windfarm at Lochluichart

I would like to draw you attention to a windfarm proposal in the Highlands
of Scotland. If this goes ahead it may be the end of wild Scotland as we
know, and love, it. www.a-windfarm-too-far.com
Please look at the site and object.
Harry

Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the
grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire
energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square
miles of wind farms; a statistic agreed by both the pro and anti
campaigners. The equivalent of a four-mile strip between, say,
Peterborough and London.
There are legitimate concerns about the potential for the turbine
blades striking wild birds, but the majority of the objection is pure
prejudice.
We have a choice of current technologies; if you like, you can have a
polluting fossil fuel power station, which will leave a pollution
footprint on the countryside which will remain for 100 years even if
the power station shuts down, not to mention the millions of tons of
carbon it will emit.
You can have a nuke, which will produce waste so poisonous that we have
no way of disposing of it, and will leave a footprint on the
environment for at least 200 years.
Or you can have wind farms, which will leave no mark but a block of
concrete the day we decide we have something better. We have nothing
better because for 50 years, nobody has properly invested in any other
kinds of renewable energy source. You can't have nothing. It's a
non-option.
Siting wind farms to get maximum benefit, they tend to need to be in
exposed, bleak places, and being exposed, bleak places, nobody lives
there. Because nobody much lives there, animals and birds DO like to
live there.
There may be better places to build wind farms, but if every time
environmentalist NIMBYs moan about them, it's welcome to the new
nuclear age, or welcome to the climatic hell. Your call

MarkTheSpark wrote...
> Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the
> grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire
> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square
> miles of wind farms

I think that must be a gross underestimate. Don't know the figure for 10
years hence but I believe that the estimated required generating capacity
for 2020 is 75GW. Latest research claims a much more reliable wind resource
in the UK than previously has been suggested with a recorded capacity factor
of 27%. Hence the requirement for total wind generating capacity will be
280GW. This is equivalent to over 77,000 3.6MW wind turbines - so packed
into an area of 200square miles this would give an average turbine to
turbine separation of only about 80metres. Unfortunately I believe blade
length is in the region of 50 to 60metres! The estimated 200 square miles
would appear to be the total area actually occupied by turbines and not the
area in which they are enclosed.

Even without the problem of overlapping turbine blades, turbines must be
separated sufficiently so that they do not cause significant wind-shadowing
of each other. Hence I believe a realistic areal requirement for wind farms
will be many times greater than you suggest.

Turbine packing densities of the required scale are a completely different
problem for wildlife than existing sparse schemes. A large, tightly packed
two-dimensional array would provide an effective mincing machine for a flock
of migrating birds or a population of foraging bats and so would be expected
to have an enormous impact on wildlife.

Clearly power is only available when the wind is blowing and there are peaks
in demand that must be serviced so power storage will also be required and
the only renewable option is pumped storage. The Dinorwig station has a
capacity of about 1.7GW for 5hours with a re-pumping time of 7hrs and on
overall efficiency of about 70%. Hence a 10% storage capacity would require
the construction of another 10 equivalent pumped storage power stations.
It's not obvious that there are that many suitable sites to say nothing of
the costs of constuction. Such a project could barely be started within ten
years let alone put into operation.

David

I agree with you. Wind Farms are a good thing and the more the better.
However, it should also be recognised that some farmers who are in
trouble may try to jump on the bandwagon and that commercial interests
are ensuring that there are more on-shore developments happening than
off-shore.
I certainly think that people have the right to object to a large-scale
Windfarm being set up in an area of outstanding natural beauty,
wherever it is.
But Scotland has many areas, including underpopulated islands where the
turbines could be sited.
Look at the web sites of the British and Danish Wind energy
associations:-
http://www.bwea.com
http://www.dkvind.dk/
They have done extensive tests on the effects on wild-life and found
virtually none.

I've stopped many times at the Wind Farm in Swaffham Norfolk, it's
always turning, doesn't sound noisy and along with Swaffham 2,
generates 60% of the town's energy renewably.
We need MORE turbines, not less!

In fact ALL of the households in the UK could have their electricity
generated in this way quite easily for a relatively low investment.

Nuclear power is a huge threat to the environment. While I respect the
objectors views, it shouldn't blind them to the overall benefits of
Wind power.

David Lee wrote...
> MarkTheSpark wrote...
>> And for your information, our entire
>> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square
>> miles of wind farms
>
> I think that must be a gross underestimate. ...
> ... The estimated 200 square miles would appear to be the total area
> actually occupied by turbines and not the area in which they are enclosed.

This seems to be confirmed by the British Wind Energy Assocition in their
FAQ ("How much space do wind turbines require?").
They claim that 10% of today's electricity requirement can be generated by
12GW of wind capacity - they assume a 30% load factor so that implies a
current demand of only 36GW, which seems a bit on the low side. However
they say that this will cover up to 120,000hA so muliplying by 10 this gives
an area of up to 4600 square miles to service the current demand totally
from wind power - that's more than half the size of Wales! If we map this
onto the 2020 prediction of 75GW, that increases to an area of up to 9600
square miles (greater than the area of Wales!).

David

In article <1YCdnUshOogXdUHeRVnytA@eclipse.net.uk>, David Lee
<davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> writes
>David Lee wrote...
>> MarkTheSpark wrote...
>>> And for your information, our entire
>>> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square
>>> miles of wind farms
>>
>> I think that must be a gross underestimate. ...
>> ... The estimated 200 square miles would appear to be the total area
>> actually occupied by turbines and not the area in which they are enclosed.
>
>This seems to be confirmed by the British Wind Energy Assocition in their
>FAQ ("How much space do wind turbines require?").
>They claim that 10% of today's electricity requirement can be generated by
>12GW of wind capacity - they assume a 30% load factor so that implies a
>current demand of only 36GW, which seems a bit on the low side. However
>they say that this will cover up to 120,000hA so muliplying by 10 this gives
>an area of up to 4600 square miles to service the current demand totally
>from wind power - that's more than half the size of Wales! If we map this
>onto the 2020 prediction of 75GW, that increases to an area of up to 9600
>square miles (greater than the area of Wales!).
>
Well, I suppose that someone could find room for a small number outside
Wales :-)

--
Malcolm

How's that for timing .....
... read about white-tailed eagles and wind turbines here -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4655518.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservati...695897,00.html

Lee
--------------------
Member of Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society
http://www.sfns.org.uk

"MarkTheSpark" <thewideangle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1138530866.694731.317600@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the
> grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire
> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square
> miles of wind farms; a statistic agreed by both the pro and anti
> campaigners. The equivalent of a four-mile strip between, say,
> Peterborough and London.
> There are legitimate concerns about the potential for the turbine
> blades striking wild birds, but the majority of the objection is pure
> prejudice.
> We have a choice of current technologies; if you like, you can have a
> polluting fossil fuel power station, which will leave a pollution
> footprint on the countryside which will remain for 100 years even if
> the power station shuts down, not to mention the millions of tons of
> carbon it will emit.
> You can have a nuke, which will produce waste so poisonous that we have
> no way of disposing of it, and will leave a footprint on the
> environment for at least 200 years.
> Or you can have wind farms, which will leave no mark but a block of
> concrete the day we decide we have something better. We have nothing
> better because for 50 years, nobody has properly invested in any other
> kinds of renewable energy source. You can't have nothing. It's a
> non-option.
> Siting wind farms to get maximum benefit, they tend to need to be in
> exposed, bleak places, and being exposed, bleak places, nobody lives
> there. Because nobody much lives there, animals and birds DO like to
> live there.
> There may be better places to build wind farms, but if every time
> environmentalist NIMBYs moan about them, it's welcome to the new
> nuclear age, or welcome to the climatic hell. Your call
>

In article <1138548730.895845.50320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
xnichols@hotmail.com writes
>I agree with you. Wind Farms are a good thing and the more the better.
>However, it should also be recognised that some farmers who are in
>trouble may try to jump on the bandwagon and that commercial interests
>are ensuring that there are more on-shore developments happening than
>off-shore.
>I certainly think that people have the right to object to a large-scale
>Windfarm being set up in an area of outstanding natural beauty,
>wherever it is.
>But Scotland has many areas, including underpopulated islands where the
>turbines could be sited.
>Look at the web sites of the British and Danish Wind energy
>associations:-
>http://www.bwea.com
>http://www.dkvind.dk/
>They have done extensive tests on the effects on wild-life and found
>virtually none.
>
>I've stopped many times at the Wind Farm in Swaffham Norfolk, it's
>always turning, doesn't sound noisy and along with Swaffham 2,
>generates 60% of the town's energy renewably.

According to the windfarm website, it's 75%!

Doesn't say how much it is on calm days, though.....

--
Malcolm

And you can think of no other way of storing energy? Such as
electrolysis of water? Or the many other reversible physical and
chemical means? Nor can you envisage tidal power, or geothermal power,
or solar power, as additional sources?
The problem with the renewable energy debate is that it focuses on
what's currently commercial and not what could be developed. It doesn't
even consider 'storing' solar power in grwoing plants, and producing
such wholesome products as ethyl alcohol for engines. The truth is,
there will have to be a mix of all of the sources and all of the
storage methods for success. In Scotland, they do have wind....must be
the haggis and deep-fried Mars bars

"MarkTheSpark" <thewideangle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>And you can think of no other way of storing energy? Such as
>electrolysis of water? Or the many other reversible physical and
>chemical means? Nor can you envisage tidal power, or geothermal power,
>or solar power, as additional sources?
>The problem with the renewable energy debate is that it focuses on
>what's currently commercial and not what could be developed. It doesn't
>even consider 'storing' solar power in grwoing plants, and producing
>such wholesome products as ethyl alcohol for engines.

How much land do you think we'd need ?

>The truth is,
>there will have to be a mix of all of the sources and all of the
>storage methods for success. In Scotland, they do have wind....must be
>the haggis and deep-fried Mars bars

--
Sleepalot aa #1385

Sleepalot...
> How much land do you think we'd need ?

An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this
will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.
The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of
8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be
in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt.

Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating
requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square
miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi).

However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is
still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy.

David

In article <pMWdnWwQH8dAq0LenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk >, David Lee
<davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> writes
>Sleepalot...
>> How much land do you think we'd need ?
>
>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this
>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.

Oh, just a little one then :-)

There's a 44MW one nearing completion at Lockerbie, Dumfries. It will
burn 220,000 tonnes/year, of which about

--
Malcolm

Malcolm wrote...
>>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire -
>>this
>>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.
>
> Oh, just a little one then :-)
>
> There's a 44MW one nearing completion at Lockerbie, Dumfries. It will burn
> 220,000 tonnes/year, of which about

The fuel consumption is consistent then - of the order of 5,000
tonnes/MW/year

David

In article <WvCdnSGCrPbuP0LeRVny0A@eclipse.net.uk>, David Lee
<davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> writes
>Malcolm wrote...
>>>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire -
>>>this
>>>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.
>>
>> Oh, just a little one then :-)
>>
>> There's a 44MW one nearing completion at Lockerbie, Dumfries. It will burn
>> 220,000 tonnes/year, of which about
>
>The fuel consumption is consistent then - of the order of 5,000
>tonnes/MW/year
>
Seems like it.

The advantage of being at Lockerbie is that it is within reasonable
range of the very large forestry area of Eskdalemuir. They are also
proposing to get up to 20% from farmers growing willow for it.

--
Malcolm

"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sleepalot...
>> How much land do you think we'd need ?
>
>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this
>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.
>The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of
>8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be
>in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt.
>
>Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating
>requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square
>miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi).

That was an excellent answer, thank you.
>
>However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is
>still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy.
>
I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will
depend on it's value.

--
Sleepalot aa #1385

Malcolm wrote...
> The advantage of being at Lockerbie is that it is within reasonable range
> of the very large forestry area of Eskdalemuir. They are also proposing to
> get up to 20% from farmers growing willow for it.

A large amount of the fuel for the Yorkshire plant is supposed to be coming
from "forestry residues" too.

David

In message <jblvt1lt9imd30v0kutv9k8gacp00pabsq@4ax.com>, Sleepalot
<sleepy03@fsmail.net> writes
>"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sleepalot...
>>> How much land do you think we'd need ?
>>
>>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this
>>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year.
>>The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of
>>8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be
>>in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt.
>>
>>Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating
>>requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square
>>miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi).
>
>That was an excellent answer, thank you.
>>
>>However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is
>>still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy.
>>
>I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will
>depend on it's value.

And the availability of grant aid
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/energy/default.htm
--
rbel

rbel writes...

>>I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will
>>depend on it's value.
>
> And the availability of grant aid
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/energy/default.htm

True - but at least the Energy Crops and Environmental Stewardship schemes
are paying farmers to do something useful, which has to be an improvement
over previous EU subsidy scandals!

David

	#1
Harry Goudie	windfarm at Lochluichart I would like to draw you attention to a windfarm proposal in the Highlands of Scotland. If this goes ahead it may be the end of wild Scotland as we know, and love, it. www.a-windfarm-too-far.com Please look at the site and object. Harry

	#2
MarkTheSpark	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square miles of wind farms; a statistic agreed by both the pro and anti campaigners. The equivalent of a four-mile strip between, say, Peterborough and London. There are legitimate concerns about the potential for the turbine blades striking wild birds, but the majority of the objection is pure prejudice. We have a choice of current technologies; if you like, you can have a polluting fossil fuel power station, which will leave a pollution footprint on the countryside which will remain for 100 years even if the power station shuts down, not to mention the millions of tons of carbon it will emit. You can have a nuke, which will produce waste so poisonous that we have no way of disposing of it, and will leave a footprint on the environment for at least 200 years. Or you can have wind farms, which will leave no mark but a block of concrete the day we decide we have something better. We have nothing better because for 50 years, nobody has properly invested in any other kinds of renewable energy source. You can't have nothing. It's a non-option. Siting wind farms to get maximum benefit, they tend to need to be in exposed, bleak places, and being exposed, bleak places, nobody lives there. Because nobody much lives there, animals and birds DO like to live there. There may be better places to build wind farms, but if every time environmentalist NIMBYs moan about them, it's welcome to the new nuclear age, or welcome to the climatic hell. Your call

	#3
David Lee	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart MarkTheSpark wrote... > Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the > grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire > energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square > miles of wind farms I think that must be a gross underestimate. Don't know the figure for 10 years hence but I believe that the estimated required generating capacity for 2020 is 75GW. Latest research claims a much more reliable wind resource in the UK than previously has been suggested with a recorded capacity factor of 27%. Hence the requirement for total wind generating capacity will be 280GW. This is equivalent to over 77,000 3.6MW wind turbines - so packed into an area of 200square miles this would give an average turbine to turbine separation of only about 80metres. Unfortunately I believe blade length is in the region of 50 to 60metres! The estimated 200 square miles would appear to be the total area actually occupied by turbines and not the area in which they are enclosed. Even without the problem of overlapping turbine blades, turbines must be separated sufficiently so that they do not cause significant wind-shadowing of each other. Hence I believe a realistic areal requirement for wind farms will be many times greater than you suggest. Turbine packing densities of the required scale are a completely different problem for wildlife than existing sparse schemes. A large, tightly packed two-dimensional array would provide an effective mincing machine for a flock of migrating birds or a population of foraging bats and so would be expected to have an enormous impact on wildlife. Clearly power is only available when the wind is blowing and there are peaks in demand that must be serviced so power storage will also be required and the only renewable option is pumped storage. The Dinorwig station has a capacity of about 1.7GW for 5hours with a re-pumping time of 7hrs and on overall efficiency of about 70%. Hence a 10% storage capacity would require the construction of another 10 equivalent pumped storage power stations. It's not obvious that there are that many suitable sites to say nothing of the costs of constuction. Such a project could barely be started within ten years let alone put into operation. David

	#4
xnichols@hotmail.com	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart I agree with you. Wind Farms are a good thing and the more the better. However, it should also be recognised that some farmers who are in trouble may try to jump on the bandwagon and that commercial interests are ensuring that there are more on-shore developments happening than off-shore. I certainly think that people have the right to object to a large-scale Windfarm being set up in an area of outstanding natural beauty, wherever it is. But Scotland has many areas, including underpopulated islands where the turbines could be sited. Look at the web sites of the British and Danish Wind energy associations:- http://www.bwea.com http://www.dkvind.dk/ They have done extensive tests on the effects on wild-life and found virtually none. I've stopped many times at the Wind Farm in Swaffham Norfolk, it's always turning, doesn't sound noisy and along with Swaffham 2, generates 60% of the town's energy renewably. We need MORE turbines, not less! In fact ALL of the households in the UK could have their electricity generated in this way quite easily for a relatively low investment. Nuclear power is a huge threat to the environment. While I respect the objectors views, it shouldn't blind them to the overall benefits of Wind power.

	#5
David Lee	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart David Lee wrote... > MarkTheSpark wrote... >> And for your information, our entire >> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square >> miles of wind farms > > I think that must be a gross underestimate. ... > ... The estimated 200 square miles would appear to be the total area > actually occupied by turbines and not the area in which they are enclosed. This seems to be confirmed by the British Wind Energy Assocition in their FAQ ("How much space do wind turbines require?"). They claim that 10% of today's electricity requirement can be generated by 12GW of wind capacity - they assume a 30% load factor so that implies a current demand of only 36GW, which seems a bit on the low side. However they say that this will cover up to 120,000hA so muliplying by 10 this gives an area of up to 4600 square miles to service the current demand totally from wind power - that's more than half the size of Wales! If we map this onto the 2020 prediction of 75GW, that increases to an area of up to 9600 square miles (greater than the area of Wales!). David

	#6
Malcolm	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart In article <1YCdnUshOogXdUHeRVnytA@eclipse.net.uk>, David Lee <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> writes >David Lee wrote... >> MarkTheSpark wrote... >>> And for your information, our entire >>> energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square >>> miles of wind farms >> >> I think that must be a gross underestimate. ... >> ... The estimated 200 square miles would appear to be the total area >> actually occupied by turbines and not the area in which they are enclosed. > >This seems to be confirmed by the British Wind Energy Assocition in their >FAQ ("How much space do wind turbines require?"). >They claim that 10% of today's electricity requirement can be generated by >12GW of wind capacity - they assume a 30% load factor so that implies a >current demand of only 36GW, which seems a bit on the low side. However >they say that this will cover up to 120,000hA so muliplying by 10 this gives >an area of up to 4600 square miles to service the current demand totally >from wind power - that's more than half the size of Wales! If we map this >onto the 2020 prediction of 75GW, that increases to an area of up to 9600 >square miles (greater than the area of Wales!). > Well, I suppose that someone could find room for a small number outside Wales :-) -- Malcolm

	#7
Lee W	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart How's that for timing ..... ... read about white-tailed eagles and wind turbines here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4655518.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservati...695897,00.html Lee -------------------- Member of Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society http://www.sfns.org.uk "MarkTheSpark" <thewideangle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1138530866.694731.317600@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... > Of course it will make a difference. How can it contribute power to the > grid without making a difference. And for your information, our entire > energy needs for the next ten years could be supplied by 200 square > miles of wind farms; a statistic agreed by both the pro and anti > campaigners. The equivalent of a four-mile strip between, say, > Peterborough and London. > There are legitimate concerns about the potential for the turbine > blades striking wild birds, but the majority of the objection is pure > prejudice. > We have a choice of current technologies; if you like, you can have a > polluting fossil fuel power station, which will leave a pollution > footprint on the countryside which will remain for 100 years even if > the power station shuts down, not to mention the millions of tons of > carbon it will emit. > You can have a nuke, which will produce waste so poisonous that we have > no way of disposing of it, and will leave a footprint on the > environment for at least 200 years. > Or you can have wind farms, which will leave no mark but a block of > concrete the day we decide we have something better. We have nothing > better because for 50 years, nobody has properly invested in any other > kinds of renewable energy source. You can't have nothing. It's a > non-option. > Siting wind farms to get maximum benefit, they tend to need to be in > exposed, bleak places, and being exposed, bleak places, nobody lives > there. Because nobody much lives there, animals and birds DO like to > live there. > There may be better places to build wind farms, but if every time > environmentalist NIMBYs moan about them, it's welcome to the new > nuclear age, or welcome to the climatic hell. Your call >

	#9
MarkTheSpark	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart And you can think of no other way of storing energy? Such as electrolysis of water? Or the many other reversible physical and chemical means? Nor can you envisage tidal power, or geothermal power, or solar power, as additional sources? The problem with the renewable energy debate is that it focuses on what's currently commercial and not what could be developed. It doesn't even consider 'storing' solar power in grwoing plants, and producing such wholesome products as ethyl alcohol for engines. The truth is, there will have to be a mix of all of the sources and all of the storage methods for success. In Scotland, they do have wind....must be the haggis and deep-fried Mars bars

	#10
Sleepalot	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart "MarkTheSpark" <thewideangle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >And you can think of no other way of storing energy? Such as >electrolysis of water? Or the many other reversible physical and >chemical means? Nor can you envisage tidal power, or geothermal power, >or solar power, as additional sources? >The problem with the renewable energy debate is that it focuses on >what's currently commercial and not what could be developed. It doesn't >even consider 'storing' solar power in grwoing plants, and producing >such wholesome products as ethyl alcohol for engines. How much land do you think we'd need ? >The truth is, >there will have to be a mix of all of the sources and all of the >storage methods for success. In Scotland, they do have wind....must be >the haggis and deep-fried Mars bars -- Sleepalot aa #1385

	#11
David Lee	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart Sleepalot... > How much land do you think we'd need ? An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year. The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of 8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt. Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi). However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy. David

	#13
David Lee	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart Malcolm wrote... >>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - >>this >>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year. > > Oh, just a little one then :-) > > There's a 44MW one nearing completion at Lockerbie, Dumfries. It will burn > 220,000 tonnes/year, of which about The fuel consumption is consistent then - of the order of 5,000 tonnes/MW/year David

	#15
Sleepalot	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart "David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote: >Sleepalot... >> How much land do you think we'd need ? > >An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this >will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year. >The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of >8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be >in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt. > >Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating >requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square >miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi). That was an excellent answer, thank you. > >However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is >still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy. > I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will depend on it's value. -- Sleepalot aa #1385

	#17
rbel	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart In message <jblvt1lt9imd30v0kutv9k8gacp00pabsq@4ax.com>, Sleepalot <sleepy03@fsmail.net> writes >"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Sleepalot... >>> How much land do you think we'd need ? >> >>An 8MW wood-burning power station is nearing completion in Yorkshire - this >>will require 43,000 dry tonnes of fuel per year. >>The estimated annual yield of short-rotation coppice is in the region of >>8-15 oven-dried tonnes per hectare. On this basis the requirement will be >>in the region of 1,500 to 2,500 square miles of coppice per gigawatt. >> >>Assuming an average coppice yield of 2,000 sq mi per GW and a generating >>requirement of 60GW the area of coppice required would be 120,000 square >>miles which is greater than the entire land area of the UK (95,000 sq mi). > >That was an excellent answer, thank you. >> >>However together with the combustion of waste and forest residues it is >>still a sensible programme to develop as part of an overall energy strategy. >> >I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will >depend on it's value. And the availability of grant aid http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/energy/default.htm -- rbel

	#18
David Lee	Re: windfarm at Lochluichart rbel writes... >>I suppose that convincing farmers to grow coppice will >>depend on it's value. > > And the availability of grant aid > http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/energy/default.htm True - but at least the Energy Crops and Environmental Stewardship schemes are paying farmers to do something useful, which has to be an improvement over previous EU subsidy scandals! David