World's Largest Wind Farm Gets Green Light

cliffski writes "According to the BBC website the UK govt has just given the go ahead to two large offshore wind-farm projects. Between them the schemes would produce enough renewable electricity to power about one million households. The larger London Array project covers 144 sq miles (232 sq km) between Margate in Kent and Clacton, Essex and will be the world's biggest when it is completed. The £1.5bn scheme will have 341 turbines rising from the sea about 12 miles (20km) off the Kent and Essex coasts, as well as five offshore substations and four meteorological masts"

Comments

Re:Such specific numbers, blah.

[LizardKing]

How about a MW output.

1.3GW according to the Register article.

Re:What about our fine feathered friends?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really helps to have some perspective.
Mans activity contributes to a vast number of bird deaths every year:

1. Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S.
2. Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually in the U.S
3. Tall building and residential house windows also claim their share of birds. Some of the five million tall buildings in U.S.
4. Agricultural pesticides are "conservatively estimated" to directly kill 67 million birds pe year.

In December of 2002, the report "Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin" was released. The study was completed by Robert Howe and Amy Wolf of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, and William Evans. Their study covered a two-year period between 1999 and 2001, in the area surrounding the 31 turbines operating in Kewaunee County by Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E) and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) Corporation.

The report found that over the study period, 25 bird carcasses were found at the sites. The report states that "the resulting mortality rate of 1.29 birds/tower/year is close to the nationwide estimate of 2.19 birds/tower.16- The report further states, "While bird collisions do occur (with commercial wind turbines) the impacts on global populations appear to be relatively minor, especially in comparison with other human-related causes of mortality such as communications towers, collisions with buildings, and vehicles collisions."

Re:Such specific numbers, blah.

[NSIM]

> How about a MW output. That's a specific number that can
> be compared to other forms of electric generation.

According to the Register, it's 1.3GW

> Or is that one million homes in the middle of summer when
> whole power grids collapse from the strain?

You are confusing US power requirements with UK. Vast majority of UK homes don't have A/C so you don't see that massive summer energy consumption spike, in fact quite the reverse, with fewer houses needing heat and daylight from 6am-10pm (give or take) the electricity requirements in the UK typically drop during the summer.

Wind power NOT significantly harmful to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds don't really often get killed by wind turbines, the blades move quite slowly and predictably and are clearly visible so the birds can avoid them. Some birds even have nests on top of turbines.

Rather birds tend to fly into ordinary power lines and die. Climate change and pollution are also big threats to birds as other wildlife too, and their effect is often global.

Furthermore, bird enthusiasts even in America are supporting wind power, here is a link to a statement from the Audubon Society:
http://personals.salon.com/blog/1976/post_32241.ht ml?dcb=personals.salon.com

It's one of the perpetual myths against wind power that surface every time the public discusses about it, I was sure it'd pop up here on slashdot...
Now just waiting about the "will the turbines ever recoup their construction energy cost?" (They will in a few months.)

Re:The question nobody's asked.

[polar red]

wind power is rather good in that respect:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_in vestment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

Re:The question nobody's asked.

[petaflop]

The question has been asked and the anwser is yes for both wind and solar. (The answer used to be no for solar, but with concentrators and cell technology improvement it changed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain).

Re:The question nobody's asked.

[Intron]

According to this California white paper, the payoff is within the first 4-6 months of operation. Also the cost per kWH is lower than most other alternative energy sources.

Re:What about our fine feathered friends?

[polar red]

from the article on wind power on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
"An estimated 1% to 3% of energy from the Sun that hits the earth is converted into wind energy. This is about 50 to 100 times more energy than is converted into biomass by all the plants on Earth through photosynthesis." This gives you an idea of the scale.

Re:Such specific numbers, blah.

[budgenator]

Actually the type of construction your talking about is pretty poorly insulated by american standards. Our windows are universally double pane, often with argon filling to reduce heat conduction, exterior wall are 15 cm thick with the wall filled with fiberglass insulation, and the attic has 30 to 45 Cm of insulation then the whole house is wrapped in plastic to prevent infiltration losses. Right now my thermostat is set at 62F and by opening the drapes to let some sun in the house stays between 65 and 68.