Turbines are go! British wind power hits record levels

Posted by jossc - 8 September 2010 at 3:55pm - 12 Comments

Great news - Britain's wind farms generated record levels of power on Monday, providing 5 per cent of all power supplied to the National Grid over the course of the day.

The Grid confirmed that 40.5GWh out of a total 809.5GWh was provided by wind farms over the 24-hour period, with wind output peaking at 1,860 megawatts at 8.30pm.

A National Grid spokesperson said that, including direct output from turbines not conected to the grid, "about 10 per cent of total electricity demand would have been met by wind power. It is a pretty big landmark for the industry."

At its peak, the wind industry was producing the same amount of electricity as three nuclear power stations. This is further evidence that the grid can deal with large-scale inputs from intermittent energy sources like wind farms.

But, before getting too excited, we should remember that wind power in Britain still lags way behind our EU neighbours such as Spain and Germany. On the 8 November last year Spanish turbines generated 53.7 per cent of the nation's daily energy supply - equivalent to the input of 11 nuclear reactors.

Britain is currently a world leader in offshore wind power, but the industry still needs serious government backing to turn plans for a huge expansion programme into reality. The comprehensive spending review in October and the Energy Bill expected in November will be real tests of the coalition's commitment to be the 'greenest government'.

Article tagged as: climate change, energy, offshore wind, wind farms, wind power
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed

Excellent news! and great progress into sustainable energy solutions for the future; I'll keep an eye on the main news providers in the UK to see if there is any cover of this story and if they still go on about how "I'll never work"

By Connelly90 - 9 September 2010 at 9:11am

No, I’m sure it says 53.7%, it's in the article. Did you even read it?

Ok, Obama personally may not be AS interested in oil as many of the previous presidents; but, as president of the United States he is still "interested in oil" by default. After all, he is leading a side which is fighting a war over the stuff and leads a country which ranks 3rd in the number of barrels produced each day. He is not pro BP now, but I would bet any money he wouldn't have said a single bad word about them at the beginning of the year.

Oh, and I find beautiful irony in the fact that you accuse me of "plucking things out of the sky" and using desperate tactics when you are basing some of your argument on the fact I made a simple mis-spelling; especially since you missed one of the main points in the article that your commenting on. It's even in bold and underlined since it’s a hyperlink.

By Connelly90 - 10 September 2010 at 8:58am

I really cant believe that anyone can get excited over 5%, especially as its been very windy lately, the concept of "no wind no power" seems to still escape some people, & dont forget the figures that were being quoted before these things got put up was far greater than the reality we are now seeing,(admittedly these were quoted by people with a financial interest in these futile things), so can you imagine how awful the weather will have to be to increase the actual percentage rate, unless youd be happy with a hurricane catrina every day of the week!
@ Connelly90, i trust thats a typo & you actually meant "it`ll never work", well 5% is like pissing in the sea so hardly a triumph nor a media scoop, cos quite frankly its pathetic & far from excellent news but more of a damp squib.

By mr logical - 9 September 2010 at 3:04pm

Anything that means more power is generated from a renewable scource IS progress.

When Spain manages to generate more than half of its required daily energy through wind power, I would hardly call them "futile" and last time I checked Spain has quite a pleasent climate, nothing like your projected "Hurricane Katrina every day".

You point out that people that are finantially interested in wind farms are tweeking the stats to suit their means but convienently miss out the fact that the nuclear power and oil industries are the worst culprits of this. People working in nuclear power are often quoted of saying that it is safe when it has been proven to be quite a dangerous method of generating power and Barack Obama (quite finantially interested in the oil industry wouldn't you agree?) was quoted as saying that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" 18 days before the deepwater horizon disaster.

"5% is like pissing in the sea"? would you be saying the same if we were talking about the 5% generated by a nuclear power station?

By Connelly90 - 9 September 2010 at 4:02pm

Im really at a loss where you get your figures from, how is it then that germany have realised its a waste of time & money, denmark ditto & yet spain (according to you) generate more than 50% of their power from wind, i might suggest you look at the figures again & look for a decimal point between the "5" & the "0"(even that would be optimistic), & yes i would say the same whether it be nuclear,coal,oil, water or fart power,if its unreliable then its unreliable full stop,, as for your comment regarding Obama being in oil thats the biggest laugh ive had all year, he certainly wasnt pro B,P was he?, you are plucking things out of the sky because thats what you like to believe, well when youve finished playing in your fantasy world you might want to look at the real facts in the real world,oh & im at a loss of what this word "finantially" means which youve used as i cant find it anywhere in my dictionary.

By mr logical - 9 September 2010 at 5:19pm

The article states this was for a short period which in itself is ridiculously vague,this is exactly why i say its rubbish as this could be due to a momentary spike which is very possible as they have been nowhere near that figure before & dont offer a plausible explanation for this incredible jump, please note this "supposed" happening was in the early hours of the morning when nearly everyone was tucked up in bed, also please note that the info has come from a totally biased source who will spout anything to try & justify their being, also could you please confirm just where is it exactly i based an arguement on your spelling?, i didnt do any such thing, i merely enquired what you meant by the word "finantially" which is hardly an arguement in any shape or form, but i guess you are making it up by reading into assumptions which are not there but merely based on your pathetic attempt to make me look a fool, very very sad.

By mr logical - 12 September 2010 at 10:46pm

Excellent news! and great progress into sustainable energy solutions for the future; I'll keep an eye on the main news providers in the UK to see if there is any cover of this story and if they still go on about how "I'll never work"

By Connelly90 - 9 September 2010 at 9:11am

No, I’m sure it says 53.7%, it's in the article. Did you even read it? Ok, Obama personally may not be AS interested in oil as many of the previous presidents; but, as president of the United States he is still "interested in oil" by default. After all, he is leading a side which is fighting a war over the stuff and leads a country which ranks 3rd in the number of barrels produced each day. He is not pro BP now, but I would bet any money he wouldn't have said a single bad word about them at the beginning of the year. Oh, and I find beautiful irony in the fact that you accuse me of "plucking things out of the sky" and using desperate tactics when you are basing some of your argument on the fact I made a simple mis-spelling; especially since you missed one of the main points in the article that your commenting on. It's even in bold and underlined since it’s a hyperlink.

By Connelly90 - 10 September 2010 at 8:58am

I really cant believe that anyone can get excited over 5%, especially as its been very windy lately, the concept of "no wind no power" seems to still escape some people, & dont forget the figures that were being quoted before these things got put up was far greater than the reality we are now seeing,(admittedly these were quoted by people with a financial interest in these futile things), so can you imagine how awful the weather will have to be to increase the actual percentage rate, unless youd be happy with a hurricane catrina every day of the week! @ Connelly90, i trust thats a typo & you actually meant "it`ll never work", well 5% is like pissing in the sea so hardly a triumph nor a media scoop, cos quite frankly its pathetic & far from excellent news but more of a damp squib.

By mr logical - 9 September 2010 at 3:04pm

Anything that means more power is generated from a renewable scource IS progress. When Spain manages to generate more than half of its required daily energy through wind power, I would hardly call them "futile" and last time I checked Spain has quite a pleasent climate, nothing like your projected "Hurricane Katrina every day". You point out that people that are finantially interested in wind farms are tweeking the stats to suit their means but convienently miss out the fact that the nuclear power and oil industries are the worst culprits of this. People working in nuclear power are often quoted of saying that it is safe when it has been proven to be quite a dangerous method of generating power and Barack Obama (quite finantially interested in the oil industry wouldn't you agree?) was quoted as saying that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" 18 days before the deepwater horizon disaster. "5% is like pissing in the sea"? would you be saying the same if we were talking about the 5% generated by a nuclear power station?

By Connelly90 - 9 September 2010 at 4:02pm

Im really at a loss where you get your figures from, how is it then that germany have realised its a waste of time & money, denmark ditto & yet spain (according to you) generate more than 50% of their power from wind, i might suggest you look at the figures again & look for a decimal point between the "5" & the "0"(even that would be optimistic), & yes i would say the same whether it be nuclear,coal,oil, water or fart power,if its unreliable then its unreliable full stop,, as for your comment regarding Obama being in oil thats the biggest laugh ive had all year, he certainly wasnt pro B,P was he?, you are plucking things out of the sky because thats what you like to believe, well when youve finished playing in your fantasy world you might want to look at the real facts in the real world,oh & im at a loss of what this word "finantially" means which youve used as i cant find it anywhere in my dictionary.

By mr logical - 9 September 2010 at 5:19pm

The article states this was for a short period which in itself is ridiculously vague,this is exactly why i say its rubbish as this could be due to a momentary spike which is very possible as they have been nowhere near that figure before & dont offer a plausible explanation for this incredible jump, please note this "supposed" happening was in the early hours of the morning when nearly everyone was tucked up in bed, also please note that the info has come from a totally biased source who will spout anything to try & justify their being, also could you please confirm just where is it exactly i based an arguement on your spelling?, i didnt do any such thing, i merely enquired what you meant by the word "finantially" which is hardly an arguement in any shape or form, but i guess you are making it up by reading into assumptions which are not there but merely based on your pathetic attempt to make me look a fool, very very sad.

By mr logical - 12 September 2010 at 10:46pm

GP online