View Full Version : Windfarms
If anyone wants to give support to the proposed windfarms in Caithness then here is a useful site (http://www.yes2wind.com/support.html) that will help you to get your opinion heard.
You changed your view?
And to balance the thread -
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/
http://www.sw-ag.org/
http://www.countryguardian.net/
http://www.cprw.org.uk/
If judging the case is based on the standard of the number of witnesses, then the side against windfarms has amassed the winning numbers. I'll go for that.
(see:http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=12663)
i would rather wind power than nuclear any day .
my question is what about windfarms?
windfarms built in Scotland to export energy to their neighbours?
small windfarms built outside communities for community energy schemes?
windfarms built around Scotland to take the place of nuclear or other on the grid system?
or each house farms its own wind in small personal systems?
orkneylass
05-Aug-06, 22:21
Just back from a holiday in cornwall where I stayed next to a windfarm - the turbines are truly beautiful, very quiet and I would happily have a windfarm like that near to my home.
orkneylass... I too agree they are beautiful in their mechanical blowing in the wind type way.. but, have you thought about the electromagnetic pollution that a large farm produces and the dangers it may impose on yourself and loved ones living near to the farm itself or the high voltage cables transporting this power from the farm?
Rheghead, I'll pass on that thanks.
Madpict, I think Rheghead's always liked wind. He dithered at one point though.
Orkneylass, How many turbines were you staying next to in Cornwall?
orkneylass... I too agree they are beautiful in their mechanical blowing in the wind type way.. but, have you thought about the electromagnetic pollution that a large farm produces and the dangers it may impose on yourself and loved ones living near to the farm itself or the high voltage cables transporting this power from the farm?
We experience far worse every time the sun goes teenager - breaks out in spots - and I know that I would rather not deal with nuclear radiation. My hand is up for wind farms - they are beautiful, aren't they! (welcome back, Orkneylass)
orkneylass
06-Aug-06, 09:00
Hi
The windfarm in Cornwall had 10 turbines and there were several of them in the area where I stayed. However, depending on location I think both small and large windfarms are a good idea. We need to work on the technology to store the energy.
I agree; we do need to work on the technology to store the energy and I would prefer small personal supplies rather than large windfarms.
I think they are beautiful too; very elegant and soothing to watch. I suppose when the pylons were first built, they must have looked quite horrendous; all that metal but I for one think they look quite majestic; like large robots marching across the land!
How about going back to the mill theory to generate power for individual industrial plants? Not often we are short of water and it still can be used again and again.
I believe wind farms and tidal wave power is part of the solution to our energy problems. We have friends come up from the south who see the wind pylons and they think they are a great idea. Before anyone says that they don’t have them in the south then they are wrong/ There is a large one being built in Kent - the Garden of England and there are wind farms in the Lake district, Cumbria, and as the other chap was saying, in Devon, Cornwall and Wales, so the myth that they are only built in Scotland to supply the south is wrong. The people who are against these developments say the Highlands is not the right place for them but when you ask them if they for or against wind farms they say they are all in favour of renewable energy, the problem is where such windfarms etc. are to be sited. With regard to tidal power I saw on the BBC Breakfast Show that where it is intended to site the equipment people are complaining that this will stop waves reaching the shore and thus deprive wind surfers etc. of their enjoyment. It seems to me it is a no win situation.
Lolabelle
06-Aug-06, 11:49
We have several wind farms in Australia. I think the look a whole heap better than the ugly coal munching power stations we have nearby.
Some of the longer windfarm threads....
The sleazy economics of Wind energy should benefit Caithness (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=1605)
David Bellamy Talks Windfarms (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=1523)
NO I DON'T WANT A WINDFARM AT BORROWSTON, CAITHNESS (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=341)
Others can be found here -
http://forum.caithness.org/search.php?searchid=37551
We experience far worse every time the sun goes teenager - breaks out in spots - and I know that I would rather not deal with nuclear radiation. My hand is up for wind farms - they are beautiful, aren't they! (welcome back, Orkneylass)
sunspots only last months at a time and the pulse is six times slower than EMF's. If you live next to any electricity generated EMF's you are constantly bombarded with non-ionising radiation...if it's so safe they wouldn't be making weapons employing it... try active denial technology.
My point is I think people miss the point of the whole argument. I think the problem is overconsumption of energy. We could do with harnessing and conserving natural energy in our everday life. Only 23% of the housing in this country faces south and most of it only by accident. Passive solar housing design is now becoming "more popular" .... this is ancient technology. I mean how much power does one need? Do people need electric tin openers, microwave ovens and the multitudes of other gadgetry? Gadgetry that is pollutive in its manufacture, pollutive in its use and pollutive in its refuse and serves no necessary function except convenience?? Fact is most people are more concerned with the energy that will run the vast array of these "convenience appliances" but, don't put hardly any thought in providing their own body with the proper energy for a healthy existence. No I'm not a Luddite but, maybe I am if it pertains to malignant and pollutive technology.
And no, I do not think Scotland needs windfarms to EXPORT energy to anywhere. Community and personal wind schemes are the only way to go as far as I'm concerned.
Solar Panels......
It was in the news the other day that Currys the well known High Street electrical retailer is to start offering solar panels and installation.
For £9000 (nine panels) you can equip the average British home with the latest in green energy which should reduce their electricity bill by around a half.
Only problem is it will take you 30 odd years to actually get your money back.
If you take advantage of subsidies offered by the govt. your actual cost is reduced to around £4500 - but it will still take 15 years to recoup your money....
You wish to talk pollution - how much pollution is caused in the manufacture of wind turbines and their required concrete bases?*
Energy consumption is the biggest environmental concern with cement and concrete production. Cement production is one of the most energy intensive of all industrial manufacturing processes. Including direct fuel use for mining and transporting raw materials, cement production takes about six million Btus for every ton of cement...
A case of lets make ourselves feel better but we'll make things worse in the process.........
* I am referring to industrial strength wind turbines here - not your back yard erection....
I actually find the call by FOE to establish more wind farms slightly amusing - they have a campaign running to Save the Peat Bogs -
Peat bogs are seen by some as the UK's rainforests and they are important for three main reasons -
* Rare wildlife
Many rare species of plants and animals like the Great Sundew - the UK's largest carnivious plant - are only found in peat bogs
* Archaelogy
Acidic conditions means that decay hardly takes place. The result - a social and environmental record dating back 10,000 years
* Global cooling
Peat bogs remove CO2 from the atmosphere and help fight climate change
- yet they are quite happy for someone to stick 100 300' wind turbines on peat bogs around the nation....
sunspots only last months at a time and the pulse is six times slower than EMF's. If you live next to any electricity generated EMF's you are constantly bombarded with non-ionising radiation...if it's so safe they wouldn't be making weapons employing it... try active denial technology.
Sorry, SJ - you lost me on the weapons using non-ionising radiation. I was thinking more of the Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays (not to mention the X-rays) that pour out of the sunspots. I know that electricity pylons are not the kind of thing you want in your backyard because of the high power electromagnetic fields that surround them but wind turbines are simply generators - big versions of those that we fit in all our vehicles from bicycles upwards.
My point is I think people miss the point of the whole argument. I think the problem is overconsumption of energy. We could do with harnessing and conserving natural energy in our everday life. Only 23% of the housing in this country faces south and most of it only by accident. Passive solar housing design is now becoming "more popular" .... this is ancient technology. I mean how much power does one need? Do people need electric tin openers, microwave ovens and the multitudes of other gadgetry? Gadgetry that is pollutive in its manufacture, pollutive in its use and pollutive in its refuse and serves no necessary function except convenience?? Fact is most people are more concerned with the energy that will run the vast array of these "convenience appliances" but, don't put hardly any thought in providing their own body with the proper energy for a healthy existence. No I'm not a Luddite but, maybe I am if it pertains to malignant and pollutive technology.
I certainly agree with you here. As a global population we do need to re-evaluate our consumption of energy. You should see the number of houses round where I live that have all their lights on, TV and music on, fans and air-con going.... and everyone is sitting outside! Dorks or what!
And no, I do not think Scotland needs windfarms to EXPORT energy to anywhere. Community and personal wind schemes are the only way to go as far as I'm concerned.
Well.... don't dismiss the economic advantage to Scotland gained thorugh the sale of their surplus. This has got to be good for the country, surely?
You wish to talk pollution - how much pollution is caused in the manufacture of wind turbines and their required concrete bases?*
How much pollution is caused in the production of solar panels? The photovoltaic cells use a cocktail of of heavy metals in their manufacture that would leave a trail of pollution from mine to roof top. Also, in terms of power generation, large windfarms will take advantage of factors of scale in terms of power output/CO2 savings to pollution costs compared to domestic scale wind generation.
To promote one renewable energy to the exclusion of another without first assessing the pollution associated with solar panels against that of windfarms just renders your question meaningless to the debate.
Energy consumption is the biggest environmental concern with cement and concrete production. Cement production is one of the most energy intensive of all industrial manufacturing processes. Including direct fuel use for mining and transporting raw materials, cement production takes about six million Btus for every ton of cement...
Some estimated energies of manufacture for your perusal
Aluminium 207 GJ/tonne
Steel 18 GJ/tonne
Paper 35 GJ/tonne
Wood 1 GJ/tonne
Carbon fibre 1300 GJ/tonne
Cement 4 GJ/tonne
And finally...
Concrete 1.4 GJ/tonne
Madpict:
[/quote]Others can be found here -
http://forum.caithness.org/search.php?searchid=37551[/quote]
It didn't come up. Is this the one you were linking to?
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=9265&highlight=wind+farms
One of them - thought the results of search for "windfarms" might have been linkable - that is what last link was for.....
Don Quixote
07-Aug-06, 13:38
What happens when the wind stops blowing?
What happens when the wind stops blowing?
i predict bad hair days for women all round and starved people lying amongst countless unopened tins of soup and carrots and empty shelves in the candle section at the new Thurso ASDA.:roll::roll:
pultneytooner
07-Aug-06, 15:07
What happens when the wind stops blowing? don quixote
what do you say?
are we tilting at windmills like you?
here i am
don quixote
we're all men of la mancha
Why is it you never have a "bad hair day" when you've got nowhere to go....
Fanny's Your Aunt
09-Aug-06, 12:39
Thanks to Rheghead for posting the link to Yes to Wind Website. Hard to understand why non supporters of wind continually spout forth such mythical nonsense about wind energy when the facts are there in black and white (blue and white actually) on this website. This small, (but mouthy – I believe there’s only a handful of them) band of antis have also ignored countless other ‘facts’ listed on numerous wind industry/green websites. What an ignorant bunch o’ yobs.
Just a bit confused though. This report (only one of many) by an independent market research company specialising in energy seems to suggest that the wind industry may be the perpetrators of the misinformation campaign NOT the antis.
Anyone interested - with 5 mins to spare - should follow the link below and read this press release. Unfortunately, the full report by ABS Energy Research costs over £800 so the press release will have to do for now.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/wind/power/prweb420633.htm (http://www.prweb.com/releases/wind/power/prweb420633.htm)
Do we believe the wind industry lobby groups with major vested interests or the anti whose reward is derision?
j4bberw0ck
09-Aug-06, 15:00
Fanny, I'm not convinced about wind power - and am therefore "anti" the investment of huge sums of money until my I understand better - for reasons I've posted earlier in this thread. I resent being classed as "an ignorant yob" by someone who appears only to have read a press release.........
You should check with fred about the reliability of "facts" on websites. You also need to do some thinking to make sure that what you think you're reading is actually what you are reading; like statistics and management information, it's not just about figures, but about the interpretation of them.
It's interesting that according to the press release you linked to, the 48GW generating capacity in Germany is said to be the equivalent of only 2GW of fossil fuel power because the 48GW is the theoretical output of the turbines, which then have down time because of things like the wind not blowing. I recently spent 3 weeks in and around Germany and can confirm (a) the amazing number of wind turbines of all sizes and (b) the equally amazing proportion of them whose blades weren't rotating.
So, tell me if you can:
How much carbon dioxide per MW generated is dumped into the atmosphere as a result of the building and operation and replacement of wind turbines, compared with the same figure for a modern, "clean" fossil fuel power station, across the lifetime of the fossil fuelpower station?
Note I'm asking about MW actually generated - not the theoretical output of wind turbines.
I've been quite unable to find such a figure. I simply suspect that the figure isn't published because it shows that wind turbines are just as, or nearly as, polluting overall as fossil fuels, and because the government needs to be seen to be doing something "green". Perhaps the money would be better invested in nuclear, or in coal-burning generators with 21st century emissions cleaning technology.
I'm quite happy to have someone point out I'm wrong, if I am, and to show me why, at which stage I'll sign up to the wind generator's cause without hesitation. Meantime, I'll just reflect on what may be another gigantic waste of public money solely to make politicians look good.
I am consistently surprised at people who form an anti-windfarm point of view and who are quite prepared to peddle misinformation regarding windfarms knowing full well that the said information is false or misleading. It says a lot about the individual and their viewpoints in other areas.
There is no doubt that successful forms of renewable energy are energy efficient. The only proven one is wind energy (for large scale applications) atm. There is a wealth of information out there on the internet and books from reputable sources that support this.
Fair enough if you find windfarms unsightly then say so, but I find it illogical to lie about their other properties just because it suits...[disgust]
Of course there are people out there who still think that the world is flat, but they should be taken with a pinch of salt and a good sense of humour.[lol]
j4bberw0ck
09-Aug-06, 17:25
Sorry if I misunderstand, Rheghead, but are you taking a pop at me in that post?
For the record, I'm as selfishly interested as anyone else in seeing renewables developed. I don't find wind turbines unsightly - actually, for the big ones, I find them remarkably elegant - "stately" is a word that springs to mind. I'm not sure I'd want one on my doorstep were I trying to sell my house, but that's a different issue.
What I find objectionable is that the jury is still out on whether wind energy is appropriate, and yet the government wants to horse on with them as though they're the solution. With no means of storing power when they're not generating (which can be quite a lot of the time), wind turbines are an incomplete answer and may prove to be the wrong answer - but there's only so much money available and if it should have been spent on emissions control in fossil fuel power stations (for instance) or nuclear (for instance) or water column generators (for instance), then we'll all look pretty stupid, won't we?
Of course, there are people out there who still think that there are hidden tunnels that lead to an Empire of peace and beauty at the centre of the earth, but they should be taken with a pinch of salt and a goodsense of humour [lol] .
And by the way........ can you answer my question about total CO2 load? Try as I might, I can't find a figure and it strikes me as being at the very heart of any logical process to agree a way forward. It's not the day-to-day emissions that count; it's the total across the life of a generating asset, unless of course you happen to be a politician, whose natural instinct is to focus on short term results rather than long term ones. Perhaps you could locate that famous fag-packet again?
Sorry if I misunderstand, Rheghead, but are you taking a pop at me in that post?
I am unable to tell if I was. Only you are able to say whether you are being misleading or downright lying.
What I find objectionable is that the jury is still out on whether wind energy is appropriate, and yet the government wants to horse on with them as though they're the solution. With no means of storing power when they're not generating (which can be quite a lot of the time), wind turbines are an incomplete answer and may prove to be the wrong answer - but there's only so much money available and if it should have been spent on emissions control in fossil fuel power stations (for instance) or nuclear (for instance) or water column generators (for instance), then we'll all look pretty stupid, won't we?
The national grid reckons that that their system can withstand a grid fluctuation due to irregular wind generation of upto 20% of all generation. The UK only stands at ~4% renewables atm. So yes, you are right that the jury is out but only after they contribute more than 20% of our energy needs. Since we aren't there yet in terms of energy production, we should cross that bridge until we come to it.
And by the way........ can you answer my question about total CO2 load? Try as I might, I can't find a figure and it strikes me as being at the very heart of any logical process to agree a way forward. It's not the day-to-day emissions that count; it's the total across the life of a generating asset, unless of course you happen to be a politician, whose natural instinct is to focus on short term results rather than long term ones. Perhaps you could locate that famous fag-packet again?
You weren't looking hard enough.
http://www.fusion.org.uk/socioecon/Kulcinski1.pdf
j4bberw0ck
09-Aug-06, 18:12
I am unable to tell if I was. Only you are able to say whether you are being misleading or downright lying.
Pompous and objectionable...... how unfortunate. I would have hoped for better from someone who writes as well as you, but I'm a forgiving sort, and happy to accept your apology any time ;) . Consider your face slapped with my glove, sir, and seconds at dawn........[lol]
The national grid reckons that that their system can withstand a grid fluctuation due to irregular wind generation of upto 20% of all generation. The UK only stands at ~4% renewables atm.
Yes, but that isn't my point, is it? To the extent of the posts above, I'm interested to learn how the carbon emissions of wind vs fossil balance over the long term. I can't see any meaningful alternative as a starting point in deciding how to construct a strategy for future power generation.
You aren't looking hard enough.
Maybe not, but I'm sure you'll enjoy helping me. Perhaps you could? You see, the thing is I don't have a pro- or anti- stance on wind energy. Yet. Just questions which no one seems to want to answer.
Pompous and objectionable...... how unfortunate. I would have hoped for better from someone who writes as well as you, but I'm a forgiving sort, and happy to accept your apology any time ;) . Consider your face slapped with my glove, sir, and seconds at dawn.......
I am sorry for appearing to be pompous and objectionable but really, if you were trying to mislead then I was having a pop at you;) I wasn't if you weren't, on your own concience be it...
Maybe not, but I'm sure you'll enjoy helping me. Perhaps you could? You see, the thing is I don't have a pro- or anti- stance on wind energy. Yet. Just questions which no one seems to want to answer.
I edited a link in my previous post from a website that neither promotes wind energy or fossil fuels. You may find the answer that you are looking for.
BYW, I have neither a pro or anti stance either, I always try to be objective though.
j4bberw0ck
09-Aug-06, 18:27
I am sorry for appearing to be pompous and objectionable but really, if you were trying to mislead then I was having a pop at you;) I wasn't if you weren't, on your own concience be it...
Phew! That's all right then. I can head off to the pub with a clear conscience :lol:
I edited a link in my previous post from a website that neither promotes wind energy or fossil fuels. You may find the answer that you are looking for.
Thank you for that. The wonders of Google lose some appeal when you're 5 or 6 pages into search results and getting waaaaay off track.
I always try to be objective though.
Moi aussi, mon brave, moi aussi. And I'm not ashamed to change my mind if I get something wrong and someone points it out.
Fanny's Your Aunt
09-Aug-06, 23:22
j4bberw0ck - I'm with you 100%. Have read hundreds of reports/press releases and articles on this subject - pro, anti, independent and industry led -but am still an ignorant yob.
ABS Energy Research have published what they consider to be the most important Wind Report that they have yet produced - key findings are copied below. (Apologies -this is what I meant to link to)
The Wind Power Report Ed 3 2006
Key Findings
• The wind power industry is reaching a highly controversial phase in its development as solid operational data becomes available about its performance, limitations and effects on the grid
• The ABS report concludes that governments, developers and operators should seriously consider their options regarding wind power
• Wind power reports have now been published by energy agencies and the network operators in USA, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Ireland, delineating critical problems. Deutsche Energie-Agentur (dena) has published a comprehensive report on German wind power on behalf of the Federal Government, together with the utility and wind and industries
• The dena report assessed the capacity credit of wind power in Germany in 2003 as 890-1,230 MW, i.e. 6% of installed wind capacity of 14,603 MW, rising to 1,820-2,300 MW for 36,000 MW installed in 2015, with a reserve capacity requirement of 7,000 MW
• The claimed savings in GHG emissions has been questioned
• Denmark exported over 80% of wind generated electricity to Norway in 2004, which has 98.5% carbon-free hydro generation, because wind delivered a surplus of 84%, according to the CEO of Eltra, almost nullifying any emissions savings
• Wind’s intermittency places a large strain on system balance
• A new understanding is emerging about the relative efficiencies and emissions of base load operation of fossil fuel plant versus plant used in back up of a variable source
• Wind power has been promoted for politico/environmental reasons and wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies, leading to exaggerated claims. A reality check is needed.
• With the first real evidence of performance from some of the most authoritative sources in the power industry, the claims for wind power are being called into question
• Anyone involved in this industry should have this information and be aware of these results
• Be wary when the wind industry describes a criticism of wind power as a "myth"
• Industry figures like the CEOs of E.ON Netz and Eltra do not deal in myths and solutions, they have real experience and more data than anyone else. They record what has actually happened.
Rheghead - Are ABS peddling misinformation?
Rheghead - Are ABS peddling misinformation?
[/LEFT]
Sorry, who are ABS? They are not exactly well known are they?
EDIT, I have just read a wee bit of their report and yes, I think they are peddling misinformation.
What I find objectionable is that the jury is still out on whether wind energy is appropriate, and yet the government wants to horse on with them as though they're the solution.
The jury hadn't even been chosen yet when they fired up Dounreay.
...... but, have you thought about the electromagnetic pollution that a large farm produces and the dangers it may impose on yourself and loved ones living near to the farm itself or the high voltage cables transporting this power from the farm?
As opossed to pollutent free fossil fuels and nuclear energy that are transported by telepathy to where they are needed?
j4bberw0ck
10-Aug-06, 08:34
The jury hadn't even been chosen yet when they fired up Dounreay.
Awwww c'mon wahwah. That was in the 1950's that the planning and thinking was done. Different world, different people. And Dounreay has brought a huge amount of prosperity to Caithness.
BTW, as far as electromagnetic radiation, we're bathed in it full time. Some believe we are electromagnetic radiation. You'll be giving up your mobile phone and living in a Faraday Cage, perhaps? :D
j4bberw0ck
10-Aug-06, 08:36
As opossed to pollutent free fossil fuels and nuclear energy that are transported by telepathy to where they are needed?
http://www.teddies.be/Forum/images/smiles/icon_rofl.gif
Totally simplistic view here:
1) Windmills are fascinating sculptures - the one on Latheron Hill has been commented on positively by every family that has travelled north or south on the A9 for the decades it has been in place.
2) The windmills on the moor south of Spittal are so elegant, you have a job keeping your eyes on the road.
3) Without allowing for this "carbon footprint" malarky - erection of windmills is one of the few power-production schemes that you can say "I'll put up with this during my lifetime, and if a future generation doesn't want to - they can remove them with no adverse legacy."
4) Wind and wave power are pioneering industries, and I would be surprised if there were any fatalaties attributable to it, unlike most other industries.
(Pass me my clogs)
Blazing Sporrans
10-Aug-06, 09:39
Why all the fuss and debate about wind power, when surely wave power generation is the way of the future? We just need a more efficient and longer lasting rig then the late lamented(?) Osprey, which succumbed to the invitation of Davy Jones locker off Dounreay in 1995. My friend tells me that Osprey sank due to the large waves further damaging the already cracked and broken ballast tanks (damaged in the launch off the Clyde) however I'm sure I recall that Osprey went down after one of the most benign weeks of weather possible...
j4bberw0ck
10-Aug-06, 11:11
Oh no! Not another! (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=12640)
(just kidding, Sporrans........) :lol::lol:
Blazing Sporrans
10-Aug-06, 11:40
Oh no! Not another! (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=12640)
Aha!! I thought I was onto something. Oh my God, I'm not safe anymore - I know too much....[lol]
This small, (but mouthy – I believe there’s only a handful of them) band of antis have also ignored countless other ‘facts’ listed on numerous wind industry/green websites. What an ignorant bunch o’ yobs.
[mad]
I resent you calling me or anyone who has doubts or concerns about the proliferation of wind turbines in Caithness as an ignorant yob.
If you have followed any of my previous arguments about the siting of windfarms in Caithness you will see I have clearly stated that I do not believe siting them in on of the last wildernesses in the UK as appropriate.
I fully accept that we have to have alternative forms of power generation and I am in full support of off shore wind farms. I have been through this argument with Rheghead and others but never have I been called an ignorant yob by any that I have discussed this topic with.
Even Rheghead at one point questioned the actual economics of the whole wind turbine industry. Even previous advocates of wind energy are now questioning its efficiency.
...the one on Latheron Hill has been commented on positively by every family that has travelled north or south on the A9 for the decades it has been in place
By every family that has travelled...for decades? [lol]
Wait, you have actually contacted every family that has passed that structure? You have never asked me and I doubt if you have asked any of my relatives. So straight away your statement is totally untrue. Like many of the lies peddled by the pro wind groups - they are only interested in lining their own pockets.
And one small turbine on a hill on the road south does not have the same visual impact as fifty or one hundred 100 metre high devices.
Highland Laddie
10-Aug-06, 13:43
Just wondering what the thoughts of everyone are, regarding the small wind turbines designed to be attached to the end of your house.
Supposedly they are not much bigger than a satellite dish, and soon, will not require local planning permission.
Awwww c'mon wahwah. That was in the 1950's that the planning and thinking was done. Different world, different people. And Dounreay has brought a huge amount of prosperity to Caithness.
BTW, as far as electromagnetic radiation, we're bathed in it full time. Some believe we are electromagnetic radiation. You'll be giving up your mobile phone and living in a Faraday Cage, perhaps? :D
Don't own a mobile phone and never will own one of these annoying buzzing pesterers.... the masts emit high frequency EMFs or microwaves. 85% of UK households have mobile phones... (I'm one of the 15%) and the government makes 1 billion pounds a year in taxes on mobile phone costs.. so it MUST be good for you eh?
yes.. we are bathed in natural electromagnetic fields. electromagnetic fields produced from electrical equipment moves at a pulse 6 times quicker than natural electromagnetic fields. And several studies from around the world show they have adverse health effects on people. And yes, there are natural sources of geopathic stress that also make people ill from living on certain energy lines... but, this was well known by our ancestors but, unfortunately has been lost knowledge or ignored knowledge... delete to your own preference.
j4bberw0ck
10-Aug-06, 14:58
Don't own a mobile phone and never will own one of these annoying buzzing pesterers.... the masts emit high frequency EMFs or microwaves.
Fair enough. I apologise.
85% of UK households have mobile phones... (I'm one of the 15%) and the government makes 1 billion pounds a year in taxes on mobile phone costs.. so it MUST be good for you eh?
Well, I suppose, to the extent that the tax helps pay for index-linked, generous pensions schemes for politicians, public sector workers and so on [lol]
electromagnetic fields produced from electrical equipment moves at a pulse 6 times quicker than natural electromagnetic fields
Yes, I know some studies have shown a link between power lines (hundreds of KV) and illness "clusters", and some have not demonstrated a significant link. Interested, though, by the "pulsing 6 times quicker". Do you mean a specific frequency or group of frequencies? Or a variation in amplitude? Pulsing implied to me a sort of "coming and going" - much as if you turned a dimmer switch on your roomlight up and down.
Just wondering what the thoughts of everyone are, regarding the small wind turbines designed to be attached to the end of your house.
Supposedly they are not much bigger than a satellite dish, and soon, will not require local planning permission.
Now, that'll be an interesting development. We could all have small wind turbines (and look like the outback of USA and Australia) and feed our surplus into the National Grid. This will offset what we get charged for when the doldrums are on us. I like it already. :D
Fair enough. I apologise.
Well, I suppose, to the extent that the tax helps pay for index-linked, generous pensions schemes for politicians, public sector workers and so on [lol]
Yes, I know some studies have shown a link between power lines (hundreds of KV) and illness "clusters", and some have not demonstrated a significant link. Interested, though, by the "pulsing 6 times quicker". Do you mean a specific frequency or group of frequencies? Or a variation in amplitude? Pulsing implied to me a sort of "coming and going" - much as if you turned a dimmer switch on your roomlight up and down.
If you would like information.. go to www.powerwatch.org.uk I've rented meters from them before and they have all the studies on their site.. tis very informative.
Fanny's Your Aunt
10-Aug-06, 19:21
[mad]
I resent you calling me or anyone who has doubts or concerns about the proliferation of wind turbines in Caithness as an ignorant yob.
Humble apologies to Madpict and others if I offended - no offence meant. I was being facetious and thought the articles I posted would have made that obvious.
Over the last few months there have been a rash of documents/reports published all questioning or disproving many of the claims made by the wind industry but most folk are bored with the subject now - not surprising really considering everything else that's going on at the moment.
BTW - during an exchange with a landowner about a proposed windfarm development I along with anyone not supportive of wind energy were accused of being both ignorant and yobbish. Galling coming from those whose 'knowledge' on the subject is nothing more than a download from the BWEA.
Blazing Sporrans
10-Aug-06, 19:27
BTW - during an exchange with a landowner about a proposed windfarm development I along with anyone not supportive of wind energy were accused of being both ignorant and yobbish. Galling coming from those whose 'knowledge' on the subject is nothing more than a download from the BWEA.
Just curious to know where the intended development will be? Some would call me nosy - my euphemism for it is "staying informed" [lol]
FYA,
Sorry if I 'snapped' - it was pointed out after I replied, via PM by another Orger, that you were being flippant - I could not open the link you provided so didn't get your poke at the 'windies'.
Fanny's Your Aunt
10-Aug-06, 20:05
No problem - MadPict. Am rubbish at links.
Blazing Sporrans - take a look at the link on the front page to the updated windfarm 'activity' list for Highland and see the choice.
Villagers meet over turbine plans
The electricity from the turbines could supply 3,000 homes
A public meeting is being held on Tuesday evening to allow people in a Hertfordshire village to have their say about a proposed wind farm.
Farmers John and Paul Cherry want to erect three wind turbines on fields at Weston Hills near Baldock.
They would generate enough electricity to supply about 3,000 homes.
John Cherry said it was an opportunity for farmers help tackle climate change. The proposal is unlikely to come before planners until the autumn.
Mr Cherry said he believed the turbines would be away from houses and screened by trees.
"I think many people feel we must do something about energy supply.
"Climate change is a reality no-one can ignore and this scheme is a small but important element in tackling it."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4793519.stm
One brother said that for years he was concernd about what would happen when the oil ran out - I think he was more concerned about how to keep money coming into his pocket....
..."let's stop growing them crops boy and let's sit back, do nowt and watch the pounds blow in through the door"
One brother said that for years he was concernd about what would happen when the oil ran out - I think he was more concerned about how to keep money coming into his pocket....
..."let's stop growing them crops boy and let's sit back, do nowt and watch the pounds blow in through the door"
Correct Madpict, farms are businesses like any other. And since the decline of farming subsidies, they have a greater need to diversify.
It's been ages since I've had a rant about wind and am in the mood tonight.
I disagree Rheghead. Farming is not like any other business. For the majority of farmers (small family run businesses) farming is a way of life. I can assure you that if these farms were run purely for 'business' there would be very little home produced meat and crops available in this country. Times have undoubtedly changed for farmers with many being forced to look at diversification and/or alternative employment. Thank god very few have chosen the wind scam - those who have - well Madpict is correct, sit back and rake it in with no respect for their neighbours, their holding or the county in which they 'farm'. Just because their particular industry (and bank balance) is suffering doesn't give them the right to industrialise the countryside for their own selfish gain.
ps If wind power stood up to any of the claims being made by the wind industry then I might feel differently. Let's do away with ROC's for onshore wind and see how it performs.
I concede that there might be a place for wind as follows –
To dry the washing
To keep midges at bay
To fly a kite
To stand on the top of a hill arms outstretched, bent into the wind and rejoicing in life.
All CO2 neutral – in fact look at the savings in CO2 emissions – no tumble driers, no midge eaters, no energy consuming leisure activities.
I have yet to be convinced that wind (with turbines) can –
Reduce CO2 emissions to any worthwhile extent
Replace existing electricity generators
Help with security of supply
Until there is proof that wind energy can and will deliver the above I just can’t bring myself to sit back and watch beautiful, undeveloped, wild landscapes being sacrificed on what appears to be a political whim.
Any sacrificing should be done on a personal level. We, each and every one of us, have a responsibility to reduce our consumption of electricity/energy.
We’re told repeatedly that wind is only part of the ‘mix’ (the portfolio) of renewable generation needed. Let’s see development of the mix and then the proof that onshore wind has an important role to play within this mix. As there is agreement that renewable energy can only ever supply a maximum of 20% of our requirements it'd also be useful to know what's going to make up the remaining 80% when we close down all the current dirty generators. (plus the additional generation for when when the wind's not blowing or is blowing too hard and doesn't quite make the 20%)
Many people believe the environmental cost is low. Thousands upon thousands of tonnes of concrete left in the ground for ever – a low environmental cost? Maybe as it’s out of sight we could ignore the damage caused IF we were saving the planet and ensuring the secure supply of electricity we all take for granted.
Currently the people claiming that wind energy is the answer are those in the wind industry (I wonder why?), the greens (they seem to believe it’s a choice between wind or nuclear – dumb or what!), a percentage of joe public who believe either that wind will replace all existing dirty generators saving the planet and/or is a feasible alternative for coal, gas and nuclear in providing a secure, cheap supply – not forgetting the politicians (there’s a target to meet). Nearly forgot - plus those who want to make an easy and substantial buck or two.
Rant over. Feel much better now. Thanks for that.
I am a farmer and would never have a wind turbine on my land. I could not do it to my neighbours. More importantly I could never do it to my child. One day they will hopefully take over the farm but to inflict a wind turbine on them would be hell on earth. There are many other ways of getting power but this is one of the ugliest.
I have yet to be convinced that wind (with turbines) can –
Replace existing electricity generators
I don't think anybody seriously thinks that this is possible, even the wind industry.
It is not generator replacement but fossil fuel usage replacement that we need.
Currently the people claiming that wind energy is the answer are those in the wind industry (I wonder why?), the greens (they seem to believe it’s a choice between wind or nuclear – dumb or what!), a percentage of joe public who believe either that wind will replace all existing dirty generators saving the planet and/or is a feasible alternative for coal, gas and nuclear in providing a secure, cheap supply – not forgetting the politicians (there’s a target to meet). Nearly forgot - plus those who want to make an easy and substantial buck or two.Not a bad summary imo. Actually, I think it's rather better than that, it's a rather accurate summary.
Rant over. Feel much better now. Thanks for that.Glad you're feeling better. I enjoyed it too.
I'm not as anti-wind as you. My position is a little closer to Rheghead's or MadPict's. Since I don't have to live with windmills, I tend to treat them as rather irrelevant to long-term planning - Gawd, am I really that selfish? :o
Sure, they might provide perhaps ten or twenty percent of our electricity on a moderately-windy day if we litter our countryside or coastal waters with enough of the things, but it's not a steady supply, it's not cheap, and it doesn't contribute seriously (if at all) to base-load supply. Hmm, why do we bother at all? :confused
j4bberw0ck
16-Aug-06, 00:31
Hmm, why do we bother at all? :confused
Politics, Doc, politics. Game on!!
I don't think anybody seriously thinks that this is possible, even the wind industry.
Wrong again Rheghead. The majority of the public do believe exactly that. They wouldn't 'support' it otherwise.
It is not generator replacement but fossil fuel usage replacement that we need.
So what do we do when we shut down the existing dirty generators? Please explain 'fossil fuel usage replacement'? Sorry for being dense.
Willa -ditto.
I'm not as anti-wind as you. My position is a little closer to Rheghead's or MadPict's. Since I don't have to live with windmills, I tend to treat them as rather irrelevant to long-term planning - Gawd, am I really that selfish?
I'm not that comfortable with the anti label but when you've spent a large percentage of your life working with/on the land it's nearly impossible to ignore such willful damage for something which you so rightly say is 'irrelevant'. Not selfish, Dr Szin, just sensible. Most people are the same and can you blame them? I certainly don't but I do get mad at those who should know better.
Wrong again Rheghead. The majority of the public do believe exactly that. They wouldn't 'support' it otherwise.
I was referring to the policymakers of this country. If the general public want to live in ignorance then that is up to them.
So what do we do when we shut down the existing dirty generators?
We don't shut down the dirty generators! Fossil fuels will remain part of our energy needs, we just need to use them wisely/cleverly instead of squandering the fossil fuels that they use.
Please explain 'fossil fuel usage replacement'?
Well in terms of windfarms, I have used before the analogy of the coal-fired steam ships of the 19th century that were fitted with sails to complement the engines. The engines may only be needed to be put on tick over, the more wind you have the less coal you will need to maintain your speed. Cheaper for the Line and possibly cheaper crossings for the passengers:roll:
There is an essential difference to this analogy and that is because of technical problems associated with the National Grid, the UK can only have a maximum wind generating capacity of ~20%. The UK is now at ~3% wind capacity so any anti wind arguement about the irregular power generation is irrelevent until such time that it becomes a problem.
My biggest gripe about wind is the paltry community benefit that is given to local causes and the ROC system. The community benefit will be only £1500 per 1MW which when placed in the highlands will be only ~1% of the revenue gained the wind company. That is too hard a pill for me to swallow as I think locals deserve more, a lot more. If the energy greedy cities want energy then the revenue should be distributed more evenly. Secondly, the ROC system will only push energy bills up in the short to medium term. Only when there are more renewable sources will the ROC price fall as they flood the market.
[
Quote Well in terms of windfarms, I have used before the analogy of the coal-fired steam ships of the 19th century that were fitted with sails to complement the engines. The engines may only be needed to be put on tick over, the more wind you have the less coal you will need to maintain your speed. Cheaper for the Line and possibly cheaper crossings for the passengers:roll:
Well, you didn't actually hit the nail on the head, you hit it on the other end. Sails were not fitted to coal-fired steam ships to complement the engines, coal fired engines were fitted to sailing ships to complement the wind.
The less wind you have the more coal you need to maintain your speed.
ywindy
Well, you didn't actually hit the nail on the head, you hit it on the other end. Sails were not fitted to coal-fired steam ships to complement the engines, coal fired engines were fitted to sailing ships to complement the wind.
The less wind you have the more coal you need to maintain your speed.
ywindy
No matter how you want to twist the principle, the net result is the same in that more coal would have been used had the steamships not been fitted with sails. Actually in the case of the Great Britain, Brunel wanted a fully coal fired ship (and it was conceived as such)but found that fitting sails could mean that less coal needed to be carried. I was there in Bristol last month and that was what the guide said.
Apologies for this rather lengthy post but Rheghead has made so many valid points that begged a response. It might have appeared rude if I'd ignored them.
We don't shut down the dirty generators! Fossil fuels will remain part of our energy needs, we just need to use them wisely/cleverly instead of squandering the fossil fuels that they use.
The dirty generators are going to need to provide most of our energy needs if the best we come up with is wind. Have you forgotten or just overlooked the main reason for wind power is supposedly to replace/reduce our reliance on fossil fuel generators and therefore reduce CO2 emissions?
The Royal Society recently reported on their Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland and they seem to believe that we will indeed be closing dirty generators and losing approx 75% of Scotlands’ generating plant capacity within 20 years.
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/energy/summary_report.pdf
Well in terms of windfarms, I have used before the analogy of the coal-fired steam ships of the 19th century that were fitted with sails to complement the engines. The engines may only be needed to be put on tick over, the more wind you have the less coal you will need to maintain your speed. Cheaper for the Line and possibly cheaper crossings for the passengers:roll:
Funnily enough the wind industry have yet to produce figures on how successful they have been in ‘displacing’/’replacing’ existing generation nor on how this equates to carbon savings. You’d have thought by now they’d be shouting the facts from the tips of the blades of the fantastic reduction in carbon emissions.
Quote from the wind industry (E.on Netz Wind Report) -
http://www.eon-etz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf
'Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.
There is an essential difference to this analogy and that is because of technical problems associated with the National Grid, the UK can only have a maximum wind generating capacity of ~20%. The UK is now at ~3% wind capacity so any anti wind arguement about the irregular power generation is irrelevent until such time that it becomes a problem.
Have I understood you correctly? You seem to be suggesting that we carry on regardless – desecrating our landscapes and environment for negligible benefits - either in carbon reductions or in the provision of a secure supply of electricity – ignoring recent reports on the problems with wind – until we reach the point that the grid (the massively expensive upgraded grid) can’t cope with the level of wind.
And then? We will have achieved – exactly what?
Would you consider EON’s prediction, that of a wind power capacity of over 48GW (forecast for Germany by 2020), 2GW of traditional power production could be replaced by wind, to be a satisfactory reward. The most optimistic maximum for UK wind capacity is 20% - equating to around 16GW (approx) of UK wind energy. Saving/replacing approx a little over a bag of coal a week?? We’d just need to be a tad more wise and clever with our fossil fuel to achieve the same result without any turbines at all.
My biggest gripe about wind is the paltry community benefit that is given to local causes and the ROC system. The community benefit will be only £1500 per 1MW which when placed in the highlands will be only ~1% of the revenue gained the wind company. That is too hard a pill for me to swallow as I think locals deserve more, a lot more. If the energy greedy cities want energy then the revenue should be distributed more evenly.
We’re in complete agreement here. Simple solution. Let the energy greedy cities generate their own energy and that way you’ll not have to swallow any pills at all. I agree the locals deserve much more than a county littered in wind turbines so let’s have no more. The community would then truly benefit.
Another little extract from the Royal Society’s recent report. Or is it yet more misinformation?
‘We have grave doubts about the overall economic rationale for large-scale wind turbine installations in locations remote from the consumer. We note from the evidence provided to us that these developments are only commercially viable as a result of the ROCs. Remotely located, large-scale wind turbine installations will require costly new or substantially upgraded grid connections, many of which are highly contentious, resulting in greater transmission loss of electricity from the source to the consumer compared with more centrally located installations.’
Secondly, the ROC system will only push energy bills up in the short to medium term. Only when there are more renewable sources will the ROC price fall as they flood the market.
There ain’t likely to be much interest in ‘alternative’ renewable sources while ROC ‘s are so attractive to onshore wind developers. Remove ROC’s from onshore wind (now a proven if somewhat lacking technology) and dangle them in front of the alternative sources. That would soon take the wind out of onshore wind sails – common sense might then prevail.
The dirty generators are going to need to provide most of our energy needs if the best we come up with is wind.
You do understand! 20% is less than 80%!
Funnily enough the wind industry have yet to produce figures on how successful they have been in ‘displacing’/’replacing’ existing generation nor on how this equates to carbon savings. You’d have thought by now they’d be shouting the facts from the tips of the blades of the fantastic reduction in carbon emissions.
Yes 20% displacement of coal/gas use will displace fossil fuel usage, it isn't a major leap forward in thinking that it will cut CO2 emissions. How much difference in CO2 do the two generators produce? Do the math.
Have I understood you correctly?
Obviously you haven't, wind can produce 20% of our energy needs before the grid breaks down. That is the word from the National Grid not from the wind generators.
'Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.
Wrong, wind will actually displace 37% of conventional capacity during normal operation and 20% during windy conditions and the conventional generators will be set at lower load factors which means they will be using less fossil fuels.
‘We have grave doubts about the overall economic rationale for large-scale wind turbine installations in locations remote from the consumer. We note from the evidence provided to us that these developments are only commercially viable as a result of the ROCs. Remotely located, large-scale wind turbine installations will require costly new or substantially upgraded grid connections, many of which are highly contentious, resulting in greater transmission loss of electricity from the source to the consumer compared with more centrally located installations.’
Well I think they could be viable even without the ROC system. Large conventional generators will require new or substantially upgraded connections with all the resulting loss in transmission though I can see one generator sharing the new lines.
Would you consider EON’s prediction, that of a wind power capacity of over 48GW (forecast for Germany by 2020), 2GW of traditional power production could be replaced by wind, to be a satisfactory reward. The most optimistic maximum for UK wind capacity is 20% - equating to around 16GW (approx) of UK wind energy. Saving/replacing approx a little over a bag of coal a week?? We’d just need to be a tad more wise and clever with our fossil fuel to achieve the same result without any turbines at all.
Well I don't know who EON is but no one can predict the future and if they are anti wind then they will say biased things won't they? Is it them who thinks that 20% wind capacity will only save a bag or coal or is that your spin on things?
Since energy demand has outstripped wind generating capacity proliferation there are moves to relax the planning process to fast track these windfarms. I suggest we all put a jumper on like in the good old days.
Think I might get one of these on the end of my house - apparently they can be installed for about £1500....
http://www.windsave.com/
Think I might get one of these on the end of my house - apparently they can be installed for about £1500....
http://www.windsave.com/
Please don't, I know of someone who has one and thinks they are rubbish and has wasted his money, unless you can get them real high up on a pole in the garden they are not much good.
Please don't, I know of someone who has one and thinks they are rubbish and has wasted his money, unless you can get them real high up on a pole in the garden they are not much good.
Rheghead, is that you, really you, come back to life because of the windfarm issue?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.