Wind turbines

[Adam Cheeseman]

Leaving aside the emotive locations debate, I personally would plump for incinerators to generate energy by burning all of our rubbish as we are nearly out of landfill space. The rubbish from the London Borough of Hounslow is buried in Oxfordshire - think about all the extra energy that takes just to bury it. With the filters they use on incinerators today the manufacturers say that an industrial incinerator would produce in one hour the same amount of pollution as a packet of cigarettes. Don't know how accurate that is but if true it would surely be a viable option.

Cheers,

Adam

[nightshade]

I think incinerators are a good idea,if they will not make wind turbines to look
picturesque(like dutch windmills)I will go with using rubbish for fuel but do
you think that Bath(Georgian City)will have its furnace within its bounds?
or will it end up at one of the nearby small towns with raillinks that could be
expanded for the 24/7 delivery of rubbish,Oh and to make it even more economic
they would even contract for rubbish from the midlands or even europe
Face it the skyline studded with wind turbines what sort of noise would that make?
or the wealthy cities using the rest of us as dumps and incinerators
There must be a government long term plan in place already they cannot deal with
foot and mouth but they can push the human population about

[John D]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

I was told recently that in some areas the windmills have to be 'turned off' if it gets too windy to prevent them being damaged Bad design methinks.

Cheers,

Adam

Yes you are correct but it is not 'bad design'. With current technology generation starts when the wind speed is around 7-8MPH and is at an optimum when the wind speed is at 28-30MPH. Above this it is necessary to provide some control of speed and at 50MPH or slightly above, it is necessary to take action to suspend generation. This can be done by turning the blades in line with the wind direction. The reason for this is to avoid severe damage caused by the enormous forces that would build, due to significant increase of blade rotation. Given the size/weight of the blades,mast height and foundations etc the forces exerted by high wind speeds would result in destruction if the necessary action wasn't taken.
Maybe in time higher wind speeds will be acceptable but at this time there are limiting technological issues.
John D

[rscott74]

I heard on the local news that the MoD is joining objections to windfarms in Cumbria because they might curtail training in low level flighing. I broadly support wind generated power and if it interferes with low level flying that's just another plus!

[ChrisJB]

What worries me is when this current interglacial ends and we are plunged back into an age of ice, everyone will foolishly think wind farms have saved the day and their destruction of precious landscapes and habitats will have been worth it.

However it will have been the cycles as descrbed by Milankovitch (variations in the Earth's axial tilt, eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit) that have really done the trick, and in a most effective manner.

Regards, Chris

[excoriate]

Regardless of the other negative impacts, they certainly are not noisy from my up close experience of back garden turbines and the larger hillside variety.

[September]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

What worries me is when this current interglacial ends and we are plunged back into an age of ice, everyone will foolishly think wind farms have saved the day and their destruction of precious landscapes and habitats will have been worth it.

However it will have been the cycles as descrbed by Milankovitch (variations in the Earth's axial tilt, eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit) that have really done the trick, and in a most effective manner.

Regards, Chris

Though the issue of climate change is a big one, subject to much debate, I think the reason our government are choosing to build wind farms is mostly down to our own fuel crisis. Which will become the world's problem eventually. People are understandably sceptical of nuclear power, not least because it has its own dirty by-products. Radioactive waste pumped into the ocean by Sellafield is being detected on Ireland's coastline, and does not degrade easily.

Wind turbines are a help of course, but a small one and not dependable. I believe hydrogen will play a large part in the future of the world's fuel, and I think the progress of developing ways to use it is being held back primarily by those who make profit from fossil fuel (and those who put the money in the pockets of those people - us). But nonetheless, discoveries are being made. Here is a recent example, though one I am naturally sceptical of:

New Scientist Technology Blog: Fire from seawater claim lights up the web

The transition between fossil fuel and other sources is going to require a pooling of many different sources at first. These include wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, and of course fossil. There may be other minor sources depending on location such as geothermal (not here in the UK of course). We've come a long way since the darkness of the industrial revolution, and I'm glad steps are being taken, but there's still a long way to go. The burgeoning global population helps none of course, and I've not even touched on the need of oil for plastic and everything else it is used for.

It's understandable that people might loathe wind farms, and of course there will be an impact on wildlife as with everything humanity does, but we must do something. It's a pickle!

[flowerofedin]

I'm having trouble already with this thread. They may look graceful and claim to help the environment, but what about the problems which wildlife, particularly birds, incurr after falling foul (or should that be "fowl" ) of one. I hope, good people, you will think again about the "grace and beauty" of these monstrosities, and consider again the price wild animals and birds have to pay so that we can have our so-called "precious wind power"

[excoriate]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

I'm having trouble already with this thread. They may look graceful and claim to help the environment, but what about the problems which wildlife, particularly birds, incurr after falling foul (or should that be "fowl" ) of one. I hope, good people, you will think again about the "grace and beauty" of these monstrosities, and consider again the price wild animals and birds have to pay so that we can have our so-called "precious wind power"

Its a tough argument but I'd rather have wind power than no power...

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by excoriate

Its a tough argument but I'd rather have wind power than no power...

Sorry, but I noticed and "I" in the last sentance. Not a good enough argument for hurting wildlife like this

[svenrufus]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

I'm having trouble already with this thread. They may look graceful and claim to help the environment, but what about the problems which wildlife, particularly birds, incurr after falling foul (or should that be "fowl" ) of one. I hope, good people, you will think again about the "grace and beauty" of these monstrosities, and consider again the price wild animals and birds have to pay so that we can have our so-called "precious wind power"

In an earlier post on this thread I pointed out that the wind turbines are designed to produce energy in a way that does not add to climate change - hence doing their bit to save the global ecosystem from perturbances that they have never seen the like of before. The consequences of allowing climate change to carry on with no effort made to reduce our impact is a future where we may see untold loss of life of not just individual birds but whole species of birds and many other animals, plants etc.

While recognising the horrible things that have happened to some birds in collision with the turbines, I asked people to put aside sentimenality, and make the choice between losing a few birds or a few species of birds. It's that stark a choice. This is the crunch issue. It's not a good choice to have to make, but this is where we are. If we don't grasp the nettle, we will be even more culpable than we already are for the havoc we are wreaking on our environment.

Merely to focus on a few unfortunate birds is to miss the big picture, and to paraphrase your own line from a post above, this is not a good enough argument for allowing the whole planet to go down the pan. Wind turbines are not going to do the job on their own, but they are a vital tool amongst our limited options, and to turn them down on the basis of aesthetics or sentiment is, IMHO, quite simply irresponsible and selfish.

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

In an earlier post on this thread I pointed out that the wind turbines are designed to produce energy in a way that does not add to climate change - hence doing their bit to save the global ecosystem from perturbances that they have never seen the like of before. The consequences of allowing climate change to carry on with no effort made to reduce our impact is a future where we may see untold loss of life of not just individual birds but whole species of birds and many other animals, plants etc.

While recognising the horrible things that have happened to some birds in collision with the turbines, I asked people to put aside sentimenality, and make the choice between losing a few birds or a few species of birds. It's that stark a choice. This is the crunch issue. It's not a good choice to have to make, but this is where we are. If we don't grasp the nettle, we will be even more culpable than we already are for the havoc we are wreaking on our environment.

Merely to focus on a few unfortunate birds is to miss the big picture, and to paraphrase your own line from a post above, this is not a good enough argument for allowing the whole planet to go down the pan. Wind turbines are not going to do the job on their own, but they are a vital tool amongst our limited options, and to turn them down on the basis of aesthetics or sentiment is, IMHO, quite simply irresponsible and selfish.

What a pity.... Are you a gamekeeper or something?

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

I'm having trouble already with this thread. They may look graceful and claim to help the environment, but what about the problems which wildlife, particularly birds, incurr after falling foul (or should that be "fowl" ) of one. I hope, good people, you will think again about the "grace and beauty" of these monstrosities, and consider again the price wild animals and birds have to pay so that we can have our so-called "precious wind power"

But if this is all that's viable and its sustainable what is the other solution.

birds fly into anything tall........

plus it will be whole populations affected and possibly lost as a result of climate change not just individuals perhaps this doesn't bother you?

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by Meles meles

I have to agree, Before these photos i never liked nor disliked wind turbines.
Ok maybe they are bad for the picturesque landscape like pylons and power stations. But always thought they was for the better.
Now though I do feel differently towards them. I assume the kites got sucked into the wind flow?? (apologies amature learning) How else may they effect mammals birds etc??

The small domestic wind turbines seem to suck light creatures in ,like Bats and small birds

[kshotton45]

I wouldn't have thought that the large ones turn fast enough to catch a bird out. The smaller ones however, seem pretty lethal.
I saw one at Bowland recently. It powers the Wild Boar farm. It's larger than a domestic one and it runs at a fair bat ( no pun intended ). I would suspect that these may be a hazard to birds.

Keith.

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

I wouldn't have thought that the large ones turn fast enough to catch a bird out. The smaller ones however, seem pretty lethal.
I saw one at Bowland recently. It powers the Wild Boar farm. It's larger than a domestic one and it runs at a fair bat ( no pun intended ). I would suspect that these may be a hazard to birds.

Keith.

I'm still wondering why solar panels aren't used more widely. Also, this 'wave-power thing' could be OK if enough protection for sea life is maintained.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

I'm still wondering why solar panels aren't used more widely.

I think the cost has a lot to answer for. I think I could generate somewhere between 75% and 100% of the electricity I need with photovoltaic panels on my roof, but even after the allowing for the grants that are available it would still cost me in excess of £15,000 to install them. At least that was the figure last time I checked, about a year ago. 'Fraid I don't have the cash!

Dave P.

[PMG]

Don't like 'em - they spoil a good view, kill birds occassionally - tho more birds are killed by gas stations (migrants are attracted to the 'light' from the flame at night, when they need to make landfall and end up as toast instead). And a hell of a lot more birds and mammals are killed by cars and all cos folk who drive can't just take their foot off a bit esp at dawn and dusk. If you want to hear a soap-box issure then this one is mine with a capital M

Now I'm going to be really controversial and say that I don't think there is a replacement for fossil fuels - I think we're going to run out of coal, oil, electric etc. Forgive me but I'm almost 55 and I've been listening to various folks in authority and goverment saying we should do this, or that, or we need to prepare or whatever other clap-trap wool they keep giving to us and we keep pulling it over our own eyes and hoping everything will be fine in the future. . .

Sorry guys but in the words of Dad's Army I think we're 'doomed' ......... and I think thats the way its meant to be - human beings are so sure that we are the final pinnacle of evolution and the world stops with us - rubbish - we are not the be all and end all - we are merely part of a system - and a part that doesn't matter - as the whole would be better of without us anyway.

Pauline

[flowerofedin]

So would it be fair to say then, that government subisidies and grants for Solar Panels should be more of a priority than their wind-farm programme? I think so, at least for the sake of our wild birds.

Annabel

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

So would it be fair to say then, that government subisidies and grants for Solar Panels should be more of a priority than their wind-farm programme? I think so, at least for the sake of our wild birds.

Annabel

it has to be a combination of things not everywhere is suitable for solar, and not everywhere is suitable for wind power....

with careful planning and in learning from our mistakes (which is happening all the time), mortality rates for birds will be very small.

[kshotton45]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

I wouldn't have thought that the large ones turn fast enough to catch a bird out. The smaller ones however, seem pretty lethal.
I saw one at Bowland recently. It powers the Wild Boar farm. It's larger than a domestic one and it runs at a fair bat ( no pun intended ). I would suspect that these may be a hazard to birds.

Keith.

I should have added that the Wild Boar Farm also has 2 huge solar panel arrays.

keith.

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

I should have added that the Wild Boar Farm also has 2 huge solar panel arrays.

keith.

Well, that's good news. Could it be they could double that and do away with the wind turbines? Oh and Gil, the life of one wild bird lost to these is a life too many. A change in the design might be all that's needed, but whilst lives are still being lost then I can't support wind turbines in any shape, form or size.

Annabel

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

Well, that's good news. Could it be they could double that and do away with the wind turbines? Oh and Gil, the life of one wild bird lost to these is a life too many. A change in the design might be all that's needed, but whilst lives are still being lost then I can't support wind turbines in any shape, form or size.

Annabel

I'll repeat what I said before. windpower is what is currently one of the few viable renewable energies that is up and ready to go. The beauty of solar and windpower is that when its windy and grey with no sun for the solar, the wind turbines produce the power when it is sunny and still the solar takes up the slack, just solar power won't cover us.

The current concensus is thatwe need to act NOW to prevent climate change not wait 10 years for other renewables to become suitable. Potentially if we don't, far more than a single bird will be lost, how is this ok with you?

which is better:
a) the loss of a few individual birds until we learn to how to make turbines more visable to them
or
b) the loss of heathlands and other valuable habitats and countless communities of birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.


This potentially is the choice - which would you make.....

[excoriate]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

but whilst lives are still being lost then I can't support wind turbines in any shape, form or size.

Annabel

Right, well, its coal fired power stations using coal from huge opencast mines that destroy habitats completely and, cause grave ill-health to anyone who lives near to them then?

With current filters able to reduce only one fifth of pollutants, the climate change effect from these generators will change all habitats, killing far more than local wildlife...

The carbon capture technology often used to apologise for these monstrous devices is years away. Why not use existing clean technology? Sentimentality over