Wind turbines

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by Rich_

I tend to agree with both the above quotes on this subject as a whole,the governments have their own agenda on environmental issues, I feel but I will say that cutting down on pollution & conserving energy makes sense for everyone, whether it has any impact on, or is responsible for climate change or not. The problem of pollution it would seem has been is summed up in the following quote ....




Probably not changing your phone every time a new one comes out or keeping your car another few years will help reduce demand for "consumer junk" . We are all guilty of buying these luxuries to a greater or lesser extent, but I doubt enough people are prepared to change their buying habits to close down factories in China, as a society we have lost our Grandparents ability to "make do & mend".

The wind turbines visible from the hill behind our house (3 sites) have barely turned a blade for the last 3 days. The tide however is flowing in or out for about 23 hours every day, They are erecting wind turbines out in the waters of Solway Firth as I write which has a strong tidal flow, perhaps they should position them upside down.

I saw on the news afew days ago that they had brought out a wave turbine. Now if that is to carry any favour with me, they should protect the blades strongly to stop marine life getting caught up. And what idiot would put wind turbines out at sea when wave turbines are, or will be anyway, available?

[John D]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

I saw on the news afew days ago that they had brought out a wave turbine. Now if that is to carry any favour with me, they should protect the blades strongly to stop marine life getting caught up. And what idiot would put wind turbines out at sea when wave turbines are, or will be anyway, available?

What do you mean 'brought out a wave turbine'. Prof Steven Salter of Edinburgh Univ developed a wave turbine over THIRTY YEARS AGO but there was little interest paid to it at the time. Wave turbines are not NEW.
However just like wind turbines they require a LOT of space, in the open sea and there are many marine issues to be taken into account.
Unfortunately replacing conventional generation plant isn't as easy as a lot of people seem to think. There are HUGE costs and lengthy timescales involved. Much of it as yet very much unknown. Can we wait that long in a country whose population has been brought up with the knowledge that energy is instant at the flick of a switch?????
Whether we like it or not the proven conventional methods are the most readily available and the most reliable source of electrical energy. There is a massive exercise ahead both in terms of developement and planning before there will be any real alternatives which we can rely on 24/7.
John D

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by John D

Can we wait that long in a country whose population has been brought up with the knowledge that energy is instant at the flick of a switch?????
Whether we like it or not the proven conventional methods are the most readily available and the most reliable source of electrical energy. There is a massive exercise ahead both in terms of developement and planning before there will be any real alternatives which we can rely on 24/7.
John D

Dead right John.

Any forms of renewable energy we can come up with will likely never be able to power the way we live currently. We now live in a world which will probably collapse round our ears if the computers go down for a week & the mobile phones stop working. If the electricity goes off for more than an hour or two, we are not happy to say the least.

Environmental issues aside, we are going to need some form of alternative power in future, & though not very popular, nuclear power is about the only alternative source capable of supplying the amounts we need at present. If the supply of energy & fuel becomes unreliable in future, we may, by then, have to re-learn the ability to cope without it or with less of it the way previous generations could.

[flowerofedin]

Originally Posted by John D

What do you mean 'brought out a wave turbine'. Prof Steven Salter of Edinburgh Univ developed a wave turbine over THIRTY YEARS AGO but there was little interest paid to it at the time. Wave turbines are not NEW.
However just like wind turbines they require a LOT of space, in the open sea and there are many marine issues to be taken into account.
Unfortunately replacing conventional generation plant isn't as easy as a lot of people seem to think. There are HUGE costs and lengthy timescales involved. Much of it as yet very much unknown. Can we wait that long in a country whose population has been brought up with the knowledge that energy is instant at the flick of a switch?????
Whether we like it or not the proven conventional methods are the most readily available and the most reliable source of electrical energy. There is a massive exercise ahead both in terms of developement and planning before there will be any real alternatives which we can rely on 24/7.
John D

Well I can't be expected to know everything.....

[crispy]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

Hate them.

They're noisy, not cost effective, and will not provide enough power for the UKs needs.

They're a blot on the landscape and a danger to birds.

household cats are the biggest threat to birds, im sure road traffic has a much bigger impact on them too !

weve also gotten used to living right next main roads which are everywhere im sure we can put up with the sound of slow rotating turbines

as for the cost effective bit im sure they are becomming more and more cost effective as the industry matures.

i think every house should have its own small scale turbine together with PV and we should get a little closer to meeting our energy needs.

[crispy]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

I'm highly suspisious of these images. But I'm keeping an open mind about them. I've emailed the RSPB about the matter as the movement against the Turbines are using some unfair tactics.

keith.

i agree there isnt any direct proof these are images of wind turbine related bird death

[flowerofedin]

and there is nothing to say that it isn't.....

Show me a cat in the back of beyond who could do that sort of thing to a bird

[crispy]

Originally Posted by flowerofedin

and there is nothing to say that it isn't.....

Show me a cat in the back of beyond who could do that sort of thing to a bird

Very true, there is nothing to to say they are not related and that these pics could genuinly be bird death caused by wind turbines becuase it does happen but lets be honest here its easy for someone who has very strong negative feelings about wind turbines to pluck images like these from the world wide web.

Its difficult to stand back and watch threads like this one producing such images without properly knowing whether they are for real or not. These images have had a strong effect on people on this thread who may not know much about the technology and would otherwise endorse turbines or not once they are presented with the relevent information to make up there own minds, not images of death and destruction followed by 'Hate them', which arent very objective.

Cats really do have a negative impact on birds, you may have a soft cuddly one that doesnt enjoy hunting but the ones i know which arent from the 'back of beyond' love catching birds and most other things that are small, usually furry and probably declining in numbers.

[Laura J]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

There's more .........

Wind & Bird Strikes

' the remains of a red kite, near a wind farm in Wales (see Observer 25/1/04). It’s a rare species, even rarer nowadays since, for example, according to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, more than a third of the red kite population in the north of Scotland had been illegally poisoned between 1989 and 1998.

By contrast, according to the BWEA, wind turbine surveys have found that bird strikes are in general around one per turbine per year. That’s not surprising. Birds tend to avoid moving objects and wind turbines are essentially bird scarers-except perhaps when they are not moving. Then they are more like power lines which birds sometimes hit. However care has to be taken to avoid migratory routes where large numbers can flock. '

Seems you're rather outdated regarding Red Kite Welsh populations being rare (though im not sure on Scottish)... they're doing Fab i believe, particularily south wales.... see them almost everday now! Agree that migratory birds are shown to generally avoid them...they're not that quiet and hidden after all and still take up a fraction of the air space!

Wind power technology has come a long way and will continue to improve....which needs encouraging! Despite some unfortunate negatives (a small price its sad to say) ....I myself fully support wind farms...... Im more concerned that the alternatives (non-renewables) have the potential for more detrimental affects...will be running out.... and id much rather have a few wind turbines in my back yard than know that nuclear waste will be buried under my feet!

[ChrisJB]

I don't like them.

They are not efficient enough to justify destroying the uplands of the British Isles, and, they mince birds.

Regards, Chris

[Chavy]

Wow - certainly a hot topic. Let me add my two' penneth...

We have recently seen plans for a new farm a few miles from our home (not within sight or earshot), but we don't want it. The farm will include tens of windmills each nearing 400 feet at the top of the arc. Not just a danger to wildlife, these could bring down planes!

To be serious, the vista is an integral, and for those of us who like looking at natural landscapes, essential part of our lives. As the only places these wind farms are even partially cost effective tend to be on our coast lines or places of, if not outstanding natural beauty, then at least pleasant views, they totally destroy our natural visual environment.

There is little point in comparing the old with the new. Old Windmills blend in with the environment like lots of older buildings, sometimes even improving the view, unlike these modern, sterile and frankly unsightly robotic sentinels. Although, I think a huge field full of even the quaint looking old windmillls may be too much for the eye. Electricity pylons are still the ugly, albeit functional eyesore they have always been.

The area of land (or sea) that these wind farms have to occupy to produce even a small proportion of the power of a conventional fossel fuel / nuclear power station is ridiculous in the extreme. Soon the entire country will be owned by the National Trust and the Wind power companies.

It is one of those things that is far from perfection, but it sounds "green" and therefore gets hyped up by the "greenies" as the holy grail of everything and then the politicians looking for the "green" vote give it the "green" light and before we know it we all have a spinning "white" vista everywhere we look, that produces a mediocre electricity supply. As it is still in its relative infancy, it will all need replacing sooner rather than later.

For those of you who bothered to read through all of this rant, you may have noticed I am not entirely in favour of these giants of ineffectuality. Please be reassured that if they could deliver a tenth of what they promised I would be just as keen on them as the next ill-informed greenie.

However, windfarms are already dangerous to flying wildlife. One sparrow may not be missed, but one sparrowhawk will be. So don't try throwing statistics at me, as I am well aware they can be twisted to say whatever point you want to make.

Windfarms are, by their nature, unreliable (when the wind don't blow, they don't go), unprofitable (they have very high maintenance and installation costs in relation to their output), energy produced cannot be stored (if the wind blows at the wrong time, they're even less efficient), they are constantly noisy, disturbing people and animals alike insessantly, when the windfarms have served their purpose, who owns all the land they took up???...I could go on, but I think I've said too much already.

I'm sorry but windfarms are a VERY long way from being the panacea they claim to be. Anyone who falls for the marketing hype deserves one in their back garden.

Just my opinion,
Chavy

[NuttyMeg]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

They're noisy, not cost effective, and will not provide enough power for the UKs needs.

They're a blot on the landscape and a danger to birds.

think id have to agree with you on that one theres a ton of them right next to the Red Kite feeding station where i volunteer in Wales and so know what a danger they can be. the blades can take a wing clear off a bird which of course is fatal out in the wild. i don't really have a problem with them as a renewable energy source when there's just a handful, but when they manage to take up 2 or 3 hillsides...

on the other hand i really hate electric pilons, now they really are ugly gotta love the Yorkshire Dales, not a pilon in site everywhere should be a National Park

[NuttyMeg]

Originally Posted by Laura J

Seems you're rather outdated regarding Red Kite Welsh populations being rare (though im not sure on Scottish)... they're doing Fab i believe, particularily south wales.... see them almost everday now!

The Red Kites are thriving in Wales at the moment, it's certainly a fantastic sight watching up to 70 birds (on a good day) come down to feed. they're beautiful birds

[Putnamsmif]

Lets be honest, it makes no difference wether we like them or not or wether they're environmentally beneficial or not, noone in power is prepared to spend the amount of money needed in the short term to stop climate change. It's too much of a risk for their political careers. And anyway pretty certain the oil companies aren't going to be in favour of them and I'm afraid no government in the world is going to risk annoying them. I don't think that governments are serious about any form of renewable energy, not when there's all that lovely black stuff under the ice, which is why we've been hearing about certain countries "claiming" sovereignty of the poles aswell as areas of the seabed. There isn't a habitat or a species on the face of the earth that these people aren't prepared to destroy for the sake of a buck. I include our government in that aswell as the multi-nationals, they're one and the same thing.

[flowerofedin]

I think it is very true that the Government is there to want to make money from Oil/Natural Gas. I've been trying to get my point across about birds for about as long as I have been reading/posting on this thread. Governments should provide grants for solar panelling, and make it FAR more widespread than it is now. Not just sunshine sensitive, but light sensitive, so that daylight is all it needs to trigger it off, and with a storage system so that power can be used at night. I wonder if such a device exists or can be developed.....

[Poirot]

They certainly are the biggest waste of money. They rarely pay for themselves and the last figure i read said 3 wind turbines make the same ammount of electricity in a year that a coal or nuclear makes in an hour. Maybe theya re more efficant But i think not..

Role on FUSION research the best source of power no nasty waste, no emmisions no nothing!!! (well apart from energy, and helium (ithink))

Poirot

[susanB]

Does anyone know the cheapest place to buy a wind turbine in the UK. Also any ideas how much power we need? We use 6000kwh per year on our farm. I hear the ones which supply back to grid go down when the grid goes down, is that correct? I used one about 25 years ago but was forever having to shut it down due to windspeeds of over 55mph. We are up on a hill so need one that can power in high wind.

[yorky]

Did you know that they only generate power when the wind blows??!!

Also, too much wind and they have to be closed down due to engineering stresses involved. So if you only want to use electricity when the wind blows, fine ..........

[geordie graham]

A lot of people don`t want wind turbines cluttering up and spoiling the lovely countryside which they live in and damaging their wildlife.So I take it they will have no objection to a nuclear power station in their beautiful countryside seeing as how it will be clean and not damaging their wildlife.I somehow think that to will be rejected.You want the power but you don`t want it generated anywhere near you.

[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?

We now know that the amount of birds flying into the blades has been highly exaggerated, and the photo of 3 'freshly killed Vultures' to be very suspect, so it seems the only genuine problem with wind-farms is having to shut them off when the wind is too strong.

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.

[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.