Sorry to rake up wind farms again.... (1 Viewer)

[ColinD]

Maybe this would be the best solution? Let the planet continue without Homo Sapiens?

Absolutely, it is the best solution. The less of us there are, the better for the Planet.

 

[Collster]

Absolutely, it is the best solution. The less of us there are, the better for the Planet.

Perhaps then these severe and extreme natural events are natures way of removing the problem

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Another report in the press today about how we are going to pay for the massive subsidies the developers get;

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...objectid=21160462&siteid=61634-name_page.html

 

[Gary Clark]

I've already said my piece, and I won't argue with you about your objections, they are valid.

One my least favorite phrases, though, is "Not In My BackYard." We face big problems that affect the entire planet. The Connecticut yachters, e.g., shouldn't have a disproportionate say in how we find solutions to our problems.

I agree that nuclear plants are a good alternative to coal-burning plants. However, an important distinction: nuclear plants use another finite resource, Uranium, which is far more fossilized (created in super-novas billions of years ago) than carbonaceous fossil fuels. We only have decades, perhaps a century or two, of fissile fuels available on Earth -- so nuclear energy is not a long-term sustainable solution.

Point well taken, but if nobody cares what happens in their own backyard, I'm not sure who is left to care about anything related to the planet. I don't like hearing of wind farms usurping tens of thousands of acres of land, no matter where they are - my backyard or others'. Our few remaining open spaces would be turned into industrial complexes with wide-scale wind deployment. As you've said, no single energy solution is without its problems, but I see very few in the enviro-community admitting how big the problems are with wind power. Renewable, yes. Destructive, absolutely.

 

[Nelbert]

I've already said my piece, and I won't argue with you about your objections, they are valid.

One my least favorite phrases, though, is "Not In My BackYard." We face big problems that affect the entire planet. The Connecticut yachters, e.g., shouldn't have a disproportionate say in how we find solutions to our problems.

I agree that nuclear plants are a good alternative to coal-burning plants. However, an important distinction: nuclear plants use another finite resource, Uranium, which is far more fossilized (created in super-novas billions of years ago) than carbonaceous fossil fuels. We only have decades, perhaps a century or two, of fissile fuels available on Earth -- so nuclear energy is not a long-term sustainable solution.

It's a fair point about Uranium, though it's also fair to say that presently, there's a glut in the world supply of uranium and it's fairly cheap. Not that it need stay that way, as we've seen with oil, uranium prices could sky-rocket as more nations take the choice to go nuclear.

My two main objections to nuclear power are that it's likely to lead to nuclear weapons proliferation (the 'wall' between a 'peaceful' nuclear programme and a military programme is simply one of timing - if you have the infrastructure for one, by default you have the infrastructure for the other) and secondly because we don't know how safe it is. What we do know is that there have been significantly more reactor accidents than the commonly-quoted Three Mile Island/Chernobyl incidents. What we don't know is the implications for public (and environmental) health as a result of these incidents.

All that said, I do think it's inevitable that energy production will have to be a mix of systems that includes renewable options and some upgrading of our nuclear capacity. What this needs to be married to, however, is some joined-up thinking in government about energy conservation and reduction in consumption. Otherwise we're simply delaying the inevitable.

 

[paulwfromtheden]

It's a fair point about Uranium, though it's also fair to say that presently, there's a glut in the world supply of uranium and it's fairly cheap. Not that it need stay that way, as we've seen with oil, uranium prices could sky-rocket as more nations take the choice to go nuclear.

My two main objections to nuclear power are that it's likely to lead to nuclear weapons proliferation (the 'wall' between a 'peaceful' nuclear programme and a military programme is simply one of timing - if you have the infrastructure for one, by default you have the infrastructure for the other) and secondly because we don't know how safe it is. What we do know is that there have been significantly more reactor accidents than the commonly-quoted Three Mile Island/Chernobyl incidents. What we don't know is the implications for public (and environmental) health as a result of these incidents.

All that said, I do think it's inevitable that energy production will have to be a mix of systems that includes renewable options and some upgrading of our nuclear capacity. What this needs to be married to, however, is some joined-up thinking in government about energy conservation and reduction in consumption. Otherwise we're simply delaying the inevitable.

It's odd that the one option that never seems to be considered is 'use less energy!!'

 

[Stevie babe]

I think this is a useful point to make. How do a thousand micro-projects compare to a single massive project, in terms of construction, environmental disruption, power output, who that output goes to, etc, etc.

A couple of years ago, there was a real will to have small-scale solar projects on domestic residences. There were thousands of applicants for what were fairly generous grants. Seemed like perfectly acceptable grass-roots thinking. The the Government changed the grants system, dramatically slashed the amount of money available, and the scheme has gone into mothballs.

The accountants win again. There is never real altruism in politics. Ever.

Yet if every new building was required by law to have solar / radiation (or whatever it's called) panelling commensurate with it's size There would be no need for all these giant windmills. Since builders will get the panels cheaper than the individual it might only put a couple of thousand pounds on to the price of a 3 bedroom house. It just needs to be made law together with ensuring that at least one main roof faces south. We hope to get some installed sooner rather than later especially since electrical costs expected to rise ( assisted by the high cost of the new wind farms - note by the way mentioned on TV a couple of days ago that a number of wind farms have been shelved because of the high cost)

Steve

 

[Barred Wobbler]

There's an article here that's worth a read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2910.xml


And another here;


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2207.xml

 

[ColinD]

There's an article here that's worth a read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2910.xml


And another here;


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2207.xml

This is all interesting and alarming reading, but with the exception of Stevie who suggests solar power, I'm still not seeing any alternatives being put forward. A barrage across the Severn and the Thames perhaps?

Ok, I oppose windfarms. Now what?

 

[dantheman]

This is all interesting and alarming reading, but with the exception of Stevie who suggests solar power, I'm still not seeing any alternatives being put forward. A barrage across the Severn and the Thames perhaps?

Ok, I oppose windfarms. Now what?

It has been mentioned already - use less energy in the first place.

This would require not only a halt to the escalating energy usage going on, but a reversal. Can be done, on a individual basis, in industry and politically. But I guess consumerism as a concept would have to die first . . .

 

[ColinD]

It has been mentioned already - use less energy in the first place.

This would require not only a halt to the escalating energy usage going on, but a reversal. Can be done, on a individual basis, in industry and politically. But I guess consumerism as a concept would have to die first . . .

Well...... Let's look at the maths. Let's say we have 50 years worth of energy left at the current rate. Therefore, if we cut energy usage by 50%, that gives us 100 years. But then the World Population is set to double over the next few years, so maybe we still only have 50 years even if we half our current rate. Ok, I know that these are simple figures, but it seems to me that even greatly reducing our energy usage only delays the inevitable.

 

[dantheman]

Ah, but without runaway increases in energy consumption, it buys more time for small scale sustainable development.

Can't remember the figures offhand but I think there's something like 3 acres area per person in the uk. If we all lived in smaller houses which were designed to need very little heating, didn't use any number of (unnecessary) electrical gadgets, had community windturbines and solar water heaters as standard, grew willow copses for small scale power stations etc etc etc then the planet could support the people . . Big lifestyle changes. Don't see it happening voluntarily, but personally wouldn't mind it . . .

 

[sideshow bob]

Ah, but without runaway increases in energy consumption, it buys more time for small scale sustainable development.

Can't remember the figures offhand but I think there's something like 3 acres area per person in the uk. If we all lived in smaller houses which were designed to need very little heating, didn't use any number of (unnecessary) electrical gadgets, had community windturbines and solar water heaters as standard, grew willow copses for small scale power stations etc etc etc then the planet could support the people . . Big lifestyle changes. Don't see it happening voluntarily, but personally wouldn't mind it . . .

You'd be surprised. Just look at the rise in popularity of organic food. OK, so it's still seen as a middle class luxury, and in the current economic climate, less people will fancy paying a tenner for a chicken, but the fact is the organic market is increasing year on year.

And what about the increasing number of people who are growing their own vegetables, even if it's a row of carrots on the windowsill.

There's all sorts of blanket media coverage and publicity encouraging us to reduce our energy usage, and if that message stays the right side of self-righteousness, then it will eventually get through. Mind you, there's 60 million people in this country to get to!

These things take time, but whether the changes can be implemented quickly enough to be of benefit, that's the major doubt I have.

Local micro-projects, reducing individuals' energy consumption - these methods will have a much greater impact than some big wind farm, or a tidal barrage.

 

[ColinD]

....These things take time, but whether the changes can be implemented quickly enough to be of benefit, that's the major doubt I have......

Time is my main concern also, as well as a lack of a clear message from environmental and conservation bodies.

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that Global Warming is real, Man made, the biggest threat to our civilisation and that time is limited before it's out of control. I'm not sure that we do all agree with that, but bear with me......

Whenever a suggested solution is put forward, such as wind farms, barrages, nuclear power, you name it, there are lots of people who immediately spring to their feet in outrage, and give us excellent and alarming reasons why these are not the answer.

But ask them for an alternative and the silence is deafening. All those who previously lept to their feet, retreat to the shadows..... Meanwhile the clock ticks on, and we can never agree on a solution.

That's why I think the World is doomed, that's why I think we can never stop Global Warming, and that's why I say enjoy it while you can.

Don't blame governments and Joe Public if you remain silent when asked what the alternative is.

 

[djleahy]

It's odd that the one option that never seems to be considered is 'use less energy!!'

Well said. Soon enough, though, that will be the only option!

 

[Tyke]

In UK, wind energy as a component of national grid electricity generation is pointless & useless :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml

Maybe the situation is different in other countries-but the source will always be unpredictably variable & intermittent.

 

[ColinD]

Well said. Soon enough, though, that will be the only option!

But at best, that only buys us time, and not very much time at that.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

In UK, wind energy as a component of national grid electricity generation is pointless & useless :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml

Maybe the situation is different in other countries-but the source will always be unpredictably variable & intermittent.

I think this extract from the Telegraph report warrants printing out in full Colin.

It reinforces what we have been saying for several years on these boards, often in the face of criticism from people who did not want to hear.

"Backup fossil fuel plants would need to be switched on and off to make up the shortfall in supplies - a highly inefficient process that would reduce any carbon savings from wind farms.

The report says: "Wind output in Britain can be very low at the moment of maximum annual UK demand. These are times of cold weather and little wind.

"Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmission grids will be hard to justify."

The authors used data on wind speeds and electricity demand from the past six years to work out what impact 25 Gigawatts - about 16 per cent of Britain's needs - would have had on the national grid if it had been supplied by wind farms.

The results show wind is highly volatile. In January 2005, for example, wind speeds varied so much that demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56GW.

In that month, a 1,000MW fossil fuel plant would have had to come on and offline a total of 23 times to make up the shortfall. At 6pm on February 2 2006 - the point of peak electricity demand for the whole year - wind farms would have been unable to provide any power at all, researchers found.

Britain aims to achieve 10 per cent of its supplied electrical energy from renewable resources by 2010, and 20 per cent by 2020.

James Oswald, an engineering consultant and former head of research and development at Rolls-Royce Turbines, who led the study, said: "Wind power does not obviate the need for fossil fuel plants, which will continue to be indispensable.

"The problem is that wind power volatility requires fossil fuel plants to be switched on and off, which damages them and means that even more plants will have to be built. Carbon savings will be less than expected, because cheaper, less efficient plant will be used to support these wind power fluctuations.

"Neither these extra costs nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in government figures for wind power."

 

[Tyke]

But at best, that only buys us time, and not very much time at that.

But that's all we have.
What more do you want?


There is no "Renewables" free lunch-only choices :-

Do you want Wind Farms-or Countryside & Wildlife ?:-

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm


Do you want to eat-or drive your car?:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/biofuels.usa


Do you want to avoid all risk associated with nuclear power-or have 2000 years electricity supply:-

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html



World population will increase by 50% to 9 Billion by 2050.
There aren't enough resources to go round.


Something has to give.

 

[ColinD]

But that's all we have.
What more do you want?

Well, I thought the aim was to try to save the World for future generations, so something a bit more long term than simply trying to save energy would be a start.

There is no "Renewables" free lunch-only choices :-
................

I agree. So we need to make a choice from the best of a bad bunch. So what will it be? Nuclear, Wind Farms, Barages, Solar Power? Or shall we just bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away? Or shall we leave it for somebody else to worry about?

World population will increase by 50% to 9 Billion by 2050.
There aren't enough resources to go round.

Absolutely agree. There's too many of us now and in a few years time there will be twice our number, and it's forecast to keep rising. The size of the World population is the main problem, but what can we do about it?

Something has to give.

Once again we're in agreement - so what do you think should give?