I'm sorry i wasn't able to jump into the discussion right away, and i doubt if i can effectively comment until this evening, but i wanted to jump in so there was some notice that the discussion isn't over. I would like to address some of the technical concerns brought up in the comments below, both on turbines and the technology, and discuss some of the risks and how they're addressed. i'd also like to address the discussion about wakes and energy replenishment.
We can also discuss why European offshore windpower bears little resemblance to what must take place in the rest of the world.
Und vielen Dank, J. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
A question: Are these turbines pulling enough to skew the winds? I'm remembing a guy in the pub a year ago. "The shadow!" behind the turbines. I thought at the time that a turbine sticking up is like a tall tree. But these farms are large, so is there a danger limit, where planting more will affect the winds, or are we so small compared to the wind that we can't have any tangible effect? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
If Crazy Horse is reading, I'm sure he's heard this one. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Park Effect As we saw in the previous section on the wake effect , each wind turbine will slow down the wind behind it as it pulls energy out of the wind and converts it to electricity. Ideally, we would therefore like to space turbines as far apart as possible in the prevailing wind direction. On the other hand, land use and the cost of connecting wind turbines to the electrical grid would tell us to space them closer together. Park Layout As a rule of thumb, turbines in wind parks are usually spaced somewhere between 5 and 9 rotor diameters apart in the prevailing wind direction, and between 3 and 5 diameters apart in the direction perpendicular to the prevailing winds. In this picture we have placed three rows of five turbines each in a fairly typical pattern. The turbines (the white dots) are placed 7 diameters apart in the prevailing wind direction, and 4 diameters apart in the direction perpendicular to the prevailing winds.
Also, the amount of energy extracted by a wind turbine is, as Jérôme points out, negligible compared with the amount of energy carried by the wind. The only effect I can think of is torque/vorticity generation. But if you make a wind turbine field with half the rotors spinning clockwise and half counterclockwise, the effects should cancel out. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Since a wind turbine generates electricity from the energy in the wind, the wind leaving the turbine must have a lower energy content than the wind arriving in front of the turbine. This follows directly from the fact that energy can neither be created nor consumed. If this sounds confusing, take a look at the definition of energy in the Reference Manual. A wind turbine will always cast a wind shade in the downwind direction. In fact, there will be a wake behind the turbine, i.e. a long trail of wind which is quite turbulent and slowed down, when compared to the wind arriving in front of the turbine. (The expression wake is obviously derived from the wake behind a ship). You can actually see the wake trailing behind a wind turbine, if you add smoke to the air passing through the turbine, as was done in the picture. (This particular turbine was designed to rotate in a counterclockwise direction which is somewhat unusual for modern wind turbines). Wind turbines in parks are usually spaced at least three rotor diameters from one another in order to avoid too much turbulence around the turbines downstream. In the prevailing wind direction turbines are usually spaced even farther apart...
This follows directly from the fact that energy can neither be created nor consumed. If this sounds confusing, take a look at the definition of energy in the Reference Manual. A wind turbine will always cast a wind shade in the downwind direction. In fact, there will be a wake behind the turbine, i.e. a long trail of wind which is quite turbulent and slowed down, when compared to the wind arriving in front of the turbine. (The expression wake is obviously derived from the wake behind a ship). You can actually see the wake trailing behind a wind turbine, if you add smoke to the air passing through the turbine, as was done in the picture. (This particular turbine was designed to rotate in a counterclockwise direction which is somewhat unusual for modern wind turbines). Wind turbines in parks are usually spaced at least three rotor diameters from one another in order to avoid too much turbulence around the turbines downstream. In the prevailing wind direction turbines are usually spaced even farther apart...
On a more general note: AFAIK the bulk of wind energy is further above ground, where air moves freely but is still thick, even 60 metre blades atop 150 metre towers would only skirt their downside.
On a hypothetical note: the atmosphere being a nonlinear system, I wouldn't close out climate effects from wind power, it's something to research. But if there is one, I guess it must be comparable to the effect of forest felling or highrise construction. Tho', I'd imagine the effect is dwarfed by the effect of changed thermal conditions (change in surface and air reflection/absorbtion ratio, heat production) -- an effect, hehe, nuclear plant cooling towers have too.
However, that that punter made such a point of wind changing climate is something I heard before, here from engineer colleagues, and I suspect it may come from some nuclear industry propaganda (probably US). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
This means that after a certain point, mass is increasing relative to the added wind intercepted, limiting economies of scale. New materials can change the equation, i.e. when carbon fiber is added to the load carrying blade spars. Bard Engineering uses a very conventional turbine design for its offshore entry, where they simply scaled up standard 3-bladed geared turbines. Their blades weigh ca. 28 t, the hub alone including the entire pitch system is around 70t, and the full nacelle including power train reaches 280t.
I don't have the REpower 5m weights in front of me right now, but I believe the blades, at approx. the same length, weigh 9000 k less, because they have extensive use of carbon fibre in the load-carrying members, particularly in the spar girders. They will also be stiffer, meaning less glass as well. Then correspondingly less steel is needed in the hub, and along key parts of the power train.
Multibrid saves similar weight in their blades by carbon fibre use, though they add some aloft weight by using one less gearbox stage but a correspondingly larger lower speed generator system. Dinner (which i share cooking duties) calls.
Perhaps the blade, hub, nacelle, and total aloft weights are available on the net. Comparing and contrasting these machines are perfect examples of the design tradeoffs the design team has to make.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the 2 new second versions of the Enercon 6MW turbines erected in Emden. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
From Wiki: For a given survivable wind speed, the mass of a turbine is approximately proportional to the cube of its blade-length. Wind power intercepted by the turbine is proportional to the square of its blade-length. The maximum blade-length of a turbine is limited by both the strength and stiffness of its material.
Do you have examples of actual blade dimensions and materials for wind turbines of different nominal power? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
What your wrote about the dominance of large players and the need for ensuring a level playing field vaguely --
Another obvious trend was how the industry is now dominated by the large players, in particular on the investor side - the business is essentially run by the big utilities, with a few independent developers remaining (and those that have good prospects are usually take-over targets for the bigger players right now). ... the fate of Vestas (still the largest wind turbine manufacturer overall, but a small company compared to the big indistrial groups) and Repower (focused on offshore, but whose main shareholder, Indian-based Suzlon, is itself a pure wind player and thus quite small as well) will certainly become a hot issue in the future. <...> Thus we need to ensure at least a level-playing field, with stable regulation over many years... <...> The conference ... happened at the same time as an important German government meeting that decided to increase offshore tariffs to 14c/kWh, a strongly supportive measure which is likely to be the starting point of a massive wave of investment in the sector in that country. Interestingly, despite that decision, and the excitement it generated, the UK market is still seen as likely to be bigger than the German one over the next 10-15 years, with all other markets being somewhat smaller.
Thus we need to ensure at least a level-playing field, with stable regulation over many years...
<...>
The conference ... happened at the same time as an important German government meeting that decided to increase offshore tariffs to 14c/kWh, a strongly supportive measure which is likely to be the starting point of a massive wave of investment in the sector in that country. Interestingly, despite that decision, and the excitement it generated, the UK market is still seen as likely to be bigger than the German one over the next 10-15 years, with all other markets being somewhat smaller.
-- reminded me of something you wrote in Guillotines, da Vinci, peak oil and discount rates, but I am not sure if the former is really an instance of the latter:
We're all familiar with business cycles: there is growing demand for one product; prices can be very high; people rush to provide the good and offer the suppy that will fulfill that demand; the first comers get excellent prices; as new sellers come in and supply increases, prices goes down and more demand is created; the sector booms and more suppliers poor in; but at some point, prices become too low and new sellers are discouraged, and some of the existing ones drop out until demand can catch up, and prices can go back up. When products are simple and easy to provide, an equilibrium of sorts can be reached, as supply and demand can ajust fairly quickly to price and other contraints, and the market can be quite stable. But in many industrial sectors, supply is far from being flexible: it can take years to build a new production factory, and thus market conditions may be quite different at the time of the decision to invest and at the moment the capacity acutally becomes available. In such cases, the economic cycles are much more pronounced: if demand grows in a situation of insufficient supply, prices will go up as there simply is no supply to respond to that demand, and thus demand must be restricted, which, for vital product (like electricity) means massive price hikes. Producers will then decide to invest to take advantage of these prices, but it will take a while for them to be ready. Many will do the same, all at a time of apparent undersupply. In the meantime, prices will be extremely high. But at some point that capacity will come on line: the early projects will get excellent prices and a great return on investment, but as the others catch up, you may suddenly get an oversupply and prices may eventually crash brutally, leaving producers with a lot of excess capacity and little to show for their investment - then the sector gets neglected, until demand catches up again, and the whole cycle starts again. Many such cycles happened in the past, and they would trigger brutal economic crises. Our governments have slowly learnt to manage our economies so as to smooth out such cycles and avoid the worst of the boom-and-bust which is inevitable in pure market driven economies. The way they have done this is by boosting demand during busts (for instance, by providing income to those that lose out in such circumstances, via unemployment insurance or deposit insurance - to avoid banking crashes), and by trying to slow supply during the good times (by limiting money growth and trying to curtial credit at those times to avoid overinvestment). It's never been a perfect science, but by and large, macroeconomic cycles have become a lot less brutal in recent decades than, say, a century ago. But even today, sectors like electricity or oil are prone to such cycles, due to the long lag time of investment decisions. In the late 70s, there was a boom in refinery building to take advantage of skyhigh gas prices; prices crashed and the oil industry had to nurse a lot of overcapacity for the following 20 years - until recent years when demand caught up and caused brutal price increases (and largely unfair accusations of gouging). Same thing in the power sector in the late 90s, when an investment boom in gas-fired power plants created a glut of power and rock-bottom prices that left a lot of investors (and their financiers) in the dust. Demand is now catching up after several years of little investment, and we again get brownouts or huge price spikes.
When products are simple and easy to provide, an equilibrium of sorts can be reached, as supply and demand can ajust fairly quickly to price and other contraints, and the market can be quite stable. But in many industrial sectors, supply is far from being flexible: it can take years to build a new production factory, and thus market conditions may be quite different at the time of the decision to invest and at the moment the capacity acutally becomes available. In such cases, the economic cycles are much more pronounced: if demand grows in a situation of insufficient supply, prices will go up as there simply is no supply to respond to that demand, and thus demand must be restricted, which, for vital product (like electricity) means massive price hikes. Producers will then decide to invest to take advantage of these prices, but it will take a while for them to be ready. Many will do the same, all at a time of apparent undersupply. In the meantime, prices will be extremely high. But at some point that capacity will come on line: the early projects will get excellent prices and a great return on investment, but as the others catch up, you may suddenly get an oversupply and prices may eventually crash brutally, leaving producers with a lot of excess capacity and little to show for their investment - then the sector gets neglected, until demand catches up again, and the whole cycle starts again.
Many such cycles happened in the past, and they would trigger brutal economic crises. Our governments have slowly learnt to manage our economies so as to smooth out such cycles and avoid the worst of the boom-and-bust which is inevitable in pure market driven economies. The way they have done this is by boosting demand during busts (for instance, by providing income to those that lose out in such circumstances, via unemployment insurance or deposit insurance - to avoid banking crashes), and by trying to slow supply during the good times (by limiting money growth and trying to curtial credit at those times to avoid overinvestment). It's never been a perfect science, but by and large, macroeconomic cycles have become a lot less brutal in recent decades than, say, a century ago.
But even today, sectors like electricity or oil are prone to such cycles, due to the long lag time of investment decisions. In the late 70s, there was a boom in refinery building to take advantage of skyhigh gas prices; prices crashed and the oil industry had to nurse a lot of overcapacity for the following 20 years - until recent years when demand caught up and caused brutal price increases (and largely unfair accusations of gouging). Same thing in the power sector in the late 90s, when an investment boom in gas-fired power plants created a glut of power and rock-bottom prices that left a lot of investors (and their financiers) in the dust. Demand is now catching up after several years of little investment, and we again get brownouts or huge price spikes.
Can you describe how investment in and development of the wind industry fits into this analysis of business cycles? Is it too simplistic to assume that since wind will never "run out", and since there is no international cartel controlling access to wind power, business cycles based on wind energy will have significantly different pattern than those based on fossil fuel energy? Is the solary energy industry (e.g. using concentrated solar power) is similar to the wind energy industry in these respects? Eat maguro. Your grandchildren will never know what they missed.
This reminded me of a recent New York Times article, In Japan, Rural Economies Wane as Cities Thrive.
I imagined that earthquake-prone Japan would not be a very suitable place for large deployment of wind turbines, but it seems that there is some movement in that direction:
A nonprofit organization called Hokkaido Green Fund has spent the last few years building and running large-scale citizens' windmills, which have also been catching on in Europe. The NPO's first windmill, nicknamed "Hamakaze-chan," started operation in September 2001 in the town of Hamatonbestu, Hokkaido, a location buffeted by constant winds. In subsequent years, the NPO has constructed and started operating five large-scale windmills in northern Japan with the cooperation of local civic groups. Among the locations are Ajigasawa Town in Aomori Prefecture and Ishikari City in Hokkaido. In 2006, the NPO plans to build five windmills in four prefectures in the Tohoku region of northeast Japan and in the Kanto region, which encompasses the Tokyo metropolitan area. These include facilities in Asahi City in Chiba Prefecture, Kamisu City in Ibaraki Prefecture, and Akita City in Akita Prefecture. Trends in Japan: Wind Power Takes Off
In subsequent years, the NPO has constructed and started operating five large-scale windmills in northern Japan with the cooperation of local civic groups. Among the locations are Ajigasawa Town in Aomori Prefecture and Ishikari City in Hokkaido.
In 2006, the NPO plans to build five windmills in four prefectures in the Tohoku region of northeast Japan and in the Kanto region, which encompasses the Tokyo metropolitan area. These include facilities in Asahi City in Chiba Prefecture, Kamisu City in Ibaraki Prefecture, and Akita City in Akita Prefecture.
Trends in Japan: Wind Power Takes Off
Northeastern Japan is indeed one of those areas in Japan which are quickly growing old and depopulated (result of Japan's extremely low birthrate plus perennial tendency of young people to move to major urban areas and never come back.)
Japan seriously needs redevelopment of isolated areas. But could you go into more how wind energy would help contribute to this? Eat maguro. Your grandchildren will never know what they missed.
Construction of the First Offshore Wind Turbines in Setana Port in Japan (PDF) -- 9-12 Nov. 2004
This report describe the construction of the first offshore wind turbine in Setana Port in Japan. Owing to closely study and good weather condition, JV constructor could finish WTG construction successfully. Setana town is well-known as the town which has the first offshore WTG in Japan. While, this project has only two WTG which has relatively small 600kW rated power (Vestas V47), this experience is very useful for other project in the future. Summary is as follows. (1) Careful site survey concerning fishing rights, boats, etc. and feasibility study is very important for realizing project. (2) Close construction plan considered the site condition such as climate is important. (3) Dolphin type foundation is practical with considering pile-driving vessel size limitation in Japan. (4) SEP is useful for small WTG Erection because SEP is not influenced by wave. (5) Construction schedule needs margin in case of bad weather or unforeseen matter. (6) Submarine cable placing with Buoy is useful for short length in case of the site condition is allowable. The authors with taht the First offshore WTG contribute to the growth of Setana town. And we also expect to develop larger scale of offshore Wind farm in the future with brushing up Setana experience.
Owing to closely study and good weather condition, JV constructor could finish WTG construction successfully. Setana town is well-known as the town which has the first offshore WTG in Japan.
While, this project has only two WTG which has relatively small 600kW rated power (Vestas V47), this experience is very useful for other project in the future.
Summary is as follows. (1) Careful site survey concerning fishing rights, boats, etc. and feasibility study is very important for realizing project. (2) Close construction plan considered the site condition such as climate is important. (3) Dolphin type foundation is practical with considering pile-driving vessel size limitation in Japan. (4) SEP is useful for small WTG Erection because SEP is not influenced by wave. (5) Construction schedule needs margin in case of bad weather or unforeseen matter. (6) Submarine cable placing with Buoy is useful for short length in case of the site condition is allowable.
The authors with taht the First offshore WTG contribute to the growth of Setana town. And we also expect to develop larger scale of offshore Wind farm in the future with brushing up Setana experience.
Also, on the same project:
Japan for Sustainability - Japan's First Offshore Wind Turbines (2003/07/15)
The town expects these offshore wind turbines to invigorate the region and improve the global environment by producing clean energy.
The wind power market in Japan is quite new compared to Europe, and in fact, it seems that concern about the stability of nuclear power where there are such frequent earthquakes is making wind-generated power more, not less attractive:
M'bishi Heavy Sees Japan Offshore Wind Power Drive (November 8, 2007)
Unlike Europe where several countries have 6-7 percent of their electricity supply generated from wind, the share in Japan is only 0.3 percent or less, Ueda said. <...> Renewed safety concerns about the nuclear sector following an incident at TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, the world's biggest, when an earthquake struck in July have encouraged the power industry to look into non-nuclear renewable energy sources. <...> Last year Mitsubishi Heavy took a 16 percent share in newly installed wind turbines of a total 429 megawatts in Japan, lagging behind Spain's Gamesa, General Electric Co and Enercon of Germany, according to Danish research company BTM Consult Aps. (US$1=114.49 Yen) <...> Mitsubishi Heavy, Japan's biggest wind power turbine maker, has a strong presence in the United States. But unlike its European rivals, it lacks experience in the offshore field. Its business in Japan also lags behind global rivals. "It will take a while in Japan, probably in 2010 or later," he said, referring to the offshore business here. "But we'd like to make preparation," he said in an interview with Reuters. Japan has subsidised wind farm construction and set a target to boost wind power to 3 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2010, slightly more than double the capacity last year.
Renewed safety concerns about the nuclear sector following an incident at TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, the world's biggest, when an earthquake struck in July have encouraged the power industry to look into non-nuclear renewable energy sources. <...>
Last year Mitsubishi Heavy took a 16 percent share in newly installed wind turbines of a total 429 megawatts in Japan, lagging behind Spain's Gamesa, General Electric Co and Enercon of Germany, according to Danish research company BTM Consult Aps. (US$1=114.49 Yen) <...>
Mitsubishi Heavy, Japan's biggest wind power turbine maker, has a strong presence in the United States. But unlike its European rivals, it lacks experience in the offshore field. Its business in Japan also lags behind global rivals.
"It will take a while in Japan, probably in 2010 or later," he said, referring to the offshore business here. "But we'd like to make preparation," he said in an interview with Reuters.
Japan has subsidised wind farm construction and set a target to boost wind power to 3 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2010, slightly more than double the capacity last year.
When our new uberboss came to visit, I had a chance to speak to one of the top guys and asked about the windfarm. They were very cautious, and not really interested in it from a renewable point of view (I thought), more how to get energy to the aging platforms (which is a big problem for some of the other platforms Talisman operates) - now this was of course a highly unprepared conversation, that quickly moved onto Sudan, which was much more interesting.... (Talisman had interest there, but got sued out of it by US-American NGO's!) The guy was saying though, that they learned a lot about communication from that, which benefits them now in Peru, when dealing with the local's (flying rigs in with helicopters, images of Fitzcarraldo appeared before my eye)
as always, I have not the faintest idea, what I am talking about - I am just regurgitating talisman press releases (which I could post Monday, if anybody is REALLY interested)
We don't have any nuclear power and so have one of the largest carbon footprints in the world. However we also have one of the best wind/wave power resources and hopefully this will make a big contribution to meeting our Kyoto targets and beyond.
Onshore wind farms are hugely controversial because of their impact on the landscape and so the really big contribution will be made by off shore farms. Small domestic windmills are exempted from needed planning permission which will probably result in a proliferation of one off windmills on farms/larger holding etc.
I'm not sure this is the best way to proceed as it could result in a [political backlash due to neighbours being unhappy with noise/visual impact etc. and I am also not sure whether the national electricity company accepts "net billing" at this point - i.e. whether they will buy and offset any wind power surpluses against electricity bought in by such households on calm days.
Given the natural fluctuations in wind availability, do you know what is the max % contribution that wind can make to overall national electricity generation before it results in brown-outs on calm days and excess production capacity on windy days? Index of Frank's Diaries
Hopefully this will not lead to the domination of the industry by a small cartel of businesses with a virtual monopoly - who can then set prices at a very high level and stifle the growth of the industry overall.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Airtricity is a developer of wind farms. Developers get a fixed tariff determined by government (whether a feed-in tariff or via green certificates) and have no leeway whatsoever. Even in the regulatory frameworks where markets play a role, that market is driven by how it's set out by the regulator (and there are EU rules about that). Regulations are made to provide higher prices to wind developers, that's the whole point - and have long been opposed by utilities who had to pay for them directly (and charge them on indirectly to users).
Now that utilities are getting into the wind game, they are on both sides of the price formula and don't really care anymore where it's set - one hand gets what the other pays out.
Given the natural fluctuations in wind availability, do you know what is the max % contribution that wind can make to overall national electricity generation before it results in brown-outs on calm days and excess production capacity on windy days?
See the link in my diary above: No technical limitation to wind power penetration In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Thanks for the link to your excellent diary on the level of fixed conventional capacity that can be displaced by variable wind capacity. It should be noted that this displacement rate can go up if:
Note that some of the biggest players (notably the market leader, Vestas) are still "pure-plays", companies that do only wind turbines, like Gamesa, Suzlon/Repower or Enercon (that last one making by far the best turbines around, but refusing to sell them offshore because it cannot ensure its usual quality standards yet).
With the utilities coming in force on the buying side, the market is quite competitive and balanced - even though it structurally favors manufacturers right now as demand outstrips supply. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Would that really make sense for the companies? By charging more, they would earn more on a reduced number of projects, and increase the risk to themselves from small numbers, e.g. big year-to-year changes in the order books when only a few projects are realised each year.
it probably doesn't make sense for surplus power on a windy day in Ireland to be transmitted to Poland even if it could displace conventional capacity there, but I would be interested in what the optimum size of such a network/grid would be.
The Netherlands and Italy are two countries with chronic electricity generation/consumption deficit. Imports come to the former from as far as the Czech Republic and (via Germany) Central France, while imports to virtually all parts of the latter come from France along various routes (including through Germany and he Alps countries from Northern France. I seem to remember that both countries of the Iberian Peninsula also import from France (maybe Torres or Luis de Souza can confirm from Portugal). So I guess half the Ireland-Poland distance is viable. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Britain's wind power revolution Britain is to embark on a wind power revolution that will produce enough electricity to power every home in the country, ministers will reveal tomorrow. The Independent on Sunday has learnt that, in an astonishing U-turn, the Secretary of State for Business, John Hutton, will announce that he is opening up the seas around Britain to wind farms in the biggest ever renewable energy initiative. Only weeks ago he was resisting a major expansion of renewable sources, on the grounds that it would interfere with plans to build new nuclear power stations. (...) Mr Hutton's announcement, which will be made at a conference in Berlin tomorrow, will identify sites in British waters for enough wind farms to produce 25 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2020, in addition to the 8GW already planned - enough to meet the needs of all the country's homes. (...) The move will put the country well on the way to achieving a tough EU target of providing 20 per cent of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020. But just six weeks ago, Mr Hutton's department, far from attempting to meet the target was trying to kill it. In a confidential memorandum, Gordon Brown was advised that the target was expensive and faced "severe practical difficulties". It went on to warn how it would reduce "the incentives to invest in other technologies like nuclear power". But the Prime Minister overruled Mr Hutton and insisted in his first green speech as PM last month that the target would be maintained and met. Now the Business Secretary will also announce tomorrow that he is to set up a panel under his chairmanship to work out how to hit it. (...) So far two things have held them back: site identification and an assurance that the resulting installations will be connected to the national grid. This move removes the former.
Britain is to embark on a wind power revolution that will produce enough electricity to power every home in the country, ministers will reveal tomorrow.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that, in an astonishing U-turn, the Secretary of State for Business, John Hutton, will announce that he is opening up the seas around Britain to wind farms in the biggest ever renewable energy initiative. Only weeks ago he was resisting a major expansion of renewable sources, on the grounds that it would interfere with plans to build new nuclear power stations.
(...)
Mr Hutton's announcement, which will be made at a conference in Berlin tomorrow, will identify sites in British waters for enough wind farms to produce 25 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2020, in addition to the 8GW already planned - enough to meet the needs of all the country's homes.
The move will put the country well on the way to achieving a tough EU target of providing 20 per cent of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020. But just six weeks ago, Mr Hutton's department, far from attempting to meet the target was trying to kill it.
In a confidential memorandum, Gordon Brown was advised that the target was expensive and faced "severe practical difficulties". It went on to warn how it would reduce "the incentives to invest in other technologies like nuclear power".
But the Prime Minister overruled Mr Hutton and insisted in his first green speech as PM last month that the target would be maintained and met. Now the Business Secretary will also announce tomorrow that he is to set up a panel under his chairmanship to work out how to hit it.
So far two things have held them back: site identification and an assurance that the resulting installations will be connected to the national grid. This move removes the former.
The BBC did manage to find someone from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to complain that lots of off shore wind farms will harm sea birds. There will no doubt be plenty of objectors when the planning applications are submitted, for the sake of the birds and because coastal landowners do not want their view spoiled.
Of course when the environmentalists are objecting to wind farms, the new national planning system for development of national significance will be quietly processing the nuuclear power plant applications.
Kudos to Brown for a good call on this.
There could be more than two offshore wind turbines per mile of UK coastline under plans being set out by ministers. Business Secretary John Hutton says he wants to open up British seas to allow enough new turbines - up to 7,000 - to power all UK homes by the year 2020. He acknowledged "it is going to change our coastline", but said the issue of climate change was "not going away". The thrust of the idea was backed by Tory Alan Duncan: "We're an island nation. There's a lot of wind around."
Business Secretary John Hutton says he wants to open up British seas to allow enough new turbines - up to 7,000 - to power all UK homes by the year 2020.
He acknowledged "it is going to change our coastline", but said the issue of climate change was "not going away".
The thrust of the idea was backed by Tory Alan Duncan: "We're an island nation. There's a lot of wind around."
As well as that - why not put nets between the turbines and create one giant Fish farm all around Britain's coast! Index of Frank's Diaries
