The Brooklyn Wind Turbine
April 17th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
The fate of Wellington’s Brooklyn wind turbine swings in the balance.
The 17-year-old turbine, New Zealand’s oldest and first commercially viable one, has not been operating for four months, as some of the machinery needs repair.
Meridian is reviewing whether it should repair, replace or remove the turbine, and plans to ask the community to help decide its fate.
For my 2c I think the turbine is a great icon for Windy Wellington, and it s a great excuse to take visitors up to its location to admire the view. I hope Meridian do keep it going.
April 17th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
But I thought this was FREE energy. What are you telling me now that it costs money to maintain them?????
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Well DPF you will have what about 100 sites to choose from soon in interesting places with different views. I feel a tourist tour business joining your business stable.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
If the turbine was really “commercially viable” which I seriously doubt, this maintanance would have been planned and budgeted for and would now not be a problem. Commies can’t manage- EOS.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
they should stick it up where they plan that stupid sign..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
it would be ‘clean/green’ new zealand..on open view for arriving tourists..
and it makes much more sense than some tacky (cribbing) billboard..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Strange that I’ve never heard the residents complain about this turbine. Maybe it could be replaced with a bigger one.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Redbaiter – this particular one would not have been virtually viable at the time. However as the ‘infrastructure’ is in place a replacement one would probably be commercially viable as other wind farms are.
By the way, it is estimated that Aussie power prices in Aussie will triple in the medium distance future because generating companies are wary of building new coal fired plant like Mt Piper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Piper_Power_Station
These and other coal fired plants (such as Eraring, NSW and Latrobe Valley, Vic stations) burn cheap easily got at and plentiful local coal but their economics ill take a ding with carbon trading etc.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Might I suggest that a better location would be the corner of Bowen and Molesworth streets?
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
If its commercially viable why would they have to ask the community regarding its fate?
Obviously its rooted and they will want the public to stump up the cash to ” preserve” it.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I vote remove.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
“However as the ‘infrastructure’ is in place a replacement one would probably be commercially viable as other wind farms are.”
I know of no wind farm that is capable of passing any objective financial viabilty test. Unless they’re charging an arm and a leg for the power. Wind farms are a scam promoted by charlatans and frauds.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
There are several tens of thousands of old non-functional wind turbines rusting away in California. They’re not worth replacing and no one wants to spend money dismantling them. Even if you did, you’d still be left with the access roads and the honking great concrete base.
So Brooklyn represents the future of Green Energy. Obsolete. Expensive. Commercially non-sustainable. Rusting. And visible from miles around.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Yeah there are ten thousand rusting away unused in California too expensive to maintain and not viable unless subsidised.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Drove thru the massive turbine park at Altamont pass, CA about 6 weeks ago. Old and derelict turbines, didn’t see a single one spinning, and the area is HUGE.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Rubbish. Name even one windfarm of which you have any professional or specific knowledge.
This machine is no longer viable as it requires a substantial overhaul and is out of production. It’s a small machine (225 kW) by modern standards (the smallest now made by Vesta is 850 kW) and Meridian have bigger and more profitable windfarms to sink their capital into. As for the re-usability of the infrastructure, it isn’t really. A replacement turbine would be larger and so the foundation and tower would be too small. Not to mention the inevitably RMA issues. Also IIRC this turbine is connected into the local 11 kV system, most probably via a 500 kVA transformer. So again this would need to upgraded for a bigger machine, and there’s a limit to how much power you can poke to the 11 kV system.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
If it’s commercially viable then why is there any question about it’s ‘fate’? I’d suggest that it’s not commercially viable at all. It will be interesting to see what happens when other aging turbines start needing non-trivial repairs.
Vote:Edit: ok, so I agree with a bunch of you here!
April 17th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Wind turbine = HOT; stupid wellywood sign = NOT.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
It would never have been economically viable….but has been a useful PR exercise.
Vote:Therefore no reason for ‘the community’ to subsidise its existence if Meredian dont want to maintain it itself.
I suppose too it has helped camouflage Meredian’s coal-fired station in Dunedin about which they keep very quiet.
April 17th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Talking of which I see Gluckman is fronting up on Q+A tomorrow to justify key and Smiths obsession with Global Warming.
Vote:WTF he knew about it before Key promoted him on the good Lord Knows. ( I know Rb that this won’t work for you but its a phrase to describe the useless.)
April 17th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
” Rubbish.”
About the book “The Wind Farm Scam”
The spectre of global warming and the political panic surrounding it has triggered a goldrush for renewable energy sources without an open discussion of the merits and drawbacks of each. In his book “The Wind Farm Scam” Dr Etherington argues that in the case of wind power the latter far outweigh the former.
Wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what’s more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. Dr Etherington argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favour the cause it purports to support.
About the Author- John Etherington was a Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, Cardiff. Since his retirement from the University in 1990, he has devoted himself to researching the implications of intermittently available renewable electricity generation, in particular wind power. He is a Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and a former co-editor of the International Journal of Ecology.
Further reading-
Are Wind Farms a Scam?
http://www.nowpublic.com/are_wind_farms_a_scam_0
E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur. The report was sponsored by the German government and all sides of the industry. Among bombshells contained inside, the study suggests that while wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity.
The evidence also shows a mismatch of supply and demand. High pressure weather systems bring cold winters and hot summers which unfortunately coincide with low wind levels. These meteorological realities mean that wind makes its maximum contribution when demand is lowest and its minimum contribution when demand is highest. In 2004, wind accounted for 20 percent of total electricity production in Denmark but supplied only 6 percent of consumption, because it produced a surplus at periods of lowest demand. What’s more, 84 percent of Danish wind-generated electricity was exported to Norway, and sold at a loss for Denmark. Furthermore, the Norwegian electricity system uses carbon free hydro power, so the effect of carbon reductions realised in power produced by windmills was nullified.
Also, because of this variability in wind, back-up fossil fuel plants must be operated at low load to maintain system reliability. There is new evidence that shows that switching base load fossil fuel plants on and off to balance a system produces higher carbon emissions than continuous operation, certainly not a supposed benefit from switching to renewable energy sources.
Because wind installations tend to be concentrated in areas with high wind speeds, regional grids are heavily overloaded at times of maximum feed-in. Each country studied reported extreme difficulties in balancing the grid. A further 2,700 km of costly high voltage transmission lines will be required in Germany to accommodate new wind capacity.
It is clear that wind-generated electricity can only work as part of a generation portfolio.
So fuck off malcolm you constant whiney squealing attention seeking leg humping little queer. If you had a real argument, you would have posted it instead of a load of codswallop that has nothing to do with the viablity of windfarms. Windfarms are a scam promoted by charlatans and frauds. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re apparently one of them.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
“Talking of which I see Gluckman is fronting up on Q+A tomorrow to justify key and Smiths obsession with Global Warming.”
I’ll be surprised if he’s asked any hard or truth based questions there.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
So why are Meridian and countless other companies building windfarms?
Written by someone who knows nothing about power generation and transmission. Wind compliments hydro very well as hydro can be ramped up and down very quickly without loss of efficiency. That is the case in NZ and many other countries. Wind is equivalent to additional snow-melt or rain into the hydro storage.
This isn’t a disadvantage of wind power. Any substantial new generation will require new transmission circuits and possible upgrades of existing ones. A 500 MW windfarm is no different from a 500 MW hydro station or coal-fired station in this regard. The grid must be able to handle the outage of any type of generation. The only power stations which can be built near their load are gas-fired and nuclear. All others; wind, coal, hydro etc are built where the ‘fuel’ is and this is seldom next to a large city.
You quoted this last time and I explained it then. Denmark is connected to Sweden by an HVDC link. When there’s surplus wind energy in Denmark it is exported to Sweden (and indirectly to the other countries connected to Sweden’s grid) were it defers the use of water in hydro stations. The situation you quote is misleading and only half of the picture – you need to consider the cheap energy which is returned to Denmark at other times.
Now fuck yourself and rant about something about which you actually know something.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
If Denmark was losing out on their HVDC connection to Sweden they would never have built it. They both benefit by being able to share each others use-it-of-lose-it surplus. In Denmark’s case that is wind energy and in Swedens case it is hydro energy.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Malcolm
‘Now fuck yourself and rant about something about which you actually know something.’
Is this sort of thing necessary?
(I think there might be one ‘something’ too many in there too)
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I’m just responding in kind to Redbaiter’s preferred mode of discourse. Why don’t you ask him?
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Malcolm.
Thanks for your reply.
I didn’t read Redbaiter’s comment, and if it’s couched in the terms you copied (‘mode of discourse’ – love it!) then I don’t think I will.
It’s a shame because the abuse and foul language detracts from the argument. As far as I can tell, it – the abuse – becomes the point.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I agree – but where have you been? Redbaiter does nothing but abuse. Even when he’s got a half-decent argument (unlike on this thread) he’s incapable of presenting it without abuse and smear. We should probably feel sorry for him as he evidently has some problems, however I generally think of him like a giant dogshit on the footpath of Kiwiblog. From time to time I respond much as you might pick up a stick and try to scrape it off the footpath lest somebody come along and step in it.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Good on the DomPost for following that up. I have stood at the window wondering for some time what was up with it. I liked it when it went, like a civic wind vane. You could always tell the wind from the Brooklyn wind turbine. For example, it the brakes had stopped it, she was a windy one. These days, I have to go to the top of the road to check the Makara Turbines to see which way the wind is blowing and how strong.
I’m of two minds on keeping it though. If it stays, it really should be upgraded to a profitable size, like those big bastards out at Makara. But then the Brooklyn NIMBYs would be up in arms at having just the one of them. If not, strip off the propellers and use it as a really large sun dial.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I was a bit hard on Redbaiter in my previous comment. Occasionally he can be quite civil; presumably when he’s taking his meds.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Malcolm.
Yes, er, I see what you mean. I’ve just read one of Redbaiter’s signing off comments. Not for the faint-hearted.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Where is the Don Quixote when you need one?
If it isn’t put back into service the World might implode, and Earth Hour might have to become Earth Day?
As for Volcano’s affecting the Climate, who do we tax to keep it under control?
Scandalous. Especially when there are all those Government paper shufflers gold plated pensions to pay for!!
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“I generally think of him like a giant dogshit on the footpath of Kiwiblog.”
Bullshit. You live to read my posts, and you constantly follow me around trying to hump my leg like some sort of frantically bent chihuahua. Other posters too have remarked on your sick obsession.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
It’s a great tourist attraction. Give it a lick of paint, shut the thing down and out up a sign saying “only works on windy days” so that Wellingtonians get to see tourists, nearly being blown to Makara, wondering if it would take a hurricane to get the blades turning.
Of course, the irony is with Wind Turbines they shut down if it’s too windy anyway, but it might get a laugh.
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
how about a 3d hologram of the wind turbine..
..where they want to stick that bloody billboard/sign..?
(or..a 3d hologram of a (pre-svelte) peter jackson..
..in the north korean ‘styling’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 17th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
lol @ the lefty turds promoting their unreliable bullshit voodoo energy supply.
Vote:April 18th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Burn coal, thats whats its for.
Vote:April 18th, 2010 at 10:53 am
DPF I hope Meridian make their decision based on genuine commercial viability but should they decide this turbine is not worth repairing don’t let that deter you.
I’m sure Meridian (in that event) will happily sell you the turbine and you can repair it yourself.
Vote: