Wind turbines

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by fairplay

There seems to be a lot of play on words in this long thread, for example 'destroying the countryside' - OK, a wind farm could be said to be 'spoiling a view' ( personally I think they can enhance a view) but in what way are they destructive? what is it that they are actually destroying?


.

Upland blanket peat bogs. Certainly here in the South Pennines anyway, so presumably the same in other upland areas too. On a moor not far from me, no more golden plover, dunlin, red grouse and dotterel on spring passage. What was once pristine blanket bog is a rubbly wasteland dominated by bird slicers. Inefficient habitat destroying carbuncles on the landscape that is all they are.

Regards, Chris

[Kobusza]

I believe we are having three put up here in East Stoke, Dorset, on the site of an old quarry, that is of little other use, several local residents have objected to them. but im sure they would object even more if winfrith's nuclear generator was put into full swing (providing it was capable)

I agree with turbines over nuclear and the sort of hydro that was proposed for the severn estuary. for one, they will have little effect on the wind, unlike the hydro in the severn. They dont look horrid in my opinion, but look rather pleasing to the eye, but im sure they could be painted in camo if people wanted.

Its true they dont produce as much power as nuclear or fossil methods, but they also produce far less pollution (none if you only count post-production)

As to the beautiful bird being injured and killed: I'm not certain, but I suspect that powerplants destroy far more habitat, and kill more animals by disposal of unwanted by-products than wind generators ever have.
Have you ever tried to use pulverised fly ash for anything other than concreate?

1 turbine powers 1000 homes, average town (in my area) is +-4000 homes

a few offshore windfarms?
combined with a few other forms of renuwable energy could happily power rural UK, have a couple of power stations for the big cities, but only until something more viable is developed that could handle the requirements of cities like london.

perhaps a few extra large windfarms on the poles? colder air = denser air, denser air = more power to the turbines. the main problem comes in transporting the energy produced.

I apologise for the long post and poor structure, but it is late and I am tired.

[John D]

I used to operate an old windmill (for the tourists) some 13 years ago, and if it got too windy, I would just open up the shutters or slats depending on how strong the wind was, and I cannot understand why a similar system could not be used on modern wind turbines.

Obviously this would increase cost of production, but surely this would be off-set by more continuous running.[/quote]
Hi Fairplay,
There is a similar operation on modern wind turbines. There has to be or they would self destruct in high wind. They stop generating when wind speeds get to 50/55mph
John D

[Neil Jones]

Originally Posted by almostnormal

i'm not sure on wind turbines i have to say. i think that they're ok when they're in the right place, but i'm not convinced about their renewable-ness. i've read a lot of literature that suggests that they don't always generate the energy it takes to make them during their lifetimes.

This is silly. this cannot be true. You just have to think about it. The problem with many anti- wind people is they don't. The energy required to build a turbine is only part of the cost of building it. Yet you are saying that they don't make the same amount of energy as the energy taken to build them. If this were the case the energy costs of building them alone would make them uneconomic to build. The cost of the energy in building would be more than the money generated from them.

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by Neil Jones

This is silly. this cannot be true. You just have to think about it. The problem with many anti- wind people is they don't. The energy required to build a turbine is only part of the cost of building it. Yet you are saying that they don't make the same amount of energy as the energy taken to build them. If this were the case the energy costs of building them alone would make them uneconomic to build. The cost of the energy in building would be more than the money generated from them.

I doubt this is true as well, but as far as I am concerned they do not generate enough power to justify destroying precious fragile habitats and landscapes. I aint 'agin' 'em, but I can't tolerate them on our uplands, despite the windiness of such places!
It is also the hypocrisy of the people behind them. My now urbanised local moorland has swathes of them erected by a 'company colossus', who also own the Trafford Centre, which is unnecessarily lit up like a Christmas tree all year round. Impressive energy efficiency credentials?....I dont think so.
And, whatever happed to democracy? Every elected local M.P and local council was against it, yet there they are. No wonder folk can't be bothered voting anymore.....but that is another story.

Regards, Chris

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Neil Jones

This is silly. this cannot be true. You just have to think about it. The problem with many anti- wind people is they don't. The energy required to build a turbine is only part of the cost of building it. Yet you are saying that they don't make the same amount of energy as the energy taken to build them. If this were the case the energy costs of building them alone would make them uneconomic to build. The cost of the energy in building would be more than the money generated from them.

This would depend on their life span - obviously if the opperate for 40 or 50 years then they will generate far more than they cost to manufacture - if on the other hand they break after a few years (or are constanly either standing idle or shut down due to high winds) then they probably won't repay the energy budget of their construction

according to the literature i have read it takes between 2 and 4 years of constant operation for them to pay back the energy costs of their manufacture, transport, and construction

also at present they are uneconomic to build and run which is one reason why there arent very many of them - those who are building them now are largely either in receipt of subsidy or gambling on the increase in energy costs in the future.

I'm not particular anti wind power per se but they do need a better design and to sited sensitively to both landscape and biodiversity concerns. they are also not the total answer as they will never produce more than a fraction of the uks energy needs, unless these needs are also dramatically reduced.

[squirrel court]

im neither up nor down about wind turbines, i am for the using more renewable energy sources rather than coal and oil fire power stations, however we will always need these sources to provide the power that the uk needs, also wind turbines can at most not exceed around 40% efficiency, wind turbines also save the amount of carbon dioxide generated in their production in about 10-15 years (studied mechanical engineering with a few turbine projects)

i had never really thought about the affects to bird life, and those pictures are shocking. i feel we should look more to the sea to provide our energy, being an island population.

personally i think wave energy convertors are the way forward with Pelamis building sites in portugal and scotland.

[wildmanofthewoods]

The question that i ask myself is " Would i rather have wind turbines and other renewable energy supplies that blot our landscape to a degree and maybe they do kill birds and harm other wildlife -OR- Would i have a power plant powered by gas/oil or coal, that throws out dangerous gases that we can't see that does harm nature in a direct and indirect way????"

The answer to me is obvious.

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by wildmanofthewoods

The question that i ask myself is " Would i rather have wind turbines and other renewable energy supplies that blot our landscape to a degree and maybe they do kill birds and harm other wildlife -OR- Would i have a power plant powered by gas/oil or coal, that throws out dangerous gases that we can't see that does harm nature in a direct and indirect way????"

The answer to me is obvious.

It is to me too. Nuclear.

Regards, Chris

[wildmanofthewoods]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

It is to me too. Nuclear.

Regards, Chris

That's a new clear way of thinking about it
I do often give it a lot of thought and it is an ideal cheap/clean solution providing it is safe