Wind Energy

riven wrote:

That 80K figure is incorrect, it is actually for total capacity (40GW).

Using the London array as an basis.

The London array is designed for 1000 MW but reality bites and it realistically would produce 630 MW. Take 63 MW for transmsiision and we are hovering around 550 MW for each London array. To get 20 GW that requires approx 36 arrays at 12,000 turbines.

Then you have to add in actual real innefficiencies (wind speed variance, downtime and Scotland), all of which head towards 25-30K turbines.

You have already added in the wind speed variance by taking the 1000 MW down to 630 which is a lot more liberal than my own estimate of a capacity factor of 50%. The article above believes the factor to be closer to 70% but that must mean offshore wind. I don't know how much downtime there is but I'd imagine it's little enough although I am fairly used to seeing only onshore ones (which are hardly ever down - often one out of a field of twenty.)

And I couldn't tell you what the transmission loss is either but the way it will go might be to use DC which doesn't lose as much as AC but I couldn't tell you about the loss.

There was 48,000 MW installed in Europe by end 2006 and by end of 2007 that had grown to 56,500 MW and I wonder what it will be by end of this year? Close to 70,000 MW installed?

http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=180

$80 million for this 2.3 MW yoke too - from Siemens - to be tested in Norway in 2009.



http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2008/05/worlds-first-floating-turbine-to-be.html

Auditor #9 wrote:

You have already added in the wind speed variance by taking the 1000 MW down to 630


There was 48,000 MW installed in Europe by end 2006 and by end of 2007 that had grown to 56,500 MW and I wonder what it will be by end of this year? Close to 70,000 MW installed?

http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=180

Actually no I haven't. The design variences are what take the 1000 to 630. the turbine is still assumed to be running at full tilt. The 630 is what is expected from the L9ndon array by their own figures if there is no downtime and no wind speed variance.

I would say 70,000W is right. That is a lot of turbines to maintain. We need to be installing these devices as we have no alternative but we actively need to be persuing real increases in performance and efficiency.

Can anyone answer the argument that because wind energy is not constant fully fired up carbon electricity generation has to be kept going as back up, and therefore wind energy is a total waste?

I keep reading this, and I never find a clear reply to it one way or the other.
It is certainly influencing the ESB who are trying to keep wind to a minimum.

cactus flower wrote:

Can anyone answer the argument that because wind energy is not constant fully fired up carbon electricity generation has to be kept going as back up, and therefore wind energy is a total waste?

I keep reading this, and I never find a clear reply to it one way or the other.
It is certainly influencing the ESB who are trying to keep wind to a minimum.

Riven might be able to answer questions like that but I believe that power stations can reduce the amount of fuel they burn in response to the presence of electricity in the grid from wind sources. Maybe this isn't true of some of the peat or coal or oil ones we have (maybe it is true of the oil ones) but if we are going to build gas ones then it would be likely that they will have the function of being able to respond to electricity already in the grid.

Where do you feel the ESB is trying to keep wind to a minimum because I wouldn't be surprised. There are always claims of nimbys lodging appeals and winning and from http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=180 you will see that other countries have grown their wind base substantially while Ireland has not, but could be a net exporter of wind-based electricity I'd imagine (maybe that's the problem)

There's a white paper on that site about the European growth but inconsistent growth with regard to countries if you want to read it.

riven wrote:

Actually no I haven't. The design variences are what take the 1000 to 630. the turbine is still assumed to be running at full tilt. The 630 is what is expected from the L9ndon array by their own figures if there is no downtime and no wind speed variance.

I would say 70,000W is right. That is a lot of turbines to maintain. We need to be installing these devices as we have no alternative but we actively need to be persuing real increases in performance and efficiency.

I don't get the first point although it's moot now that the London Array is gone. As far as I understand it a wind turbine is designed to have a maximum output which is gradually getting bigger and bigger as the years go by and research and investment come along. The turbines built in Bellacorick in 1992 are 300 kw each - 21 of them, all powering upto 4000 homes - while the ones in the Arklow Bank (why was the second phase of that project not started either?) are 2500 kw or 2.5 MW each - a huge difference in manufacturers maximum capacity stamp.

My understanding is that the wind will not get those turbines producing at their maximum all the time but will get them producing, over a period of a year, a bit over 40% onshore of their maximum capacity. So of the irish 800MW installed, about 350MW of electricity per year gets output by the turbines while our demand per year is 5-6000 MW. Is that wrong and the 350 MW figure is in fact a lot lower?

cactus flower wrote:

Can anyone answer the argument that because wind energy is not constant fully fired up carbon electricity generation has to be kept going as back up, and therefore wind energy is a total waste?

I keep reading this, and I never find a clear reply to it one way or the other.
It is certainly influencing the ESB who are trying to keep wind to a minimum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/24/renewableenergy.greenpolitics

The Guardian says they got their hands on documents which say that Brown has more interest in protecting traditional sources of energy like coal and gas.

Quote :

Britain is trying to water down tough new European legislation to boost the uptake of renewable energy, despite a pledge by Gordon Brown last month to launch a "green revolution" based on clean technology.

Documents obtained by the Guardian show the UK wants to block attempts to give renewable electricity sources such as wind farms priority access to the national grid. The European official who drafted the legislation accused Britain of "obstructing" EU efforts on renewables and said UK officials wanted to protect traditional energy suppliers and their coal, gas and nuclear power stations.

Could the London Array have been a victim of this ? Rome is burning and the * are doing this sort of * to people?! How can any Government trust the likes of Shell anyway?

Quote :

A lack of connections to the national grid, which was not designed to channel power from the scattered and remote locations that suit renewables, has stalled the uptake of alternative energy in Britain and led to completed wind farms across Scotland standing idle. A recent report from the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills said 9.3GW of wind power projects were currently waiting to be connected - the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations.

9.3 GW is double the Irish grid demand...

It sounds like the problem is not the machinery but (some of) the people.

The London Array is going ahead though Shell have pulled out. The two other partners saw the project as important enough to buy out Shell's share.

The London Array will be 1000 MW or 1 GW and phase 1 will be completed by 2012 according to Ecogeek via the Guardian.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1915/86/

Quote :

Key elements of the London Array project are:
• Up to 341 turbines, installed over a four year period
• Associated offshore and onshore substations
• Cabling (between turbines and to shore)

The wind farm would be constructed in phases, and when fully complete would generate up to 1,000 MW of electricity. This is enough to meet the electricity needs of 750,000 homes – around a quarter of Greater London or all of the homes in Kent and East Sussex.

The project would contribute significantly to the Government’s target for renewable energy – providing around 10% of their target for 2010. It would also avoid the emission of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide over its life compared to a fossil fuel power station producing the same amount of electricity.

http://www.londonarray.com/

Auditor #9 wrote:

$80 million for this 2.3 MW yoke too - from Siemens - to be tested in Norway in 2009.



http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2008/05/worlds-first-floating-turbine-to-be.html

That's a stupid price. Wind should be around 1.5Million per MW. Of course that's land based. Still a tupid price for 2.3MW.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

$80 million for this 2.3 MW yoke too - from Siemens - to be tested in Norway in 2009.



http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2008/05/worlds-first-floating-turbine-to-be.html

That's a stupid price. Wind should be around 1.5Million per MW. Of course that's land based. Still a tupid price for 2.3MW.

Wind will never be viable at that price unless they made a mistake and it's really $8 million. Could that $80 million include research though?

Agreed, it's a stupid price.

Some more here on it - mentioning Norwegian money by the 400 million in the Hywind link
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9950231-54.html

Don't tell anyone but I whipped this from the Guardian this morning - tee hee! It's an excellent article not only on China's wind but on how the country is rising unstoppably on the world stage (they also announced that they have the biggest crowd of internet users too of any country)

I just love the part where they say that they started a wind project way back as a research into production then ended up buying the turbine producing company. Turbines in future are very likely to come from China. And the fact that wind could be competing with coal by 2015 ...

Their consumption is still so huge though that 122 GW is predicted to be installed by 2020 and only account for 10% of the country's needs according to that 122 GW is three times what the UK needs.

Quote :

In the vast natural wind tunnel that is Dabancheng, the gales that roar between the snow-capped mountain ridges get so strong that trains have been gusted off railway tracks and lorries overturned.

Such is the ferocity of the elements that police sometimes have to stop the traffic that passes through this arid, six-mile-wide plain on what was once part of the Silk Road. That used to be bad for business in Xinjiang, the most westerly region of China, which formerly depended on the trade route between central Asia and the densely populated cities in the far east.

Today, however, the gales themselves have become big business in Dabancheng. The area is home to one of Asia's biggest wind farms and a pioneer in a Chinese industry that is forecast to lead the world by the end of next year.

From the road, 118 giant turbines are visible miles before you reach them. Tourists stop for pictures, hair blowing as they pose near the whirring towers.

It is a spectacular sight: fields of spinning blades harvesting energy and transforming it into electricity for the nearby city of Urumqi. A few years ago, this was the only wind farm of such a size in China. But now, bigger facilities have been built or are under construction in Gansu, Inner Mongolia and Jiangsu. Since 2005, the country's wind generation capacity has increased by more than 100% a year. The government's renewable energy policy aims to procure 15% of the country's energy from non-carbon sources by 2020, twice the proportion of 2005.

Wind power has taken off faster than the government planned. This year, policymakers had to double their wind power prediction for 2010, having reached the old goal of 5 gigawatts three years ahead of schedule. On current trends, it will almost definitely have to be doubled again.

Turning point

"China is witnessing the start of a golden age of wind power development, and the magnitude of growth has caught even policymakers off guard," wrote Junfeng Li, secretary general of the China Renewable Energy Industries Association, in a paper last month. "It is widely believed that wind power will be able to compete with coal generation by as early as 2015. That will be the turning point in China, which by then will be the world's largest energy consumer."

China's environmental woes are well documented. Less understood is how the country is attempting to deal with those problems, particularly through the recent, spectacular growth of the renewable energy market.

Strong state policies, rising coal prices and improved technology have prompted a surge of investment into green energy, particularly wind power.

"China's wind energy market is unrecognisable from two years ago, It is huge, huge huge. But it is not realised yet in the outside world," said Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council. He said China might have already overtaken the US as the planet's biggest turbine manufacturer. Given the ambitious plans for wind farms, it could also install the most new generating capacity by 2010.

"A few years ago wind energy was boutique, something to show off to foreigners to prove how green they are but now it is a very serious part of their energy policy," Sawyer said.

"They can make things happen so quickly in China compared to the west. When they make up their minds, it is incredible how fast things happen."

At the end of last year, China had 6 gigawatts of installed wind power generating capacity, covering 202 projects. Another 445 sites have been targeted for development in the near future - according to data from Azure International, a consultancy in Beijing.

The signs of expansion are everywhere. At Dabancheng, new towers are being erected. One of the main operators - Xijiang Tianfang Wind Power - already produces 110,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity and managers say they plan to add 50,000 more by November.

This has already been overtaken by Huitengxile Huadian Wind Farm in Inner Mongolia, which supplies electricity to Beijing. Cows and camels roam between the towers of what started in 1996 as an experimental site, but has now been ramped up to the biggest wind farm in China.

"We call it the Three Gorges of the sky. The hydroelectric dam there taps the water, here we tap the wind," said Li Yanjun, the duty operator "I've been here since the beginning. The turbines are like my children. It took 10 years to reach 64,000 kilowatt/hours because that period was the research phase, but now the government is committed to wind energy so we can grow quickly."

We went inside one of the taller towers to a small room with computers controlling the direction of the 68-metre-high turbine. The sound of the whirring blades vibrated through the enclosed chamber as Li pointed to the readings: Wind speed 10.4km per hour (6.4mph), power generation 1,000 kilowatts.

"This is the future in China," said Li. "Everyone is opting for big turbines. It is more economic to have one 1,500 kw turbine than two 750kw turbines and the maintenance costs are lower."

But even this will soon be trumped. At Jiuquan in Gansu province, the ground has been broken for what could one day be the world's biggest wind farm.

Even the first phase - to be completed by 2010 - will add 3.8 gigawatts, more than the wind generating capacity of the entire country at the end of 2006. When the project is finished, it will be almost three times bigger and linked up to a "wind energy corridor" through Gansu which will be connected to an expanded national grid.

As in India and Brazil, investment in the industry is surging. These three countries' share of new wind financing in the world rose from 12% to 22% between 2004 and 2007.

But the growth is from a tiny base. The industry remains minuscule compared with coal. China's wind industry is still dominated by five state-owned power generation utilities and a handful of other energy-related state-owned enterprises. It was these giant companies that snapped up the first set of "national concession project" government tenders for large wind power generation projects.

Competition is heating up. The turbine industry used to be dominated by foreign manufacturers, such as Vestas of Denmark, Gamesa of Spain and GE of the US. But last year for the first time, domestic manufacturers grabbed more than 50% of the market.

The biggest player by market share is Goldwind, which is based in Urumqi and piloted much of its technology in nearby Dabancheng. The firm says it has grown by more than 100% for each of the past eight years. Now it produces its own big 1.5 megawatts turbines and is developing a model with twice the capacity that it aims to start testing by 2009.

"There is still a gap between Chinese companies and western companies in terms of research and development because we started later," said a Goldwind executive, who asked to remain nameless. "Most of our technology comes from Germany. But in the first half of this year, we bought the company that taught us how to do things. That has solved the problem of research and development. Now we want to start selling overseas."

Goldwind recently made its first sale of turbines to Cuba and it and other domestic manufacturers have been in talks with potential buyers in Pakistan, the Philippines and South Korea. The government already promotes coal technology in energy deals with countries in Africa and the Middle East. "In this context it is reasonable to expect Chinese wind turbines to find receptive export markets in the near term despite the financing and insurance related challenges stemming from limited track-record for many products," said Sebastian Meyer, director of research and advisory at Azure International. The biggest growth, however, is likely to be in the domestic market. In addition to the current 6 gigawatts of generating capacity, Azure estimates that a staggering 130 gigawatts is in the pipeline in China.

Established turbine manufacturers continue to ramp up production even as new entrants try to squeeze their way into the market. If all of their plans are added together, China's new production capacity could surge to 11 gigawatts this year - almost three times the amount installed last year.

This supply considerably exceeds current demand, which means the waiting times for turbines should decrease.

"It is probably going to be the most competitive turbine market in the world very quickly. Elsewhere, it is a seller's market. Now in China, we are on the tipping point of it becoming a buyers' market," according to Meyer. "In 2008 it is likely to grow 1.5 times so growth is actually decelerating, but in terms of volume, size and scale this has become a respectable market globally."

Competition

Rising demand for electricity and tighter safety regulations in mines have driven up the price of domestic coal, which supplies 70% of China's energy needs. Domestic prices are now so high that many power plants in Guangdong and elsewhere in southern China import coal from Australia.

This year, the big five utilities are bleeding money because coal costs have been steadily rising. They cannot pass costs on to their customers because of government regulation of power prices.

Even so, wind energy produces a kilowatt-hour of electricity at about twice the cost of a Chinese coal-fired power plant. Even with the recent price rises, coal remains king in China. To meet the demands of the fast growing economy, power plants and factories burn 2bn tonnes of coal each year, about a third of the world's total.

This is why China has overtaken the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and it is unlikely to fall back to second place for decades.

Wind is also far less favoured than hydro-electricity. Take the dams out of the energy mix and renewables will barely manage 1% of all power generation by 2010 and only 3% by 2020 even in regions with well-developed grids. That is a low proportion compared with the world leader Denmark, which gets about 20% of its electricity from wind.

Long term, the future of wind power is secured by government commitments to renewable energy. The authorities are increasingly alarmed by global warming, which is melting glaciers in Tibet and Xinjiang that provide drinking water to tens of millions of people.

Extreme weather conditions have also led some regions to suffer the worst snowstorms and droughts in decades. Last week, officials in Sichuan province warned that summer flooding was likely to start earlier and be the biggest in a decade because of abnormally high rainfall in May.

On the global stage, China has refused to set binding targets to reduce carbon emissions. But the official rhetoric has shifted. At the end of last month, President Hu Jintao called a politburo study session on the subject of climate change, which energy industry insiders described as an unprecedented level of attention to the problem.

"Our task is tough, and our time is limited. Party organisations and governments at all levels must give priority to emission reduction and bring the idea deep into people's hearts," the president was quoted as saying by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

Environmental groups say the country needs to set more ambitious goals for wind power. With the right government policy, Greenpeace predicts that China's installed wind power capacity could reach 122 GW by 2020, equivalent to the capacity of five Three Gorges Dams, or 10% of the total installed capacity of the country.

In the near future, more and bigger turbines will be spread over a wider area of China. As well as manufacturing more wind power equipment than any other country, analysts predict that China may soon be the world leader in installation.

"China is catching up fast," said Meyer. "The market is ripe for China not replicating what Europe and US did in the past, but doing it better."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/25/renewableenergy.alternativeenergy

Ok my best attempt

Turbine efficiency
Turbine efficiency is about 25-35% as far as i am aware (that includes tranmission losses). the 1000 down to 600 MW is design efficiency. It takes account of the motor efficicncy etc. The next step down is the wind efficicncy and transmission etc etc. So I would suggest that the 800MW would not go to 350MW but lower. The reason we do not see this in a wind turbine operation is the backups in place.

Wind backup systems
With any power system there will always be a need for redundancy and backup. In our coal system gas turbines often provide for this backup. In wind system there are generally two options utilised. Gas for smaller capacity farms and coal fired for larger wind systems. The capacity of these backup systems would be smaller than if we were to use just coal but there is an overlap. The overall system of wind +backup reduces cO2 but does not necessarily produce the energy with the least amount of hassel.
aside. One of the problems with nuke power in Ireland is the small capacity. We essentially would requre to back up each nuke with another nuke (same size) as small nukes are not available.

ESB

ESB has small wind because wind is run by SEI/SWS. ESB should be in charge or wind.
London array

The array lost a major investor in the form of shell who pulled the plug on their 33% of the project funding. the reasons are simple. Phase one should have been completed by 2004 not 2012. The delays were planning and regulations and thus costs skyrocketed. I do not think the government had much to do with it.

China
A good country for renewables even though they use massive amounts of fossil power. They are currently leading the solar/PV market and will probably take wind as well in the near future. They have a good diversity of projects but unfortunately as with the three gorges, environmental concenns do take a back seat sometimes to be green.

riven wrote:

Ok my best attempt

Turbine efficiency
Turbine efficiency is about 25-35% as far as i am aware (that includes tranmission losses). the 1000 down to 600 MW is design efficiency. It takes account of the motor efficicncy etc. The next step down is the wind efficicncy and transmission etc etc. So I would suggest that the 800MW would not go to 350MW but lower. The reason we do not see this in a wind turbine operation is the backups in place.

There is 805 MW installed in Ireland - what does that mean? That all the turbines combined running at optimum capacity will produce 800MW? We see from the wind window that it often goes to 500 or sometimes even 600 MW ...

Apparently the London Array might be back on too. (see above)

It think the 805MW means that there is 805MW but that the orginal designs ex efficiecny were about 2000MW

Re London array. Even with new investment it will take about 1 year turnoround to pick up and go again, another delay to this already well delayed project.

Thanks riven that was a useful explanation.

Quote :

the world leader Denmark... gets about 20% of its electricity from wind.

Its Denmark that uses is investing in using wind to charge up batteries for electric cars. This would seem like a very good idea for us - as the population is so spread out in Ireland it would be virtually impossible for more than half the population to shift to public transport.

The situation seems to be that there is no plan in place for Ireland to become carbon free. However the turn about by Eamon Ryan on bio fuels is a good sign that the Greens are after all prepared to look at the science and do the right thing.

riven wrote:

It think the 805MW means that there is 805MW but that the orginal designs ex efficiecny were about 2000MW

http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windfarmsinireland

The iwea page above says there are 866 MW installed and gives a breakdown per county, per installation and even down to the level of turbine. So on one site in Clare there are 13 units which can produce up to 1.5 MW each it says (19.5 MW in total) and gives the manufacturer as General Electric and also gives a contact number. I am making the grand assumption that each of those turbines in optimal conditions can produce 1.5 MW each and was tested it a wind tunnel or something before they were stood up in the bog.

I don't know what you mean when you say that "the original designs ex efficency were about 2000 MW" ... Are you saying my favourite windfarm isn't 19.5 but really 38 MW ?? How are you coming to this conclusion ?


The Texans are going to go all out and build some monstrous wind farms worth billions ..
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/28/wind.energy/index.html?eref=rss_tech
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1925/86/

The US is starting to lead the world in wind installation according to this. Last year they installed 5,329 MW or just over the total demand in Ireland on a day in winter. This year the figure will be 8000 MW or 8 gigawatts of installed capacity.

It is estimated that by 2020 between 100 and 150 GW of installed capacity will exist in the US - about twice the demand of the UK in winter or around 20 times the demand in this country.

This is great it seems but it's still not enough if they want to meet their goal of 20% wind electricity by 2030.

Quote :

Not Quite Halfway There to DOE Goal
Either way it’s not bad by any means, but as Earth2Tech points out, still less than half of the amount needed to reach the 20% wind power by 2030 goal that the Department of Energy thinks is possible. However, if 2008-2020 can bring an additional 100-odd gigawatts of wind power, 2021-2030 may be able to make up the rest.

"Ambitious but realistic" - Greenpeace's €20 billion offshore grid plan being studied by the EU - The Guardian

The proposed 3,850 mile offshore grid would connect more than 100 wind farms, containing 10,000 turbines,
to seven North Sea countries - Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.

Quote :

The EU is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 20%, producing 20% of primary energy from renewables and reducing energy consumption by 20% - the so-called 20/20/20 package - by 2020.
..
Yesterday's report using scientific data on wind speeds, suggests that the power output of wind farms could be stabilised within an integrated grid and supplemented by Scandinavian hydropower that can be easily switched on. The variability of wind speeds and, hence, of output has been a drawback of wind power.

"The grid would enable the efficient large-scale integration of renewable energy in the power system across the whole North Sea region," said Frauke Thies, a Greenpeace campaigner. "A dip in wind power in one area could be 'balanced' by higher production in another area, even hundreds of kilometres away."

Greenpeace estimates the cost of the scheme at between €15bn and €20bn but says it would unlock power trading opportunities and cost efficiency. A new 600km-power line between Norway and the Netherlands, it says, cost €600m to build but generates €800,000 in daily trading.

The grid looks brilliant. 20% is a poor target as it isn't enough to shift systems over to new ones, its just fiddling around at the edge of the issue.

Sweden has a 100% oil free target - using nuclear. Will it be possible to do it without nuclear? Ireland is well positioned to try, if linked to a grid like that.

cactus flower wrote:

The grid looks brilliant. 20% is a poor target as it isn't enough to shift systems over to new ones, its just fiddling around at the edge of the issue.

Sweden has a 100% oil free target - using nuclear. Will it be possible to do it without nuclear? Ireland is well positioned to try, if linked to a grid like that.

I thought 20% a bit paltry too - it's skirting around it as you say. At least it's a target for now though - this could change in the near future if we get oil prices again like they were this summer... and there could be other energy means well off the ground by 2020 - microsolar and wind, algae, maybe even some form of fusion if that yoke in Marseilles has any decent pay off. Personally I'd favour a radically new form of relativistic energy entirely - how about a spinning black hole in the heart of Europe (Der Schweiz) from which we could run all sorts of electric and gravity generators...

Maybe not. That 20% target and that design I hope might be laid with the intention of expansion; there's an estimated power in the UKs waters alone at 4 times their requirement so combined with Ireland's waters and more of the North Sea the potential must attractive so I hope they lay the right sized wires for expansion. If you read this (entire) article from the Guardian you see the English opposition are busting Brown's chops for digging in to a windmill windfall fund for political ends rather than securing the future upgrade of the grid itself using those funds, or ploughing that money back into the energy sector, although it is not clear from the article how the Tories are accusing the Government .

Quote :

Rising energy prices are on course to net the government a windfall of over £1bn thanks to a little-known scheme designed to promote the development of renewable energy.

The disclosure of the substantial sums made through the scheme comes as Gordon Brown has been piling pressure on power companies to plough some of the profits they have made through increased prices into helping cash-strapped consumers.

The government has faced backbench calls to impose a windfall tax on energy firms and has been criticised for rejecting plans for a one-off cash payment to householders to help pay for steep increases in fuel bills.

But after the Guardian revealed details of the government's own sizable profits through energy sales last night, there were calls for the windfall sums to be used to reduce householders' energy bills.

The government profits come from a scheme set up in the 1980s to support renewable energy projects by guaranteeing to pay developers building wind, biomass and other non-fossil fuel generation plants a fixed price for their electricity for 15 years.

During the first decade of the so-called Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation scheme, it ran at a loss, paid for by consumers, but over the last six years rising electricity prices have allowed the government to cash in on the energy contracts at a substantial profit.

In total ministers have now taken payments of £585m out of the fund, and have another £218m in the scheme's account, which is held by the energy regulator, Ofgem.

This year the scheme is expected to make £200m, or more than £7 for every household in the UK.

Last night Charles Hendry, the Conservative shadow energy minister, accused the government of using the scheme as a "stealth tax" and warned it would further damage public confidence in environmental measures.

"If you're going to tax environmental issues that money should be used for very specific projects for [the] environment, or else to help reduce taxes on families, but this seems to be going into a general pot," said Hendry. "Certainly it would be in the spirit of it if the money was being used to deal with insulation and energy conservation."

Energy companies have also complained about the government taking money which they feel should be paid back to customers or used to support new renewable energy.

"The money that's accumulated was collected with the purpose of achieving environmental ends, and in this regard particularly achieving renewable energy targets, so we think it should be used for that purpose," said Laura Schmidt, spokeswoman for the Association of Electricity Producers.

The Renewable Energy Association said: "That money is effectively raised for renewables and it isn't right it should be used not for renewables."

The government is expected to announce a package of measures next week under which power companies will agree to help impove the energy efficiency of poorer households but it is likley to face difficult questions over why it is not using some of its own energy windfall to help the fuel poor.

Ed Matthew, part of a powerful coalition of lobby groups which will publish a charter on fuel poverty on Monday, said the government's windfall should be spent on speeding up work to improve insulation in the poorest homes "over and above" what is already planned.

"This is a question of life and death: 20,000 to 40,000 people die every year because of cold in this country, and energy efficiency is the only permanent solution," said Matthew, head of UK climate for Friends of the Earth. "Huge investment is required and the money has to come partly from companies and it has to come directly from government itself if we're going to get anywhere close to the kind of investment required to solve the problem."

Revealed: Brown's £1bn power windfall

The pressure needs to be put Government to adopt an ambitious target and make a public investment in renewables - that could be done through tax incentives, but with a claw back if the investment goes over a set level of profitability.

Research could be funded by putting a levy on the gas fields, once they are in profit.

The prospect of Ireland becoming an net energy producer rather than totally dependent on imports is enormously positive.

Here's the old record from Eirgrid of the Maximum Wind reached in the Republic - 716 MW in January of this year



Here's what it did yesterday:



This is sadder than trainspotting, I know, but why don't we have more of these things ??

Quote :

Ethiopia To Build Africa’s Largest Wind Farm

Last week, Ethiopia signed a deal with French wind turbine-maker Vergnet to construct Africa’s largest wind farm. It is expected to produce 120 megawatts within two and a half years, equal to 15 percent of the country’s current energy capacity. The first turbines will be installed in 16 months and will generate 30 megawatts. The $286 million project is financed by French bank BNP Paribas and the French Development Agency.

These projects come at a crucial time for Ethiopia, which relies mainly on hydroelectric power. The country has been plagued by drought and power failure in recent months. This wind farm will put Ethiopia on track to clean, consistent power production and will hopefully draw attention to the need for similar projects throughout the continent.

EcoGeek

120 Megawatts is 15% of their requirements - 120 Megawatts is about 3% of our requirements.

The population of Ireland is 4 million, the population of Ethiopia is 70 million...

Micro generation of wind - this yoke could produce up to a quarter of the average American household's electricity needs or half of an Irish household's needs before the Celtic Tiger, soon to be renamed to the Celtic Carrion surely.

Quote :

Ultra-Quiet Rooftop Wind Turbine Arrives in United States

Noise is one of the major barriers for homeowners considering rooftop turbines. But SWIFT’s rooftop turbine, released today in the US and Canada, claims to be “silent enough to perch on a home, yet robust enough to secure a skyscraper.” The uniquely designed turbine has five blades measuring seven feet in diameter as well as two fins to direct the turbine towards the wind. The blades are surrounded by a ring that cuts the noise level to 35 decibels while reducing vibrations.

* » Read more on wind energy

According to SWIFT, the turbine can generate 1.5 KW with 14 mile per hour winds and approximately 2,000 KWh each year. That means the SWIFT could potentially provide a quarter or more of the average American household’s energy.

The SWIFT is only available right now in the Northeast US, Great Lakes States, and Western Canada. Depending on the cost of installation, conventional electricity costs, wind speeds, and incentives, the SWIFT could pay for itself in as little as three years. And at $10,000 a pop, the turbine costs less than the average per-watt cost of solar panels.

So as long as your neighbors don’t mind a turbine on your roof, SWIFT’s product might be worth looking into.

Cleantechnica

I have never understood the noise thing myself never was an issue even on the large (newer) installations