wind farms

Uneducated_Rick said:
Do not try to stop coastal erosion IT WILL NOT WORK (sorry for shouting but had to get the point accross).


Wrong - there is no link between CO2 and atmospheric temperature other than a very vague correlation that is statistically insignificant.



It will linger for a long long long time, but as to it being dangerous; after Chernobyl people have been looking for effects ever since, they have foud no lasting effect on wildlife 25m away from the reactor. In theory it could be problematic, in practice they stick it in a big glass box and bury it way unerground, they also check to make sure that the box doesn't leak regularly
Click to expand...

Plus coastal erosion is a perfectly natural thing, which puts nutrients and minerals into the sea for plants and animals to live on. Humans have a very poor understanding of this planet, including most environmentalists. The Earth can take anything we, or any other animal can throw at it in its stride. Rick, nice to see somebody else seeing the crap on climate change for what it is. The climate is constantly chaging, in a perfectly natural process. Maybe we're going through a mass extinction at the moment. Who knows, as even the fastest mass extinction would probably take a couple of thousand years before it was finished.
 
Not at all, I meant humans as a species in general; I have a very poor understanding of this planet compared to an awful lot of people. I'm not a scientist, and I've read around both sides of the argument on climate change from a laymans perspective, and my personal conclusion is that it is a natural process which at worst is being slightly accelerated by human activity. I know a lot of people will disagree with me and that's fine by me, we're all entitled to our own opinions.
 
Last edited:
Ah, now this thread has got onto the really interesting topic.

I for one have yet to be convinced that climate change is as big an issue as it is being made out to be. The govornment is setting ridiculous targets to industries to cut carbon emissions but there is no real hard evidence that says this will help. Plus the good old domestic households are being encouraged to buy more expensive appliances/electricals because they are more efficient. Again, no evidence to support this.
Me, I base all my spending on how much it will save me.

Taxes. Did you know that nearly every business that uses a large amount of energy has been taxed more since 2001 - and by a large amount of energy I'm talking over 34 kilowatts a day. This tax is called a climate change tax and (Amongt many other taxes) is in my opinion proof that the government is using the green agenda to milk Mr Taxpayer for as much as possible.
And think of all the extra VAT Mr brown is raking in with people buying the more expensive efficient stuff...
 
Last edited:
Not just businesses either, public services have to pay it to. I work for the police, and we pay quite a large amount of climate change tax every year. Mr Brown giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other...
 
inaneredstripe said:
wind power isnt a bad idea, but as with everything else, no one wants it in the back gardens.
surely theres enough wide open spaces in this country to make use of it.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised inaneredstripe.

Once you take out all the:

National Parks
AONB's (Area of Outstanding National Beauty)
SSSI's - (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)
CA'a - (Conservation Areas)
Historic Parks and Gardens
SLA's - (Special Landscape Area)

etc, etc

There's not much land left that isn't close to urban areas.
 
There's a fundamental flaw in the thinking in this thread. So often our customers come to us asking for advice on windmills, solar, CHP etc.

In every case we tell them that before they even start to think about green generation they need to get their usage in order. Implement energy efficient processes, heating etc and reduce the amount they're using. Once they've done that we can start to look at introducing alternative energy sources. Otherwise they're just going to continue wasting the energy they are using and continue to pay too much. The soon to be introduced Carbon Reduction committment will clarify this and put the emphasis where it should be.

Having said that there is a place for alternative forms of generation. It's not a clear case of wind V water V CHP V Nuclear etc though. In reality we need a mix to provide both base load (nuclear?) and "irregular" peak demands.
 
dod said:
In reality we need a mix to provide both base load (nuclear?) and "irregular" peak demands.
Click to expand...

Electric mountain in Llanberis :love: that place is an amazing work of engineering:love:

Overnight they buy electricity off the grid and pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher one, then when demmand is high they let the water drop again spinning turbines and selling the electricty back at a higher rate.

It doesn't actually generate any electricty it simply acts as a way of storing it to be used at a later time when demmand is higher. The repsonse time for it is less than 12 seconds :nuts: and it can create enough electricity to power all of Wales for 30 minutes
 
You can with Cruachan, don't think so with Foyers. I actually used to work with SSE and did a stint there (Foyers) and got access which most people don't. Incredible feeling standing inside the generator hoping they didn't open the valve :eek: ;)
 
well this has sparked a good debate -thanks all that have contributed this is what i like about TP there are many clever people here proving time and again that there is not just one answer but many options with different pros and cons -


:clap: :clap: :clap:

i have trouble with this wind farm project, as i think we should invest in wind, sun sea forms of energy but not in my back garden! :shrug: - i moved to a semi rural location for the views - that is why we brought our house - do i want them messing it up? :shake:

I don't have the time to lead a campaign to stop it, but feel that someone should.... :suspect:

i also feel i could make some money documenting the change in the landscape, and have spoken to the company doing the windfarm to that end (i.e pay me to take photos) - but the photos could also be used to stop the change....:bat:
 
i know nothing of the environment etc, but i can tell you that the noise levels of turbines should be within 5dB of background, the sound POWER of a turbine is around 80 - 90dB, so the sound PRESSURE at around 40meters of 50-60dB(a) 55dB(a) is approximate conversation level of noise, if the wind is blowing away from the turbines, then the levels will drop by around 10dB.
 
Ever stood near a nuclear power station and listened to the constant hum? Its one of those background noises you dont neessarily notice straightaway, but its there - like living near a windfarm I imagine. :shrug:


However, to join the debate. I to have seen plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument for and against climate change and frankly I am not convinced that the effects of humans are nearly so dramatic as taxatious governments would have us believe. If mr Brown and his gang are so keen on improving the environment, why are they approving yet another runway and extentions at Heathrow and Stansted? More coal power stations?
Protect the environment? oh yes, all the better to tax you with Little Red Riding Hood!
As already mentioned, methane is a far more serious concern than carbon emmisions, yet we don't see too many environmentalists [well, apart from the really nutty ones] telling us we should cut down on the number of cows or brussels sprouts that are consumed evey year :nono:

Basically, the impression I get is that every piece of evidence or research on either side of the climatic divide has been provided by financial backing from some organisation with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. Thatcher picked up on the advantages of nuclear over coal for the environment when the miners were having their strikes in the 80's and positively encouraged 'research' that proved the case. Enron backed plenty of research that disprove the global warming case because it was in their interest to do so. You can find plenty more of such examples just by googling. I am not saying that the scientists are all wrong, or all just giving the results the paymasters demand, but so many seem to be doing so, how do you pick out the genuine independent research and then which do you believe? Lies, damn lies and statistics.....'facts' and figures can be made to say anything you want them to say. :suspect:


My take on it is this - IF we are causing untold damage to our planet, then doing our own little bit to help is no bad thing. If we are not, then doing our bit anyway is not doing any harm, so its win-win. Fossil fuels WILL run out, that is a given, so I am all for investigating and investing in alternative power. Nuclear is the obvious way forward imho, with top up sources such as wind and hydro for those peak demand times as well as individual forms of power generation for each household.

I was driving round hilltops lastweekend where a giant windfarm has been installed and was actually pleasantly surprised by how it didnt ruin the view, it was all very ...hmmm....graceful is the word I think. In fact, the over ground power cables to the local farms was probably more vexing from an aesthetic viewpoint.


**pauses for breath**


Well, thats my take, yes, maybe we humans are accelerating natural changes ever so slightly, but I feel that a lot of people, usually of a governmental nature are exagerating it so they can line the coffers, but we do need to be sorting out alternative energy NOW if we are to continue with our current lifestyles, so heavily dependent on energy. As Dod says, the first place to start looking is from your armchair - changing your own energy habits and needs is the first step to doing your bit ;)
 
Cracking post Yv :)
 
ChrisMClark said:
Cracking post Yv :)
Click to expand...

:) thanks Chris, sometime I amaze myself with the stuff I can write at silly times of the night.


Oh and to clarify a point, I have stood near enough to two nuclear powerstations to be aware of the 'hum', but never close enough to coal powered ones to know if they also are noisy :thinking: I do recall as a teenager my mums friend live right near one of those nationa grid 'hubs', you know the sort of thing, an acre of densely packed pylons and stuff, now THAT was noisy but they said they just didn't notice it. It was definately more of an eyesore than a windfarm, but I pressume a necessary one.
 
sportysnaps said:
i have trouble with this wind farm project, as i think we should invest in wind, sun sea forms of energy but not in my back garden! :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's the problem, though. If they're going to build them anywhere (apart from the sea), it will have to be in someones back garden. Just no one wants it to be theirs :p

I actually wouldn't mind, I think they look pretty swish :geek:

Yv said:
Ever stood near a nuclear power station and listened to the constant hum? Its one of those background noises you dont neessarily notice straightaway, but its there - like living near a windfarm I imagine. :shrug:


However, to join the debate. I to have seen plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument for and against climate change and frankly I am not convinced that the effects of humans are nearly so dramatic as taxatious governments would have us believe. If mr Brown and his gang are so keen on improving the environment, why are they approving yet another runway and extentions at Heathrow and Stansted? More coal power stations?
Protect the environment? oh yes, all the better to tax you with Little Red Riding Hood!
As already mentioned, methane is a far more serious concern than carbon emmisions, yet we don't see too many environmentalists [well, apart from the really nutty ones] telling us we should cut down on the number of cows or brussels sprouts that are consumed evey year :nono:

Basically, the impression I get is that every piece of evidence or research on either side of the climatic divide has been provided by financial backing from some organisation with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. Thatcher picked up on the advantages of nuclear over coal for the environment when the miners were having their strikes in the 80's and positively encouraged 'research' that proved the case. Enron backed plenty of research that disprove the global warming case because it was in their interest to do so. You can find plenty more of such examples just by googling. I am not saying that the scientists are all wrong, or all just giving the results the paymasters demand, but so many seem to be doing so, how do you pick out the genuine independent research and then which do you believe? Lies, damn lies and statistics.....'facts' and figures can be made to say anything you want them to say. :suspect:


My take on it is this - IF we are causing untold damage to our planet, then doing our own little bit to help is no bad thing. If we are not, then doing our bit anyway is not doing any harm, so its win-win. Fossil fuels WILL run out, that is a given, so I am all for investigating and investing in alternative power. Nuclear is the obvious way forward imho, with top up sources such as wind and hydro for those peak demand times as well as individual forms of power generation for each household.

I was driving round hilltops lastweekend where a giant windfarm has been installed and was actually pleasantly surprised by how it didnt ruin the view, it was all very ...hmmm....graceful is the word I think. In fact, the over ground power cables to the local farms was probably more vexing from an aesthetic viewpoint.


**pauses for breath**


Well, thats my take, yes, maybe we humans are accelerating natural changes ever so slightly, but I feel that a lot of people, usually of a governmental nature are exagerating it so they can line the coffers, but we do need to be sorting out alternative energy NOW if we are to continue with our current lifestyles, so heavily dependent on energy. As Dod says, the first place to start looking is from your armchair - changing your own energy habits and needs is the first step to doing your bit ;)
Click to expand...

I definately see where you're coming from. All Gordon is actually interested in is being able to say he cut carbon emissions blah blah blah at PM's question time so he looks good and doesn't get shouted at too much :razz:

Whether we're having an impact on the planet..well, definately. The question is, are we doing a lot of lasting damage that will cause us major problems in the future? Probably, but I don't know enough about it to judge TBH. What we do know for sure is that we can't go on living like we are forever, and we're gonna have to make some big changes.
 
Yv said:
:)


Oh and to clarify a point, I have stood near enough to two nuclear powerstations to be aware of the 'hum', but never close enough to coal powered ones to know if they also are noisy :thinking: I do recall as a teenager my mums friend live right near one of those nationa grid 'hubs', you know the sort of thing, an acre of densely packed pylons and stuff, now THAT was noisy but they said they just didn't notice it. It was definately more of an eyesore than a windfarm, but I pressume a necessary one.
Click to expand...

You dont get anything for nothing, some people are more tuned onto the background noise then others, but just about all methods of power generation make some volume of noise.
 
russdaz said:
You dont get anything for nothing, some people are more tuned onto the background noise then others, but just about all methods of power generation make some volume of noise.
Click to expand...

Live near something long enough and you can tune it out totally. I used to live on the edge of a firing range. Artillery, tanks, small arms, mortars, MGs, the lot. They used to fire arty and tanks on tuesday and thursday nights, within 2 or 3 months I never even heard it anymore. What doesn't help with the NIMBY attitude is that if you go into something with a negative mindset you'll convince yourself it's all bad, so even if it's nowhere near as awful as you thought it would be, you've already convinced yourself (perhaps subconciously) that it's the end of the worl because you can see a wind turbine if you climb on your roof, get the binos out and really really squint :p
 
While I am generally found hanging around on the sandal wearing, beard knitting fringes, I do have a couple of issues with wind turbines.

1: Too many are in the 'wrong' places. By which I mean that they will never generate a worthwhile amount of electricity compared to the energy required to produce and install them. Any green power generation device needs to be able to produce more energy than it costs. Pretty much all of those dinky urban jobbies fall into this category.

2: Too many farms are being put up for financial rather than energy reasons. The way that the rules currently stand there is a significant financial driver to put wind farms up.

While I am not a fan of nuclear, I can't see any other way that we are going to meet the energy demands that we have. I agree with Dod that we need to start with reducing consumption (reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order), but as yet people seem to have no interest in doing this.
 
ChrisMClark said:
Live near something long enough and you can tune it out totally. I used to live on the edge of a firing range. Artillery, tanks, small arms, mortars, MGs, the lot. They used to fire arty and tanks on tuesday and thursday nights, within 2 or 3 months I never even heard it anymore. What doesn't help with the NIMBY attitude is that if you go into something with a negative mindset you'll convince yourself it's all bad, so even if it's nowhere near as awful as you thought it would be, you've already convinced yourself (perhaps subconciously) that it's the end of the worl because you can see a wind turbine if you climb on your roof, get the binos out and really really squint :p
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree i live near an Airport.

There is no one fast method thats going to meet our energy requirements will take a mix, and will be in some-ones back yard.

The sooner the government get some back bones and tell some of these NIMBY's to f of the better, otherwise following croft thing we'll have race tracks, no airports, no electrcity etc.
 
=russdaz;1252238

The sooner the government get some back bones and tell some of these NIMBY's to f of the better
Click to expand...

That's never going to happen though is it? The law is not stacked that way at the moment. There is a very good editorial on dailysportscar.com about the whole Croft thing, basically saying that the judge has sided with three people who complained over the thousands who enjoy spectating, racing, marshalling, trackdays etc, and the hundreds of people who gain an economic benefit from the track. Total madness. Anyway, back on topic...
 
Sorry, havent read all the thread so apologies if I'm repeating info....

we have windfarms offshore here in North Wales..soon to be extended to make it the worlds 2nd largest....for me it's a reasonable compromise, o.k they're still not great to look at but beats me walking past them around the Snowdonia mountains.

There's also a nuclear powerstation on Anglesey which is been closed next year, it seems logical to me that if we need more then build them on existing sites...I'd guess the technology has moved on considerably since the 1950/60s too so the new generation should in theory be more efficient and more importantly safer

simon
 
simonkit said:
Sorry, havent read all the thread so apologies if I'm repeating info....

we have windfarms offshore here in North Wales..soon to be extended to make it the worlds 2nd largest....for me it's a reasonable compromise, o.k they're still not great to look at but beats me walking past them around the Snowdonia mountains.

There's also a nuclear powerstation on Anglesey which is been closed next year, it seems logical to me that if we need more then build them on existing sites...I'd guess the technology has moved on considerably since the 1950/60s too so the new generation should in theory be more efficient and more importantly safer

simon
Click to expand...


Ok, I know sod all about decommisioning existing power stations, but was reading wiki last night about the 1st defunct one at dungeness, and it takes years to decommison them and clean the site. Is this why they cant build in the same place? :shrug: Certainly at D they built another one next door, Dungeness B, but maybe there are reasons why they can't use the same spot twice straight away....
 
ChrisMClark said:
Live near something long enough and you can tune it out totally. I used to live on the edge of a firing range. Artillery, tanks, small arms, mortars, MGs, the lot. They used to fire arty and tanks on tuesday and thursday nights, within 2 or 3 months I never even heard it anymore. What doesn't help with the NIMBY attitude is that if you go into something with a negative mindset you'll convince yourself it's all bad, so even if it's nowhere near as awful as you thought it would be, you've already convinced yourself (perhaps subconciously) that it's the end of the worl because you can see a wind turbine if you climb on your roof, get the binos out and really really squint :p
Click to expand...

That is true, one of our sensei's lives in a huge house with a massive garden in leafy surburbia....with a railway line running the entire length of his garden right next door. Drives me mad when we are there for trianing [yes, garden so big built a dojo], but they just dont seem t notice the trains thundering past every 5 minutes
 
Yv said:
Ok, I know sod all about decommisioning existing power stations, but was reading wiki last night about the 1st defunct one at dungeness, and it takes years to decommison them and clean the site. Is this why they cant build in the same place? :shrug: Certainly at D they built another one next door, Dungeness B, but maybe there are reasons why they can't use the same spot twice straight away....
Click to expand...

You answered your question within your post, its a very long process to decomission and clean up, a reactor, and very long process to build another due to safety regulation.
 
Yv said:
Ok, I know sod all about decommisioning existing power stations, but was reading wiki last night about the 1st defunct one at dungeness, and it takes years to decommison them and clean the site. Is this why they cant build in the same place? :shrug: Certainly at D they built another one next door, Dungeness B, but maybe there are reasons why they can't use the same spot twice straight away....
Click to expand...

I think there's no problem building a new one next to the old site..

http://www.anglesey-today.com/rwe-and-eon-to-build-anglesey-nuclear-plant.html

The problem as you say is de-commisioning the old one which takes years, you'd hope the technology to do this is impoving all the time although I'm sure there's no simple solution...

The Trawsfynydd nuclear power station ceased operations in 1991 & won't be de-commisioned fully until 2098 !!! It's obviously not a great Environmentally friendly solution to power generation but seems to be becoming an increasingly important one :shrug:

http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/about-us/our-sites/trawsfynydd/lifetime-strategy


Simon
 
yes it does take years and alot of money to decommission a powerstation, thats down to the nature of radioactive materials, but the amount of power that a station yeilds more than pays for all of that.

the truth is with all the improvements in technolgy reactors are still going to be encapsulated in steel and concrete i think its about 10-15 meters of the stuff if not more (it's been a while since i was last there) they are as safe as houses, true there have been a few weak ones but that was down to the engineers experimenting in areas that they shouldnt have and switched off the safety measures that were in place, now i can say for certain that it is not an easy task to do that even with 20 odd year old stations so you can imagine waht safety procedures they would have in place now.

wind and tidal power stations are never going to be enough on their own so we need nuclear for back up, coal and gas stations are never as efficient as nuclear and have a higher running bill, true they are easier to dismantal than nuclear but they cost more to run year in year out not to mention the polution, the sooner the government worry about that rather than if they are going to be in a job next year the sooner things will get sorted.

and they wonder why the country is in the state it's in lol
 
What a surprise...............

The initial enquiry into the wind turbine that lost a blade in Lincolnshire recently has concluded that it wasn't little green men that were most likely responsible, but metal fatugue in the bolts securing the blade to the nacelle (hub).

Equally worrying for the credibility of the whole media empire that leapt onto the UFO story, but also the fact that they shouldn't be experiencing metal fatigue in bolts on "modern day" turbines.
 
Interesting, the report I read said metal fatigue had been ruled out as a cause of the failure and the company were now looking to see what had caused the bolts to give way (Possible balance issue anyone!?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top