Login Register

Work to install 10 100 metre wind turbines between Newquay and Truro underway

By CGHollie  |  Posted: January 23, 2013

Ten 100 metre turbines to go up at Carland Cross wind farm between Newquay and Truro

Ten 100 metre turbines to go up at Carland Cross wind farm between Newquay and Truro

Comments (9)

CONTROVERSIAL plans to install 10 100 metre wind turbines between Newquay and Truro are underway.

It forms part of an on-going project to repower Carland Cross wind farm - close to St Newlyn East village.

Scottish Power, which is behind the scheme, said the process to remove the existing 15, 49 metre turbines and replace them with 10, 100 metre turbines has begun.

The plans were given the green light some two years ago by a Planning Inspectorate following a heated six-day public inquiry.

Gordon Anderson, project manager at ScottishPower renewables, said the Carland Cross repowering project is one of only a few "ever to be undertaken in Britain".

"Work is progressing well on repowering Carland Cross," he said.

"We are in the process of removing the existing 15 turbines, which we hope to complete in February 2013. The process of installing the ten new turbines began in December 2012, and is expected to be complete in April 2013.

"In total up to 100 people have worked on or been involved on this project, which is one of only a few repowering projects ever to be undertaken in Britain.

"Cornwall was a pioneer in terms of wind energy in the early 90's, and it is also leading the way again in terms of repowering projects in the UK. We take great care when carrying out our work, and we look forward to seeing Carland Cross continue its role as an important source of renewable energy for Cornwall."

The repower will triple the wind farm's capacity from 6MW to 20MW of electricity.

The plans for Carland Cross caused controversy with some nearby residents who campaigned for them to be refused planning consent.

They formed the Residents Against Turbines (RATS) group and argued at the time that the new turbines would represent an unacceptable visual impact on the area.

A spokesman for RATS said it was unable to comment on the latest development at this time.

Read more from West Briton

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters

9 comments

  • Cknocker  |  January 25 2013, 8:08PM

    You're not getting it - the coldest the weather gets in Cornwall (Normally - this year has been an exception) is in December/January with Atlantic High pressure Systems, during these times the electricity demand is huge yet there is no wind - NOT EVEN IN CARLAND CROSS! So the wind generation is useless at those times, that means that during these times 100% of demand has to come from other sources. You may say well thats fine, when we have these weather systems there is not normally a cloud in the sky and the solar can pick up the extra - thats great, the problem is the peak demand periods are between 0700 - 0900 and 1600 - 1900. In the winter the solar output is negligible at those times. So we are advocating a system by going so heavily into solar and wind that produces absolutely NO electricity when we need it most - is that sensible? In this scenario we have to have fossil fuel/nuclear generation capable of meeting 100% demand. Nuclear cannot be turned off routinely as such the approx 25% nuclear generation is a constant. Turbines need to be kept spinning (what is termed spinning reserve) if they are to be called upon at short notice. As a result of this what happens is the renewable generation tends to be told to stop and start generating to suit the demand profile of the day. In other words it is NOT BASE LOAD GENERATION. The biggest crying shame in all of this is the government of the day in 1990 cut the funding to the Hot Rocks Project - that is something that could get us out of this hole!

    Rate   2
    Report
  • max5500  |  January 25 2013, 7:34PM

    Correct and that's why you have to place them correctly, I.E in exposed areas with regular winds, like for example Carland Cross.

    Rate   1
    Report
  • Cknocker  |  January 25 2013, 3:53PM

    And the most efficient wind turbine possible will never produce any power when there is no wind!

    Rate   3
    Report
  • max5500  |  January 25 2013, 2:12PM

    Agreed that big turbines are more effective, especially in the right site, but if you'd ever been to Carland Cross you'd immediately notice what a good wind source it is. Everyone who criticizes wind power never has any creative suggestions, criticizing new technologies is so easy. Having alternative ideas is much harder. Would you rather your considerate caring foreign gas importer looks after you with his fair and reasonable prices and record breaking profits? Did the first car ever made do 70MPG? Was the first building over 1000ft tall? You cant expect turbines to be perfect straight away, it take demand and investment to improve their efficiencies. Renewable technologies are improving all the time, but things like fracking will definitely damage their progress.

    Rate 0
    Report
  • letigre  |  January 24 2013, 12:17PM

    Most people in the area know that old Carland has been slowly de-powered over the past 18 months or so, which is why it went slowly down from 100% to 30% operation, with just 5 running at the end. Although actually I don't think it ever was 100% because there always seemed to be at least one not operating. However yesterday on a drive back from the north coast my children counted over 40 turbines not operating. My kids have taken up this game and my 3 year old is constantly saying 'ooo another broken one from the back'. I know they aren't 'broken' and they aren't all de-powered because some have only just gone up. They just for whatever reason are not operating. Given this fact, how many turbines not operating do we need? Where was our power coming from yesterday? I am following Pat Swords progress on this with interest. The real big question though is, will new Carland be another Fullabrook? I fully agree Cknocker, there needs to be a sensible target for onshore wind, and I believe we've reached it. JohnDavies – did you work out how many more turbines we need to meet the current UK targets? I think I got to 75,000 or something and then my calculator blew up.

    Rate   2
    Report
  • Cknocker  |  January 23 2013, 10:52PM

    max5500, I'm not really opposed to sensible wind development - however I believe we need to be realistic about its true potential. For starters I believe we are better off with larger wind farms (Such as this development) as opposed to the whole plethora of "micro" turbines (Some of which are bigger than the ones being removed at Carland Cross) that are popping up all over the countryside at the rate of knots - a great many of these are in entirely the wrong position meaning they just don't work. Due to the fact that wind cannot be called upon demand, I personally think we are insane targeting more than 10% wind generation. The statement that the station is being repowered is proof that wind farms are effective is a major leap in the dark - what it maybe proof of, is that it is profitable in that location. Also the fact they are spinning proves nothing - the way the gearboxes in a wind turbine works is that the turbine spins at a constant rate (It has to in order to maintain frequency sychronisation with the grid). The power output is a cubic function of the windspeed, meaning that actual output tails off extremely quickly as the wind speed falls below the design speed. I think you also need to be aware of the impact of construction of ANY power source on the environment. Carland Cross has had a 2 mile long haul road constructed for construction access for this project - there is a huge amount of aggregate gone into that, every base contains nearly 1000 tonnes of concrete and 35 tonnes of reinforcement and then there is the construction of the turbines themselves. When working out the lifetime energy output of a generator, you have to subtract the construction and decommissioning energy usage from the total lifetime production - with some of the turbines in the county it would not surprise me if they use more energy than they ever produce.

    Rate   5
    Report
  • johndavies  |  January 23 2013, 7:55PM

    As I write this, on a cold evening, -1°C, the UKs entire 4,366 wind turbine fleet is producing- just … 1.2% of demand !!! See for yourselves - http://tinyurl.com/6ja8btf & - http://tinyurl.com/c5b35rn On Thursday temperatures will drop to -12°C with no wind, so again this expensive intermittent source will fail to deliver. The consumer has to pay twice as much for wind farm generated electricity and most of this "subsidy" goes to the developer. They make millions for doing very little, which perhaps explains the unholy, and unplanned, rush to build turbines wherever they can. And C02 emissions are as high as they ever were. It's the wrong technology to solve the problem …because it was chosen by uninformed Westminster politicians, many of which are involved in the scam.

    Rate   5
    Report
  • max5500  |  January 23 2013, 6:50PM

    The fact that this station is being repowered proves that wind farms are effective in the right place. I have driven past this wind farm countless times and I think only 1 in every 10 times I do drive past are the turbines not spinning.

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • 28daysearlier  |  January 23 2013, 11:01AM

    The naysayers have constantly pointed to the fact that these turbines haven't been turning to say why wind power doesn't work. Now at least the truth can be told. These turbines were due for replacement...not just ineffective as claimed by the anti-turbine lobby. Now they can stop using it as an excuse. Half lies and distortions is all you get from them.

    Rate   -2
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES