Talk:Wind power in the United Kingdom

This is going to be a page on the problems facing the development of UK offshore wind farms, it is certainly not a test page, though i agree that the first content was the word test, hope this helps.
Tried adding satellite image link to Barrow Wind Farm notes but the images are not up to date or detailed enough. If they get updated and anyone wants to add them the link is:- Location: 53°59′N 3°18′W

To access a realiable, updated, official list of wind farms in the UK try http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp The table even has geographical coordinates for each wind farm

Comparison with Coal Powerstations

Is 2GW installed wind capacity really equivalent to two coal power stations? The capacity factor for wind is around 30%; capacity factor for coal is around 90%. 2GW installed wind capacity is equivalent to perhaps one small coal powerstation. (It's probably less than a quarter of the output of a big powerstation like Drax). --86.10.109.45 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Colin

good call, also the first two references of the article are broken links and need updating if alternate references can be found, sbandrews (t) 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons like this are most definitely needed (they illustrate the futility of wind power quite nicely). Drax is an eyesore in one place. Wind turbines are an eyesore in a lot more, often much more attractive places, of the sort the ovely built-up UK is rather short of. Riedquat (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the information should be provided. I disagree with the rest of your statement. This is not the venue for a wind vs coal argument though. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLeeson (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, it's one of the major reasons wind power is controversial (at least within the UK), so should be mentioned if suitable sources can be found. Riedquat (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that anyone can think wind turbines are ugly. Often such sentiments are expressed from within an automobile, a technology both ugly in itself and in its uglification of the human environment. In the United States where I live, we have sprawling automobile-centric developments which take ugliness almost beyond comprehension. Not to mention the impact on U.S. foreign policy with the need to invade oil-exporting countries occasionally. However, the vast majority of people in automobile dependent cultures appear to be so dulled by a lifetime of exposure that they hardly notice automobiles anymore. (Some people actually take pride in their automobiles, which to me is like taking pride in a brain tumor.) Presumably once everyone accepts the fact that fossil fuels are finite which means eventually they must run out, wind turbines will similarly fade into the background. See Unconventional wind turbines#Wind turbines on public display - some wind turbines are turning into tourist attractions. In any case, Environmental effects of wind power discusses the aesthetic debate at more length. --Teratornis (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They can hardly fade into the background when they are stuck in locations where they stand out so plainly. That is the objection, and one of the major controversies surrounding their use in the UK. The UK is a horribly over built-on country for the most part (England especially), which makes putting developments of any sort that stand out so much in the few undamaged places such a controversial subject. If they were located exclusively in run-down industrial estates no-one would be complaining at all. That's all my rather personal unreferenced POV, of course, which is why I've not put it in the article (there'll be citations to that view that could be used, but I'm too lazy to find them). Riedquat (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. has its North Dakota - a vast, windswept, sparsely populated plain with staggering wind potential, with few economic opportunities and thus wind power seems a godsend to the few inhabitants who haven't already left - and the U.K. has the even less populated North Sea. Hence offshore wind makes sense all around. But how about those Danes? They put Middelgrunden right out in Copenhagen's harbor, and the site is beautiful. Check out commons:File:Peace wind offshore.jpg. I just don't get how wind turbines look ugly. To me, "ugly" is burning fossil fuel while letting all that energy blow over our heads and go to waste. I think people who object to wind turbines just aren't aware of the impact of fossil fuels. The notion that "undamaged places" still exist is illusory - no place will escape damage if humans explode the climate. Besides, if humans can reach a place, it is damaged by definition. We put roadways and hotels in national parks in the U.S. That's not nature, it's a semi-natural amusement park, an ecological Potemkin Village of sorts with rangers out manipulating all the herd populations since the ecosystem is too damaged and fragmented to function on its own. I say check back in 20 years, and see if the initial outcry over wind farms will have become like the hysteria over the first railroads in 1830. --Teratornis (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are things that stick out like a sore thumb and things that don't. Some works contribute towards a landscape, others go completely against it, and wind turbines are one of the latter (plus they're a complete waste of time and money when it comes to providing meaningful electricity generation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riedquat (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently the Indians, the Chinese, the Danes, the Texans, the Spaniards, and T. Boone Pickens disagree with your unsourced claim that wind turbines are a complete waste of time. The Chinese (not especially known for tree-hugging tendencies) have more than doubled their installed wind power capacity each year since 2005. If they keep up that growth rate, they might just avoid destroying the world's climate. Wind farms around the world are becoming tourist attractions often to the surprise of the developers. It seems most people are not bothered by these towering totems of renewable energy, but instead find them inspiring, as if humankind might avoid destroying itself with fossil fuel addiction. Do you think automobiles "contribute towards a landscape"? Automobiles are a horrid blight, but everybody is used to them by now and the average person has lost the capacity to see them for the blight they are. --Teratornis (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Who agrees with your unsourced claims that automobiles are a horrid blight but everyone is used to them by now? Anyway, that just shows depressing group stupidity IMO. If they become tourist attractions then it's probably with townies who are too used to built-up misery to really be able to judge. As long as wind turbines need back up (100% back up - some days the wind doesn't blow anywhere) they'll be a waste of time, and it needs so many of them to produce the same as a small nuclear power station that they'll never be able to make a reliable contribution towards our energy needs, especially if you don't want to cover up the few currently unspoiled parts of the UK with the things. Building in places like that shows such utter disregard to natural beauty that it's sickening. It's like scribbling a phone number on the Mona Lisa because you don't have a piece of paper handy, only worse. Riedquat (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking your personal tastes for universal preferences. Do you also disparage people who don't share your taste in music, art, food, sexual preference, etc.? Different people have different tastes. I cannot imagine how anyone could listen to Country music but millions do. One type of music is not "better" than another. It's just a function of what different people like. Surveys show that most people aren't particularly bothered by wind turbines. I infer that virtually everyone is used to automobiles by now because in the US where I live, we have about 250 million of them, but only a few thousand wind turbines. If any substantial number of people regarded automobiles as a horrid blight, the number of complaints would overwhelm the (thankfully few) complaints we have about wind turbines in the US. One wouldn't be able to hear the complaints about wind turbines amidst the flood of complaints about automobiles, if people found automobiles offensive. Do you know anyone who finds automobiles difficult to tolerate? I don't. Also note that wind turbines and their backup requirements have been dealt with extensively, for example see:

• Gross, R; Heptonstall, P; Anderson, D; Green, T; Leach, M; & Skea, J (March 2006), The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency, UK Energy Research Centre, ISBN 1 90314 404 3, retrieved 2008-07-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "Some commentators have suggested that renewable energy is made much more costly, or is drastically limited by intermittency. The report finds that these views are out of step with the vast majority of international expert analysis and that intermittency need not present a significant obstacle to the development of renewable sources."

Your objections to wind turbines are primarily aesthetic - that's fine, everyone is allowed to have tastes and to complain when something is not to their taste. But personal taste is different than engineering assessment. And also, please explain why you are not raging against automobiles. Do you personally consider automobiles to be less of a blight than wind turbines, and if so, why? --Teratornis (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Check out this interesting video from the Guardian featuring George Monbiot asking Shaun Spiers to explain why the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been protesting against wind farms all over the U.K. but has not lodged one objection to an opencast coal mine in the past five years. Monbiot also takes Spiers to task over misleading claims from the CPRE about wind power. --Teratornis (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Monbiot isn't someone I've ever managed to take seriously. Riedquat (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this because Monbiot makes a factual error in the video I linked to, and if so, what is the error? If not, then are you saying you don't take facts seriously? You don't have to personally admire Monbiot or anyone else, but Wikipedia can only run on facts, not on personal likes and dislikes. --Teratornis (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On Shore Wind Farm List

Surely the definitive list will come from the BWEA who represent the industry. If that is agreed it seems pointless trying to keep a table in this article in-sync with the information at BWEA, then the table in the article should be removed, a reference made to the source data at BWEA: http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp ,http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/construction.asp, then perhaps some sort of summary used instead if at all? Davagh (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The BWEA page is not sortable which gives this page some value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLeeson (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This list looks like it's only one firm's operations. A better source of information on operational and proposed farms might be here? :- http://www.yes2wind.com/[1] Obviously this is a politically biased website, but its accuracy is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.79.141 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The BWEA list is less functional as it lacks links on any of its entries. A Wikipedia table should eventually have links on everything the reader might want more information about, even for example on the unit symbols such as MW. All information on Wikipedia "merely" duplicates information already published elsewhere, and yet Wikipedia has become a top-ten Web site because we can organize information better than almost anyone else. Which is not to say Wind power in the United Kingdom has exhausted all potential for improvement, but have another look when it becomes a featured article. --Teratornis (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor/Knowle Hill

• [2] - missing from your list. Just posting for info purposes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage too narrow

This article concentrates solely on wind power in the late 20th and 21st century. Wind power has been harnessed since the late 12th century, there's 800 years of history missing from the article! Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See the History of wind power article. If you have some reliably sourced history of wind power in the U.K., then by all means add it somewhere appropriate. Wikipedia's coverage of most topics tends to focus on the present, or on recent history, perhaps because the present is most relevant to most people who are alive today. However, anyone can add historical information to Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see commons:Category:Windmills in the United Kingdom. The Wikimedia Commons appears to have considerably more photographs of archaic windmills in the U.K. than of modern wind turbines, I noticed in my recent scour through hundreds of wind power images to categorize them better. See List of windmills in the United Kingdom for the articles Wikipedia has already (they appear numerous as well). It could be nice to work in some sort of mention of this extensive content in the (modern) wind power article. I'll leave that to someone more expert on the subject. --Teratornis (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Recentism. --Teratornis (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a farm

I don't want to get overly picky about this, but is there a definition of a wind farm compared to just one or two turbines? Is a wind farm any attempt to provide electricity directly from the wind, regardless of the effort, or is it a term covering a fairly large attempt? Could a house with one pig be described as a pig farm? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 07:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that wind turbines keep getting larger, the largest individual units today have nameplate capacities exceeding the total outputs of some of the early multiple-unit wind farms, further muddying the waters. If someone installs just one Enercon E-126, that's a substantial power plant right there. The term "wind farm" makes little sense for offshore installations which aren't used for farming. Some people use the term "wind park," although that has problems of its own as the offshore areas aren't used for parking either. Given the lack of a better term, some people use the term "wind farm" even for single-turbine installations when the intent is to generate power primarily to sell to a grid, as opposed to being primarily for onsite use. I'm not sure if the pig farm example really applies because pigs come in a limited range of rather small sizes. If a house has one supergiant pig which stands 135m at the shoulder with a 126m legspan, I think we could consider that a pig farm. --Teratornis (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Locations

The tables omit the one piece of information that most people will be interested in, even more than capacity and that is were is each one located ? the odd one has it added in the notes but 80% have nothing making the list only useful for comparing capacity and date built. Also the articles bordering on been a list of; - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Locations are indeed useful. As for a "List of...", this article doesn't come near to listing all the windfarms in the UK, so a separate List of wind farms in the United Kingdom may indeed be worth considering. List of power stations in Scotland lists all the built wind power installations in Scotland, and there's fewer on this list than that one. It also includes locations, so it might be worth using a similar table format here. (A draft, incomplete list of consented, but unbuilt, Scottish wind power, which I decided to omit from the article, can be found here.) Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That draft looks a more comprehensive list and better format than the present table, may be an idea to use it for a List of in the UK as you say, as the World wide list 99% of ours (UK)are too small to get in, and with the growth of Turbines every were the main article will get too conjested. Better just listing the biggest 10 say and refering to the list. I was looking to add them to the template for power stations in Yorkshire - BulldozerD11 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this list? Spent quite a bit of time on this and would like to publish it. I have a number of questions and would like a bit of advice. Shall i put it on this page or create a new one as Jonathon suggests? I think it might have too many columns although they are all interesting but the table is very wide, which ones if any should i get rid of? After creating some space I would like to add another column with either notes or an external link to the official website for each wind farm. Also the sort doesn't work 100% I can't for the life of me work out why. Any thoughts welcome. Regards Debnigo (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work! This would be a significant improvement on what's already on the page. I agree its too wide, and my first candidate for dropping would be the "annual homes equivalent". The calculation of a "homes equivalent" is highly contentious, and I don't think its something that we should get into, as it would require the setting out of a calculation method, and the justification of baseline figures used. Also, I would drop lat. and long. in favour of GB grid reference, and I'm not sure the capacity rating of the individual turbines is all that useful (this can be worked out very easily from the other figures). Not sure why its not sorting. Finally, unless there's some way of making the totals automatically update I would drop these as they are unlikley to be kept updated manually. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• I also applaud your effort. Could you have a go at wind farms in the United States next? That would keep someone busy for a while.
• It might be worth looking into using a bot program to generate these tables from some easier-to-manage data format. Does the BWEA make this data available in Comma-separated values format?
• I don't think it's too wide, but I can imagine other people would, perhaps those who are browsing with mobile devices having smaller displays. I'd prefer the standard font size, but that would make the table wider.
• I think capacity factor values are useful to have in a separate column, to allow sorting. Yes, the capacity factor is derivable from nameplate capacity, the number of hours in a year, and the annual kWh energy production, but that's a lot of work. The whole table is derivable from published sources, but it's convenient to present the table to the reader rather than expect the reader to come up with all of it.
• An alternative to throwing information away is to split the table into two or more tables. See for example Comparison of wiki software, which also has the small font (grrr) but divides what would be an extremely wide table into five separate tables, by repeating the first column in each table.
• Splitting latitude and longitude into separate columns prevents the use of {{Coord}} templates. For example, the coordinates for the Altahullion row are: 54°57′38″N 07°01′58″W, which gives a clickable link. Some of the wind farms that have existed for a few years are visible on the satellite photos available from such links. Wind turbines are large enough to show up clearly on the better photos. For example, check out the satellite photos for Mawla (Moel Maelogen) at 53°08′08″N 03°43′00″W; the turbines look very sharp in Google Maps at high zoom.
  • I prefer decimal coordinates to deg-min-sec but everybody has their own preference. Decimal coordinates might sort better, but using the {{Coord}} template would defeat sorting on latitude or longitude separately. I think the benefits of {{Coord}} outweigh the benefits of sorting, but we can't please everybody.

As a somewhat related note, see the location map in Wind power in Maine, which uses {{Location map+}} and {{Location map~}}. Maps appear to be available; see Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map United Kingdom. Putting markers for all the wind farms onto {{Location map United Kingdom}} would make for a very dotted up map. Perhaps the scale of smaller areas such as {{Location map Scotland}} would be sufficient to separate the markers legibly. --Teratornis (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you put the dates in the "Online" column into ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, they would probably sort better. --Teratornis (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments folks, I have finally got round to posting my finished table as you can see. I got rid of the annual homes equiv, changed lat and long to use {{Coord}}, changed the time format, dropped the totals and added a website column. I was able to increase the font back to default by making the table fixed width, which i think makes it a decent width overall. My only concern is the page now takes ages to display, i think its doing something with the {{Coord}} on the fly everytime the page loads; anyone come across this before or have any ideas how to speed it up? Plus its still not sorting on the text columns. Finally, I produced this table from an Excel spreadsheet so if anyone has any further major structural changes, its probably easiest for me to sort them out. US? sorry, no chance, still got to do "under construction", "consented" and "in planning", and then there's UK offshore! I'm off to bed! Debnigo (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List Order + Locations

The table of Wind farms currently look a mess as it has non of the columns in any sort of ordered list. . Abc by names the logical one for the first column, but by date or power are alternatives with some merit. (Yes using sort does it but thats a cop out for lazy additions, as first glance at the list it has no structure). Any suggestions as to which is preferable ?

Added a location column as one of the main things for a casual reader is were are they without going to the articles (most dont have one anyway). - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for alphabetical by site name - I think most people would be looking for a windfarm by name - then make the rest sortable. It might be an idea to have a county column, thus making the location more readily sortable? Incidentally, since "The first windfarms in the UK were built onshore, and they currently generate more power than the offshore farms", why is offshore discussed first? Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with map skills?

If anyone here has map skills, you might consider making a map of the U.K. which functions analogously to this one:

• commons:File:United States installed wind power capacity animation 561px.gif

--Teratornis (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

List of onshore windfarms

There appears to be an issue with the size of the page and the table was removed and the old jumbled up list substituted (in my opinion a retrograde step). So I have taken the sorted table a placed it in a template so it can be transcluded in. template here {{UK_Onshore_wind_farms_table}}.

There are some issues with it e.g width on my monitor and over linking of entries possibly. Also accessibility to edit it needs improving with an editable header. Also some entries have ref attached which currently will not be displayed in the refs section I believe.

So can other editors add there opinions and suggestions to solve the issues with the differing options, as the loss of the original sortable table was greater than the performance gain of reverting to the poor version. But issues need resolving regarding content and format. The suggestion that the data in the table would be batter in individual articles would create a huge list of stubs with minimal content were as the current sortable table allows comparison of figures like size, number of turbines, capacity or all the farms by one company etc, and has useful data about the locality which was lacking in earlier versions.

Please Discuss options - thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make a separate List of wind farms in the United Kingdom, with the new table, a similar table for offshore, some pictures and a lead. This page can then be tidied up as an overview of the subject (including windmills!). Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this general approach, but would suggest two new lists: List of onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom and List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom. Johnfos (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another information source

This site is a nice mashup with a clickable map:

• Interactive Map of Renewable and Alternative Energy Projects in the UK

Some example wind farm entries:

• "Burbo Bank (Wind, Operating)". Interactive Map of Renewable and Alternative Energy Projects in the UK. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
• "Royal Seaforth Dock (Wind, Operating)". Interactive Map of Renewable and Alternative Energy Projects in the UK. Retrieved 2009-10-05.

This is sometimes useful for identifying otherwise mysterious wind farms in photos that Wikipedia and Commons users upload without clear descriptions. For example, when I stumbled across File:Benkid77 Wind turbines 2, Liverpool 090809.JPG, I was able to determine this is a shot of the Seaforth Dock. I added object location coordinates and a link to the description. --Teratornis (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost of back up to wind power in the UK

I have reverted the deletion of the section below. This is because the points made are self evident to any one who is familair with how power grids work. Further more, the argument that wind power requires back up and is ergo, useless is a bogus argument put about by anti wind propagandists, or those who do not understand power grids. Therefore it is very difficult to find references which demolish a non existent case. However I have found one and inserted it, but the argument is a self standing one,.Engineman (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is much dispute and misunderstanding about this issue.

Whilst it will be necessary to have back up for wind power, since it possible to have very low wind over for example, the whole of the UK for long periods during anti-cyclones, this is not back up that will have been created specifically for wind power.

Thus this back up, both in capital or operating cost, does not create any significant extra costs (extra being the key issue)other than the costs of the wind turbines themselves.

This is because, if no wind generation were built, then existing power stations ie the power stations we have today will have to be retained or new ones built.

Thus what may be called back up, if a large amount of wind is built, will have had to have been built anyway, therefore this capacity does not imposing any extra capital costs on wind, and will simply be re-started during low wind periods.

Therefore the only cost of wind back up, is the cost of the fuel burn for when there is insufficient wind. However, if the wind turbines had not been built, then clearly, this same fuel would have had to have been burnt anyway so it is not an extra cost.

Thus whilst there will have to be so called back up, and fuel to operate it, this is not an extra cost to wind, since it is plant that would have to be built whether or not wind had been built.

Furthermore, since during a high wind power capacity scenario, by definition, the back up would only be required for a few weeks per year, it will be quite possible to retain the relatively inefficient and polluting stations of today, since these will only be called to run for about 1/10 of their current annual hours, whereas without the wind build, they would have had to have been de commissioned.

This will be a lower cost than the wholesale replacement of obsolete plant, which will be otherwise demanded in the UK if such plant were expected to run the same, high annual hours, as would be the case if no large scale wind were built.

The section you restored is mostly unsourced. The source you did provide does not support the claim 'this capacity does not imposing any extra capital costs on wind'. The material is unsourced and was challenged. No amount of argument can change this. Any unreferenced argument is original research. The material should not be included in the article. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about ref 42 - it does support the addition - it says "No special backup provisions need to be made for wind energy." qed. In any case, why does a statement that is wrong, need any source other than the logical demonstration of its falsity? Wind power proponents no where say that existing power stations need to be de commissioned - it is widely understood by the proponents of wind power that existing stations will be retained and expanded irrespective of wind generation - wind generation is only sold as a fuel saver - this is self evident in and of itself therefore needs to source IMHOP. It is a widely touted false claim that wind needs extra backup and this encyclopedia should be able to account for that Engineman (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

reference 43 clearly states "A major obstacle to wind was demolished when a study from National Grid last week concluded that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on back-up fossil fuel power stations." which is what the piece is essentially saying.

Engineman I don't care whether what you have written is correct or not. The issue of back-up does not need a whole section written about it. The page already gave enough information (opponents say 80-90% needed, national grid say otherwise, etc). Writing lots and lots about such a minor issue adds no value to the article. Also, by using language like "what they fail to grasp, or admit" indicates that you are simply trying to push your own opinion/agenda. Please stop. Abc30 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Renewables Obligation

I've gone through and updated this section to reflect the ROC Banding Review and the introduction of the Feed-In Tariff. I've removed the old reference and input new references to DECC and OfGem documents, which since they're the ones administering the RO seems more appropriate. Adamfostas (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical Statement RE power generation

"Currently it has 1,341 MW of operational nameplate capacity, with a further 1,152 MW in construction. The UK has been estimated to have over a third of Europe's total offshore wind resource, which is equivalent to three times the electricity needs of the nation at current rates of electricity consumption. (In 2010 peak winter demand was 59.3 GW...)" (emphasis is mine).

Even if you add 1341MW+1152MW, you're nowhere near 3 times 53.9GW! Perhaps someone can work out what this statement is actually meant to mean?

--143.167.224.250 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

120GW (three times UK summer consumption) is an estimation of the UK total offshore wind resource i.e. if all wind around the British Isles was somehow harnessed. The 1.3GW nameplate capacity currently being harvested is just a small fraction of that available wind power. Debnigo (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RenewableUK claims 3725 turbines with 6.5GW capacity as of 2012, but I suspect this is flat-out capacity. Realistic figure might be a quarter of that. Considering each onshore turbine costs over a million pounds to build, and offshore turbines up to 10m, that doesn't compare too well with the construction costs of other power sources. Say 30-40 billion for the equivalent of one conventional powerplant if sited offshore. Gasfired station, 0.8bn. Even the much-disputed uranium option is only 2.5bn for a 1GW reactor. Though that is only construction costs, running costs are a complex issue. Wind has no fuel costs, but maintenance costs are a largely unknown factor. Other costs are the need for fast-response spinning reserve power, plus Grid upgrades to cope with the additional ohmic heating created when the same amount of power is delivered by a pulsating source instead of a steady-state one.

It also has to be borne in-mind that the projected lifespan for turbines is only twenty years, much less than that of other technologies. Though, USA experience of early windfarms suggests that obsolescence may lead to turbines falling into disuse even before this age. With such vast numbers to replace at end-of-life, ongoing replacement must therefore be considered a very significant cost.

Hope this clarifies some of the financial issues.As for the total realizable wind energy resource, I've seen some wildly varying estimates, one being 2TW. I'm not sure how much credibility we give such figures. --Anteaus (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Anteaus a couple of things. (1) please note that the minor edit checkbox is only to be used for very very minor things like fixing typos or changing a bit of formatting: you've marked quite a few changes as minor that weren't. I sympathise - I've been caught out by that myself. If you've got the "minor edit" box ticked by default, might I recommend changing your default? (that's what was causing me trouble) (2) capacity is just what it says it is: capacity. It's not mean power, or median power, it's capacity. It's also called nameplate capacity. It's a standard and unambiguous measure of how much has been installed.

Debnigo (if you're still around), if I understand the article and the reference correctly, the 120GW mean power is not "the UK total offshore wind resource i.e. if all wind around the British Isles was somehow harnessed." - it's the UK wind resource in one-third of the waters at depths shallower than 50m, which is a much smaller thing. Ernestfax^Talk 07:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Cites tagged

I've first-party tagged a number of cites in this article which might be considered representation of manufacturer or trade association hype/extrapolation as proven fact. Cites from the same trade associations which give factual data I've left alone, although there might be some call to verify these facts too.

Plus one (AFAICS) unsubstantiated claim regarding JMT's factual accuracy, and a misquoted article by Juliet Jowit whose context differs totally from that claimed.--Anteaus (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Section Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Variability_and_related_issues

Please do not write text using quotations to construct sentences - this is WP:COPYPASTE and is still plagiarism and copyright infringement even if it is referenced.. Quotations should ONLY be used where there is absolutely no alternative (eg Quotes of Winston Churchill, poetry, reporting of 'on the spot' responses etc). Please do not leave such content in the article even if you did not write it. I have fixed this in part as well as removing a paragraph

edit difference http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=485030989&oldid=484123060

Removal

A 2011 report authored by wind farm critic Stuart Young and supported by the [[John Muir Trust]], said that Scotland’s wind farms are only delivering a fraction of the power their builders claim. The report looked at wind farm output over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the industry’s Balancing Mechanism Reporting System. The report concluded that wind power "cannot be relied upon to provide significant levels of power" and "that there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the use of the energy source in future".<ref>{{Cite web | last = Young | first = Stuart | title = Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation | date = March 2011 | url = http://www.jmt.org/wind-analysis-report.asp | accessdate = 13 August 2011}}</ref><ref name=JMT2011/> There was an "angry response" to the report from the energy industry, and the body representing Scotland’s renewable energy refused to recognise the figures. Jenny Hogan, Director of Policy for Scottish Renewables, said: "We have no confidence in these unofficial figures", and added: "It could be argued the Trust is acting irresponsibly given their expertise lies in protecting our wild lands and yet they seem to be going to great lengths to undermine renewable energy which is widely recognised as one of the biggest solutions to tackling climate change".<ref name=JMT2011>{{cite web |url=http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/news/outdoornews/Sparks-fly-over-John-Muir-Trust-wind-farm-report |title=Sparks fly over John Muir Trust wind farm report |author=Judy Armstrong |date=April 11, 2011 |work=The Great Outdoors |publisher= }}</ref> An independent study investigated the JMT report by cross-referencing Renewable Obligation Certificates over the same study period and concluded that wind farms performed much better due to data problems with the BMReports website upon which the JMT Report was based.{{citation needed|date=March 2012}}

There are two issue here

a. the use of quotations to write the text - it would need rewriting.

b. the potentially scurrilous nature of the info. For inclusion the credibility of the data presented by the "anti-wind" organisation needs to be established. This is the same issue as with global warming data - the actual facts need to be established first. Reports from neutral sources are needed, ie newpapers, not the horses mouth. There is a report here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410 .213.249.187.63 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)