Wind turbines

[Lancashire Lad]

Rob_D,

I believe you are correct in your assertion that wind turbines are being favoured for their "high profile" rather than for their efficiency. (And not only from the government quarter).

As for your question - "Is visual impact really a more important environmental factor than climate change?" - Whilst I would say that visual impact alone, might be considered less important, visual impact is only relevant due to the fact that so many wind turbines will be required. (At the expense of the loss of vast tracts of wilderness landscape/habitat for their construction, and to the detriment of local ecosystems - be that on land or in the sea).

Regards
Mike.

[Rob_D]

If their argument against the turbines was, like yours, about preventing damage to wilderness areas and habitat by construction, I'd feel much more like supporting their opposition. Sadly, from their statements, I think the local people opposed to the turbines don't feel that habitat destruction is an important factor - they never opposed the recent by-pass that has had a much more severe impact over a much greater area nearby.

Not sure exactly where the turbines will go, but it's on chalk arable farmland. It's not the most pristine habitat we've got - intensive farming has taken it's toll, and it's one punctuated by several pylon lines already. I surveyed an area nearby for the BTO atlas, so I've a fair idea of what bird species are around and I'm not too concerned about impacts on them. Hopefully, the turbines will be well away from woodland/hedgerows to reduce the risk to local bats too. So overall, I am not too frightened by the idea of these turbines, just not sure if they're going to be generating enough to make a real difference.

I do appreciate though that if this were repeated many thousands of times across the country, as would be needed to really make a significant contribution, it would add up to a huge habitat loss. And, of course, some turbines are being sited in areas where the habitat is more sensitive and likely to suffer much greater impact.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Rob_D

....So overall, I am not too frightened by the idea of these turbines, just not sure if they're going to be generating enough to make a real difference.

I do appreciate though that if this were repeated many thousands of times across the country, as would be needed to really make a significant contribution, it would add up to a huge habitat loss. And, of course, some turbines are being sited in areas where the habitat is more sensitive and likely to suffer much greater impact....

I think the above extract from your post covers the two most salient points regarding the use (or preferably the properly considered and very selective use) of wind turbines.

Regards
Mike.

[Singaporechris]

Living near Retford in North Notts we are surrounded by traditional coal power stations. Personally I would rather look at a collection of turbines than huge steam bellowing towers. However - there appears to be a very much mixed viewpoint on bird strikes - less I believe than overhead power lines but some all the same. Noise seems to have been addressed with better insulation and the designs of the blades.
I suppose we won't soon have a choice as coal and gas reserves deplete .....

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Several people have pointed out that wind farms cannot supply enough power to meet the UK's needs. This is true. Neither can solar, tidal, thermal, wave, hydro or bio-fuels. However, a combination of all of these just might.

Dave P.

If someone has a 'personal' wind turbine somewhere inconspicuous which isn't going to harm birds and they use the energy straight away, that's great. A lot of green energy seems to work best on this scale.

However, large wind farms are really expensive for the amount of energy they produce. Expensive to build and to maintain and they only work when the wind is blowing. Also, they are positioned in places like Cornwall rather than London, so it isn't having a huge national effect on consumption of fossil fuels. The thing is, so much energy is lost. The problem there is storing the energy, not how it is generated. Wind turbines and wind farms have their place as providing a small proportion of the nations green energy and investigating the practicalities of this method. I just wish they weren't placed in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Being visible means people think the government of the day is doing something about the problem, which is probably why there are so many of them, no more though, please!

There is that idea of offshore wind turbines, where it's windier and out of sight, but there is still the maintenance, and moving and storing the energy to consider, until that's all solved, it's little more than a gimmick, imo.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

But a substantial number of people seem to have this somewhat romantic belief that our electrical needs can be fulfilled using wind/wave power as a large percentage of the solution.

Yes, we need a fully coherent energy policy, incorporating all of the technologies. Wind power can, and should, play its proper part, (but not at the expense of irreplacable wilderness landscape), and yes, solar power will undoubtedly find much more widespread use in years to come.

In the interim, we should be gearing up for the only truly viable means of producing the bulk of the required amount of electricity. And, whether people like it or not, that is nuclear.

.

I agree with you up to a point mike , but the oft overlooked point about nuclear is that its fuel supply isnt infinite either. While there is "plenty" of uranium at the present rate of usage, if it was our prime or only source of energy there is only enough for arround 60 years of use (or less if demand increases)

so in the not too distant future we could be out of fossil fuel and out of uranium. If we havent spent the intervening time heavily researching both alternative and fussion , which with a short termist system of government is not likely, then we (or our children / grand children) will be up the proverbial creek , sans paddle.

The real key to a coherent energy policy is not therefore to build more reactors to meet our current energy demand but to use less energy and thus hopefull eek out the remaining finite reserves whether nuclear or fossil - with appropriate carbon capture- whilst also vigourously reseraching other options.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by eeyore

....While there is "plenty" of uranium at the present rate of usage, if it was our prime or only source of energy there is only enough for arround 60 years of use (or less if demand increases)....

Have to disagree on your statement eeyore.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.org), advises: - "Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than 130US dollars per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years".

IAEA also states: - "However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation....... In the longer term, continuing advances in nuclear technology will allow a substantially better utilisation of the uranium resources. Reactor designs are being developed and tested that are capable of extracting more than 30 times the energy from the uranium than today´s reactors....... By 2025, world nuclear energy capacity is expected to grow to between 450 GWe (+22%) and 530 GWe (+44%) from the present generating capacity of about 370 GWe. This will raise annual uranium requirements to between 80 000 tonnes and 100 000 tonnes. The currently identified resources are adequate to meet this expansion".

Plus, the above extracts make no mention of the use of Thorium as fissile material. Current estimate of economically available Thorium reserves amounts to 1,200,000 tonnes, with further reasonably assured reserves in the order of 2,230,000 tonnes. Note also that Thorium is a radio-actively "cleaner" fuel than Uranium in terms of less problems with radio-active waste etc.etc., and reactor technology is progressing towards the potential of actually "burning" 100% of the Thorium, leaving in effect no waste.

In view of the above, and much more information (on all aspects of nuclear power) which can be obtained from organisations such as IAEA.org, World Nuclear Association etc., I would suggest that there is enough fuel for many years to come.

I don't think that nuclear power generation is a short term solution, but a long term solution that will in effect give time to enable the further advances in technology that will be needed before "renewable" energy sources can be made truly viable on a large scale.

With regards to the concept of using less energy, well that is very laudable, but there is only so much that can be done by going down that road, and unless there was a pan-global agreement on energy use, there would inevitably be the problems of "who uses what amount". For example, do you think there would be any sensible reaction from countries such as China, if it were put to them to use less energy?

Regards
Mike.

[John D]

It seems like nuclear could yet win the day as GDF Suez, Iberdrola (owners of Scottish Power) and Scottish and Southern Energy have just signed a joint partnership to build nuclear power stations around the UK.
See BBC website.

John D

[pressld2]

Leaving aside the huge turbines and wind farms for a moment, what about the micro turbines on people's houses and businesses? Stirling University are about to do a study into their impact on wildlife. See...

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Tayside and Central | Turbines' impact on birds probed

The quote that struck me the most was:

"To date, there have been no studies anywhere in the world to assess the importance of collisions, or any other risks that micro-turbines may pose, to bird or bat populations."

So the sooner the better then, as I think we're likely to see the number of these turbines rise dramatically over the next few years as the planning restrictions are relaxed.

Dave P.

[Hobjob]

The following came off another list that I watch, and seems a
quote off another site - so usual caution applies

I have not had time to check back the source as life is a bit
hectic this week, but the tone is a bit alarmist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


----- Original Message -----
From: mark duchamp
To: Raptor Biology
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:10 AM
Subject: [RaptorBiology] Altamont windfarms kills more birds than previously thought

"...for more than 25 years, Altamont's 5,400 turbines have been killing up
to *4,700 birds annually--as many as 1,300 of them raptors.*

Many of the birds killed here--including golden eagles for more than 25
years, Altamont's 5,400 turbines have been killing up to 4,700 birds
annually--as many as 1,300 of them raptors."

and :

" A recent study led by East Bay Regional Park District Wildlife Program
Manager Doug Bell and consulting wildlife ecologist K. Shawn Smallwood
indicates *mortality rates in the Altamont are even higher than previously
thought.* Based on his extensive observations, Bell believes raptors will be
at risk even with taller turbines often touted as less deadly to birds."

Altamont Power Struggle — Bay Nature Institute

--
Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :