• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New questions about wind turbines. (1 Viewer)

alcedo.atthis said:
Watched this yeaterday. Was not surprised. Now wonder if the "greens" are happy with the waste of public money going into the subsidies given.
I for one have never been and now even more so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=6165969&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=asx&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1

Regards

Malky
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Malky, just goes to prove what some of us have been saying for a while, over hyped, under producing, over subsidized eyesores. Despite the facts i noticed that the government spokesman said they are cost effective. How, the reports just stated otherwise
 
Last edited:
colonelboris said:
but that's enough about Prescott and Brown...
The more I read about wind farms, the less they sound like a good idea.
Click to expand...
Pity the politicos in this country aren't so blinkered ;)
 
valley boy said:
Thanks for this Malky, just goes to prove what some of us have been saying for a while, over hyped, under producing, over subsidized eyesores. Despite the facts i noticed that the government spokesman said they are cost effective. How, the reports just stated otherwise
Click to expand...
Did I watch a different broadcast? The one I saw made it clear that if sited in windy areas these turbines are reasonably efficient. I don't know how efficient other means of producing electricity is, and the article made no mention of this.

The point of the broadcast surely was that the government is, as so often, wasting tax payers' money by offering big business - who are only charged legally with one thing: to make money for their shareholders - ridiculous incentives to build these things anywhere they seem able to do so regardless of the worthiness of the site.

If this is true, it seems typical of a government which seems unable to plan and control expenditure of any kind. One of their biggest tests, I think, will be whether or not they will be able to build, in time and on budget, an infrastructure suitable to hold the 2012 Olympic Games. What a fiasco that could turn out to be.
 
scampo said:
Did I watch a different broadcast? The one I saw made it clear that if sited in windy areas these turbines are reasonably efficient. I don't know how efficient other means of producing electricity is, and the article made no mention of this.

The point of the broadcast surely was that the government is, as so often, wasting tax payers' money by offering big business - who are only charged legally with one thing: to make money for their shareholders - ridiculous incentives to build these things anywhere they seem able to do so regardless of the worthiness of the site.

If this is true, it seems typical of a government which seems unable to plan and control expenditure of any kind. One of their biggest tests, I think, will be whether or not they will be able to build, in time and on budget, an infrastructure suitable to hold the 2012 Olympic Games. What a fiasco that could turn out to be.
Click to expand...
I dont know what you watched but reasonably efficient obviously means different things to us.. I thought the guy said whats more worrying was the fact that turbines in windier places ie cornwall24.1%, mid wales23.8 were under performing only scotland31.5 was above. You think thats efficient? Get real. Lets look at the reality 24% what are we going to do for energy the rest of the time? To be honest i couldnt care wether the goverment can deliver the olympics on budget, i am far more concerned about them knackering huge swathes of our country on these inefficient( even 30% isnt efficient) eyesores
 
valley boy said:
I dont know what you watched but reasonably efficient obviously means different things to us.. I thought the guy said whats more worrying was the fact that turbines in windier places ie cornwall24.1%, mid wales23.8 were under performing only scotland31.5 was above. You think thats efficient? Get real. Lets look at the reality 24% what are we going to do for energy the rest of the time? To be honest i couldnt care wether the goverment can deliver the olympics on budget, i am far more concerned about them knackering huge swathes of our country on these inefficient( even 30% isnt efficient) eyesores
Click to expand...

Yes vb-absolutely.
Here is the relevant page from REF's website:-

http://www.ref.org.uk/pressrelease.php?id=38

Will BWEA now STOP using 30% "average" UK load factor to calculate all those spurious claims for "power for n houses" & tonnes of CO2 "saved" ?

I very much doubt it.We always suspected these claims were over egged. Now we know they are. The one thing that pleases me about this revelation is that the people who put these monstrous structures in our heritage landscapes will now make a good deal less money out of the stupid ROC system than they were expecting to.

The ROC system may well be changed because -at long last-Government sees that it has been technology blind, and has merely created a mountain of easy money for greedy landowners & unscrupulous on-shore wind farm developers.
The official opposition are even talking about scrapping it.

http://www.environmental-finance.com/onlinews/0712rfo.htm

Colin
 
valley boy said:
I dont know what you watched but reasonably efficient obviously means different things to us.. I thought the guy said whats more worrying was the fact that turbines in windier places ie cornwall24.1%, mid wales23.8 were under performing only scotland 31.5 was above. You think thats efficient? Get real. Lets look at the reality 24% what are we going to do for energy the rest of the time? To be honest i couldnt care wether the goverment can deliver the olympics on budget, i am far more concerned about them knackering huge swathes of our country on these inefficient( even 30% isnt efficient) eyesores
Click to expand...
Good old disparaging rhetoric has to find its way into these threads, doesn't it?

"Get real"? Well, here's "real": the typical efficiency for coal-fired electricity generation is about 33%. A well placed wind turbine will achieve almost the same.

The news item was not about the aesthetics or otherwise of wind turbines, it was simply about their efficiency.
 
scampo said:
Good old disparaging rhetoric has to find its way into these threads, doesn't it?

"Get real"? Well, here's "real": the typical efficiency for coal-fired electricity generation is about 33%. A well placed wind turbine will achieve almost the same.

The news item was not about the aesthetics or otherwise of wind turbines, it was simply about their efficiency.
Click to expand...


Actually Steve it was about the comparative efficiency ( & cost) of so-called "Renewables".
The REF ( who publicised the study) is keen on alternatives to fossil fuels ( as are we all presumably!!), but not the environmentally uncontrolled wind farm development we have at present.
This is a quote from REF's web site:-

REF encourages the development of renewable energy and energy conservation whilst safeguarding the landscapes of the United Kingdom from unsustainable industrialisation.

In pursuit of this goal, REF highlights the need for an overall energy policy that is balanced, ecologically sensitive and effective.

The last sentence says it all I think.

Colin
 
scampo said:
Good old disparaging rhetoric has to find its way into these threads, doesn't it?

"Get real"? Well, here's "real": the typical efficiency for coal-fired electricity generation is about 33%. A well placed wind turbine will achieve almost the same.

The news item was not about the aesthetics or otherwise of wind turbines, it was simply about their efficiency.
Click to expand...
Trouble is they are not being well placed are they mate.Whats the point in championing a technology that isnt the answer, whilst at the same time being a hazzard to birdlife, and wrecking unspoilt areas.As for your view on the news item thats changed , you said in an earlier post it was about the governments inability to manage money :h?:
 
Last edited:
valley boy said:
Trouble is they are not being well placed are they mate.Whats the point in championing a technology that isnt the answer, whilst at the same time being a hazzard to birdlife, and wrecking unspoilt areas.As for your view on the news item thats changed , you said in an earlier post it was about the governments inability to manage money :h?:
Click to expand...
But that it what is was about that! The government are paying firms to build these things where they don't work as well as they can. But they can work well - at least as well as the current efficiency of power stations.

What's sickening is that these things are being sited in the wrong places and where they aren't even working well.
 
scampo said:
But that it what is was about that! The government are paying firms to build these things where they don't work as well as they can. But they can work well - at least as well as the current efficiency of power stations.

What's sickening is that these things are being sited in the wrong places and where they aren't even working well.
Click to expand...


Agree with your last point Steve-but not your first para.
The number of turbines required to produce the equivalent of a gas or coal-or dare I say it-nuclear power station is huge-many times larger than the area covered by a power station.. The footprint per KWhr for wind farms is ginormous compared with a power station -because their output is so low.

And the problem for UK is that to compensate for the intermittency ( & shut down outside a pretty narrow windspeed range) which causes this low load factor, & putting them in the windiest places-you have to put as many as possible on our western sea-board.-ie the wild uplands of Wales & Scotland. You then finish up-as in Scotland having to ask the National Grid to spend a fortune in constructing a transmission system to get the power from these remote sites to where it is needed-urban conurbations. So more cables on more pylons over more hillsides to transmit all this "green" energy.

The whole thing is a bloody nonsense-except for the ( many already very wealthy) absentee landowners, and developers of course.

Colin
 
Last edited:
scampo said:
But that it what is was about that! The government are paying firms to build these things where they don't work as well as they can. But they can work well - at least as well as the current efficiency of power stations.

What's sickening is that these things are being sited in the wrong places and where they aren't even working well.
Click to expand...
You dont need to tell me they are being erected in the wrong places. Every new monitoring mast being erected around my way( and there are quite a few) are within 500 metres of a schedule 1 nest site, some are closer. Where are these birds supposed to hunt and breed? Why should huge areas that attract any number of tourists be wrecked? The politicians have lied about these heaps of crap for too long, now scientific data has proved them wrong they choose to carry on regardless. New Labour have a lot to answer for.
 
Tyke said:
The whole thing is a bloody nonsense-except for the ( many already very wealthy) absentee landowners, and developers of course.

Colin
Click to expand...
I should have kept it shut, Colin. I realise that now. I didn't know it was that bad. And VB's comment on New Labour is spot on. In days gone by I think they'd have been strung up; I've said it many times - they are such a terrible disappointment. If what they are doing is the best that can be done, then, my God, things must be bad in this country.

The point I made about the Olympics was for no reason other than because I suspect that's going to be the most public demonstration yet of their inability to do anything on time and on budget.
 
turkish van said:
Just curious, are the die hard anti-windfarm people against offshore windfarms too?
Click to expand...
This keeps happening - disparaging rhetoric: "die hard anti...". It often leads to an emotional response and, with our sensitive moderators, a locked thread.

Why not let's all make a pledge to try to remain more objective in our choices of language?
 
Sorry! That was an innocent question, nothing offensive or insulting meant or hopefully taken. I like you all! ;)

(I can see why you said that though. Will be more careful in future :) )
 
Last edited:
turkish van said:
Sorry! That was an innocent question, nothing offensive or insulting meant or hopefully taken. I like you all! ;)
Click to expand...
I must say I was surprised, Laura. But it's been happening quite a bit recently on other threads - the cat one, you'll know!
 
Hi Laura-I am in favour of the stance taken by REF as already posted.
THat means all "renewable" energy systems should be tested for effectiveness AND environmental impact.We should aim to maximise the former & minimise the latter.
And that applies to offshore wind as for any other system

Colin
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top