Memewatch: Are we about to be menaced by 1,000 foot wind turbines?
- 20 Mar 2012, 10:45
- Christian Hunt
(Image from xkcd.org)
Some people aren't keen on wind turbines. The Daily Mail
are amongst them, and they've turned to the US for what is
presented as a salutary tale of where
over-subsidising renewables can get you. They contend that many
wind farms in the US were 'abandoned' after the 80s, when subsidies
were scaled back, leaving the fledgling wind industry
The piece is a little vague about the numbers of turbines
which have been 'abandoned', and the US after the oil shocks is
presumably quite a different scenario to the present day UK, where
onshore wind power is around
cost-comparable to gas-powered electricity
generation and probably remaining so in the future, and offshore
wind costs are
projected to fall.
However, the article finishes off with a warning about what
it calls the 'next generation' of wind turbines:
"Who in their right mind would want any
of the new generation of turbines - under EU plans, the turbines
will be nearly 1,000ft tall (that's six times the height of
Nelson's column) - rusting away in their backyard?"
1,000 feet sounds pretty tall. As far as we're aware there
are no 1,000 feet tall wind turbines, and even the biggest in
common use are substantially smaller. According to RenewableUK, the
average height of an onshore wind turbine in the UK - the kind that
might theoretically be "in your backyard" - is 75m, or 246 feet.
The tallest onshore turbine in the UK is 125m (or 410
Offshore turbines get a bit bigger - the 3.6MW turbines at
the newly-opened Walney wind farm
are about 150m (492 feet) high, for example.
But even if you read "backyard" as "the middle of the North sea",
the Mail's number for 'new generation' turbines is more than twice
as big as it should be.
Where does the number come from? As you may have guessed,
it's based on some heroic extrapolation of future trends. But is it
a reasonable guide to where we're going as wind power gets bigger
and more technologically sophisticated?
It turns out that the 1,000 foot figure is taken from a
"blue sky" EU-funded research project called UpWind, which
examined the possibility of building dramatically bigger wind
turbines - up to 20MW of power generating capacity - which would
tower 1,000 feet high.
But it looks unlikely that they are going to be built any
time soon, and they aren't the "new generation" of turbines. The
UpWind programme concluded:
This extrapolated virtual 20 MW design
was unanimously assessed as almost impossible to manufacture, and
uneconomic... The support structures able to carry such mass placed
at 153 m height are not possible to mass manufacture today.
They suggested some technological developments that might
make bigger turbines work, but we're probably decades away from
turbines on this scale. And, crucially, the UpWind project seems to
have been examining the potential for bigger offshore wind
turbines, presumably for the fairly obvious reason that 1,000 feet
high wind turbines are likely to be fairly unpopular with (amongst
others) certain sections of the Great British public.
So: 1,000 foot wind turbines? Maybe in twenty years,
somewhere over towards Norway. But not in your backyard!