SMELLY ALLEY: WIND TURBINES ARE 100% EFFICIENT

Monday, December 6, 2010

WIND TURBINES ARE 100% EFFICIENT

It is a complete red herring to repeatedly knock wind turbines over their efficiency. A dictionary defines energy efficiency as the ratio between the output and input of an energy machine.

This is all very relevant when calculating the output against a commodity such as coal, gas or oil, i.e. a resource that costs money to mine, to drill for, to transport, to convert into a ‘useable’ fuel etc.

Wind on the other hand has none of the aforementioned costs and therefore should be considered as 100% efficient regardless of how much wind is converted.

13 comments:

Tim Trent said...: How, then, do you compare turbine A, 100% efficient according to your rules, which converts quite a lot of the energy from the incident wind with turbine B which converts quite a bit of it and is also 100% efficient under your rules?; December 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Disagree said...: The load factor or efficiency calculation for a wind turbine is very relevant, because it allows you to compare the performance of turbines in windy places versus non windy places.

If the cost of installation is the same and money is a scarce resource (which I think most people would agree it is), then putting turbines in windy places should be the goal to maximise the generation per site.

Comparing Ecotricity's Green Park (15% effiency / low wind inland location) with Ecotricity's Avon Docks (30% efficiency / coastal windy location) is entirely legitimate, and starkly illustrates the difference between a good and bad site.

In their religious zeal to get turbines up everywhere, encouraged in no small part by the excessive subsidies available, the wind industry is doing itself no long term favours by going for installations in demonstrably low wind locacions.

This week's revelations about Green Park's poor performance are long overdue, and it's good that these stats are finally out in the open to be properly debated.

One final point - the 1,000 homes Ecotricty claim it powers are based on the PROJECTED performance when it was built (20% load factor) and a low electricity usage per household. Use the actual efficiency (15.4%) and the British Wind Energy Associations usage figure and you get 570 homes,just over half what is being claimed on their "vital statistics" page!; December 11, 2010 at 12:16 AM
GIDEON MACK said...: Hello Tim & Disagree

I totally agree that turbine A built in a valley will be less productive than turbine B built on a hill however you're utilising a resource that is there and costs nothing to 'produce' - i.e. they're effectively creating electricity from a fuel that has no cost.

To Disagree - your point is extremely well put and clearly comes from a position of knowledge but could I suggest - a biased standing?; December 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Tim Trent said...: That an energy source is free is no reason to use it inefficiently.

Energy conversion algorithms are useful to judge one piece of equipment over another when selecting the right tool for the job and the right location for the job. A blanket statement that they are 100% efficient because the energy is free is oratory, and not useful oratory.

Far better to campaign for the best tool for the job in the right location.; December 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM
GIDEON MACK said...: Tim - I assume you do know about our commitments as a country to renewable energy?

Your comment re using a free renewable fuel source inefficiently is bizarre.; December 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Tim Trent said...: I am familiar with the commitment. I am also familiar with good sense.

Arguing against dogmatic statements is pretty much impossible. No amount if logic will ever convince the utterer because the dogma is repeated as a mantra. However others judge the utterer by the utterances.

Nailing one's colours to the mast of dogma is always inappropriate, whatever the dogma.

Pooh, a bear of very little brain, would understand that using any resource efficiently is more appropriate than using it inefficiently. Honey could be argued to be a free resource since bees collect it whether domesticated or not. Pooh knows when the honey is running low.

The same can be said of a wind turbine in a light breeze. One that is efficient for the circumstances will perform and harvest more of the incident energy than one that is not.

When the honey runs low we need to harvest it and use it more efficiently. Wasting wind energy that could otherwise be harvested in mechanical inefficiencies is unwise ad uneconomical.

These things are true whether one is for or against wind energy installations.; December 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM
GIDEON MACK said...: Pooh I assume is smart enough to understand that honey can run out whereas wind won't.

The age old arguements against wind turbine efficiency generally come from NIMBYs.

As previously posted a gas/coal power station is around 35% efficient and kicks out CO2 in abundance.

A nuclear power station also achieves around the 30% efficiency mark and generates waste active for generations to come.

I assume your views apply equally to these forms of energy generation?; December 11, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Tim Trent said...: Your rhetoric is attempting to put words into my mouth. I am not about to get drawn into a discussion on other topics with you. Your premise is about wind power. It is a banal oversimplification. However, as I said before, arguing against dogma is impossible, so I will stick to this all embracing and dogmatic statement.

You are wrong.; December 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM
GIDEON MACK said...: Tim - I respect your views and opinions and shall agree to differ.; December 11, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Tim Trent said...: I don't necessarily think we differ. I think you are just taking a position that my logic tells me is one that sidelines your arguments in favour of renewable energy. On that basis we differ. To be clear I differ with your premise that efficiency is 100% because the supply of energy is huge.

I don't mind differing on that except that your premise derails the arguments in favour of renewable energy.; December 11, 2010 at 12:26 PM
GIDEON MACK said...: When you say that I'm wrong about wind turbines being 100% efficient you are of course right - they're not.; December 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM
GIDEON MACK said...: Tim - an explanation. NIMBY groups (like 'HARM' - Hillbillies Against Renewable Megawatts in Arborfield, Reading) opposing wind turbines constatntly wheel out the efficiency argument rather than simply admitting that they don't want to look at a wind turbine.

This exaggerated statement is no more than a lighting the blue touch paper attempt.; December 11, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Disagree said...: Hi Gideon - no real bias from me, just would be nice if the facts were properly debated. You'll hear Adrian Windisch and the local Greens plus Ecotricity bang on about Green Park powering 1,000 homes etc, and to date nobody has bothered to check whether what they are saying is correct. The facts are pretty hard to argue with as it's such a simple calculation based on publicly available information.

As for HARM, calling them hillbillies is a bit patronising. If you want to spend the time and look into why putting wind turbines too close to housing is not a great idea, search for "Mars Hill Maine" on youtube and watch the detailed accounts of ordinary people who have lived too close to wind turbines. Many of these people welcomed them and liked the look of them when they were built, only to be horrified by the subsequent noise they made, the sleep deprivation and follow on heath issues. These aren't hillbillies, they are real people with no previous axe to grind against wind energy...what would your message be to them?!; December 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)