From the Financial Times:
The Scottish government has approved a wind farm off the coast of Aberdeenshire despite vehement opposition from US property developer Donald Trump who has invested in a luxury golf resort nearby.
Eleven wind turbines capable of providing enough energy to meet the needs of more than 49,000 homes will be built offshore…
Mr Trump had accused Alex Salmond, Scottish first minister, of seeming “hell-bent on destroying Scotland’s coastline” with wind turbines which he described as “ugly monstrosities”.
In practice, when the subsidies and/or mandates end, the wind farms can’t even pay for their own maintenance. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/
Brent, you don’t know what you’re talking about (and 40% of your “sentences” aren’t actually sentences).
BTW, I have a bachelors degree from the EE department at MSU.
When comparing Apples to Oranges. You must take into account the frequency used for the country. Unlike 60 Hertz in the U.S.A. and 50 Hertz most other countries. The current draw is considerably less and voltage higher. Redo the math.
Their comes a time when wind farms should be able to support themselves through production, proper maintenance and management. Like any other business they should not need to be subsidized.
There’s no way that 11 wind turbines can power 49,000 homes. I think someone is confusing “nameplate capacity” (rated maximum output) with actual power production.
A typical wind turbine can produce about 2 MW peak output, and the largest ones about 6 MW, in ideal wind. That’s the nameplate capacity.
But they’re lucky to actually get 25% of that, on average. That’s the “capacity factor.” The average capacity factor for all German wind turbines was 17.5% in 2012.
Let’s assume that the Scottish wind turbines are giant 6 MW models, and let’s very optimistically assume they achieve a 33.33% capacity factor (nearly twice the German average, which is unlikely). If so, they’d actually generate an average of 2 MW each, or 22 MW total for all 11 turbines.
That comes to 22 x 24 x 365 = 192,720 MHh/yr.
I don’t have numbers for Scottland, but In the USA, a typical home uses about 11 MWh/year (but a lot more than that for all-electric houses, like mine).
Divide 192,720 / 11 = only 17,520 homes, and that’s with VERY optimistic assumptions.
If an industry has to rely on subsidies to exist, it is not an industry, but a leech and should be eliminated
1. If the wind farms are economically viable, they should have priority over a golf resort.
2. Since they’re not, and have to be subsidized, they shouldn’t be built at all.