Comments on: The CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) were not blinkered and recognised that wind had a capacity credit value http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-cegb-were-not-blinkered-and-recognised-that-wind-had-a-capacity-credit-value.html Elite Energy, Environment & Tranporation Experts Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:20:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: admin http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-cegb-were-not-blinkered-and-recognised-that-wind-had-a-capacity-credit-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-1089 admin Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:26:50 +0000 http://www.claverton-energy.com/?p=3675#comment-1089 The towers were not designed to have wind turbines, any significant size would collapse the tower in high winds. Wrong voltage so would need large transformer. Impractical. The towers were not designed to have wind turbines, any significant size would collapse the tower in high winds. Wrong voltage so would need large transformer. Impractical.

]]> By: Frank Thornton - [Joe Public] http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-cegb-were-not-blinkered-and-recognised-that-wind-had-a-capacity-credit-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-1088 Frank Thornton - [Joe Public] Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:58:52 +0000 http://www.claverton-energy.com/?p=3675#comment-1088 Have you considerd using the large electricity pylons, situated in exposed areas [moorlands etc] as the frame for wind turbines? Power generated from these turbines could be plugged directly into the main grid? Planning would be easier as the Pylon exists, much faster developement without further ruining the landscape. The Pylon frames could be strengthened. Have you considerd using the large electricity pylons, situated in exposed areas [moorlands etc] as the frame for wind turbines?
Power generated from these turbines could be plugged directly into the main grid?
Planning would be easier as the Pylon exists, much faster developement without further ruining the landscape.
The Pylon frames could be strengthened.

]]> By: admin http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-cegb-were-not-blinkered-and-recognised-that-wind-had-a-capacity-credit-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-1043 admin Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:04:02 +0000 http://www.claverton-energy.com/?p=3675#comment-1043 Dave I have to say I am sympathetic to Chris's cri de coeur. I am not enough of an economist to appreciate all the benefits that have surely flowed from the privatisation and liberalisation of UK electricity and gas markets, and too much of a physicist to ignore the many downsides. The CEGB had a wind power programme in the 70s and 80s and Don Swift-hook, David Millborrow, and Tony Rockingham and Taylor were ahead of their time. Some of their papers were reviewed in Mike Grubb's papers on the subject. I seem to remember a paper by Taylor and Rockingham that clearly identified the size of the UK offshore wind power resource. I also recall a meeting of the BWEA - I would guess either 1979 or 1980 - at which it was put to one or more representatives of the UK government that Denmark was in the process of establishing a wind power test station at Riso and that if the UK didn't do something similar, any lead that we had would be lost. History records that we didn't and it was. I was a bit player in all of this. One of my few insights was that the approach of the UK government with respect to wind was inexplicably similar to its approach to nuclear reactor development. The DEn funded a 3.7 MW wind turbine in the late 70s. For several years this was the sole focus of their effort - yet it was an over-engineered and expensive evolutionary dead-end. Great effort was put into making sure it didn't fail. I said at the time that this was a fundamental mistake - that, unlike nuclear reactors, it didn't matter much if wind turbines failed, provided lessons were learnt, and that the strategy should be to try out a large number of systems quickly to learn. The cost of a single conventional power station would have funded hundreds of wind systems. This is essentially what the Danes did. Bob (Professor) Dave

I have to say I am sympathetic to Chris’s cri de coeur. I am not enough of an economist to appreciate all the benefits that have surely flowed from the privatisation and liberalisation of UK electricity and gas markets, and too much of a physicist to ignore the many downsides. The CEGB had a wind power programme in the 70s and 80s and Don Swift-hook, David Millborrow, and Tony Rockingham and Taylor were ahead of their time. Some of their papers were reviewed in Mike Grubb’s papers on the subject. I seem to remember a paper by Taylor and Rockingham that clearly identified the size of the UK offshore wind power resource.

I also recall a meeting of the BWEA – I would guess either 1979 or 1980 – at which it was put to one or more representatives of the UK government that Denmark was in the process of establishing a wind power test station at Riso and that if the UK didn’t do something similar, any lead that we had would be lost. History records that we didn’t and it was.

I was a bit player in all of this. One of my few insights was that the approach of the UK government with respect to wind was inexplicably similar to its approach to nuclear reactor development. The DEn funded a 3.7 MW wind turbine in the late 70s. For several years this was the sole focus of their effort – yet it was an over-engineered and expensive evolutionary dead-end. Great effort was put into making sure it didn’t fail. I said at the time that this was a fundamental mistake – that, unlike nuclear reactors, it didn’t matter much if wind turbines failed, provided lessons were learnt, and that the strategy should be to try out a large number of systems quickly to learn. The cost of a single conventional power station would have funded hundreds of wind systems. This is essentially what the Danes did.

Bob (Professor)

]]>