 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Onshore windfarms
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 12 Mar 10 - 06:06 AM Two more sites of interest: Eurpean Platform Against Windfarms |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 12 Mar 10 - 06:07 AM That should have included: NORTH AMERICAN PLATFORM AGAINST WIND POWER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 12 Mar 10 - 06:11 AM They have a poetry of their own - such spaces embodying a feeling of (to borrow one of SO'P's favourite terms) feral return to a primal condition - like a pack of dogs running wild through a council estate. Not safely domesticated but not untouched by mans shaping intervention either. They can be filled with ghostly echos of what once was, and a sense of the cold imperceptably relentless drip-drip of time, which inevitably consumes all things made. Purely an ambience thing I guess. Did I mention I like old graveyards too, especially for camping in and having picnics ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Mavis Enderby Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM At the risk of thread drift: Suibhne: "...and all because Thatcher paid off the scientists to justify fucking the miners over" Please explain! Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: theleveller Date: 12 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM "I also like dumps, wasteground, half demolished buildings and abandoned air fields." Yes, me too. They evoke the same feelings as ruined castles, ancient barrows and standing stones. They are full of ghosts and almost tangible memories of the humsn interactions that have taken place there - and a melancholy that they have outlived their usefulness. BTW I love the way Jon Boden captured this in his CD Songs From the Flood Plain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: theleveller Date: 12 Mar 10 - 09:05 AM I'm inherently suspicious about one-trick pony pressure groups like a Platform Against Wind Power/farms - it just seems so blinkered. If it was a Platform for a Sustainable Energy Programme, I'd be inclined to take what they have to say more seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Mooh Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM There are scores of windmills just north of where I live. There is also a nuclear power station (Douglas Point/Bruce Nuclear, whatever it's called). Epcor is the company making the windmills. Complaints I've heard have to do with low frequency rumble, the eyesore quotient, investment vs production. Frankly, I'd hate to see them overlooking my favourite places as I prefer nature unadulterated, but the risks seem less than some other electricity sources. Having said that, I wouldn't mind a small mill in my yard for personal use. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Stu Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:48 AM "Fair enough, but I'd be interested to know why?" It's contemplation. It's a demonstration of the arrogance of man that he thinks he has dominion over nature. It's the beauty of the other side, of what was within being revealed. It's the slow entropy of decay which we are all subject to. It's realising the emperor is in the nip. Above all, it's about the transience of absolutely everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: MikeL2 Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:55 AM Hi I have been real close to wind farms both in the UK and in Spain. Until getting close I never perceived them to be as big as they are. A strange thing I have found is that I have hardly seen any of the sails turning on any of them - even on the windiest day. cheers MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 12 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM Suibhne: "...and all because Thatcher paid off the scientists to justify fucking the miners over" A polemical paraphrase of the situation, for more on which see HERE & elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM It's contemplation. It's a demonstration of the arrogance of man that he thinks he has dominion over nature. It's the beauty of the other side, of what was within being revealed. It's the slow entropy of decay which we are all subject to. It's realising the emperor is in the nip. Above all, it's about the transience of absolutely everything. I can hear that as the lyrics to some kind of 'neo-pagan gangsta-rap' hybrid. I reckon all us melancholic Mad Max wannabe's aught to form a 'dereliction club' - it works for me anyway! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM I might add that my last post in response to Sugarfoots was informed by listening to Gangsta Rap, for whatever that may be worth! Anyhoo a Dereliction Club sounds about right - though I'm afraid that formally recognised and actively preserved sites of decay simply will not do! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: VirginiaTam Date: 12 Mar 10 - 06:18 PM though I'm afraid that formally recognised and actively preserved sites of decay simply will not do ya mean like mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Mavis Enderby Date: 12 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM Suibhne - based on that article I can see we're never going to agree on this! But: If I remember correctly the main environmental reason proposed for abandoning UK coal was acid rain, caused largely by it's relatively high sulphur content leading to sulphuric acid production. Hence the argument put forward for importing low sulphur coals and moving away from coal powered power stations. I don't remember global warming/climate change/CO2 emissions featuring much in the arguments, if at all. Acid rain was a very real environmental problem at the time. (Amusingly, John Gummer was called a shitbag by the Norweigan minister for Environmental Affairs when he refused to discuss the problem) There were/are ways around the acid rain problem which should have been pursued. Low sulphur dioxide combustion technologies have existed for a long time, as has flue gas desulphurisation. But this was regarded as uneconomic compared with importing coal. When you combine this with the political will to break the unions, and especially the NUM after 1974, you can see why the mines were doomed. Apologies for the tread drift - now back to wind farms! Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Mavis Enderby Date: 13 Mar 10 - 04:01 AM I think a large part of the problem with windfarms is that they are imposed on, rather than owned by, communities which are affected by them. Possibly as a result farms are getting bigger in scale. Small scale farms can be attractive. I was quite taken with the community-owned turbines on Gigha, which look to be a success story - more info here There must be some reliable data on whole-life costs of windfarms now - some have been in place for many years. It would be nice to get an unbiased view - the problem with windfarms and so many environmental issues is that they are highly emotive and have vested interests on both sides. Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: VirginiaTam Date: 13 Mar 10 - 05:28 AM I agree Pete. Ideally, wind farms should owned by the nearest villages so they reaped the benefit of them and could sell unused power back to the grid. Unfortunately, not many have this option. Sounds like room for legislation that states the company buying the land and putting up these farms must make the neighbouring village a major stakeholder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 13 Mar 10 - 07:15 AM But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines that are barely effective at doing the job they're supposed to? And when it's too windy, or not windy enough, what do we do for electricity then? Let alone the noise, health risks etc. etc. Seems many communities are boldly tilting against the bloody things. Again I link to the Moorsyde Action Group site which really is worth a look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ebbie Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM NOTES: In California, they told me that a selected number of turbines are shut off in response to the needs of the day. I see no reason why in time the power that is generated can not go directly to banks of storage. The noise from them that I heard was somewhere between a hum and a whoosh. As to aesthetics, does anyone agree with me that electric and telephone lines above ground are ***))U&&&!!!! ugly and intrusive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:31 PM But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines Some communities do And it's alternative, Moneypoint coal powered generating station, can be seen from a lot of places in Co Clare. If you think that's less of an eyesore, that's your prerogative, I can tell you though the sulphurish green/yellow cloud that on quiet winter's days sits on the Western horizon until it settles on the Connemara mountains isn't particularly attractive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:02 AM Wind turbines: 'Eco-friendly' – but not to eagles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: paula t Date: 14 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM Wow! How lucky can one little village get? I've just been asked to join a facebook discussion group, because the proposed new High Speed Rail link route goes right between the proposed windfarm and our village! Anyone got any Vallium? HELP! Paula x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:53 AM "But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines Some communities do And it's alternative, Moneypoint coal powered generating station, can be seen from a lot of places in Co Clare. If you think that's less of an eyesore, that's your prerogative, I can tell you though the sulphurish green/yellow cloud that on quiet winter's days sits on the Western horizon until it settles on the Connemara mountains isn't particularly attractive. " Some communities don't! To get the full story so far on this local project see the Clare County Council planning applications website: http://www.clarecoco.ie/planning/planning-applications/search-planning-applications/FileRefDetails.aspx?file_number=109&LASiteID |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Stu Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:01 AM I like the wind farm you can see from the beach at Crosby on Merseyside. It seems to echo Gormley's sculpture on the beach, and it's always a thrill to see the size of them when a ship passes in front of them and you can get a sense of their scale. The backdrop of the North Welsh coast and the industrial dockside vista makes the whole spot quite special. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jim Martin Date: 07 Aug 14 - 07:32 AM An interesting development - the windfarm developers aren't getting it all their own way (thank God)!: http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ebbie Date: 07 Aug 14 - 10:41 AM How about installing the turbines alongside and above existing highways and other roadways? Could that be made feasible? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 14 - 07:13 PM I'm puzzled by how hot under the collar some people get at wind turbines. To my mind they seem to look pretty good. I imagine if they last long enough people will be up in arms trying to defend them from being pulled down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Aug 14 - 08:41 PM They get hot under the collar because the turbines are anti-human scale, they are inefficient, they wreck wildlife, they ruin the landscape (a new one near here, visible for miles around, sits atop the pristine landscape and ancient woodland of Dizzard Cliff), and they are an utter con designed to make already-wealthy farmers/landowners even richer (to the tune of £40-50,000 a year per windmill, better than a teacher's wages, all for taking up a few square metres and costing you nothing). You could cover the whole country with these useless abominations and still make far less green energy savings than a decent nationwide plan to conserve energy. But no, we erect these bloody things willy-nilly and just carry on wasting energy, all with that much clearer a conscience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:17 AM I agree with Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Musket Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:36 AM There are many around here. I see two arguments; The physical presence, set against the benefits they set out to give, and the economics of them, funding the presence in the first place. As ever, it is difficult to discuss one aspect without regard to the other. If they are a necessary evil, then so be it, but high pressure days show that they are not the answer to everything. More conservation of energy is necessary, but doesn't answer the generating it in the first place. We are far more efficient in energy use than ten years ago, and go back thirty years, we were almost as bad as the USA. Interestingly, the only ones you can see from our village, (though not from my house) are a few miles away but plainly seen. They are in another county, but only just. The town nearest in that county, you can't see them anyway, but those people were consulted. The homes that are nearest and affected are in our county and nobody here was consulted at all. Meanwhile, we got a letter about some fifteen miles away on the basis of being in our county. It's little things such as that which can skew opinion, rather than the physical need or otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jim Martin Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:38 AM Similar case to the Roscommon one in W. Clare also going to judicial review: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/residents-group-wins-right-to-judicial-review-of-wind-farm-plan-30491711.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Thompson Date: 08 Aug 14 - 08:03 AM I read a piece about the health problems - a vast study was done on health problems associated with wind turbines, and it was found that the areas where people suffer ill-health are those in which there's a lot of publicity claiming that health problems will occur. People in areas where problems are not suggested don't get sick. If I were living somewhere that wind turbines were planned, the first thing I'd do is call a meeting of all the neighbours and see if I could persuade them to decide on a request for free electricity for all those within hearing of the turbines, which is to say probably (being generous) about a half-kilometre around them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Musket Date: 08 Aug 14 - 10:21 AM A paper in The British Medical Journal questioned the health links on the basis of nimby. It is easier to get permission in areas of high deprivation than affluent areas, especially rural deprivation. These are areas of high health inequality and co morbidity anyway. Sadly, when scare claims are used, the actual issues get lost as it is easy to dismiss concerns if the ones put forward are flawed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Don Firth Date: 08 Aug 14 - 01:43 PM A fellow I worked with back in the early Eighties lived in the south end of Seattle. He was unhappy with the size of his electric bills, so he put up a wind turbine in his back yard. It was nowhere near as large as the ones you see standing around in open fields with their rotors turning in a stately, dignified fashion, but it did the job. He soon discovered that his electric meter was running backwards. This meant that he was putting electricity back into the grid—and that Seattle City Light owed him money! City Light came to his house, looked the turbine over, and had a wall-eyed fit! There was nothing they could do, but they called in the Federal Aviation Administration. Randy's house was near the north end of the Seattle-Tacoma International airport and under the landing approach. Hazard to incoming aircraft, City Light claimed. The FAA took a look and said that any airliner on its landing approach that would come close to hitting the turbine was in deep trouble already. There were telephone poles in the neighborhood that were taller than Randy's wind turbine. No problem. So City Light tried to incite his neighbors, telling them that the turbine was "unsightly!" Many of them dropped by to look at it, and started asking Randy questions about it. The result was that many of them installed similar wind turbines of their own! No sweat! Now, every two months Seattle City Light has to cut all of them checks for the surplus electricity they put back into the grid! (Snicker snicker!!) Don Firth P. S. It occurs to me that given the slow and stately way the wind turbines' rotors turn, any bird dumb and slow enough to get smacked by one is not long for this world anyway. And the flights of migratory birds I've seen flying overhead are far, far above the reach of the rotors. P. P. S. I'd rather see a field full of wind turbines than a forest of smoke stacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: GUEST,dick greenhaus Date: 09 Aug 14 - 12:45 PM Inefficient? Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the energy required to produce it. By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency, Words do matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Aug 14 - 04:38 PM By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency By what definition? Kindly expand... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Musket Date: 10 Aug 14 - 04:30 AM I suppose you could say infinitely less than 100% :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jim Martin Date: 13 Aug 14 - 07:40 AM W. Clare judicial review case: http://windawareclare.weebly.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: dick greenhaus Date: 13 Aug 14 - 01:48 PM With a gasoline generator, you expend 100 units of (chemical) energy to obtain (maybe) 30 units of electrical energy. Efficiency=30%. With a wind generator, you expend zero energy(actually you use wind energy, but you don't pay for that) to get your 100 units of electrical energy. Efficiency = 100/0 (infinity) Efficiency is one of those words that has lost most of its meaning, but is widely employed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 14 - 04:34 AM Wind Farms consist of: - Roads that have to be made to accommodate special transporters for heavy and long loads. This includes existing public highways as well as new roads cut into the countryside to provide access to the sites where the turbine towers and turbines will be erected - Extensive HVAC or HVDC cabling that connects the turbines of the wind farm to the Substation that feeds the supply into the grid. - Foundations for the towers (Normally constructed using concrete and steel) involves cement, site machinery and extensive transport - Mining of natural resources and transport of the same involved in the fabrication, manufacture and transport of the turbine towers, turbines, blades and cabling. All of the above create a "carbon emission footprint" for your wind farm so the following statements made by dick greenhaus are complete and utter crap if a proper environmental audit were made for each wind farm: "With a wind generator, you expend zero energy(actually you use wind energy, but you don't pay for that) to get your 100 units of electrical energy. Efficiency = 100/0 (infinity)" AND "Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the energy required to produce it. By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency" In the course of its design life a single 3MW wind turbine will supply clean energy to the equivalent of some 6,000 to 7,000 tons of carbon emissions. The carbon emission cost of installing that turbine and putting it into service amounts to somewhere between 26,000 and 41,000 tons of carbon emissions The turbine will never produce enough energy to wipe the slate clean. 100% efficiency will never, ever be achieved the best so far has been 87% and more normally the rate is 23%. If you have wind farms you must also have sufficient alternative generating capacity on line ready to immediately clutch in and that has to be kept running CONSTANTLY. Wind farms - thoroughly bad idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: GUEST,Guest Date: 14 Aug 14 - 11:35 AM Try living where there is only mains electric (provided by diesel engine) for approx 8 hours a day on average, and where there is electric (by windmill) if it's windy enough the rest of the time.This will quickly change your mind about wind power. Fanciful scenario? No, I lived for six years where this IS the situation. Not in the third world, either! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Don Firth Date: 14 Aug 14 - 02:14 PM There were those who, back in the 1930s, shrieked that building the Grand Coulee Dam (and other dams) was "a thoroughly bad idea." But the government went ahead with it anyway. It put thousands of out-of-work victims of the "Great Depression" back to work. One of the end results was that the dam provided flood control on the Columbia River, and was able to divert water for irrigation, turning what was, essentially, prairie, into productive farm land. It also provided inexpensive hydro-electric power to the entire Pacific Northwest, making major industry possible in population centers such as Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Spokane, and a whole run of smaller towns and municipalities in the Pacific Northwest. Yes, it was expensive to build (CLICK) and the surrounding area was pretty messy for a few years, but since it went on line back in the Thirties, it's been continuing to crank out the multi-megawatts, providing power for industry (creating jobs) and making Joe Citizen's electric bills one helluva lot cheaper than they would have been without the dam. And as the song says, "Your power is turning out darkness to dawn,"A thoroughly bad idea….?" I think not. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Don Firth Date: 14 Aug 14 - 02:52 PM Here's another "thoroughly bad idea." CLICK. There are powerful ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, all over the world. There a several companies working on variations of this idea. AND I have another idea, well worked out with an engineer friend of mine, for turning areas of desert wasteland into power stations—at minimal investment and cost. Once installed, like the Energizer bunny, they just keep going and going and going…. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Rumncoke Date: 14 Aug 14 - 03:59 PM On our journey to visit our son and family we pass a huge field of solar panels - they can just be glimpsed behind the gate, but the hedge hides them from the road. I think it is China which is turning out ever cheaper solar panels - from what I have heard, all they need is dusting off regularly... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 14 - 02:03 AM Where exactly have I stated that either Hydro-Electric power; Solar energy; OR Tidal or Wave powered energy is a "Thoroughly bad idea" Don? If you cannot refute the argument I put forward as to what a Carbon Emission Audit would turn out on a Wind Farm then please do not put words into my mouth and then take me to task on them. My stance on Onshore Wind Farms does NOT, repeat NOT translate into any "across-the-board" antipathy towards renewable energy - Clear enough for you Mr Firth?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Musket Date: 15 Aug 14 - 05:22 AM Wind farms are an excellent secondary power source. They cannot however be primary, as a high pressure day wipes them out... Offshore make more sense to me where possible, but there you go. The efficiency is another issue. The carbon footprint of manufacturing and installation mean a rather long time before they pay back their carbon footprint, allied to ongoing maintenance and possible service life. It was said above that efficiency is a wide ranging term. In energy calculations it remains less than 100% at all times regardless as the cost of wind is still a cost, mathematically speaking. If you look at it otherwise then everything is fully efficient as you can dig backwards till you reach the energy of the sun anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jim Martin Date: 15 Aug 14 - 05:50 AM Don - the issue of employment with the dam construction is a bit of a 'red herring' so far as windfarms are concerned - there is minimal employment (as far as I can gather) in the construction phase & even less afterwards with maintenance! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Don Firth Date: 15 Aug 14 - 02:31 PM Teribus, I am not "putting words in your mouth." I am pointing out that, be it wind farms, power dams, solar panels, or ocean current turbines, there are ALWAYS those who, for reasons best known to themselves, oppose them as a "thoroughly bad idea." But once they're up and running, and prove their worth, the argument dies, refuted by reality. I'm sure Ogg gave Grmph a lot of static when Grmph invented the wheel. "What's it good for? No. It's a thoroughly bad idea!" "Telegraph!?? What do we need a telegraph for? We have lots of messenger boys!" [Actual historical quote.] ----- And Jim, I was pointing out that the Grand Coulee Dam provided employment at a time when it was sorely needed, right in the middle of the Great Depression. As to the maintenance of the wind farms, between those who complain that they require too much maintenance and those who complain that because of their low maintenance requirements they don't provide enough employment, I'll let you guys duke it out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: BobL Date: 16 Aug 14 - 03:11 AM So much smoke, so little fire... How does the carbon budget of a wind turbine and its associated infrastructure compare with the alternatives? Does it take into account the fossil-fueled capacity that can be shut down as surplus? BTW, the calm-weather backup for a wind turbine is a wind turbine in another part of the country. It's always windy somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Musket Date: 16 Aug 14 - 04:40 AM Aye, but if the nearest wind farm is 800 miles away, the volts drop alone makes it clear that it can only be secondary on our national grid. Local power is another matter. I have 10KW of solar panels on a building out the back, and as well as selling to the grid, I store power in batteries and occasionally empty them via an inverter back into the house. The cost of set up was high, as are wind farms on another scale, and the object of the exercise was being green, not making money. That said, the tariff they buy at is unsustainable really, people with solar panels get paid huge amounts. But like wind farms, my solar panels are either secondary power onto the grid, or local power for me. (Tropical fish and freezers get a nice power cut back up.) But there's no high efficiency in my calculations. Just a contribution to less fossil fuel long term. And as an ex miner, that's saying something.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 16 Aug 14 - 05:21 AM they look ok, they don't kill birds much (i always check when walking by them) donald trump doesn't like them and at least on a small scale can be very beneficial- sound good to me. we have to use our natural renewables find ways of doing more efficiently. there shouldn't really be any argument, can't we just get on with it? |
