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

[paulwfromtheden]

You are correct Pop, this government will do anything to get around objections. Wait till id cards raise their heads again( its on the backburner for now, losing the personal details of 25 million people saw to that). Lets face it Labour have run their course and its time for the dour Scot to disappear from where ever he crawled out from

After the Bernie Ecclestone business, one wonders just how these decisions are arrived at. Has all the data been gathered and the wisest decision been made, or has some 'intense lobbying' (ie backhanders to the labour party) been going on from an energy company that stands to make millions?

 

[Collster]

After the Bernie Ecclestone business, one wonders just how these decisions are arrived at. Has all the data been gathered and the wisest decision been made, or has some 'intense lobbying' (ie backhanders to the labour party) been going on from an energy company that stands to make millions?

Its all about money. The windfarm nearest to me cant be producing that much energy as more often than not they are not turning. Its us who pay in the end, as if we aint paying enough for our electricity already. One local politician came out with the absurd statement "what would you rather in the valley , a windfarm or nuclear powerstation?" . He was talking from an alledgedly informed position. No matter now though as the bastard was drummed out for failing to declare large sums of money donated to his failed campaign for some post or other. Just goes to show the caliber of person deciding the fate of our wildlife and countryside

 

[Collster]

Why dont they paint stripes on the blades then as they go round they will be coloured lines for the birds to see.Rather than use just white ones that shouldent cost much.

The blades travel so fast it wouldnt matter if they were covered in fairy lights and tinsel. Most of these mountain top sites are shrouded in mist most of the year so any birds forced down by these weather conditions would only briefly hear these turbines before being sliced to nothing

 

[ColinD]

See, this is the kind of debate that makes me dispair for the planet and humanity.

I'm neither pro-wind farms nor anti-wind farms. I hear the arguements against them and they seem reasonable and alarming, but then I listen to the Global Warming debate and it seems that action is required immediately, not next week, next month or next year, and certainly not in 10 years time.

Staying with fossil fuel isn't an option we're told, windfarms and barrage's are not environmentally friendly, and few people seem to like Nuclear.

Folks, by the time we've decided what we're going to do, we'll all be dead. If environmentalists and conservationsists can't put forward a united front and agree what action needs to be taken, how can we expect governments and Joe Public?

I don't want to see birds slaughtered by huge blades, I don't want our landscapes spoilt by these monstrosities, but soon we and it will all be gone anyway if we don't do something, or at least that's what we're told.

Let me say again, I'm not pro-windfarms, but come on, everybody who is against them give me a good, sustainable alternative, which won't damage the environment and that we can start implementing NOW. Convince me, get me off the fence and make me start campaigning against windfarms.

I'm sorry to say, the fact that a few birds are killed or that it's spoiling your favourite view will not convince me, because the stakes are so high. So why should I be anti-windfarms?

 

[dantheman]

See, this is the kind of debate that makes me dispair for the planet and humanity.

I'm neither pro-wind farms nor anti-wind farms. I hear the arguements against them and they seem reasonable and alarming, but then I listen to the Global Warming debate and it seems that action is required immediately, not next week, next month or next year, and certainly not in 10 years time. . .


I'm sorry to say, the fact that a few birds are killed or that it's spoiling your favourite view will not convince me, because the stakes are so high. So why should I be anti-windfarms?

Back to what I said earlier;
'What's the Carbon Footprint for building a Wind Turbine incidentally? In terms of the turbine structure itself, concrete used for the foundations and in access roads . . I'm sure a fair bit . . '

I don't think we are told this. I don't think the wind farming lobby are fully open about the real costs. And have consistently lied/ withheld the truth about how good wind energy actually is . .

Wind farms can only supply a small percentage of the uk's energy needs

Humans are too power hungry- it is unsustainable. Why destroy the environment when it is going to have minmal impact on our energy problems anyway. . .

EDIT: I think there's a word for it 'Greenwash'. Don't know how appropriate that word is in this case, in some areas of life it's a much bigger glossing over the real problems

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I've replied with facts and figures many times to these questions, and frankly I can't be bothered to type them here again, so forgive me if I just cut and paste a post I made in the Windfarms thread on this forum on 10th June 2005 - yes three years ago, but nothing has changed.


"Consider this.

It is often said that people would sooner see a few wind turbines than a power station.

The fact is that the alternative to a power station (assuming for a moment that you wouldn't need to keep the power station spinning for back-up for when it is not windy enough, or too windy) isn't a few wind turbines. The "alternative" is a wind farm (isn't it sweet the way they use the word "farm" to conjure up an impression of rural bliss) of about 1,000 to 2,000 turbines, each 400 feet tall. These turbines will be spaced at about 500m or so from each other, so that they collect clean, unturbulent air.

A 1,000 turbine factory will take up a space of 100 square miles - 10 miles by 10 miles equivalent ground space. A 2,000 turbine factory will take up twice this space.

The turbines will need about 300 miles or so of service road to connect them for maintenance, etc. These roads will need to be strong enough to carry heavy engineering equipment. 300 miles (480km) at 5m wide is an area of 2,400,000 square metres (240 hectares, or about 600 acres - a square mile)of tarmac.

The factory will also need a forest of new pylons to collect the electricity and to distribute it to the grid.

For a third of the time it will produce power. For the remaining 8 months of the year the back-up power station will run at full tilt.

And this is for one conventional power station replacement - gas, coal or nuke, we have dozens. The land just isn't big enough!"

 

[POP]

See, this is the kind of debate that makes me dispair for the planet and humanity.

I'm neither pro-wind farms nor anti-wind farms. I hear the arguements against them and they seem reasonable and alarming, but then I listen to the Global Warming debate and it seems that action is required immediately, not next week, next month or next year, and certainly not in 10 years time.

Staying with fossil fuel isn't an option we're told, windfarms and barrage's are not environmentally friendly, and few people seem to like Nuclear.

Folks, by the time we've decided what we're going to do, we'll all be dead. If environmentalists and conservationsists can't put forward a united front and agree what action needs to be taken, how can we expect governments and Joe Public?

I don't want to see birds slaughtered by huge blades, I don't want our landscapes spoilt by these monstrosities, but soon we and it will all be gone anyway if we don't do something, or at least that's what we're told.

Let me say again, I'm not pro-windfarms, but come on, everybody who is against them give me a good, sustainable alternative, which won't damage the environment and that we can start implementing NOW. Convince me, get me off the fence and make me start campaigning against windfarms.

I'm sorry to say, the fact that a few birds are killed or that it's spoiling your favourite view will not convince me, because the stakes are so high. So why should I be anti-windfarms?

The problem with this whole issue is there has never been an open and frank discussion.All the evidence is one sided,we've had the nonsense from Al Gore and his film,but nobody is allowed a platform to challenge the green lobby.Give people a chance to hear both sides of this so called man's attempt to ruin the world,but most level headed people know this is the last thing the politicians want.I fear there are too many snouts in too many troughs.

POP

 

[paulwfromtheden]

See, this is the kind of debate that makes me dispair for the planet and humanity.

I'm neither pro-wind farms nor anti-wind farms. I hear the arguements against them and they seem reasonable and alarming, but then I listen to the Global Warming debate and it seems that action is required immediately, not next week, next month or next year, and certainly not in 10 years time.

Staying with fossil fuel isn't an option we're told, windfarms and barrage's are not environmentally friendly, and few people seem to like Nuclear.

Folks, by the time we've decided what we're going to do, we'll all be dead. If environmentalists and conservationsists can't put forward a united front and agree what action needs to be taken, how can we expect governments and Joe Public?

I don't want to see birds slaughtered by huge blades, I don't want our landscapes spoilt by these monstrosities, but soon we and it will all be gone anyway if we don't do something, or at least that's what we're told.

Let me say again, I'm not pro-windfarms, but come on, everybody who is against them give me a good, sustainable alternative, which won't damage the environment and that we can start implementing NOW. Convince me, get me off the fence and make me start campaigning against windfarms.

I'm sorry to say, the fact that a few birds are killed or that it's spoiling your favourite view will not convince me, because the stakes are so high. So why should I be anti-windfarms?

You speak a lot of sense...My issue is that when far-reaching decisions that are going to affect all our lives are made, are the conclusions reached based on logic and a long-term view of what is best for the world, or by politicians who can only see as far as the next election. The labour party is financially insolvent, there has never been a better time to try and influence policy.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Another post from the Windfarms thread - this one from 15th October 2005.

More facts;

"Consider this Jane. The new turbines are in the 2-3MW range. Take a 2MW turbine, operationg at 30% of installed output (generous - DTI figures show mid 20s). It would produce 0.67MW output.

Now take Fiddler's Ferry power station with 2GW of installed power, operating at 70% of installed output. It will produce 1.4GW.

Therefore it would take 1400/0.67 = 2089 wind turbines to equal its output. Even with 3MW turbines it would need 1400 turbines.

Split the difference, to be fair and say 1745 turbines.

They need a lot of space - a square of 42 by 41 turbines. Assume the turbines stand 300 m apart, then a row of42 would stretch for almost 8 miles. The rows would be further apart, say 600m The41 rows would stretch for over 15 miles. 15x8 = 120 square miles.

A wind factory of 120 square miles to replace only one 2 GW station. Uk peak demand is 53 GW in winter. 10% of this is 5.3 GW

5.3 divided by 1.4 equals 454 suare miles of large modern turbines to produce 10% of our needs.

(note these are ballpark figures)."

EDIT. After I typed the above post I notieced an error. The 53Gw figure was only for England and Wales, not the UK. The UK peak demand is around 64 GW, so the 454 sq mile figure should in fact be 548 square miles.

 

[sideshow bob]

I think this is one of those situations where there is no winner, no solution which will satisfy everybody, no solution which won't have some detrimental impact on the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it.

It's an obvious thing to state, but this is the ultimate result of humans basically raping this planet, bleeding it dry of all natural resources in an ever-increasing need for energy, which is used to fuel rapacious greed. So now we have an overpopulated planet which needs energy, and in the case of the UK, we have one of the most densely populated countries on Earth which actually has great potential for utilizing "renewable" energy resources.

As the fossil fuels run out, we face a choice - import our energy from other countries, or produce it ourselves. Self-production will rely on nuclear power and renewables, the latter of which will only ever supply about 20% (I think) of our energy needs.

These wind farms will spring up, the Severn Barrage is a real possibility, more nuclear power stations will be built. What annoys me is when the Government announces these developments as if they are environmental heroes, and we're supposed to be grateful to them because they can no longer rely on cheap coal.

There are so many double standards at play. I don't like the idea of China constructing hundreds of coal-fired plants - the environmental cost will be horrendous, and add yet another black mark on China's record - but can we really be so critical of them for doing what we did a hundred years ago? It's OK for us, but not anyone else?

We can get distressed at what's happening because we see it in front of our eyes, it's happening now. But what will benefit the planet the most for the next 100, 200, etc years? A few windfarms which will kill a few birds? A barrage which will dry up one estuary? Or should we do nothing, and condemn future generations to a world so different from that which we currently live in, a world where survival, and finding food, is the highest priority, and not deciding what mobile phone we should buy next?

It's a dilemma of our own making, and one which has virtually no easy answers.

 

[dantheman]

Is it useful to separate out wind power from wind farms at this stage?

I'm sure that small scale wind power can be used for local energy needs in small scale appropriate circumstances. Maybe a relatively isolated exposed village or farm. And people would then accept it as it is a necessary part of their community (like the village road). One can be positive about some aspects of renewable energy use . . . ??

Any future energy needs which this (or any country) have need to be adressed ASAP, as coigach says, but I don't see the solutions coming from government oir public opinion any way fast . . .

 

[dantheman]

As the fossil fuels run out, we face a choice - import our energy from other countries, or produce it ourselves. Self-production will rely on nuclear power and renewables, the latter of which will only ever supply about 20% (I think) of our energy needs.

3rd choice - go totally local, reduce energy requirements dramatically. Not an option realistically though - public opinion won't allow it.

 

[sideshow bob]

I'm sure that small scale wind power can be used for local energy needs in small scale appropriate circumstances. Maybe a relatively isolated exposed village or farm. And people would then accept it as it is a necessary part of their community (like the village road). One can be positive about some aspects of renewable energy use . . . ??

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.

 

[ColinD]

.....There are so many double standards at play. I don't like the idea of China constructing hundreds of coal-fired plants - the environmental cost will be horrendous, and add yet another black mark on China's record - but can we really be so critical of them for doing what we did a hundred years ago? It's OK for us, but not anyone else?.....

Yes we can be critical of them. 100 years ago we didn't know what we were doing to the planet and what the consequences were. Resources seemed limitless. These days, China does know. They are making a conscious descision to ignore the facts.

 

[sideshow bob]

3rd choice - go totally local, reduce energy requirements dramatically. Not an option realistically though - public opinion won't allow it.

I think local is an excellent way to go. I do reckon though that public opinion might be more in favour than you think. But as long as it doesn't hurt the wallet too much, and that is the eternal dilemma of the envionmental movement. For mass acceptance, appealing to ethics just won't work. Appeal to wallets instead.

 

[sideshow bob]

Yes we can be critical of them. 100 years ago we didn't know what we were doing to the planet and what the consequences were. Resources seemed limitless. These days, China does know. They are making a conscious descision to ignore the facts.

You're right, resources must have seemed limitless. But I think we did know what we were doing to the planet back then. At least the educated minority did. We just didn't care.

I agree though that China does know, and is deciding to ignore the facts. But it's in pursuit of world superpower status, America's star is waning. What chance does the environment stand in the face of that?

 

[Collster]

Is global warming something that we can stop or is it all enevitable. Lets face it its a good wheeze for governments and various buisinesses to make an extra buck with these green taxes. It certainly aint doing anything for our weather other than making it wetter and colder. Where is the warming happening exactly?

 

[dantheman]

Is global warming something that we can stop or is it all enevitable. Lets face it its a good wheeze for governments and various buisinesses to make an extra buck with these green taxes. It certainly aint doing anything for our weather other than making it wetter and colder. Where is the warming happening exactly?

It's better to call it 'Global Climate Change'

The planet as a whole will be warming up (well the surface anyway ) Some places get colder, some warmer, some wetter, some windier. . . . .Some more than one. Most will lose out . . .

 

[ColinD]

You're right, resources must have seemed limitless. But I think we did know what we were doing to the planet back then. At least the educated minority did. We just didn't care.

I agree though that China does know, and is deciding to ignore the facts. But it's in pursuit of world superpower status, America's star is waning. What chance does the environment stand in the face of that?

Not much. Also of course, 100 years ago, what alternatives did the World have to fossil fuels? China does have the opportunity to lead the way, show us how bad we were, and use alternative "greener" fuels (though what these may be I'm not sure). China chooses not to do this.

I'm not saying that we're not responsible for Global Warming, but the fact that we helped cause it doesn't justify China making it worse.

 

[Mary]

.

Folks, by the time we've decided what we're going to do, we'll all be dead.

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