Storm Darragh has ripped through hundreds of panels at the Porth Wen solar farm and destroyed a wind turbine. The Mail has more.
Hundreds of panels at the giant 190-acre Porth Wen solar farm in Anglesey, North Wales – only built two years ago – were blown off their mountings, some ripped to shreds.
The site at Llanbadrig, in the north of the island which is owned by French power firm EDF Energy and powers up to 9,500 households, now needs significant repairs.
Elsewhere on the island of Anglesey, blades were sheared off a wind turbine which then reportedly caught fire.
Work was continuing yesterday to reconnect thousands of homes left without power and reopen a string of railway lines in Wales and the West Country which were blocked by fallen trees.
Storm Darragh brought severe gusts which reached 96mph at Berry Head, Devon, and gales to the whole Irish Sea coast extending eastwards inland. …
A statement from an EDF Renewables U.K. spokesperson said: “Unfortunately our Porth Wen Solar Farm has sustained damage during Storm Darragh. We are currently assessing the extent of the damage and conducting a controlled clean up.Â
“Once the initial recovery efforts are complete and the damage is fully assessed, we will carry out a full investigation and when safe to do so, resume generation. Repair work and the replacement of damaged panels is expected to carry on into early 2025.”
No – that’s not how it works. EDF will raise the money for the repairs directly from their long suffering customers without the cost of their incompetence ever appearing on the governemnt’s books.
Heretic
1 year ago
Well done to Richard Eldred and the DS for picking up on this vitally important bit of news. Many people have forgotten that Texas Blizzard a couple of years ago, in which the solar panels were covered with snow and the wind turbines were frozen solid.
81m^2 per household or 9m x 9m. Obviously not all of the 190 acres is covered in panels as they need access for maintenance (and repairs!), but they are angled. Also obviously, 9m x 9m won’t supply a single house – they’re relying on demand averaging out over many houses.
At evening peak demand in winter they’ll produce naff-all whether they’re intact or not.
I’m always offended by the use of the meaningless expression “up to” to describe a nebulous, eye-catching, ambition that will never be achieved. Can no-one in the highly paid world of advertising and PR think of an alternative?
I hate it when they say things like “powers up to 9,500 households…”
In reality, the total installed theoretical capacity of this solar farm will be “x” MW, a figure equal to the *average* demand of up to 9,500 households. Not once, even for an instant, will it actually have reliably delivered that figure, and certainly not when it is required, i.e. winter evenings.
Same with the windmills, which have an average 33% availability at installed capacity output.
As long as the panels don’t get too hot, so the less efficient they are in converting solar energy into electrical power the less efficient they become as illumination increases.
It is simple maths that is missing. So maximum output = 9.5 MW, 1 kW Per house. Average over all the houses, on the sunniest possible day, it will just be adequate for, on average, about 4 hours per day in summer. The rest of the time they will need gas backup. Obviously the question is who pays for that? “Oh, someone else!”. The subsidy is reliably received however, rain or dark. Who pays for that? “You do”!
Perhaps you missed my sarcasm, I also spent my professional life as an engineer and I despair of the inability of people who cannot do maths and understand technology to forge ahead without involving competent people in designing a system that will work.
Of course, that last sentence is the exact opposite of what they want us to do, having competent people involved simply shows up the deranged fantasists as being unable to run a bath.
EDF Energy are confident that an additional 10% charge on domestic electricity bills should be enough to see them through the down period and provide sufficient funds to enable necessary repairs which are expected to be completed some time in the next twelve months. Ish.
Imagine weather dependent energy destroyed by —-THE WEATHER. —Who would ever have thought?
The Real Engineer
1 year ago
It looks to me as though the installation is not “fit for purpose”. Rescind the planning permission! Prosecute for failure to meet the building regulations. Who forgot the exposed location and the wind?
RTSC
1 year ago
So basically, when they said “renewable energy” what they means was that after every bad storm we’ll have to renew the solar panels and windmills.
Fortunately there’s a plentiful supply of the hardware from China. They must love it when this sort of thing happens: more business for them. And they’re powering it all with fossil fuels, so they can run their factories 24 hours a day, rain or shine.
mrbu
1 year ago
Expect the usual Net Zero zealots to jump on this and claim it proves their point about the climate emergency, namely that human activities, and particularly the use of fossil fuels, is driving the catastrophic breakdown of our climate, causing more extreme weather events like the recent storm. However, they will say, we can halt this damaging trend by speeding up the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Do not expect them ever to realise that we’ve experienced storms for centuries, long before the Met Office started attaching names to them. And do not expect them to look at any evidence to suggest that the climate cycles naturally through warming and cooling periods irrespective of what people do.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So will they invest more to improve the design and make it less vulnerable to strong wind?
Invest? No. Just get Uncle Ed Minibrain to hose some more taxpayer cash their way to keep rebuilding it every time the wind blows.
No – that’s not how it works. EDF will raise the money for the repairs directly from their long suffering customers without the cost of their incompetence ever appearing on the governemnt’s books.
Well done to Richard Eldred and the DS for picking up on this vitally important bit of news. Many people have forgotten that Texas Blizzard a couple of years ago, in which the solar panels were covered with snow and the wind turbines were frozen solid.
I’d always wondered about ‘renewables’ performance
“at the giant 190-acre Porth Wen solar farm”
“and powers up to 9,500 households”
Seems a bit . . . oh what’s the term? . . . Shit?
On June 21st, on a very sunny day, maybe.
Ha! Not too sunny though!
81m^2 per household or 9m x 9m. Obviously not all of the 190 acres is covered in panels as they need access for maintenance (and repairs!), but they are angled. Also obviously, 9m x 9m won’t supply a single house – they’re relying on demand averaging out over many houses.
At evening peak demand in winter they’ll produce naff-all whether they’re intact or not.
I’m always offended by the use of the meaningless expression “up to” to describe a nebulous, eye-catching, ambition that will never be achieved. Can no-one in the highly paid world of advertising and PR think of an alternative?
“up to” can = zero 🙂
That’s what happens when you are the Saudi Arabia of wind.
And in other news, government sponsored installation dependent on the weather turns out to be complete pants.
Well well colour me surprised.
The climate alarmists state that storms are becoming more frequent and violent due to AGW. Their solution? More fragile solar panels. Genius.
Yes, but unfortunately they will claim it proves the need for…. more renewables.
We live in a time of Net Zero fanaticism and fanatics don’t respond very well to hard reality.
No one expects the Spanish inquisition!
Nature’s retribution. What joy.
đź‘Ťđź‘Ťđź‘Ť
I hate it when they say things like “powers up to 9,500 households…”
In reality, the total installed theoretical capacity of this solar farm will be “x” MW, a figure equal to the *average* demand of up to 9,500 households. Not once, even for an instant, will it actually have reliably delivered that figure, and certainly not when it is required, i.e. winter evenings.
Same with the windmills, which have an average 33% availability at installed capacity output.
Powers up to 9500 households on a sunny day as long as nobody puts the kettle on.
As long as the panels don’t get too hot, so the less efficient they are in converting solar energy into electrical power the less efficient they become as illumination increases.
Is that why we have so much “cloud” caused by those noughts and crosses in the sky? So that the panels are not too illuminated?
“powers up to 9,500 households…”
For how long is the pertinent question.
But don’t be too harsh, you can’t expect the Net Zeroids to understand the difference between MW and MWh.
Or indeed arse and elbow.
Too true, and inexcusable when this is high school physics.
Physics? What’s that got to do with green projects?
It is simple maths that is missing. So maximum output = 9.5 MW, 1 kW Per house. Average over all the houses, on the sunniest possible day, it will just be adequate for, on average, about 4 hours per day in summer. The rest of the time they will need gas backup. Obviously the question is who pays for that? “Oh, someone else!”. The subsidy is reliably received however, rain or dark. Who pays for that? “You do”!
Perhaps you missed my sarcasm, I also spent my professional life as an engineer and I despair of the inability of people who cannot do maths and understand technology to forge ahead without involving competent people in designing a system that will work.
Of course, that last sentence is the exact opposite of what they want us to do, having competent people involved simply shows up the deranged fantasists as being unable to run a bath.
Meanwhile…
EDF Energy are confident that an additional 10% charge on domestic electricity bills should be enough to see them through the down period and provide sufficient funds to enable necessary repairs which are expected to be completed some time in the next twelve months. Ish.
And today British Gas informed me my electricity bill is going up in January.
More ‘cheap’ energy from the gift that keeps on giving.
Send it to Miliband and ask for his explanation? Wholesale energy prices are down…
The planet just doesn’t want to be saved, does it?!
On the upside – this gave me a good laugh at the nut zero expense.
Imagine weather dependent energy destroyed by —-THE WEATHER. —Who would ever have thought?
It looks to me as though the installation is not “fit for purpose”. Rescind the planning permission! Prosecute for failure to meet the building regulations. Who forgot the exposed location and the wind?
So basically, when they said “renewable energy” what they means was that after every bad storm we’ll have to renew the solar panels and windmills.
Clown Show UK.
Fortunately there’s a plentiful supply of the hardware from China. They must love it when this sort of thing happens: more business for them. And they’re powering it all with fossil fuels, so they can run their factories 24 hours a day, rain or shine.
Expect the usual Net Zero zealots to jump on this and claim it proves their point about the climate emergency, namely that human activities, and particularly the use of fossil fuels, is driving the catastrophic breakdown of our climate, causing more extreme weather events like the recent storm. However, they will say, we can halt this damaging trend by speeding up the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Do not expect them ever to realise that we’ve experienced storms for centuries, long before the Met Office started attaching names to them. And do not expect them to look at any evidence to suggest that the climate cycles naturally through warming and cooling periods irrespective of what people do.