wind farms

[sportysnaps]

i went to a meeting today as there is a plan for a large wind farm near my house (100 of them) - what are peoples views here?

nuclear - coal - wind - solar?

 

[seriousrikk]

TBH I don't think as a country we are in a position to say either / or to any of the above.

As a country we are currently using more energy than we have the resources to produce - so we have to buy fuel in. We also have to compete with many other countries in the same situation.

We have the weather that makes wind power viable - so we should use it. Although I'm sure there are better ways of makeing use of it that tens of turbines in the countryside. One idea which appeals to me is the idea of 'personal wind power' - each home that wants one has it's own. Then again I'm with that for solar too, unfortunatly the govornment isn't.

Nuclear. Well there is a whole new debate. Personally I'm for it. None of the current areguements against it that I have been prevented with are based on hard fact or anything other than a paranoid viewpoint. I'm not sayin all the arguements are based on that mind, so I am open to other ones. Safety would be my only concern, I know we have moved on but still, humans make mistakes.

Coal. Well we currently use it, and we can burn it cleaner than some other countries. Sure, it would be nice to not build any more coal fired power stations, and there are people who feel very strongly that we shouldn't (Kingsnorth anyone?). BUr we need electricity now and no other option can provide that. The way I see it is coal that we buy from China (Or whoever else) and burn in our cleaner power station(s) is coal that won't be burned in a muckier one.

Solar, great, spend a few quid out of mr taxmans £ to get every house who want them some solar panels. No, I can't see that happening either. They are too expensive for most people ot get fitted themselves. Same with many of the other home options - which is a shame. I know you can get grants but you still have to foot quite a bill.

Finally one you didn't mention which I really think could be the future is tide power. Still very much under development but there is one force around our island that is 'always on' and pretty predicatable. The tide. Problem is it is expensive work building sea turbines.

What was the outcome of your meeting? HOpefully we will not see another fine piece of scenic beauty with turbines being built.

 

[RichardC27]

As has been said above, every house in the country should have its own wind turbine and a few solar panels on the roof. This alone would massively reduce the amount of electricity that would have to be generated and fed into the national grid. It would also reduce gas consumption, since solar panels generate hot water as well as power.

As for wind turbines, I don't see why they can't be built out at sea, rather than plonking them on top of a hill. I don't find them as visually offensive as some people, but they do spoil the landscape somewhat.

Richard, isn't there a plan to build a tidal power barrier across the Severn estuary, which should be built in 10 years or so?

 

[ChrisMClark]

They're looking to build a wind farm nearby here to produce enough power to supply most, if not all, the purbecks. I think it's a good idea. It'll ruin part of the skyline, yes, but anyone who's been to Dorset will know that beautiful scenery is not something we're short of down here! The locals of course don't like the idea, apparently they're smog spewing, muck spreading tractors are fine, and cow **** all over the roads isn't a problem, but clean energy is the demon seed of Davey Jones. If the government is truly comitted to climate change, and not just using it as another excuse to tax us out the arse, then it'll force these renewable energy sources through and tell people to deal with it or move elsewhere. My personal feeling though is that the Government isn't that bothered about climate change; it's showing the token interest it's expected to and making some easy cash of us hard working Brits.

I don't live in my own house, being a married member of the armed forces I'm lucky enough to live in a service families quarter, so I'm not in a position to install solar panels to the house. But I will be doing when we eventually buy.

 

[Cyb]

Only one answer really - Nuclear.

Or depend on other countries to supply us with coal/ gas /electricity at a price we can afford -and I find that more scary than nuclear power.

 

[Galaxy66]

I am not getting involved in this one again with my views for personal reasons but I will add that wind farms can be very noisy depending on the weather conditions.

 

[CopeImages]

I am not getting involved in this one again with my views for personal reasons but I will add that wind farms can be very noisy depending on the weather conditions.

Without wanting to spark an all out argument about my views, versus yours, versus everyone elses.........people don't agree FACT, that's why we kill each other day in day out.

They're no more noisy than a car, a kid playing in the yard, the wind blasting around your house in a gale, a dog barking, a nutter doing somersaults 1/4 of a mile above your head in a stunt plane on a sunny day, the RAF practisng at saving our skins, etc, etc. I could go on and on and on and Ariston.

It's just that people don't like change so they have to find obscure reasons why they don't like stuff. I work in the industry, I have my views on them like anything else, but I also know (unlike most people) what goes into designing them, making them, planning them, and installing them.

There's alot worse things out there that'll kill you but people like to moan, but they also forget that oil and natural gas WILL run out at the rate we use it and that all of the alternatives require change and people DON'T LIKE CHANGE. They also don't like living under candles, but they don't appear to have the brain power to calculate that when oil and gas runs out, they need the alternatives, but if they block all the alternatives, the only alternative is a bluddy candle. :bang:

Until common sense prevails on this earth (proabaly never), we'll go around in circles over and over.......

:shrug:

Guy

 

[RichardC27]

If the government is truly comitted to climate change, and not just using it as another excuse to tax us out the arse, then it'll force these renewable energy sources through and tell people to deal with it or move elsewhere. My personal feeling though is that the Government isn't that bothered about climate change; it's showing the token interest it's expected to and making some easy cash of us hard working Brits.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there mate. If they were truly serious about climate change (which is a natural phenomenon anyway. Humans didn't cause the ice ages millions of years ago did they?), they wouldn't be building two new coal fired power stations. The whole climate change debate seriously annoys me. The Earth's climate is a huge, slow moving, constantly changing thing, and although humans must be having an effect, it's nowhere near as large as the world's governments are making out.

A few things to consider:

Human beings generate around 7 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Nature, through rotting plants, volcanoes, peat bogs etc, puts 70 billion tonnes of CO2 out every year.

For around 85% of its history, the Earth has not had polar ice caps. All of recorded human history has taken place in an interglacial period; we are still in an ice age, just a warm bit of it.

In the 17th century, temperatures were a fair bit warmer than they are now.

CO2 is not a particularly powerful greenhouse gas. Methane (which every cow on the planet puts out tonnes of every year) exerts a much more powerful warming effect, and the most powerful of them all is water vapour. You'll note that the sole emission from hydrogen powered cars (which are going to cure climate change apparently), is the most powerful greenhouse gas there is.

Global warming is no longer used since a lot of the world, including the UK, will actually get colder in the end, hence why it's now climate change.

And finally, you never hear about acid rain anymore do you? That was going to end the world in the early 90's, but isn't mentioned now.

Rant over

 

[chris250]

personally i don't mind wind power, i can see two turbine farms from my house but the question would be how much of our country do we need to cover to generate the energy we require?

coal and gas are running out we all know it and yet they are still building and running power stations that run on the stuff

Nuclear power is clean and efficient, true there is the issue of disposal, however, that can be done. the only reason that chernobal (spelling?) blew was because the engineers were experimenting and switched off the safety precautions that are in place to prevent what happened happening.

all in all i'd say wind farms and tidle power out at sea, solar panels on as many homes as possible and if we still need more power then go nuclear. i'm going to be fitting solar panels once we buy, they'll pay for themselves the way i see it

 

[ChrisMClark]

Methane (which every cow on the planet puts out tonnes of every year) exerts a much more powerful warming effect

Wasn't it cocaine-Kate Moss who tried to convince everyone to go vegitarian so there wouldn't need to be so many cows?

 

[RichardC27]

Yeah a few people have tried. It would completely solve the problem if there weren't so many cows, but I like my steaks and burgers too much to be honest

 

[Ewan]

Coal runs out, wind doesn't. I think they should try not to put wind farms where they will spoil the view, but in the end it's more important that we have sustainable energy. And I think windfarms look nice!

 

[ChrisMClark]

The look all high tech and everything I think they can be quite graceful, and noise from them has never bothered me when I've passed them, I coudn't even hear them!

 

[russdaz]

Coal will run out, as will gas, and isn't as efficient as Nuclear.

Wind requires to many turbines to really compete against any of the above as a main source of power.

Tidal current is where big development will be and potentially be a big player to be the leader as a main source in a few years.

A Lot of our current power stations will be decommissioned within the next 5-10 years, nuclear is really the only option we have to replace them without cover the whole of the country in wind turbines. Oh wind turbines only produce power between curtain wind speeds, so if stormy conditions like we had last night the wind would have been tooooo strong, meaning they would have been free spinning, producing no power.

Fitting individual houses with solar panels is the best option, and is now a legal requirement with all new builds, how ever we will need power stations to make up the shortage, to prevent black outs, which as i know nobody likes or realises how much 99% of you are relay on power.

 

[seriousrikk]

Also, windfarm design has come on so much in the more recent years.
The early ones had huge blades that were designed for efficiency only. When you look at recent developments the blades are a more graceful design which (aparrently) reduces what little noise they make even more.

 

[ChrisMClark]

Wind requires to many turbines to really compete against any of the above Fitting individual houses with solar panels is the best option, and is now a legal requirement with all new builds

Interesting point there Russ, I didn't know that, so you've just educated me a little there! When did that legislation come into effect?

 

[Ewan]

Interesting point there Russ, I didn't know that, so you've just educated me a little there! When did that legislation come into effect?

I'd heard about it but didn't think they'd passed it yet...

 

[russdaz]

Take a read of the Part 'L' building regs regarding energy efficiency targets the only way 99% of new builds reach there targets is using renewable sources, be it wind, solar, heat, hydro.

There are talks of making all new builds from 2012 being completely self sufficient.

 

[TheWombat]

I have no problems with wind farms providing some consideration has been given to the location.Not all countryside is of "outstanding natural beauty" and windfarms can frequently add to an otherwise bland landscape.They are an infinitely better alternative to a full on power station on your doorstep.
Pete.

 

[ChrisMClark]

They are an infinitely better alternative to a full on power station on your doorstep.

 

[2blue4u]

What the sustainable energy brigade fail to publicise is that for every megawatt of sustainable energy power generation that you have you need another megawatt of more conventional generation to back it up. The wind don't always blow.

As much as it pains me to say this, I envy the French :spit: They have something like 70% of their electricity generated by nuclear power stations. Why can't we? If only some of all these billions of pounds that Brown is throwing at the bankers could be used to build a couple dozen nuclear power stations it would provide employment (construction) and leave a positive power generation legacy for future generations.

And wind turbines kill thousands of birds annually (and aliens).

 

[CopeImages]

And wind turbines kill thousands of birds annually (and aliens).

I'm sorry but I'm very certain you will have no proof for that statement about birds 2Blue.....The RSPB actively work with renewable energy companies, provided the wind farm planning process takes into consideration migratory and nesting bird species.

It's misguided arguments like that that stir up most of the anti-renewable energy lobbies. I have four birds killed every week in my back garden when they sadly slam into the patio doors - are you telling me I shoudn't have glass in my house !!!!!!! Every wind farm site in the UK HAS to have 1 year's worth of bird data gathered (i.e. people sat in hides in and around proposed wind farm sites) before the planning application is submitted on bird "traffic" in the area for the varying migratory and nesting species. FACT!!!!! The reason it's a year is that some species only visit at certain times of the year so to consider ALL species you have to cover a full 12 month period. Sadly because of the anti-wind farm lobbies/sentiment, the developers are reluctant to publicise what they get up to but that has the negative effect of allowing misguided unfounded statements being taken on board by the press and masses who know no better. I prepare some of the info for the EIA's (Environmental Impact Assessment), including photography, and I can say they are very, very thorough documents indeed. They have to be to meet stringent guidelines laid down by the regulatory bodies by which all the council planning departments currently work to.

But what the people who hate turbines (and apparently anything else different/new for that matter) seem to forget is that once they're installed, any time they're turning, then that power is pretty much FREE after write-down costs.

It really bamboozles me that in a society where we want everything for nothing the NIMBY's all rally around together like sheep and shout and winge at something that is far "free-er", less hazardous, easily removable etc than a flipping great Nuclear site on their "back yard".

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

And wind turbines kill thousands of birds annually (and aliens).

Wrong - Dutch studies (over a much longer time period than British) show that after 2 years of placement there is no longer an increased mortality associated with wind farms.

Solar pannels are not cost effective, but are green when considering energy production but no-one knows the long term effects of albido, hopefully it will cool down the atmosphere slightly at counteract 'global warming' that a lot of people harp on about.

I am still to see a scientific paper that shows that the temperature now is significantly higher than it has ever been previously, or one that links 'warming' and CO2 levels, or one that proves we aren't getting warmer by coming out of an ice age

 

[wack61]

But what the people who hate turbines (and apparently anything else different/new for that matter) seem to forget is that once they're installed, any time they're turning, then that power is pretty much FREE after write-down costs.

free, so they don't require maintenance, and how much is the write down cost and how long does it take to recover that

 

[2blue4u]

For every 'study' showing that wind turbines do not kill birds there is one showing the opposite. Of course they do. I've even seen the evidence myself.

It really bamboozles me that in a society where we want everything for nothing the NIMBY's all rally around together like sheep and shout and winge at something that is far "free-er", less hazardous, easily removable etc than a flipping great Nuclear site on their "back yard".

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a NIMBY matter at all. I'd be quite happy to have a nuclear power station in my back yard. What gripes me is the folk who talk up the so-called advantages of wind turbines whilst conveniently forgetting the need to maintain a duplicate power source.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

For every 'study' showing that wind turbines do not kill birds there is one showing the opposite. Of course they do. I've even seen the evidence myself.

I'm talking about scientific tests that are written up for papers, gone over with a fine toothed comb, statistically analysed and peer reviewed; after a couple of years the birds get used to them and there is no effect on mortality rates

 

[CopeImages]

free, so they don't require maintenance, and how much is the write down cost and how long does it take to recover that

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnn

Listen to your own argument and it's full of holes. Of course they need maintaining, they're a sensitive, technical piece of equipment. But what drives them, what makes them do their work of generating power.............:bang: or am I missing something......like the going rate on the Rotterdam spot market to buy a metre per second of wind to stick in your turbine :shrug:

For every 'study' showing that wind turbines do not kill birds there is one showing the opposite. Of course they do. I've even seen the evidence myself.


As far as I'm concerned, it's not a NIMBY matter at all. I'd be quite happy to have a nuclear power station in my back yard. What gripes me is the folk who talk up the so-called advantages of wind turbines whilst conveniently forgetting the need to maintain a duplicate power source.

I refer you to my previous post. I've seen dead birds, I've seen dead humans. They're everywhere believe it or not. But you're trying to big up the mass-murder argument by saying they're dying in droves, sliced to pieces by these killers blades. Sorry that's horse-dung!!!!! Speak to the RSPB, they'll tell you that.

Poorly sited wind farms that are slap-bang in the middle of known bird flight lines are a danger yes, but so's having a motorway with no central reservation. However, like motorways in the 50's that were "new technology" and have developed and improved, wind turbine technology and the means to assess their impacts have also improved. We didn't have access to avian tracking data when wind farms were first installed. That was unfortunate for certain people and livestock, but like in most walks of life you learn by your mistakes. It just sad that certain things get a stigma like the poor old Skoda, and those stigma's stick, mainly cos of the misguided arguments or an unwillingness to accept change or improvement.

As for a duplicate power source, welcome to the real world 2blue......No one single power source is going to satisfy the demand for the burgeoning human race and it's quest to have every conceivable thing automated....sorry

As for Nuclear...yes it's an option, but not a save-all-from-doom option. And to fire it back at yourself and wack61, what do you think it's going to cost to assess, plan, construct, feed, run AND MAINTAIN a nuclear power plant, and unlike a wind turbine site that can be decommissioned in a matter of days....what’s the plan for the waste nuclear food once we’ve moved onto something else

I’d actually like to see a ‘test’ of a few communities along the line of “Ok folks, hope you’re sitting comfortably, tea and stickies are over there. Right, we’re here today to give you a few options. They are the only options for the next 20-30 years so don’t all lynch me at once cos I’m only the messenger not the harbinger…Your options are, a nuclear power station over there on old Farmer Palmer’s land, a wind farm site or a coal-fired power station, but that’ll not be around long cos we’ll run out soon… Ok folks, who’s gonna start the bidding then…? Oh and mind the tea, it’s hot………………!”

Realistic options only as Hydro is too expensive to implement as is wholescale off-shore wind farming (due to getting the resources to site to build the things and then getting said power back into the grid).

Don't get me wrong, you won't cut me in half and see Vestas written right through me, I'm open to all options, but I just don't understand the absolute rudeness and physical aggression some people show towards Wind Farm developers or how they feel they can maintain credibility by stirring up the debate by lying and scare-mongering.

Guy

 

[russdaz]

I agree, Wind farms are no more of a bird killer then any other power station, or human made object.

I believe from knowledge within the business Nuclear and Wind power are the only 2 real cost effective measures. Wind isnt yet effecient enough to relay on as a mainstay, so Nuclear to back it up with enough spare capicity for the times the wind turbines arnt working. If you factor maintenance for power output by combining the use of both wind farms and Nuclear power you'd find it wont be anymore if anything should be cheaper due to free fuel if you like from the wind.

Nuclear does have big draw backs to though, they need shed loads of water to function, the harder the reactors are pushed the more water they consume, plus cost alot more to decommision.

Hydro is very expensive, but will develop, along with harnessing the tides current and should bring cost down down like everything. But we need solutions now if we dont want power blackouts in the years to come.

 

[chris250]

Nuclear does have big draw backs to though, they need shed loads of water to function, the harder the reactors are pushed the more water they consume, plus cost alot more to decommision.

this is true and also why (in scotland at least) why they are built next to the sea, there were worries about the hugely over grown fish that swim around the water outlet at hunterston on the west coast of Scotland but this was down to the water that was being released from the station was warm so in winter time the fish that normally stop growning in winter kept on growing as the water wasn't cold, they now apply this to some fish farm's to gain maximum yield.

as for disposal of the waste that can all be done very efficiently now, and the running costs are more than easily paid for by the energy they produce. Again in scotland at one time we had 3 stations running and energy was 'cheap' now these stations are coming to the end of their life's and we only have 2 which aren't even running to capacity and the cost of energy is going up. go figure.

 

[russdaz]

this is true and also why (in scotland at least) why they are built next to the sea, there were worries about the hugely over grown fish that swim around the water outlet at hunterston on the west coast of Scotland but this was down to the water that was being released from the station was warm so in winter time the fish that normally stop growning in winter kept on growing as the water wasn't cold, they now apply this to some fish farm's to gain maximum yield.

as for disposal of the waste that can all be done very efficiently now, and the running costs are more than easily paid for by the energy they produce. Again in scotland at one time we had 3 stations running and energy was 'cheap' now these stations are coming to the end of their life's and we only have 2 which aren't even running to capacity and the cost of energy is going up. go figure.

Yeah all true, thats why just about all stations i know off are by the Sea or by major rivers. From memory its something like 70% of French supply is Nuclear.

Cost of energy at the moment is high due the gas/oil prices that where high. Unlike some country's Britain buys huge stocks of gas, the last patch was brought at there highest level, once that stock has been used then energy cost should start to drop again when the next batch is brought in, if that makes sense.

 

[jcoutts]

IMO, I think tidal or Hydro power makes the most sense, I think Windfarms are an eyesore, though there is a place for everything. Having them on your doorstep isn't a nice thing but there is still a fair bit of space around where the government haven't turned a blind eye to "greenbelt" and had flats built on it!!..

We are an Island for gods sake! loads of water potential, and we get enough of it one way or another. Would be a good idea to place tidal power stations at the places where our coast is eroding!

Two fold, generate power whilst protecting the coastline from being battered.

 

[jerry12953]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there mate. If they were truly serious about climate change (which is a natural phenomenon anyway. Humans didn't cause the ice ages millions of years ago did they?), they wouldn't be building two new coal fired power stations. The whole climate change debate seriously annoys me. The Earth's climate is a huge, slow moving, constantly changing thing, and although humans must be having an effect, it's nowhere near as large as the world's governments are making out.

A few things to consider:

Human beings generate around 7 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Nature, through rotting plants, volcanoes, peat bogs etc, puts 70 billion tonnes of CO2 out every year.

For around 85% of its history, the Earth has not had polar ice caps. All of recorded human history has taken place in an interglacial period; we are still in an ice age, just a warm bit of it.

In the 17th century, temperatures were a fair bit warmer than they are now.

CO2 is not a particularly powerful greenhouse gas. Methane (which every cow on the planet puts out tonnes of every year) exerts a much more powerful warming effect, and the most powerful of them all is water vapour. You'll note that the sole emission from hydrogen powered cars (which are going to cure climate change apparently), is the most powerful greenhouse gas there is.

Global warming is no longer used since a lot of the world, including the UK, will actually get colder in the end, hence why it's now climate change.

And finally, you never hear about acid rain anymore do you? That was going to end the world in the early 90's, but isn't mentioned now.

Rant over

i think the evidence shows that you are mistaken......

 

[jerry12953]

Just one point...

People get mixed up between solar hot-water heating panels and solar photo-voltaic panels.

The former work (we have them) and the payback time is quite short. PV's are very expensive at present and the payback period is forever; but I've seen bits and bobs about new technology that could change that fairly shortly.

We do need a government that will take it all more seriously though.

 

[RichardC27]

i think the evidence shows that you are mistaken......

Depends where in the world you're looking. Some places are heating up at the moment, some are cooling down. Same as it's always been, same as it always will be.

And to refer to a previous post regarding albido, if every building in the world had a white roof, global temperatures would drop by around 0.6C. Something else people fail to take into account when talking about climate change is the fact that a lot of the world is now covered in concrete/tarmac/buildings, which trap an awful lot of heat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of energy efficiency and general eco-friendliness; when I get my first house I will price up solar panels and a wind turbine, and if the cost is worth it I'll install them. What annoys me is the way governments are going about it, and the way it's portrayed as "the most serious threat ever to face the plant". It's really not if you actually look at the Earth's climatic history.

People say Polar Bears will go extinct, and they probably will. I haven't seen many Woolly Mammoths recently either, and they were killed off by a rise in global temperatures which was nothing at all to do with carbon emissions or anything like that.

 

[jerry12953]

Depends where in the world you're looking. Some places are heating up at the moment, some are cooling down. Same as it's always been, same as it always will be.

And to refer to a previous post regarding albido, if every building in the world had a white roof, global temperatures would drop by around 0.6C. Something else people fail to take into account when talking about climate change is the fact that a lot of the world is now covered in concrete/tarmac/buildings, which trap an awful lot of heat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of energy efficiency and general eco-friendliness; when I get my first house I will price up solar panels and a wind turbine, and if the cost is worth it I'll install them. What annoys me is the way governments are going about it, and the way it's portrayed as "the most serious threat ever to face the plant". It's really not if you actually look at the Earth's climatic history.

People say Polar Bears will go extinct, and they probably will. I haven't seen many Woolly Mammoths recently either, and they were killed off by a rise in global temperatures which was nothing at all to do with carbon emissions or anything like that.

The rate of change at the moment is so fast that many species - including us - won't have a chance to adapt. The evidence is overwhelming that it is related to carbon and other emissions.

 

[russdaz]

IMO, I think tidal or Hydro power makes the most sense, I think Windfarms are an eyesore, though there is a place for everything. Having them on your doorstep isn't a nice thing but there is still a fair bit of space around where the government haven't turned a blind eye to "greenbelt" and had flats built on it!!..

We are an Island for gods sake! loads of water potential, and we get enough of it one way or another. Would be a good idea to place tidal power stations at the places where our coast is eroding!

Two fold, generate power whilst protecting the coastline from being battered.

In an ideal world yes, but do you know a great deal about these systems?

Tidal is very new, and at present incrediably expensive to build and very costly to maintain, and not reliable enough yet to replace our current power station, which again are nearing there service life, just about all have had major upgrades and running way behond the planned life.

 

[inaneredstripe]

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.
same with tidal power generation.
as for solar, well its already been said. water heating is very effective. electricity generation isnt.
we (work) deal with a company who supply heating equipment to the trade.
in the last year or two , their solar water heating sales have gone through the roof (scuse the pun).
its certainly a way to cut your power/gas bills.
i,m still not convinced of nuclear power.ok its clean, but the amounts of spent fuel lying around worry me.and we all still remember what can go wrong.
and if they want to stick a wind farm near me, and reduce my electricity bill, get on with it.

 

[russdaz]

Tidal is the future, i think in a few years wind will be a thing of the past in this country due to our shore line. But tidal is still too expensive to maintain for main source.

A good a farly good unbaised review if theres such a thing.

Can’t wind replace nuclear? No. Nuclear power stations produce constant power (known as ‘base-load&#8217 essential for our Western life-style for 24/7 all the year round. Wind is an unreliable ‘bit player’ on the energy scene. It would take 1,500 wind turbines spread over 20 km 2 to produce the same electricity as a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power station – even then it could not provide base load.

taken from here:
http://www.countryguardian.net/FACTS ABOUT WIND POWER.htm

and another

How many of these units would replace a 1.0 gigawatt nuclear power plant?

At 5.0 megawatts each, and a 25% yield, you would need 800 of these machines. At 2.5 megawatts each, you would need 1,600 of them - that is a very, very large wind farm, on-shore or offshore. If they are placed on a grid a safe distance apart, say 500 meters (remember, they are up to 200 meters tall), then 1,600 of these units would consume an area of 200 square kilometers. At 5.0 megawatts per unit, but 1,000 meters between units, a 800 unit windfarm (25% yield) with generating capacity equivalent to a 1.0 gigawatt nuclear power plant would require 800 square kilometers, over 300 square miles. Each of these units would be nearly twice the height of the Statue of Liberty.

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/10/17/re-powers-50-megawatt-offshore-wind-turbine/

 

[Ewan]

A very interesting discussion...

The point raised by many anti-nuclear people is that the nuclear waste is dangerous, hard to dispose of and will still be there after thousands of years, does anyone have any knowledge on this?

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Would be a good idea to place tidal power stations at the places where our coast is eroding!

Two fold, generate power whilst protecting the coastline from being battered.

Do not try to stop coastal erosion IT WILL NOT WORK (sorry for shouting but had to get the point accross). Whacking in tidal, and wave, power farms will have unknown effects on coastal management, global tides and numerous other factors that govern atmospheric conditions.

The rate of change at the moment is so fast that many species - including us - won't have a chance to adapt. The evidence is overwhelming that it is related to carbon and other emissions.

Wrong - there is no link between CO2 and atmospheric temperature other than a very vague correlation that is statistically insignificant.
The Darwinian model of evolution is wrong, most evolution comes following mass extinction due to some cataclysmic event - then mass explosion of new life forms into old niches with the majority of these becoming extinct within a few hundred thousand years through competition for the same biotic space

The point raised by many anti-nuclear people is that the nuclear waste is dangerous, hard to dispose of and will still be there after thousands of years, does anyone have any knowledge on this?

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