Wind versus Coal

An interesting little side piece in E+T.  It will require 233  5 MW wind turbines to replace one 500 MW coal fired power station. This will occupy 55 square mile. This is also assuming quite a high capacity factor of nearly 43% but I will keep to the quoted numbers.

 

I am not sure if it is viable /sensible to build new coal fired power stations. The Chinese and the Indians certainly think that it is. So to look at the nuclear option:

To replace a 3 MW nuclear power plant with 2 EPR units, Hinkley point C or Sizewell C, will require 330 square miles to be filled with wind turbines (maybe more depending on the wake effect).

www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/wake-effect.html

This is more than twice the area of the Isle of Wight, not impossible but politically very difficult.

The more important question is the resources required. It is difficult to find numbers for the concrete and steel requirements for wind turbines. I do understand that this is affected by the ground conditions and foundation requirements however some number exist in this 2011 document.

pubs.usgs.gov/.../sir2011-5036.pdf

Table 5, page 12,  gives 100 tonnes of steel per MW and 400 tonnes of concrete per MW.  So to replace Hinkley Point C will, according to Kurt Cobb, require 6990 MW of wind turbines.

Steel 6990 * 100 tonnes  = 699 000 tonnes

Concrete 6990 * 400 tonnes = 2 796 000 tonnes.

The quoted figures for Hinkley Point C are:

Steel 280 000 tonnes

Concrete 3 000 000 tonnes.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/innovative-thinking/projects-innovation-drives-hinkley-point-c-16-01-2019/

https://chamberuk.com/chrisfayers/

So similar amounts of concrete and a lot less steel for Hinkley Point C. The NPP has an expected life span of 80 years, wind seems to be typically 20-25 years.

Hinkley Point C could also use a lot less materials, cost less and be on time if it was built somewhere other than the UK:

www.spectator.co.uk/.../

Is wind power a sensible use of our finite resources?

  • Well as you well know. Roger, the maths don't sum.

    Net zero will bankrupt the country in the not to distant future. We can then ask the imf for a bailout. Or preferably Donald.

  • The area needed for wind generators is usually conveniently glossed over and emphasises one of the flaws in quoting the “free green energy” argument, with offshore being the preferred choice as if the available area is limitless. But in addition to the generators is the necessary stand-by generation and storage.

    We currently have about 30 GW of installed capacity. Installed wind capacity GB and Spain

    From the Gridwatch site https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk, the peak wind generation appears to be about 15GW. The 43% capacity factor quoted in E&T is presumably not instantaneous power but integrated over a period of time. If we take November as an example, between the 1st and 26th there have been 13 days when there has been 5GW or less generated, 6 days between 5 and 10GW and 7 days between 10 and 15GW (my approximate interpretation of the charts) far less than 43%. On average the peak demand has been around 35GW rising around 40GW, dropping to 25GW overnight. On that basis we will need substantial standby and storage capacity. A local planning application for a battery power storage facility has been rejected on the grounds that it represents an unacceptable hazard (it is close to an operational waste-to-power facility and about 600m from houses).

    Time to be much more realistic about investment in nuclear and alternative green energy sources.

  • The land under a wind farm doesn't have to be concreted over.  Each turbine needs a concrete pad.  The rest can be grassed over and used to graze sheep or grow crops.

  • Yes, windmills are much cheaper to construct and maintain on land rather than those out at sea. But we need 25GW of nuclear as base load generation which GB energy should prioritise by reducing the radiation safety requirements to justifiable limits 

    But we may be able to use our grid power lines to capture the wind; as that wind is trying to blow the pylons over. If we could somehow capture the sideways thrust energy by using compressed air legging's on all future grid lines what an achievement that would be for GB energy to fund some research into this.

    Use the 8b£ for something useful and save the precious oil and gas for transport use where it is totally necessary, because we know that Electric planes are probably a pipe dream  and even large lorries are economical on hydrocarbon fuel but ships could most certainly save fuel by using sails wherever possible another area where GB energy could invest; even if it does delay ETAs of those ships..    

  • All of which begs the question that wind is unreliable, and, for instance tide, is predictable.

  • It will require 233  5 MW wind turbines to replace one 500 MW coal fired power station.

    Luckily, we don't have any coal fire power stations left to replace... ;-)

       - Andy.

  • Yes, no coal stations but if gas and oil are required for transport  and get expensive then we may need to use coal with flue scrubbers to remove unwanted chemicals as an alternative power source when wind is not blowing.

    Our useful wind always comes from the SW and so why can't we build a string of wind generators spaced at 500 metre intervals which will also carry a 400 kV line hanging vertically on the back of the pylons to reinforce the grid as suggested in the E&T article p32.. This will reduce the planning permissions to a minimum and make for really easy maintenance.  Could also put a substation every 5 km or so, to invert the DC wind generators output to AC. 

  • Indeed however the concrete bases are quite large and disruptive so it is likely that the yields will be reduced and the effect of the infrasound on livestock is also not yet clear.

  • Tides may be predictable, but they are also highly variable.

  • By highly variable I assume you mean the actual maximum sea level, which depends on the full moon (which is predictable) and winds (direction and strength) which now can be calculated ahead of time by new weather programs.

    Peter Brooks 

    Palm Bay Florida