Wind Farm Britain!

[Solar Cycles]

Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, annouced that planning rules would be changed to accomodate 6,000 onshore wind turbines.

IMO, wind turbines apart from being a blot on the countryside, are not a viable source of alternative energy. And with consumers having to foot the bill, of an extra £250 per year on their engery bills, this is one green tax to far! Whilst there is the need to find a alternative energy source, to replace our depleting stocks of fossil fuels, this stinks of a lack of foresight! And with our government determined to push climate change agendas, onto an already cynical public, could this be one step to far!

Edited July 16, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

I'm not sure that it's got much to do with Climate Change per se, SC. I think it's more to do with our diminishing supplies of traditional fuels?

Nuclear Power notwithstanding, we are, sooner or later, going to be entirely reliant on renewables. But I do see the problems: Nuclear upsets one lot of Greens, wave-power another, wind-power yet another. I don't know who's going to lose-out here; but, not everyone will be happy!

PS: minced swan is meant to be quite tasty!

[Osbourne One-Nil]

If I'm involved in a professional capacity to support wind farms, then I am a great supporter. However, if I'm involved in a professional capacity to object to them....

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I am all for the concept of harnessing 'elements' and making full of use of them for power

However 'the blot on the landscape factor is something to consider. A relevant such project in Northiam (Kent/Sussex borders not far at all from where I live) is getting objections from local residents. I can understand their concerns, although I welcome these initiatives in principle.

I think the general idea is that power is switched to these turbines during windy spells of weather but switch back to traditional sources when there is insufficient energy to drive them.

Edited July 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Solar Cycles]

I'm not sure that it's got much to do with Climate Change per se, SC. I think it's more to do with our diminishing supplies of traditional fuels?

Nuclear Power notwithstanding, we are, sooner or later, going to be entirely reliant on renewables. But I do see the problems: Nuclear upsets one lot of Greens, wave-power another, wind-power yet another. I don't know who's going to lose-out here; but, not everyone will be happy!

PS: minced swan is meant to be quite tasty!

We have to find a alternative energy source, that we all agree on. But this government insist on pushing through green issues in the name of climate change. No matter what your views are regarding this, one as to cynical of their objectives. The cynic in me, thinks that AGW is a convienent tool, for governments to use against the worlds depleting oil!

Edited July 16, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

We have to find a alternative energy source, that we all agree on. But this government insist on pushing through green issues in the name of climate change. No matter what your views are regarding this, one as to cynical at their objectives. The cynic in me, thinks that AGW is a convienent tool, for governments to use against the worlds depleting oil!

So - what do we do, then?

[Solar Cycles]

So - what do we do, then?

Nucelar power is green, but people object to it rightly or wrongly! Wind turbines, is a not very well though out plan, something this government is good at! Solar power is another one that could be utilised far better!

[Methuselah]

Nucelar power is green, but people object to it rightly or wrongly! Wind turbines, is a not very well though out plan, something this government is good at! Solar power is another one that could be utilised far better!

Which is why I believe it has a major part to play in future developments. But even Nuclear Power is finite.

Why are wind turbines 'not every well thought out'?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Modern day windmills....cant see the problem myself (unless of course the asthetic design needs to be addressed).

[flagpole]

I think they are quite beautiful. Like gleaming sculptures. There are some by the A30 in Cornwall and they are stunning, especially when they sun is reflecting off them.

[Devonian]

I think they are quite beautiful. Like gleaming sculptures. There are some by the A30 in Cornwall and they are stunning, especially when they sun is reflecting off them.

Been there, and I wholeheartedly agree.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I like them personally - although as stated I can understand people saying what they do living close by to them

[Typhoon John]

There's one huge problem with wind turbines that never gets mentioned.

Cold still air.

If we have 20% of our energy coming from wind and we have conditions like January this year we will loose 20% of our capacity to make energy. That means that we still need to be able to generate 100% of our energy from sources other than wind. Or are we going to have forecasts of blackouts everytime the forecast is for a cold high?

I'd love to know the answer to this question, I'm yet to see anyone address the issue.

Edited July 16, 2009 by fozi999

[cheeky_monkey]

wind turbines arnt very efficient hence the reason you have huge numbers that are huge in size to produce enough energy to make a cup of tea. you would virually need a huge windturbine to supply every other house..so at the present time wind isnt the way to go unless there is a huge increase in the efficiency of the wind farms

[Lincs Observation]

I think they are quite beautiful. Like gleaming sculptures. There are some by the A30 in Cornwall and they are stunning, especially when they sun is reflecting off them.

Evening all

I live all but a few hundred yards from them as you will see in my pic, i agree with the above quote something quite majestic about them, all moving in unison not making a sound.

i laugh at accusations of noise and hideous carbuncle on the landscape but the fact is pylons are ugly and we have lived with them for donkeys years, and where is our new energy coming from i object to the absolute day light robbery that is current fuel.

im not a greeny by any shakes however i dont object to the wind farms. In fact in my area there are three Conisholme where i am, Theddlethorpe st marys, and skegness.

what makes me laugh is the views of people who object yet have never seen one, or the fact these people dont ask current residents living next to them what they think.

all in all i like em.

LO

ps they at the end of my paddocks, im more worried that the aliens will come back

Edited July 16, 2009 by Lincs Observation

[Devonian]

There's one huge problem with wind turbines that never gets mentioned.

Cold still air.

If we have 20% of our energy coming from wind and we have conditions like January this year we will loose 20% of our capacity to make energy. That means that we still need to be able to generate 100% of our energy from sources other than wind. Or are we going to have forecasts of blackouts everytime the forecast is for a cold high?

I'd love to know the answer to this question, I'm yet to see anyone address the issue.

Is the answer that there isn't a 100% reliable power source? All power stations have down time - and since a lot of power stations are big when they are being serviced a lot of power is being lost?. With windmills it seems to me unless a vast Anticyclone is over the UK the wind will be blowing somewhere.

wind turbines arnt very efficient hence the reason you have huge numbers that are huge in size to produce enough energy to make a cup of tea. you would virually need a huge windturbine to supply every other house..so at the present time wind isnt the way to go unless there is a huge increase in the efficiency of the wind farms

I think you'll find a large commercial wind turbine provide enough power for more than just one house and a LOT more at that.

[osmposm]

I think they are quite beautiful. Like gleaming sculptures. There are some by the A30 in Cornwall and they are stunning, especially when they sun is reflecting off them.

Yes, absolutely lovely....when you're driving past on an already noisy road. But if you're seeking a bit of peace and beauty, far from the madding crowd....

I'm not convinced that very large numbers of huge, onshore wind farms (and that is what we're talking about here, if they are to make a significant difference) is the answer - mainly because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio is too high if landscape/noise questions are considered (let alone alleged wildlife problems). The aesthetics must not only be addressed but, I believe, somehow quantified: just saying (as I feel) that they are priceless alas gets you nowhere, because your conviction can always be trumped by the "necessary, greater good".

So how on earth do you value the spiritual? I may be deeply saddened by the loss of the Yangtze Gorges (not to mention the ecological impact), but many don't give a fig. It is interesting, though, that one of the trigger moments in the forming of the West's opinion of the Taliban in Afghanistan was when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001 - just two years earlier they had declared "The government considers the Bamyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors. The Taliban states that Bamyan shall not be destroyed but protected."

I once had an argument with an ultra-right Tory who suggested that all public subsidies to the arts in the UK should be scrapped. If people want to see things, he said, they must learn to pay their true cost; if they don't, then they must be allowed to die. I warmly agreed with him, and then asked if he would be pressing for Green/St James's Parks to be fenced off so that only those who paid handsomely could watch the Changing of the Guard, and taking photos of mounted Life Guards in Whitehall could be charged at, say, £5 a go - all those silly red tunics, bearskins, plumes & horses currently come out of the Defence Budget, it's monstrous - people must pay the true cost! Presumably, too, I went on, you'll be jacking up the entry fee to a more realistic level for all those abbeys and cathedrals....whoaaaah, he stopped me: that is different....it's part of our national pride and self-image, and besides, huge numbers of tourists come to the UK every year just to see them. Precisely. Please cost all that.

I wonder where our sense of national pride - and all the lucrative tourists - will go when another huge chunk of our 'green and pleasant land'....um....isn't? And we may also need someone to calculate the cost of all the extra mental healthcare when spiritual solace gets even harder to find - for me, three days in the Brecon Beacons beats a course of Seroxat hands-down (and I've experienced both).

So I tend to think that the offshore option is the only one, extra cost notwithstanding. And full speed ahead with wave power to boot, offshore and on - who says it's a green problem, Pete, I've missed that? You're right about the very finite resources of uranium, though, especially if the fast-breeder technology doesn't become more viable. The very short term nature of nuclear fission as a fix doesn't get much of a public airing, unfortunately: all we hear are the arguments about safety and spent fuel disposal. I would welcome wind farms, incidentally, where the areas are already compromised by roads, mining or industry - but I'm aware that useful sites tend to be in the less spoilt, upland areas of Britain.

EDIT: Lincs Obs, just seen your later post. I'm very interested in what you say, though I don't think your opinion of the noise and sight of them is necessarily shared by everyone nearby......but then I can't bear the sound of the 'tshh-ta-ta, tshh-ta-ta' leaking from Ipod headphones everywhere in London - and the disconnection from the listeners' surroundings that goes with it - so perhaps I am just too sensitive about my environment for happy life in the modern world.

Edited July 16, 2009 by osmposm

[Devonian]

Yes, absolutely lovely....when you're driving past on an already noisy road. But if you're seeking a bit of peace and beauty, far from the madding crowd....

I'm not convinced that very large numbers of huge, onshore wind farms (and that is what we're talking about here, if they are to make a significant difference) is the answer - mainly because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio is too high if landscape/noise questions are considered (let alone alleged wildlife problems). ....

....

Well argued and thoughtful post, we all need places for solace, but I don't think anyone is suggesting plastering open places like National Parks with windmills? Afaik there wont be any on Dartmoor for example.

Btw, the loss of the Yangtze Gorge is, imo, a great tragedy and the Yangtze dolphin a recent victim of 'progress'

[Typhoon John]

Is the answer that there isn't a 100% reliable power source? All power stations have down time - and since a lot of power stations are big when they are being serviced a lot of power is being lost?. With windmills it seems to me unless a vast Anticyclone is over the UK the wind will be blowing somewhere.

The difference is you can plan maintenance across the network where as you can't plan with any certainty based on the weather and even if conditions are only right for a short time it will still cause disruption. I'm not saying no to wind - off shore in the right places it makes more sense - but the more of it you have the more vulnerable you are at the worst possible time and at the moment the strategy seems to be wind wind wind. And that's before you consider the impact on the local environment.

I'd rather see investment in improving tidal systems as the tides and therefore the power output are predictable. I feel the chances of the sea freezing are relatively slim.

Edited July 16, 2009 by fozi999

[Devonian]

The difference is you can plan maintenance across the network where as you can't plan with any certainty based on the weather and even if conditions are only right for a short time it will still cause disruption. I'm not saying no to wind - off shore in the right places it makes more sense - but the more of it you have the more vulnerable you are at the worst possible time and at the moment the strategy seems to be wind wind wind. And that's before you consider the impact on the local environment.

Yes, I accept that maintenance is planned, but it involves the need for back up generation, just like no wind power in still weather? Generators must break down sometimes as well? I don't see wind power become the main power source in this country, or even a large percentage, is anyone advocating that?

I'd rather see investment in improving tidal systems as the tides and therefore the power output are predictable. I feel the chances of the sea freezing are relatively slim.

It seems to me the major problem with tidal is that everything has to be engineered to be salt water proof - it's corrosive stuff.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

Yes, absolutely lovely....when you're driving past on an already noisy road. But if you're seeking a bit of peace and beauty, far from the madding crowd....

I'm not convinced that very large numbers of huge, onshore wind farms (and that is what we're talking about here, if they are to make a significant difference) is the answer - mainly because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio is too high if landscape/noise questions are considered (let alone alleged wildlife problems). The aesthetics must not only be addressed but, I believe, somehow quantified: just saying (as I feel) that they are priceless alas gets you nowhere, because your conviction can always be trumped by the "necessary, greater good".

So how on earth do you value the spiritual? I may be deeply saddened by the loss of the Yangtze Gorges (not to mention the ecological impact), but many don't give a fig. It is interesting, though, that one of the trigger moments in the forming of the West's opinion of the Taliban in Afghanistan was when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001 - just two years earlier they had declared "The government considers the Bamyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors. The Taliban states that Bamyan shall not be destroyed but protected."

I once had an argument with an ultra-right Tory who suggested that all public subsidies to the arts in the UK should be scrapped. If people want to see things, he said, they must learn to pay their true cost; if they don't, then they must be allowed to die. I warmly agreed with him, and then asked if he would be pressing for Green/St James's Parks to be fenced off so that only those who paid handsomely could watch the Changing of the Guard, and taking photos of mounted Life Guards in Whitehall could be charged at, say, £5 a go - all those silly red tunics, bearskins, plumes & horses currently come out of the Defence Budget, it's monstrous - people must pay the true cost! Presumably, too, I went on, you'll be jacking up the entry fee to a more realistic level for all those abbeys and cathedrals....whoaaaah, he stopped me: that is different....it's part of our national pride and self-image, and besides, huge numbers of tourists come to the UK every year just to see them. Precisely. Please cost all that.

I wonder where our sense of national pride - and all the lucrative tourists - will go when another huge chunk of our 'green and pleasant land'....um....isn't? And we may also need someone to calculate the cost of all the extra mental healthcare when spiritual solace gets even harder to find - for me, three days in the Brecon Beacons beats a course of Seroxat hands-down (and I've experienced both).

So I tend to think that the offshore option is the only one, extra cost notwithstanding. And full speed ahead with wave power to boot, offshore and on - who says it's a green problem, Pete, I've missed that? You're right about the very finite resources of uranium, though, especially if the fast-breeder technology doesn't become more viable. The very short term nature of nuclear fission as a fix doesn't get much of a public airing, unfortunately: all we hear are the arguments about safety and spent fuel disposal. I would welcome wind farms, incidentally, where the areas are already compromised by roads, mining or industry - but I'm aware that useful sites tend to be in the less spoilt, upland areas of Britain.

EDIT: Lincs Obs, just seen your later post. I'm very interested in what you say, though I don't think your opinion of the noise and sight of them is necessarily shared by everyone nearby......but then I can't bear the sound of the 'tshh-ta-ta, tshh-ta-ta' leaking from Ipod headphones everywhere in London - and the disconnection from the listeners' surroundings that goes with it - so perhaps I am just too sensitive about my environment for happy life in the modern world.

Good post Ossie, I too love the wide open spaces that our dwindling countryside as to offer. Like you, I would hate to see these steel monsters scarring the countryside. The amount of electricity these produce is negible, for them to be of any benefit, would mean having thousands of these monsters in areas of outstanding beauty. What ever one's feelings about AGW are, this is not the answer!

[Typhoon John]

Yes, I accept that maintenance is planned, but it involves the need for back up generation, just like no wind power in still weather? Generators must break down sometimes as well? I don't see wind power become the main power source in this country, or even a large percentage, is anyone advocating that?

It seems to me the major problem with tidal is that everything has to be engineered to be salt water proof - it's corrosive stuff.

The Government's low carbon report out this week calls for 30% from renewables by 2020 and it suggests that will be achieved using wind. There is money allocated for tidal and geothermal but it's for advancing/exploring the technology. And while I agree tidal is hardly straight forward, the problems associated with it can be overcome, whereas we can't create the wind.

Perhaps I am worrying too much but I think an over reliance on wind is a serious vulnerability, I'm yet to see evidence that suggests otherwise.

[Devonian]

The Government's low carbon report out this week calls for 30% from renewables by 2020 and it suggests that will be achieved using wind. There is money allocated for tidal and geothermal but it's for advancing/exploring the technology. And while I agree tidal is hardly straight forward, the problems associated with it can be overcome, whereas we can't create the wind.

Perhaps I am worrying too much but I think an over reliance on wind is a serious vulnerability, I'm yet to see evidence that suggests otherwise.

Oh, I don't think being over reliant on any power source is sensible. I can't see 30% of our power be generated by wind.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

IMO they are not efficient inasmuch that it takes a lot of them to produce the required electricity and it means armies of them on the landscape. Obviously some do but I have to question how folk see them as beautiful on the landscape in rural areas. To me the Swallow waterfalls, Shap Fell, Snowdonia, Beachy Head, The Dales, Moors, New Forest ect are beautiful in the country...not metal monsters.

Anyone read The White Mountains, The city of gold and lead and Pool of Fire by John Christopher? Thats what they remind me of.

Oh Ed Milliband is a dangerous piece of work...trust me

BFTP

[Devonian]

IMO they are not efficient inasmuch that it takes a lot of them to produce the required electricity and it means armies of them on the landscape. Obviously some do but I have to question how folk see them as beautiful on the landscape in rural areas. To me the Swallow waterfalls, Shap Fell, Snowdonia, Beachy Head, The Dales, Moors, New Forest ect are beautiful in the country...not metal monsters.

The Angel of the North, The Forth Road Bridge, The Clifton suspension Bridge?

Anyone read The White Mountains, The city of gold and lead and Pool of Fire by John Christopher? Thats what they remind me of.

Oh Ed Milliband is a dangerous piece of work...trust me

BFTP

This is an interesting debate, I don't see the need for such an attack on Ed Milliband