Any one else find this a bit of an anathema?

[davth]

I didn't say we should be dependant on carbon fuels, there are other options than wind power. Taken to the extreme, at present it's reported that wind produces 10% of the UK electricity so to go 100% means nine more turbines for every one that's currently in operation. What is the working life of a wind farm? Who is responsible for the removal of "dead" turbines? Will they just be left to rot?
What is so wrong with nuclear? We used to be leaders in the field but now the anti-nuclear brigade seem to have the upper hand. Or there's hydro-electric, we've had more than enough rain to keep the turbines going.

Correct me if I am wrong but have we not just made an agreement with China to build us some more reactors?
The decommissioning of the wind farms will all be tied up in the contracts, the same as anything else. What makes you think they would be left to rot?
The working life of a windfarm will be open ended I guess, if you change out the turbines as required then they could go on as long as you wanted really, its a case of maintenance isn't it, the wind isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[Alrock]

...the wind isn't going anywhere any time soon.

The wind is always going somewhere, otherwise it is not wind...

[davth]

The wind is always going somewhere, otherwise it is not wind...

great point, well made

[Kenn]

I asked the same question.
I don't understand this aversion to nuclear power, it may be costly to build a station and there are the problems with the disposal of waste but at the end of the day it's a relatively clean form of energy if it is properly managed and maintained and has a much longer life span than a wind farm and as science progresses there may well be solutions to the problem.
I would also advocate all new builds having solar panels as a matter of course, small hydro systems where there is a suitable water supply.
Most of all I would advocate turning that switch off, using the wind , not the tumble dryer, get every light fitted with energy saving bulbs, shop once a week or even better once every two and leave the car on the drive when the trip is within walking distance.
But I digress from the topic.

[Tyke]

great point, well made

I read with great interest about all the wind turbine issues and realise that if we don't have these things, eventually we will run out of power. I don't like them especially when they are placed in areas of outstanding beauty. I am going to have hundreds of them near to me but out to sea. That is not what attracted me to move here 17 years ago. In the early years when somebody sneezed the power went out. Over the years it got better, but now with the storms we have had and probably will continue to have the electricity companies, government bodies should be made to realise that action has to be taken to protect local supplies, hopefully burying cable so that trees being blown over cannot bring down power lines. I am lucky I have a generator but I have heard of people being without power for three to six days during the last big one.
This is not acceptable. Interested to hear everyone's comments. Maybe we should form a pressure group. It is time money was invested in our beautiful county.

Rant over.

[jo bowd]

I asked the questions because I don't know the answers and I was taught that was the way to find out. As for being left to rot, every other unused building or construction locally seems to be left to rot, why not wind turbines. Is it so expensive here to get buildings repaired that it's cheaper to build a new one ? As for China building us some reactors, why can't we build them, but then, if we did, it would probably be over time and over budget I suppose. I just think that it's so short sighted to concentrate on one form of power generation, wind farms are being used as a quick fix.

[davth]

I asked the questions because I don't know the answers and I was taught that was the way to find out. As for being left to rot, every other unused building or construction locally seems to be left to rot, why not wind turbines. Is it so expensive here to get buildings repaired that it's cheaper to build a new one ? As for China building us some reactors, why can't we build them, but then, if we did, it would probably be over time and over budget I suppose. I just think that it's so short sighted to concentrate on one form of power generation, wind farms are being used as a quick fix.

We are building Nulcear, Wind and Tidal energy systems at present, how is that one form of power generation?
The Chinese firm will have won the tender to build the Nuclear reactors, its not just a case of handing the contract to a UK bidder, they have to be offered internationally so all can bid and the best tender wins the gig.

[badger]

The only reason to build windfarms is to make money for the developers and landowners. No-one has ever proved that they reduce carbon emissions, not least due to the back-up required when the wind doesn't blow, which actually happens quite a lot. Then there's the transportation of parts, construction etc. Just because you see blades turning, it doesn't mean the turbines are generating. They could easily be using electricity because the blades can't be left still too long. Caithness does have far too many windfarms. There are some consented along the A9 which are not yet constructed. They are paid millions to switch off when the energy is not needed http://www.ref.org.uk/constraints/indexbywf.php - nearly £157m. in the UK to date, mostly in Scotland. That's one of the problems, they are unpredictable and intermittent. They are allowed to kill protected species which would have others prosecuted. As to Drum Hollistan, the windfarm straddles the road so apart from being unsightly (like Baillie) it will be dangerous due to driver distraction. Interesting that a windfarm near Alex Salmond's home village was refused - wonder why?

[Kenn]

Good to see you badger.
I was reading a report today on another forem which at a glance seemed to support wind farms but when looked at in more detail it actually went for solar panels as the most effective and most widely supported alternative energy.
Now if all houses with an appropriate facing roof had said panels and it was compulsory on all new builds it would save many a blot on the landscape.
I live in a house that faces onto route 500 but our solar panels are on the south side and can only been seen from our immediate neighbours (4) so they are not a blot on the landscape and have proved to be a very wise investment.
I do not understand why they keep reducing the feed in tariff especially when I understand that it is now possible to have panels that are part of the roof and not an addition.

[davth]

Good to see you badger.
I was reading a report today on another forem which at a glance seemed to support wind farms but when looked at in more detail it actually went for solar panels as the most effective and most widely supported alternative energy.
Now if all houses with an appropriate facing roof had said panels and it was compulsory on all new builds it would save many a blot on the landscape.
I live in a house that faces onto route 500 but our solar panels are on the south side and can only been seen from our immediate neighbours (4) so they are not a blot on the landscape and have proved to be a very wise investment.
I do not understand why they keep reducing the feed in tariff especially when I understand that it is now possible to have panels that are part of the roof and not an addition.

The feed in tariff was introduced to encourage the homeowner to invest in solar systems, which they have done.
It is now costing the government a lot in payouts so they have cut it.
Same really as the subsidy for new windfarms

[Kenn]

It's no good asking us all to be fuel efficient, use green energy etc if the government is not prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
Okay, wishful thinking on my part NO government EVER puts money where their mouth is .

[badger]

Hi Lizz ! Looks as if it's going to be a bad winter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sue-alert.html Crazy energy policies of both governments with no thought of the consequences.