Wind turbines

[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

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by wildmanofthewoods

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

Howdy Wildman

I'm not against renewable energy forms, like wind turbines, they just have to be situated in sensible places (ie not on our wonderful uplands). We do need more reliable sources too and for me it's nuclear.
Ideally though, I long to see a sustained effort to cut population on our overcrowded little planet, so we use a bit less in the first place.

Regards, Chris

[wildmanofthewoods]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

Howdy Wildman

I long to see a sustained effort to cut population on our overcrowded little planet, so we use a bit less in the first place.

Regards, Chris

Here, here.......that's the answer, maybe our efforts in the line of medical science are only postponing a fall in population, nature often finds a way to control an over-successful creature.............................

[mrs fish]

Possible plans for our town

Evening Star - Wind giants coming to town

I don't know what to think about wind turbines I am not against nuclear energy.

Is there any news on anti matter becoming the new energy ?

[fairplay]

I've no idea how much it will cost to 'decommission' a wind farm, if indeed they ever would need to be decommissioned, but the total cost for Sizewell A and Bradwell is not £73 million, but a staggering £73 billion !!! and recently the government have admitted it is going to cost a whole lot more.

THINK £100,000,000,000.

But hey, just look at all the JOBS it will create (to remove all [some] of the pollution and to have guards to keep the public away from the areas they will never be able to return to for thousands of years.

I mean, what use are these 'noisy' 'bird mincing' wind turbines, it will only take a small team of men to dismantle them and take them away, that's hardly any jobs at all will be created and to make things worse all the ramblers will be hanging around as though there was nothing there in the first place.

Before I finish, the Nuclear Industry have always said the amount of radiation emitted from the stations is no more than normal 'background' radiation.
An independent team of people regularly monitor the surrounding countryside around Sizewell (and other stations)

Since Sizewell A has shut down, SURROUNDING RADIATION LEVELS HAVE DROPPED BY TWO THIRDS.

Neil.

[SteveF48]

I think that they are a necessary evil. We have to find ways to reduce our need for fossil fuels. At present there do not seem to be many viable alternatives.
Much has been made of the injuries to wild birds, I wonder how many are killed by conventional power generation.
e.g. Power Lines kill swans and other migratory birds;
Pollution kills thousands of birds;
The nearest Wind Farm to me is this one:

There is a wind farm comprising 30 turbines in this photo. It's called the Kentish Flats Windfarm and it's 8.8km (5.3 miles) off the kentish coast near Herne Bay.

[coasty]

Sadly wind farms and wave power and mini Hydro schemes are doing little more than make money for the contractors who carry out the works and the landowners who have them placed.
I beleive that the way forward is has to be a multi point attack...............

Use less.... ie effective insulation and heating methods .It can be done by all of us. I have halved my gas used in the last 5 years through sensible building improvements.

We have to make more effective use of Public transport especially rail but this will require a massive increase in investment, and will take many years.

Finally I think that Nuclear energy is the only viable medium term solution to the energy requirement.

I do think we are in for a rough ride for the next few years.....

[John D]

Originally Posted by coasty

Sadly wind farms and wave power and mini Hydro schemes are doing little more than make money for the contractors who carry out the works and the landowners who have them placed.
I beleive that the way forward is has to be a multi point attack...............

Use less.... ie effective insulation and heating methods .It can be done by all of us. I have halved my gas used in the last 5 years through sensible building improvements.

We have to make more effective use of Public transport especially rail but this will require a massive increase in investment, and will take many years.

Finally I think that Nuclear energy is the only viable medium term solution to the energy requirement.

I do think we are in for a rough ride for the next few years.....

Hi Coasty, I agree with what you say but add the following.

More should be done to develop the collection of gas (methane) from landfill sites and use it to for the generation of electricity. There are thousands of landfill sites throughout the UK generating useable gas from the formentation of buried waste. More should be done to make use of this potential energy source.
Just MHO.
John D

[SteveF48]

The Kent Flats turbines have a projected life of 20 years.
I think that the trouble with Nuclear energy is that we are leaving a dangerous legacy for the next ten millennia, or more.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by fairplay

I've no idea how much it will cost to 'decommission' a wind farm, if indeed they ever would need to be decommissioned, but the total cost for Sizewell A and Bradwell is not £73 million, but a staggering £73 billion !!! and recently the government have admitted it is going to cost a whole lot more.
THINK £100,000,000,000.

Gosh that's a lot of pennies,where did that figure come from?

[fairplay]

It was from a headline article in The East Anglia Daily Times about a week before I entered that post.

Some years back the figure I believe was given as £ 50 Billion, so this is a staggering increase, and in the article it quoted a government spokesman as saying it is expected to rise further.

The figure of £100 Billion is mine as an estimate of what it will cost by completion (it will never be completely 'completed') judging by the way the cost keeps increasing, besides are the goverment being 'economical with the truth'?

Neil.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by SteveF48

The nearest Wind Farm to me is this one:

There is a wind farm comprising 30 turbines in this photo. It's called the Kentish Flats Windfarm and it's 8.8km (5.3 miles) off the kentish coast near Herne Bay.

You are lucky there Steve,when the realisation sinks in that wind is too unstable to feed into the grid you will have a great resource on your doorstep.You just place some semtex around the base of the towers and bang, crash, wallop you will have the finest artificial reefs in the UK all ready to house a wide variety of fishies.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by fairplay

It was from a headline article in The East Anglia Daily Times about a week before I entered that post.

Some years back the figure I believe was given as £ 50 Billion, so this is a staggering increase, and in the article it quoted a government spokesman as saying it is expected to rise further.

The figure of £100 Billion is mine as an estimate of what it will cost by completion (it will never be completely 'completed') judging by the way the cost keeps increasing, besides are the goverment being 'economical with the truth'?

Neil.

Naw,that figure is for ALL the decommissioning in the UK.And if the 8 new reactors are built on the existing sites that figure will come way down.Then if you take out the bulk of the "dangerous" stuff such as overalls and work gear the picture will look a little less frightening.This story is on the same lines as the asbestos scare which is costing the UK billions .As most of the asbestos is dangerous only in the sense that all dust is dangerous this is the Elf and Safety mob running riot again.I wonder how much of the UK "Nuclear Waste" is actually medical in origin?
But to get back to the topic of Wind Turbines,these are costing the UK vast sums of money for very little return,at least the lights stay on with Nuclear.

[fairplay]

I stand corrected, the £73,000,000,000 figure I gave is the latest figure given to decommission all the existing nuclear power stations in Britain.

That is still a staggering amount of money especially compared to wind-farms, and the MPs that make up the Public Accounts Committee warn the figure is likely to increase further.

Two simple questions for someone to answer :

1. Why cannot Wind Turbine manufacturers keep up with demand ?

2. Forfi seems to be implying that Nuclear Power Stations are not as dangerous as they're made out to be, so in that case why didn't they build one at source on the old Battersea Power Station Site, there is plenty of cooling water nearby.
Could it be that more people will die if something goes wrong ?

Oh yes, the public won't be able to go near the old Sizewell A site for thousands of years, that is why they have to build any 'C' Station on a new green field site, so I hardly think costs "are going to come down" by building on existing sites.

[forfi]

[quote=fairplay;309164]

1. Why cannot Wind Turbine manufacturers keep up with demand ?[quote] lack of skilled people? anyway the Danes have dumped a lot of their old junk on the market.Second item on that list is that the offshore end is slightly messed up as the is only one ship available to the UK for erecting any mills that come to hand.Pity the Gov. did not opt for tidal power,think of all the work for Sunderland and the Govan.

2. Forfi seems to be implying that Nuclear Power Stations are not as dangerous as they're made out to be, so in that case why didn't they build one at source on the old Battersea Power Station Site, there is plenty of cooling water nearby.
Could it be that more people will die if something goes wrong ?

Well,it was not a nuclear facility to start with so you would face years of objections to PP. Then of course Battersea,being an outstanding example of design is a listed building.How many people have died from the generation or power by nuclear means? Other than the complete mismanagement of Chernobyl by the Russians ,I can't think of any,but I would love to see some reliable figures.

Oh yes, the public won't be able to go near the old Sizewell A site for thousands of years, that is why they have to build any 'C' Station on a new green field site, so I hardly think costs "are going to come down" by building on existing sites.

Pardon? The worst of nuclear waste will be more or less neutral in about 600 years,most sites will be clean in about 100 years.Somewhat similar to the timescale for the old coal-gas plants.Think also of the piles of waste from burning coal,not just toxic but more radioactive than a pair of gloves from Sellafield.

[forfi]

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?

.

Habitats?

[crispy]

whilst i think nuclear should be a small part of our energy production needs i dont think the nuclear program should be expanded. Yes short term it is relatively cheap to produce power from but when you consider plant construction, safety, plant decomissining and waste storage it becomes very expensive, long term.

we need to stop thinking for short term solutions, this is the problem.

other issues are the extraction of uranium and the mining processes, all use massive amounts of energy and water in extracting, refining and transportation costs etc.

we also will need to import our uranium from other countries making us massively dependant on other countries to supply us (as if we are not dependent enough on other countries at the moment).

its too easy to criticise the cradle to grave breakdown of wind and other renewables but when you do the same to many of our more conventional sources of power it gets very ugly.

[Jim Ford]

I was at the open day of a wind turbine company a couple of years ago, and was impressed when told that at the end of a turbines life the site could be quickly cleared and you wouldn't know it had been there in a couple of months time. Contrast this to the decommissioning of a nuclear power station!

I was at Morecombe bay a week or so ago and was looking at a wind farm on the hills. There were about 10 turbines and although there was a constant stiff wind, there were only about 2 or 3 turbines operating, the rest were feathered. Over a couple of days this was always the case, but a different set of turbines feathered. Why would all the turbines not be operating and taking advantage of the wind?

Jim

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I was at the open day of a wind turbine company a couple of years ago, and was impressed when told that at the end of a turbines life the site could be quickly cleared and you wouldn't know it had been there in a couple of months time. Contrast this to the decommissioning of a nuclear power station!

I was at Morecombe bay a week or so ago and was looking at a wind farm on the hills. There were about 10 turbines and although there was a constant stiff wind, there were only about 2 or 3 turbines operating, the rest were feathered. Over a couple of days this was always the case, but a different set of turbines feathered. Why would all the turbines not be operating and taking advantage of the wind?

Jim

Good point Jim. I have also noticed this on the numerous wind turbies around my area, no matter how strong the wind there are always a number that appear not to be turning.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I was at the open day of a wind turbine company a couple of years ago, and was impressed when told that at the end of a turbines life the site could be quickly cleared and you wouldn't know it had been there in a couple of months time. Contrast this to the decommissioning of a nuclear power station!

So at the end of a turbine's life we'll not need any electricity? No need for new turbines? Sounds a decidedly odd claim to me.

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I was at Morecombe bay a week or so ago and was looking at a wind farm on the hills. There were about 10 turbines and although there was a constant stiff wind, there were only about 2 or 3 turbines operating, the rest were feather