An Island Covered In Wind Turbines?

[triskelion]

From the MEA's Service Delivery Plan:

 

UK Interconnecter Cable: 60 MW (Previously 45)

Hydro Station: 1 MW

Pulrose Gas Station: 87 MW

Douglas Diesel Station: 48 MW

Peel Diesel Station: 38.4 MW

Ramsey Diesel Station: 4 MW

EfW Plant: 7.7 MW

 

I imagine the diesel stations are usually deployed to manage peaks in demand, as that is what they seem to be used for in the UK.

[WTF]

I understand: Pulrose has a capacity of almost 50MW, Peel a capacity of nearly 40MW, a diesel generating station at Ramsey with a capacity of 7MW, and a small hydro station at Sulby with a capacity of 1.0MW = 98MW or 0.1 Gigawatt total. Approximately 1000 large wind turbines produce a gigawatt, and so 100 would in theory meet the needs of the island - most of which could be placed in an offshore wind farm out to sea off the NW coast of the island IMO.

 

I would hate to see these things stuck all over the island - having large turbines on the land would be more about an 'environmental statement' to me, when they can be put out at sea and out of sight - along with other wave-generating technologies.

 

Naturally as turbines are not always 100% efficient (the wind is not always blowing), and we can not 'store' the excess energy easily, we would still need generating capacity to replace the lost energy from the turbines (about 80% of what we've got now for a cold windless winter day), and the ability to send any excess generated energy to the UK. A major offshore wind farm of say 200 turbines, could make the island a net exporter of environmentally generated electricity. The cost would be in excess of £1 million per turbine IMO - that has to be found from somewhere - so I can't imagine much change in electricity pricing for a while.

 

if some fat conman hadn't wanked away 400 million on pulrose we could have had turbines instead??

[jimbms]

Well for me the more renewable energy sources the better and has cheekyboy says we have a good tidal power source, as an island we have a rather unique opertunity of becoming self sufficent in energy production form renewable sources and if this mean some parts are a little unsightly or the lesser spotted wanking thrush gets scared away from an ancient nesting site then tough. I hear people moaning on about how we waste fossil fuels etc yet when the opertunity comes along to use a renewable source they bleat on about how bad it looks or some poor species of shitehawk will get upset. Wel boo hoo you can't have it both ways if you don't like them to use a common phrase "there's a boat in the morning", for those who stay lets make it a decent isle.

[Chinahand]

With wind and tide power there is another advantage in that the Island can compete with other suppliers on a much more even playing field as there aren't any energy importation costs.

 

As has been pointed out windpower on its own is a useless power source - as it doesn't work when the wind ain't blowing.

 

So you need to be able to supply it into a large market where its peaks and troughs even out.

 

The cable allows the Island to do that. Admittedly the fact the cable is AC etc means there are pretty big losses, but these are comparable to a windfarm in Scotland or where ever.

 

All the Island's other power assets have difficulty competing in the energy market as their costs are so much higher due to importing the gas/diesel or whatever - and as they are so much smaller than used on the mainland.

 

Wind and tide won't have those disadvantages - as long as the cable is big enough to take the power. There are alot of arguments that the Island should build a second cable as capacity grows rather than expand on the Island, but that would also allow a commercial scale renewables project to be put onto the Island. This wouldn't be to supply the Island, but to feed into the grid.

 

Another point - alot of the money in Renewables is in the Renewable Obligation Cerificates. These can be a bit problematic with Wind as you are under an obligation to supply a certain amount - I think over a month - if the weather doesn't behave its difficult.

 

Tidal power is much more predictable - making it easier to predict revenues and make money from the ROCs. The tidal generator in Stanford Loch is ideal for the Calf sound - the DTI should be trying to persuade them to relocate the company to the IOM - zero tax etc. and grants for the project.

[triskelion]

Well for me the more renewable energy sources the better and has cheekyboy says we have a good tidal power source, as an island we have a rather unique opertunity of becoming self sufficent in energy production form renewable sources and if this mean some parts are a little unsightly or the lesser spotted wanking thrush gets scared away from an ancient nesting site then tough. I hear people moaning on about how we waste fossil fuels etc yet when the opertunity comes along to use a renewable source they bleat on about how bad it looks or some poor species of shitehawk will get upset. Wel boo hoo you can't have it both ways if you don't like them to use a common phrase "there's a boat in the morning", for those who stay lets make it a decent isle.

Actually, the point is (or at least the one I've been trying to make) is that you can have it both ways and doing so should be the primary objective. Yes we could cover the Ayres in wind turbines, but that would not provide a great energy solution and would damage the ecology and aesthetics of the whole area, so we would stumble from one environmental and financial problem to another.

 

The technology does not appear to exist for the Island to become self-sufficient in renewable energy.

[Freggyragh]

tides don't flow in the same direction 24/7

- No shit Sherlock.

there will be a slack period as the tide changes direction - probably 1 hour out of 11

Tidal streams can be stronger as high water and low water - particularly around headlands. Looks like you're confusing tides with tidal streams, basing your ideas around a knowledge of the sea not much deeper than that got gleaned from paddling around the beach.

[rednik]

I know the below is a very rare occurance, but I'd still be keeping them away from people for a few years yet.

 

 

I can't see the cost of installation being made back for a long time. Also, with these things when people start talking "environmentaly friendly" you never see figures to say when the co2 outputs are actually reduced below what you produce if you change nothing. Thing of all the power used to investigate and build the things, consultants flying round the world, diggers, dumpers etc all over the island putting them in, boats out to sea, cables being made and laid, not to mention the huge amounts of power required to build the turbines (are they aluminium? that requires huge amounts of power to manufacture or recycle) and then the "carbon footprint" associated with the ongoing support and maintenance.

 

I'm not saying the figures don't add up as I don't know, just that you never see anyone do a complete study of the energy requirements of the actual project. Personally my gut feeling is that we should make do with what we have and get full use of all the energy used to build the current station, and then worry about replacing it when it reaches the end of it's useful life. I can't help thinking that by making the full use of what you have, you may actualy use less energy in the long run.

 

As an example my house is 4 years old. If I were to chuck out my current combi boiler and fit solar panels which have been built and shipped here from China. At what point does the environment atualy see a benefit?

[pongo]

As an example my house is 4 years old. If I were to chuck out my current combi boiler and fit solar panels which have been built and shipped here from China. At what point does the environment atualy see a benefit?

 

It isn't only about the environment for most people. It's also about attempting to inflation proof ourselves - and to insure against future supply uncertainty. Reducing our dependence on fuel which has to be imported probably (possibly) makes good economic and political sense. Both at a household and a national level.

[triskelion]

Well, I personally see reducing carbon emissions as secondary to making sure the Island has a secure, reliable supply of energy. Not so long ago it was reported that wind turbines do not actually constitute a carbon saving, largely for the reasons you state. However, we have to look at alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels because they are getting incredibly expensive.

[P.K.]

I know the below is a very rare occurance, but I'd still be keeping them away from people for a few years yet.

 

Nice clip of a Danish Wind Turbine tearing itself to pieces. The thing is as far as I am aware the vast majority of major wind turbines in the UK are imported from - Denmark! Funny that...

 

I can't believe all this waffle about "renewables" on Mannin. It's only a few years ago that the Gov funded a team that researched and concluded that the best power generation the IOM should go for was a gas-fired system. It was alleged at the time that this system would then see them way into the foreseeable future and probably beyond. After all, if it wasn't like that then why would the team of VERY expensive worthies reccommend it in the first place? This system was then constructed at vast expense with an out of control budget that ran way way way over costing the taxpayer millions. This vast cost overrun was achieved by a dedicated team headed up by chap called Mike Proffitt.

 

Still, if you are determined to take the "renewables" route then apparently you could do a lot worse than employ Renewable Energy Holdings PLC. This cutting edge company has only recently increased it's wind generating capacity (and I use the words advisedly) in Germany to 40.5 MWatts. Perhaps Tynwald should start the ball rolling by contacting the REH CEO, apparently it's headed up by a chap called Mike Proffitt. Funny that....

[Cronky]

I personally see reducing carbon emissions as secondary to making sure the Island has a secure, reliable supply of energy.

 

Here here. For the first (and probably only) time I today heard Tony Blair say something I agreed with. Namely that if the UK closed down tommorrow then Chinese expansion would replace our lost carbon emissions within eighteen months.

 

The Isle of Man is so small that the green issue pales into insignificance compared to the necessity of a cheap and reliable long term energy source. Some wind power (off shore and almost out of sight) might be part of the answer but it wouldn't mean lower electricity bills. Ruining the Island's landscape is just not an option.

 

What is wrong with a small nuclear power station?

[pongo]

What is wrong with a small nuclear power station?

 

Wow. You sound like that crazy scientist in Repo Man.

[OneArmedScissor]

Bet you wouldn't want one in your back garden . . .

 

So where is the electricty going to come from during the winter when we get one of those frosty calm periods and there is no wind?

 

I vote for a small nuclear power station. Clean, cheap and we keep warm whatever the weather.

 

You're not still in England Enoch - we have a superb wind supply here and most winters little to no frost.

 

I think you're going to have to find some other offshore community to get away from the twin terrors of immigration and big brother. Maybe you can plague another forum with posts that are 90% straight outta the Daily Mail.

 

I'll give you some credit though - "Cronky" is an amazing attempt at picking a proper Manx nickname. Much better than "Balla-o" or such like.

[pongo]

most winters little to no frost.

 

Where I live on the island we often get frosts. You have to be up early to notice though.

[Cronky]

More nuclear concerns for Celtic League

 

and

 

Wind turbines will ruin the countryside, without producing the power needed

 

Highly contentious all round!