) from either pipes or wells. (causes increase)
3. Reduction of Aerosols (mainly Sulphur Dioxide SO2) by replacing coal. (causes increase)

You can see this clearly on the left hand portion of the above graph. While this graph includes rogue methane from natural gas, clearly, even when you take the methane out of the picture the net affect  on progressively replacing Coal plant for any non sulphurous generating plant for the first 40-60 years will be an increase in Global Warming.

Let us replace the Gas for Industrial Wind Turbines.

(We will ignore IWT peat bog methane release - although we shouldn't)

Over the 25 year life time of our idealised super Industrial Wind Turbine, these will be no reduction in Global Warming from a decrease in Carbon Dioxide generation at all. But over the same period, the reduction in Sulphur Dioxide emissions from the replaced coal plant will cause a much higher and significant rise on Global Warming.

This is true for Gas, Nuclear, Hydro, Wind and Solar. Anything, that in a rolling program reduces Sulphur Dioxide emissions will cause more Global Warming (not less) in the first 40-60 years after coal replacement starts.

A Gas plant will last 40+ years. Nuclear 60+ years, Hydro 100+ years. Plus all the three will give a consistent and reliable output without requiring any form of backup.

Even assuming the cloud cuckoo land concept of an IWT having a lifespan of 25 years, it will need to be replaced at least twice before any productive gains from Carbon Dioxide reduction will be made. The same applies to Solar.

But worse than that, the IWT's will always need backup from Gas anyway. It is very easy to visualise that even if a madcap scheme involving the building of hundreds of thousands of our idealised turbines took place, there would be no decrease in global warming at all this century. But there would be an increase in at least the first 40-60 years..

This all assumes the lies wishful thinking of the wind turbine industry are true. In my own opinion, the most likely outcome is that Industrial Wind Turbines will have no impact positive or negative on global warming at all, simply because they are so damn ineffective.

Of course, removing Sulphur Dioxide is actually a very good thing. Even if it causes a temporary rise in Global Warming. Today hundreds of thousands of people die from coal based aerosols and the sooner they are removed the better.

But really, do we need to try and do it with half baked, wildly expensive and short lived plant like IWT's? Just about anything Gas, Hydro or Nuclear is more effective. The only technology that may be even more ineffective than IWT's is solar.

The end result of this, even if you believe the Wind Industry, is that Industrial Wind Turbines are NOT going to help prevent global warming within their 25 year life span. Or during the life span of the replacement or even the replacement after that. In fact assuming they actually do replace coal plant they will increase global warming for the next two generations at least.

Note: A less valid version of this argument is currently being used by the Greens against fracking. Their argument is less valid because gas is reliable, dispatchable and requires no backup other than standard fail-safe spinning reserve. It is also plentiful, is useable in transport as well as power generation and can be stored. It is also vital as a backup for the useless wind turbines even though it already cuts CO2 emissions by 60% from coal by itself. 

But it appears that the Greens now think Sulphur Dioxide is "A Good Thing". (God help us all) 

Birds Bats Bugs Bees and Wind turbines

A tale of the Double Stall.

A lot of my friends get extremely animated about the slaughter of bats and birds by wind turbines.
This Canada Free Press Report indicates that in Spain alone around 6 - 18 million birds and bats get chopped every year.

But compared to the numbers of less fashionable critters that get chopped, the slaughter of the birds is small beer.

So do the bugs matter?

Well, to the wind energy companies it matters greatly (although for all the wrong reasons).

As the bugs get slapped by the rotor they do roughly what they do when they hit your windscreen.
They splat. Having splatted, they stick to the offending aerofoil. This increases what is known as the rugosity (or roughness) of the blade. The rougher the blade, the less effective it is at  taking energy out of the wind. (A bit like the difference on pushing a wood block across the carpet then trying to do the same with it wrapped in sandpaper.)

This rugosity has an astonishing effect on the output and can decrease the output by nearly 50%. It is mooted that this accounts for a problem that the wind industry has kept quiet for about ten years. The problem has become known as the Double Stall.

This graph from HERE shows the effect of the Double Stall phenomena.

So what exactly is the Double Stall? The problem came to light when numerous identical turbines, positioned in equivalently windy locations produced massively different output. (up to 50%). Initially various ideas were mooted for this. Most came down to some form of operator incompetence.

But it looks like the problem is not the operator error. The problem is the layer of bug DNA smeared over the leading edge of the aerofoil. See  This Paper  by Corten and Veldkamp. Also link to Nature report Here

(If the above link to the paper by Corten & Veldkamp is problematic  - try this direct link

http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2001/rx01052.pdf

Various cleaning methodologies have been investigated but most can only be done in low wind speeds with the thing stopped. Even then, dangling 200 feet up in the air while scraping off dead insects is not for the faint hearted.

The down time can be anything up to three days at a time. For a larger turbines (bigger than 1MW) I suspect it might be considerably longer.

But of course, scraping off the DNA to boost your profits hardly addresses the millions of critters that must get splatted in the name of Green fashionability. But as they are not "pretty" they get ignored. Even by the anti-wind compaigners.

It is just an hypothesis, but it would be interesting to find out the effect IWT's have on the local bug/bee population. After all, most of the time IWT's are spinning idly in low wind, producing little but the murder millions of insects. That must have an effect on bird food supplies and I suspect insect populations. Maybe this is even part of the recent drop in Bee populations?

So next time you lament for a bird like this:

(image from Daily Mirror HERE)

Please remember the billions of insects that met a similar fate. Spare a thought for our ugly bugs, wasps and bees as well as our bats and birds.

They are all just as important to our countryside and environment.

Defending East Stoke

Billothewisp has been in pastures new for a while. Pastures remote enough to completely defeat my trusty 3G dongle, even my mobile barely got a signal.

So I've missed the start of the East Stoke (Alaska Wind farm) planning appeal. So rather belatedly, may I wish the good people of East Stoke all the best in defending their village.

If there is justice in the planning system then the ruling of the Purbeck District Council planning department, the Council and the wishes of the people of East Stoke will prevail, and this travesty of an application for an industrial wind turbine complex will be thrown out (again).

East Stoke is a small rural village.

It is certainly no place for any form of Industrial complex. Let alone an industrial complex with four buildings the height of Salisbury Cathedral.

Doing the Right Thing (Not)

Early today, some poor soul in the planning department at Purbeck District Council made a mistake. They probably typed in the wrong reference number for some abandoned planning appeal. The mistake was soon picked up on and corrected.

But in the short time window where the wrong planning application was re-labelled as "Appeal Withdrawn", one of the many people who live in the shadow of Planning application - 6/2010/0082 (HERE)  noticed it had been changed on the website. Along with many other supporters of the people of East Stoke, I received an email.

Such is their concern, such is their dread.

The local people actually check the planning site on a daily basis in hope that Infinergy will do the decent thing and withdraw their appeal.

But no such luck. No such decency. No such respect for local democracy.

Just a typing error and a little bit of forlorn hope by the good people of East Stoke.

If you read this blog regularly, you know how I rage against the technically illiterate doctrinaire buffoons who prop up this wind turbine farce. Especially those who are willing to sell out their neighbours for their quasi-religious ideology and/or 30 pieces of silver.

You must know how I loathe the carpet bagging money sharks who will trample over anyone to get their hands on the filthy lucre known as the ROC.

Particularly, you know how I rale against wishful thinking. 

But today, wishful thinking or not, I will not be criticising my friends in East Stoke. Especially as they realistically assessed this as a probable PDC error in the first place.

But still, this morning they hoped against hope that Infinergy had actually done something moral. Something that showed respect for local democracy. Especially something that would have shown some regard for the people who live in the shadow of their ugly money making scheme.

But no. It was just some typing error at County Hall.

I do not expect anyone in East Stoke really believed that Infinergy would do the decent thing.

They were not wrong.

Although no doubt, they were dissapointed.

The Wind Industry and Rotten Onions

When I first started this blog I had no plans for it to be dominated by the energy debate. But so far, and by a long margin, my most prolific output has centred on the utter disgrace that is wind power.

It is worthwhile (at least for me) to see how this blog has got subsumed by the energy debate. Perhaps it may also be of interest to those who rather amusingly think I am in the pay of some grand conspiracy against wind.

I came at this as a wind turbine virgin.

I had not bothered investigating the pros and cons of wind farms. I had no reason to. Like most people I had blindly assumed that wind energy was a viable and sensible option. After all, why was so much money being thrown at it otherwise?

Checking out the ability of wind farms to actually generate useful energy had frankly, never occurred to me. I had certainly never heard of ROCs. I just took it as a given. Probably just like most of the population.

Then one day (2009) I was driving to work through East Stoke. The local radio reported on how Infinergy had modified their proposal for a wind farm at East Stoke from six to four turbines. Breathlessly the reported said this four turbine industrial complex would generate 9.2 MW. I guffawed. Seriously. I thought the reporter had left a nought off.

So that night I thought I would have a gentle poke at the mathematical illiteracy of the reporter in my new blog. Just to ensure I got it right I Googled what it should be. Good job I did!

The reporter had not left off a nought. In fact the reporter had reported the maximum output. An output that would hardly ever be achieved. We now know that the averaged output over a year would be about 20% or 1.8MW. Or less that 0.5 MW for each huge turbine. (It is actually considerably worse than that, but I won't go into that now)

To say I was shocked was an understatement.

Ever since then it has been like peeling the layers off a rotten onion. Each time I exposed another rancid layer, I thought that it could not get any worse. But each time I have been dis-proven.

On closer examination virtually every pro wind statement proved, at best to be optimistic. At worst an outright lie.

I have not blogged for a while basically because I've got bored with it. Particularly, blogging about the Wind Farm Scam is a bit like continually clearing up sewage, it gets tedious and unpleasant.

Hence the break.

But (as has been pointed out to me!) I need to get back into it. I literally have stuff backed up I need to post on. The wind industry is still awash with graft and greed.

Perhaps most depressing of all this is how the dogmatic quasi-religious followers of the carpet baggers blindly ignore the facts, while chanting out the propaganda spewed out by their well heeled idols. Maybe they don't actually lie, maybe they are so soaked in their dogma that (in their minds) 2 + 2 really does equal 5

I have been entertained by the childish accusations from the zealots of being in the pay of "the global conspiracy" (or whatever), but hardly ever get meaningful challenges to any of the data I present.

So, to my friends ( and detractors) - I have not given up, and I certainly have not gone away.

I am just having a breather from poking a virtual stick into the filthy self serving mess that is the wind industry.

Safer SetBacks

Actually, the Scout Camp at East Stoke would be (much) less than 1000 feet from the nearest turbine of the proposed East Stoke (Alaska Farm) Industrial wind turbine complex.

Yet a leading Wind Turbine Manufacturer (Vestas) recommends in its technical documentation that technicians working on turbines of a similar size stay at least 400 metres away (1300 feet) - unless absolutely necessary.

A residential home for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (i.e. some of the most vulnerable in our community)  is about 2400 feet away.

Peoples homes are within 2000 feet.

Meanwhile the Scottish Government requires a 2Km (6500 foot) setback and just about every medical expert who has studied the field agrees with them including:

•  Dr Chris Hanning (the world's leading sleep deprivation expert) 
• The French equivalent of the BMA, 
• Dr Amanda Harry ENT Specialist 
• Dr Nina Pierpont consultant pedriatrician (author of Wind Turbine Syndrome). 

All of these medics have produced devastating reports on the effects of having turbines too close to peoples homes.

Then there are  the environmental bodies, all queuing up to support a setback of around 2Km.

• The United Kingdom Noise Association
• The John Muir Trust
• The CPRE.

The only organisation who thinks having closer setback is a "good idea" is RenewablesUK the cartel trade association representing the wind turbine carpet baggers.

But, seriously folks,  you do not have to worry about the morality and social conscience of the wind turbine fraternity.

They simply don't have any.

Hat tip to my friend Linda at Windtoons ( Here )

A Wind Turbine Capacity Factor Near You.

Billothewisp has decided to have a little competition to see which parts of the UK had the highest and lowest Wind Turbine capacity factors in 2010. Then we can see what the carbon savings are, particularly for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset..

Take this document  ( Here ). It is part of a document set called DUKES. (God! how Chris Huhne must hate having to publish this stuff)

In particular take this table.

Clearly the CF winner is (at a paltry 23.9%) is Northern Ireland.

Also very clearly, the CF loser is (at a wholly pathetic 17.7%)  is The South West of England.

It also shows that the "wonder" of offshore windpower only managed a CF of 29.6%.

Hmmm. There is something wrong here isn't there?

RenewablesUK, the wind industry trade association drone on and on  about the overall capacity factor being about 30%.

But last year not even off-shore managed the illusionary 30% CF. Dismally, not a single on-shore area came anywhere close to 25% let alone 30%.

If you believe in these things, then I expect you think that even though the output may be crap, they still help reduce carbon emissions

Unfortunately the truth is somewhat less rosy.

Billothewisp has to quote another governmental/academic document to offer some clarity as to exactly what carbon saving will be made.

The document was actually brought to my attention by a Guardian article last week written by Polly Curtis.

This Guardian article itself was the usual half-baked pro-wind  "investigation", and lacked even a semblance of even handedness. (See this comically one-sided  "Reality Check" ).

But it did refer to a very interesting report by the UKERC concerning wind turbine intermittency.

The document is available here -  The Intermittency Report

The Intermittency Report points out that due to their intermittent output, wind turbines need carbon emitting backup.

Because this backup is is trying to track the wind and compensate for the turbine vagaries, it is running inefficiently at sub optimal output.

The extra carbon emissions from this inefficient operation statistically gets compensated  by the wind turbine - but only when the collective turbine output reaches  a CF of about 20%.

So, if you have a capacity factor of 30% you are in saving carbon emissions..

But, that means that turbines in places like the South-West, (CF of 17.7%),  do not even cover the inefficiency they force on their carbon based backup generators. This carbon based backup generation  emits more carbon due to having to backup these ineffective turbines than it would if they didn't exist and was providing the power on its own.

In the South West, more CO2 is emitted not less. All thanks to the pitifully ineffective wind turbines.

These turbines cost carbon while producing intermittent expensive and unreliable energy.

You could actually reduce carbon emissions by shutting down all the South-West's turbines. (rather than paying them a subsidy).

Even for offshore wind, the carbon savings are pitifully small and horrendously expensive..

Particularly, for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset, the most environmentally sensible thing to do is exactly what the local councils have voted for - rejection.

Unfortunately the lure of the filthy lucre means that both of the corporations involved are going to appeal against the democratic decisions of the democratically elected local councils.

It is going to be the usual sad scenario  of money, power and greed versus local democracy.

The cost in national resources and finance, along with the environmental damage so outweigh any possible environmental gain  that we would be massively better off both financially and environmentally by consigning the whole white elephant wind turbine fleet  to the dustbin of history.

Wind Power, Asbestos and Tobacco

Asbestos is a natural substance. It has been used since antiquity. Believe it or not, the Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome used Asbestos fibres in their lamps. As you know, it was heavily used as a building material 19th and 20th centuries . Initially, it was regarded as benign and was used extensively around the world.

But in the 1920's an epidemiological link was established between Asbestos and illness.

Instead of doing the decent thing and helping the medics with their research, the Asbestos companies formed a cartel to defend their markets from regulation. For the next 50 years they fought an effective rear guard action to block legislation..

The discovery of the health consequences of smoking were concurrent with that of Asbestos. Yet, like the Asbestos industry, the tobacco industry sought to block restrictions on their trade. People who called for regulation were pilloried as anti-social eccentrics, out of touch with modern society.  The vilification the tobacco industry poured on its detractors often succeeded in ruining careers.

So how does this relate to Wind Turbines?

Today, there are growing concerns about the the health effects of forcing people to live too close to wind turbines. Research studies has been produced that suggest that people are being made ill by this close proximity. The credentials of the researchers are impeccable. Regrettably the response for the wind turbine industry and their supporters ( with One notable and honourable exception) is almost identical to the methodology of obfuscation, character assasination and denial presented by the Asbestos and Tobacco industries before them.

The real irony here is that the mitigation being proposed by the researchers and medics ( as well as bodies such as the French equivalent of the BMA) is trivially simple.

Do not build wind turbines within 1 mile of Human habitation.

Simple.

I don't believe wind turbines are effective or reliable. But those arguments are one wholly different level to the risk of causing harm to people who live too close to these wind farms.

We need a full epidemiological survey to be done before we risk making this problem worse. Either the Wind Industry should build no more turbines within 1 mile of human habitation or at the very least let us get a full epidemiological survey before proceeding.

Any industry or group that puts their profits and ideology before the health of the general public deserve our utter contempt

How ever green they claim to be.

Wind Turbines in a Pit

Now, where would you build a wind turbine?

If you were a corporate utility company slavering over the subsidies then I suppose the answer is:

Anywhere you can.

Take one proposed location in the middle of Purbeck. (Incidentally the clue is in the name.)

It is called (wait for it.....)

Masters Pit.

Actually  it is a quarry . In places it is up to 25 meters deep. 

Though Masters Pit is technically just outside the AONB (Area Of Natural Beauty), by a matter of a few hundred yards, these monstrosities will blight the landscape for miles.

The fact that the pit ( sorry ..quarry) is up to 25 meters (75 feet) deep has not phased Infinergy. They simply plan to chock up these four monstrosities on a mixture of old stone tailings and probably any other crap they can lay their hands on.

So really these monsters will not be a mere 125 meters to the top of the blade but actually anything up to 150m from existing ground level. (that is approximately 487 feet)

If it were not for the massive subsidies (almost £ for £ on the electricity production) then they would be totally unviable.

How long are we going to put up with greedy utility companies trampling over our precious countryside so they can stick their noses in the subsidy trough? 

Really, if these things could repay their damage with meaningful quantities of use-able electricity (say a meagre 100MW) then maybe they would be worth a closer look. But with a derisory average (and intermittent) output of 0.575 MW per turbine they simply squander valuable financial resources that could be used to fund electricity generation that really works. 

Or even, dare I say it, the subsidy could fund effective programs to reduce energy demand.

But of course, that is the LAST thing any utility company wants to encourage! 

The money being squandered on these hopelessly ineffective monstrosities could be used so much more effectively. Once this money has been spent  it will be gone. With little (except a fat dividend) to show for it.

Tomorrow there is going to be a public meeting followed by a council vote on this planning application. The meeting is in Wareham (at Purbeck School 7.00pm). 

The council planning department have quite rightly recommended rejection.  If you are reading this in Purbeck, try and come along and help fight this obscenity.