 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Onshore windfarms
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ringer Date: 18 Sep 14 - 11:39 AM I guess you can't then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ringer Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:30 PM "My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms " Can you provide a cite, Teribus? I'm no advocate of windmills, but I do like scientific rigour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: KB in Iowa Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True? I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I do not dispute your premise, wind turbines do have what could be considered hidden costs and those need to be considered when discussing whether or not they are a net plus. I did not see a link to where you got the 26,000-41000 cost vs 6,000-8,000 benefit. I am wondering if these numbers treat the turbines like disposable razors, use it once then toss it and start the entire process again from the beginning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: KB in Iowa Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:02 PM Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations. The roads could certainly be used again and I expect the platform could as well. Even the tower could potentially be used again when the time comes to replace the parts that have used up their functional life. The 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct would not need to be expended over and over, some of that would be at most a periodic cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:27 AM Ah Ringer, perhaps you do not comprehend as well as you think you do Look again very carefully at your 4.3GW that only covers the turbine's manufacture, the turbine's operation, the turbine's transport, the turbine's dismantling/disposal and turbine's transmission. And please note we are only taking their word for it those items do not appear in any breakdown. Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations. Any idea the electrical power required in producing one tonne of steel, or one tonne of cement? How about the electrical power required to grind one tonne of rock to one tonne of hardcore? My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: mg Date: 02 Sep 14 - 05:25 PM other things to consider...cost of coal mining, cost to breathing coal dust, oil fumes, health of workers. Accidents from high wind towers..should be lower I think. Cost of a war in mideast..we are dangerously close. cost of supporting some people in Africa, etc. when with some energy they produce they could be self-supporting. IMproved agriculture. Improved maternal care with something as simple as lights in delivery rooms. Diverting money now spent on energy to agriculture, health, education. Using up of things that are waste products now..old cars, refrigerator, computers..could be put to good use in third world. Give them the materials and electronics and they will come up with stuff. Ecological effects of clean vs. dirty energy. FInancial effects of transporting your energy vs. producing it on the spot. Massed vs. distributed energy. Why do we need water falls? They pump the water uphill with pumps when there is excess energy and let it fall when time is right. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: pdq Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:49 PM "cost in enery consumption" "cost in money" "cost in carbon emissions" not the same as one another |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ringer Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:14 PM "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" (Teribus, 14 Aug14 - 04:34 AM) You don't cite a source for your figures, Teribus, so I don't know where you got them from, but they didn't sound correct to me, so I performed my own calculation (an energy balance rather than a CO2 balance): This site indicates that the energy "used" in setting up a 3MW turbine is 4.3GWh including "the energy used during the manufacturing, operation, transport, dismantling/disposal and transmission," so it sounds comparable to your baseline. Assuming it has a 20% power-factor (effectively producing 0.6MW = 3MW x 20% continuously) then it has produced its own "cost" in energy in 4.3GW / 0.6MW hours, or approximately 10 months. After 10 months, it's all payback! My figures do not include any energy consumed by the backup generators which, I admit, must be kept continually spinning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Keef Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM Stored Energy is the missing link. The only reliable and economic method is pumped hydro. Sadly there are few places left that have the vertical rise and water availability to be harnessed. I'm off grid myself and use lead acid batteries which come with their own set of problems. Nothing better has yet come on the market but there are many "leading developers" who assure is that with just a little bit more money and just a few more years their lovely new energy storage technology will be ready. Naturally they will need enough money to provide them with a Porsche and a yacht plus a mansion or two while they work very hard to save our small blue planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Ebbie Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM I've not heard any discussion of a proposal/plan to harness the energy produced by the feet tramping through large airports. As for the lack of wind-produced energy during calm days, isn't stored energy available then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: mg Date: 01 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM I think part of the problem is that engineers are trained to squeeze the most energy out of them sl theh design tem huge. You can get a lot ofenergy out of smaller ones, household ones. Can put them on logged over land, toxic waste sktes etc. Do not need blades..have other designs. Anything is preferable to a war over oil or sending more people to coal mines. Plus we need to burn garbage and sewage for energy in very clean plants..what is happening underground with all those chicken bones and baby diapers and litter boxes..epidemics just waiting to happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Keef Date: 01 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM I've done a bit of tilting at windmills myself. But that's another story. I'm not a Luddite, I'm not in the pay of BIG OIL or the fossil fuel industry. I'm a Greenie, I'm all for protecting our planet and not shitting in our own nest. It's a proven fact that C02 levels have been rising since the start of the industrial revolution and that the rise is on an exponential upswing. There might be some room for argument that the link between this and global warming is a complicated equation and not 100% proven but it would be sensible to reduce our use of fossil fuels to avoid the strong possibility of runaway global warming. HOWEVER.... The claims of Green Energy Purveyors should be subject to rigorous analysis .... in order to make money from investors and taxpayers some of them have been known to be economical with the truth. Wind power SOUNDS like a good idea. It should be possible to discuss the downside of them and have a rational debate about the cost/benefit without being yelled at :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM Damn (Ha!) the lack of editing here! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jack Blandiver Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:04 AM and do as China does: coal fired power plants! There are worse and better things in China, such as the Three Gorges Dam, which at 22,500 megawatts is the largest of any single power plant in the world despite being the environmental / human catastrophe it has caused. That aid, I'm still convinced Hydro is the best option, it just has to be approached in a less centralised fashion. Fir example, there are hundreds of dams in the UK not generating any power - all that focussed 100% renewable energy going to waste along with all our sunshine and badly insulated homes. For this idiocy, what is left of our countryside is being ruined by hideous wind farms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM Thought that the subject of this thread was Onshore Windfarms? The Kyoto deal that GWB rejected has proven to be a complete and utter waste of time for exactly the reasons that GWB said it would be. Carbon emissions should be addressed by embracing new technology (In this category Wind Turbines have proved to have been grossly inefficient and unreliable - taking worse figures - you put 41,000 tons in to get 6,000 back -it will never break even let alone go into profit in terms of carbon emissions) The agreements must include and tie-in the major polluters, namely China and India (Can't quite work out how the second largest economy on the planet can claim to be a third world emerging economy and demand exemptions) Targets totally unrealistic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Don Firth Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:47 AM Aw, wotthehell! Let's just dump the idea of wind farms, solar panels, huge turbines capturing the power of ocean currents, etc. and do as China does: coal fired power plants! Cough Wheeze!! Scroll down. And keep scrolling down. Lots of pictures. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Teribus Date: 01 Sep 14 - 03:14 AM " once they're up and running, and prove their worth, the argument dies, refuted by reality." - Don Firth Prove their worth?? - No they don't, the best they can hand back from the 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct, install and commission them is 6,000 to 8,000 tons in pay-back in terms of "clean energy" - That by the way Don is the reality. Waste of time, effort and resources - much better alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Rob Naylor Date: 01 Sep 14 - 12:32 AM BobL: BTW, the calm-weather backup for a wind turbine is a wind turbine in another part of the country. It's always windy somewhere. Not true. In 2011 and 2012 there were 2 periods, in the middle of winter, of 10 days and 8 days respectively, when the pressure systems had a flat calm over the whole country with virtually no wind-generated power being produced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: Jim Martin Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM "It will ruin everything we've worked for and completely devalue our property"! "The wind-farm project in Tipperary has created animosity in the community between those who will benefit financially from the wind farm and those who wont"! That says it all, really! https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10647103_620925894689093_7772818874430364441_n.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms From: BobL Date: 17 Aug 14 - 03:37 AM Excellent answers. The only reason I haven't got solar panels myself is that I calculated the area available would just about provide enough power to run my computers... |
|
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? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jim Martin Date: 13 Aug 14 - 07:40 AM W. Clare judicial review case: http://windawareclare.weebly.com/ |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Aug 14 - 05:17 AM I agree with Steve. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |
