BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms

Subject: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:51 PM

I started ranting about this in the Hunter S Thompson thread, and it was suggested that i start a new one on the subject. So i did.:)

My problem is this-
How reasonable is it for wealthy individuals who have moved to the vast retirement home that is the Highlands of Scotland ( incidentally pricing locals out of the housing market) to start mouthing off about the cosmetic value of windfarms, given that

A- We'll all be buggered if we don't start investing in sustainable energy resources, and this area has perfect conditions for wind power?

B- Such developments could be, if managed correctly, avantageous to rural economies which are failing due the increasing unviabilty of farming, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:32 PM

I think those wind turbines look rather beautful. I'd be happy enough to have a few in my neighbouthood, just for the looks. The fact that they are doing something useful is a bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:37 PM

Last winter when I was train-traveling, I rode past a number of wind farms, notably in Pennsylvania and in California. As McGrath said, there is a certain beauty about them, a surrealistic, futuristic glimpse. I have no idea of the noise they make. Do they clank? Hum? Squeal? Or a constant roar, like a freeway a half mile away?

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Alba
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:06 PM

I visit Denmark quite a lot and it is covered in Wind Frams.
They are beautiful and reasonably quiet actually.
It is such an obvious alternative source of energy, as is Solar Power ect.
Here is a picture of one near where I visit.Wind Farm
I personally love them for what they represent and can see no REAL reason why Scotland cannot adopt this clean and sensible way of creating Energy.
Blessings
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:09 PM

We have a couple near us, at the Dagenham Ford works. They certainly do add something to the skyline, and are rather distracting that close to the main road, but at least they are functional and using an infinitely renewable source.

Having said that, there are studies that are trying to show that animals living in or near 'windfarms' are suffering. What from I don't know, nervous disorders, trapped wind, whatever....   I think they are fairly ugly, but a darn sight better looking than Dungeness Power station or those smoke belching towers near Didsbury.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

I think they're quite attractive, too. They're amazing up close, they just hum quietly like a bumble bee...

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:46 PM

That's some big f&%$in' bumble bee!!!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

A new wind farm has just been built in Argyll near where I live.
From a visual point of view, they dont blend in with the wild natural beauty of this area,in fact they look incongruous.
They are a con,a knee-jerk reaction to the ever increasing "need" for more energy.
Landowners are bribed to allow development on their land, being offered £3000 per pylon in perpetuity,to this figure must be added the manufacture and development costs,roads power cables ect,and future mainenance,renewal of bearings and sails.

The whole idea is a joke, more political spin,and wasting public money into the bargain.

The relatively small amount of electricity produced by these farms,means that they will not be "cost effective" and will never keep up with energy requirements.

The energy problem seems insoluble in this wasteful society as the more we produce the more we require.

We should really be thinking of cutting back the amount of energy we use, shorten the working week ,stop pruducing worthless articles,
encourage a culture which sees waste as a vice ,not a virtue.

The Capitalists wont like it but someday soon their going to have to "bite the bullet"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM

AKneton:

How much energy do they produce?

A

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

I'm sure people said those things about windmills. Or those horrible railway viaducts that we now see as miracles of beauty as well as engineering.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:21 PM

Amos...I dont have the exact amount produced to hand at the moment,but it has been quantified by experts.

Ill try and get the figures for you

The general consensus is that these monstrosities will make little difference to future energy requirements,if we continue to consume at the present rate.

Environmental agencies like Friends of the earth are in favour of these farms as they appear to be gesture towards "clean renewable energy" and therefore a raison d'etre for the agencies.

They are in fact counter productive,a waste of money and an eyesore....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM

I happen to live in Argyll too. What wild, natural beauty is it that you're referring to? Is it the vast expanses of comercially grown trees, which have replaced the native forests? Or maybe, it's the sheep, who have replaced the native population? Maybe it's the rural loveliness of Oban,(snigger) or the ubiquitous poor quality self-build houses that are homogenising the landscape? Or the increasingly polluted river Orchy?

While i agree that windfarm developements have so-far been economically mis-managed, there is the oppertunity to create community-based co-operatives whereby the money generated goes back into the local economy. The problem is not in the windfarms themselves, but in the way the are managed by beurocrats. Argyll is descending into a soulless, herion filled mess because the capitol from our main commodity, tourism, is going straight into the hands of a select few. What we have in sustainable energy developements is a way to breath life into dying communities.

What's the use of pretty scenery when there's nobody to see it? This is the real world, not an oil painting. Yes, there is a place for the preservation of natural beauty, but what about the preservation of a vibrant and ancient sense of community that has been slowly eroded by the avarice and apathy of a monetory elite who have been steadily driving out the native population of the Highlands for centuries? The youth are leaving for the bright lights of the city. Christ, i'd have left long ago myself if i could afford it. The place is dying, the people are dying. Soon all that will be left are a handfull of junkies and some lost tourists clutching their tartan dolls in desparation...

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM

Blissfully Ignorant.

I long ago discovered that the quickest way to kill a community is to "breath new life into it". Money is already being offered by developers to Community councils in a bid to pre-empt objections to development.

I must keep returning to the point that we should be cutting energy production,not increasing it.

Most of the time, what is percieved to be progress turns out to be quite the reverse.

At the moment I have become involved in an attempt to stop further pollution of Loch Fyne by sewage from the housing develovments which are appearing at an alarming rate,so I agree with the general thrust of your post...Unfortunately,the developers think that building houses for rich geriatrics "breaths life" into our community...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM

Perhaps i should have made myself clearer. What i meant was a grass-roots movement of the people, by the people, for the people, as unconstrained by beaurocratic greed and idiocy as possible. It's no easy task upending the pyramid of power, but it is possible, and if it's going to happen anywhere it's going to happen in Scotland due to the nations' history of egalitarian socialistic idealism.

"I must keep returning to the point that we should be cutting energy production,not increasing it."

The problem is not energy production, but energy consumption, and the manner in which the energy being consumed is generated. Whilst i agree whole-heartedly that the present culture of wastefullness is unnacceptable, the fact is that we have already depleted the natural resources required for traditional energy production to the extent that no matter what degree of frugality we apply to what remains, we still need to develop sustainable alternatives.

Good luck with Loch Fyne. I hope they will take a hint and bugger off back to where they came from with a handful of laxatives and some rubber sheets.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:43 PM

I visited a wind farm in the extreme west of China in a province called Xinjiang, the wind farm was on an isolated spot between Urumuqi and Tulufan. Something like 500 pylons developing several megawatts of electricity.

Certainly is was a better sight than a coal fired or oil fired power station and of course the pollution is almost non existant. Xinjiangs desert areas are pretty windy most of the time so the wind energy is constant.

The noise level was not bad, a constant whooping sound as the blades rotated.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:52 PM

I understand they're hard on birds. If a flock of birds flies through, you have minced birds - so I guess I wouldn't put them in a majore flyway. Still, they seem to be one of the safest ways to produce power. But then you can't believe me - I still believe that nuclear power can be safe and clean.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:08 PM

I believe nuclear power has the potential to be safe and clean, but it's going to be along time before the technology catches up with the safety requirements. And then, there's always good old human falibility.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:53 AM

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that they still don't have an acceptable way to dispose of the nuclear waste. These days the US government seems to think that the best way to dispose of it is to make it into bombs and drop it on civilian population areas in third world countries.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:01 AM

CarolC:

Just a technical detail.

The waste from commercial power plants consist of fission PRODUCTS, and would not be usable in bombs. The depleted uranium is used in artillery, but hardly come from power plant waste- it is the waste product of nuclear enrichment for fuel generation, and with low levels of radiation, would not be a storage problem.

And while I agree that the waste problem is a major difficulty with nuclear power, it should be noted that a coal fired plant typically releases about 50 times the allowable ( by a nuclear plant) amount of radiation per Megawatt: From the impurities in the coal. This is in addition to the air pollution and acid rain problems.

I do think that the problem of waste should be dealt with BEFORE a major increase in the number of nuclear plants.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:16 AM

"I do think that the problem of waste should be dealt with BEFORE a major increase in the number of nuclear plants."

I agree totally... and they do seem to LOVE dropping radioactive stuff on poor folks..

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:36 AM

"the point that we should be cutting energy production,not increasing it."

Nice ideal, but welcome to the real world... where consumption is just gonna go UP!

I like wind-farms... Every golf couse I've ever seen would make a great wind-farm!

The cemeteries too, while yer at it...

Stop letting good land go to waste

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:39 AM

The other (aside from bird destruction) major drawbacks to wind power are a) relatively high initial cost and b)high maintenance. I suspect that alternative energy won't happen on a meaningful scale until fossil fuels become to expensive to compete.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:55 AM

I believe the major drawbacks of windfarms are greed and incompetence. Both of which, surely, can be overcome? Or maybe not...sometimes i curse myself for having faith in humanity :0)!

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 03:04 AM

The biggest wind farms I saw last winter was in the Palm Desert California area. I was told that the windfarms provide ALL of the electricity the community uses. And that when they don't need all of the output, they stop individual banks of windmills so that they don't all run at once. It was also interesting to see that they have different- height mills.(I'm not clear on why that is.) I wss told that some of the mills are now "3rd generation". The couple of people I talked with about it seemed very pleased with themselves and their community.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 03:36 AM

I'm in similar mind to Akenaton on this one. Wind power generates clean energy. I don't tend to sympathise with those who say "not in my backyard". Windfarms CAN supply a small proportion of the power required by Scotland, both for industry and domestic use. But in order to have a truly significant effect on the grid, Scotland---or any other country---would literally have to be covered in windmills!
Just listen for the anti-windmill propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby;there is NONE! They know full well that wind power will never be a threat to their muck -producing industry. Solar power is in the same category. Good for boiling the odd kettle or even shower or dishwashing ---but industry?---Not a hope! There is one clean power generator which terrifies the oil/coal/nuke mob, and that is Hydro-power. Not only the power generated by dams, although there is very significant power from just that source. The real inexhaustible and dependable source of power lies in the oceans. There is power inherent in the waves, in the tides and in the ocean currents. Comparison of the relative efficiencies of wind [gaseous] -driven machines and water [liquid]-driven ones is simple, and you don't need an engineering degree to understand that water, volume for volume and velocity for velocity, has many magnitudes more mechanical power than air. The power potential in global waters--rivers and oceans-- is practically limitless. Governments have been challenged more than once by people [and companies involved in research] who have designed generators for oceanic application, to pit any form of power generation against their design. I know of at least one administration who took up the challenge [avoiding publicity in the matter----] . For some strange reason, the whole discussion faded into oblivion. It's my guess that they got quite a fright when they realised the implications for their oil industry. It's so damned easy to put inventions "on the shelf". Money talks---and pollution still pays.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:40 AM

well if you don't like looking at them or listening to them, you can put them underwater. The power of the moon is much more predictable and constant than the wind.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:46 AM

Precisely put, Metchosin!

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 05:00 AM

I'd settle for one in my back yard.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 05:51 AM

I like 'em, and I'd be happy to have one in my back yard, if I had a back yard. Much prettier than a power station, even if not as efficient.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 05:55 AM

it is all about choice. so give them a choice. What do you want next to you a wind farm or a nuclear power station?

Give time to think cos it is a hard choice !

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:08 AM

I was talking to Alan Bell at Sidmouth, and he told me that someone has written an extra verse to his song Windmills, about wind turbines. He wasn't sure how he felt about them   

The thing about wind turbines, as opposed to windmills, is that they get put up in greater numbers in windy places, and in wilder places than windmills were.

But I still think they can be pretty beautiful. And I'd have thought that it ought to be possible to design them so they wouldn't be any more dangerous to birds than windmill sails.

In days gone by when the world was much younger
We harnessed the wind for to work for mankind
Seamen built tall ships to sail on the ocean.
Landsmen built wheels the corn for to grind

Around and around and around went the big sails
Turning the shaft in the great wooden wheels.
Creaking and groaning, the millstone kept turning
Grinding to flour the corn from the fields...


For the rest of Alan Bell's song (without any wind turbine verse), here is the link to it in the DT - Windmills

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Pied Piper
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:15 AM

A slight digression; there are approximately 1500 tons of Plutonium on the earth today, most made for the fission bombs of the cold war.
As it takes only 2Kg or so to make a bomb this is a real threat to the future.
The only really practical and the safest way to dispose of it is to burn it in Nuclear Power stations.
I'm not generally in favour of Nuclear power but needs must when the devil vomits in your kettle.
In the UK on average 300 Watts/square meter of energy reaches the ground from the Sun. Solar cells are about 15% efficient at the moment but this may rise to around 20%.
That's 45W for on average 12 hours a day, which is 500Wh a day (half a unit). Multiply by your average usable roof area, say 5 square meters, gives you about 2.5 units a day = 2.5x90= 225 units a quarter.
Of cause it would cost an arm and a leg, but prices are falling and the Government could give grants.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:41 AM

With current manufacturing methods, and currently achieved efficiencies, it requires more total energy to make a solar electric cell than the cell is likely to produce by conversion of sunlight during its usable lifetime. The manufacturing process is not, of course, completely free from producing "industrial wastes." The energy required for manufacture usually comes from conventional sources.

There are places where solar electric power makes some sense. This is usually where there are unusually high transportation costs for conventional fuels, sometimes where there are very high "local" taxes on fuels, or where no conventional energy sources are accessible.

A couple of "venture companies" have recently claimed to have found processes for producing more efficient cells, or producing cells with "typical" efficiencies more cheaply, so there appears to be continual progress; but the fact that there's no pollution at the point of use doesn't mean that it's a polution free process. It just means someone else carries off your garbage.

John

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Dave Masterson
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 08:27 AM

I agree with Boab – surely hydro-power is the way forward. The good news in the UK is that an experimental wave turbine was commissioned in the Bristol Channel last year. It will be interesting to see the results of that. The UK has so many tidal inlets the prospects should be good, although I believe one 'expert' has discounted the Thames estuary as being the wrong sort of tidal flow. I dunno, I'm a simple soul, the tide comes in – power, the tide goes out again – more power. It's obviously not as simple as that.
Solar power is another good prospect. Deputy PM John Prescott has recently stated that all new houses should have solar power fitted as standard (Ooh look, there goes a pig flying by!). In Greece you'd be hard pushed to see a house that doesn't have solar panels on the roof. I know it's much sunnier than the UK, but there are solar panels on the market that work perfectly well in our environment. Of course this would not solve the demands of industry but it has to be better that the present situation.

Mind you, if we could only harness the power of all the hot air expounded on Mudcat then all our problems would be over….

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 08:31 AM

"current manufacturing methods are just that, and they are based on relatively low levels of production.

Longterm I'd anticipate a combination methods, including wind turbines and improved efficiency, plus especially tidal power.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Dave Masterson
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 08:31 AM

Noddy says,
"it is all about choice. so give them a choice. What do you want next to you a wind farm or a nuclear power station?"

If they have their way on Romney Marsh we'll have both!

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Midchuck
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 10:30 AM

There are two, and only two, long-term solutions to the environment/energy problem.

One is nuclear fusion power - not fission. What happens in the Sun, and in a hydrogen bomb. You squeeze hydrogen hard enough and it turns into helium and gives off a lot of energy.

The trouble is, the technology doesn't exist yet. It'll take a good deal of money to get to where it works, and no one wants to spend money without a short-term return. And most people think of fission when you mention nuclear power at all. There are very sound objections to fission power, but the public is too stupid to understand that there are two very different forms of nuclear power.

The second is getting population growth under control. This is happening in the developed countries. I don't see how it's going to happen in the undeveloped ones except through the mediums of starvation and disease, and I can't wish for that. Also, most of the established churches fight any effective population control measures, so we'd have to eliminate organized religion to make any progress.

So we're probably f***ed, in the long run.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,Skipy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 10:45 AM

How long does it take for a turbine to 'pay back' the electricity used to manufacture it?

The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy produced by a power station is known as the 'energy balance'. It can be expressed in terms of energy 'pay back' time, i.e. as the time needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in manufacturing the wind turbine or power station.

The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within three to five months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 times more energy than was used in its manufacture. This is quicker than coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. When the energy used to supply the fuel for nuclear and coal power plants is included, the energy balance for those conventional source is even poorer still.

This year the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) calculated that onshore wind farms recover around 80 times the input energy required.

Just a ditty Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:02 AM

Since we've got a fair-sized fusion plant going alread, the most snesible thing is to arrange things so that we make use of the ample power it supplies. I refer to the Sun of coiurse. And the Moon for tidal power. More than enough if we organise ourselves sensibly.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Pied Piper
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:11 AM

Sorry johnInKansas your energy payback time is a myth.
Solar Energy Payback Time
PP

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Pied Piper
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:12 AM

And we still have to dispose of the Plutonium.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:31 AM

The other (aside from bird destruction) major drawbacks to wind power are a) relatively high initial cost and b)high maintenance.

When figuring out cost ratios between oil and wind (or other alternative energy sources), one needs to factor in the hidden costs as well as the obvious ones. With oil, the taxpayers (at least with the way it's set up in the US) pay huge hidden costs. The US taxpayers pay massive sums of money in the form of government subsidies to the oil industry, as well as the costs of the wars that we have to conduct in order to secure the supplies of oil that we rely on in other parts of the world. Plus the hidden costs arising from polution... health care costs, cleanup costs, etc. When we take all of the hidden costs into consideration, I bet oil is a lot more expensive than wind.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

well one thing for certain, its highly unlikely that those who advocate for alternative energy will, like the proponents of nuclear power generation, still be trying to come up with, yet one more foolproof way, of trying to deal with their nasty byproduct.

Oh dear, another failed fast breeder tidal turbine! Now what are we going to do with all that water?

"Do you want my job?"

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:27 PM

it is all coming, solar power, solar heating to reduce other forms of energy use, wind power, tide power, cleverer ways to use hydro-electric sources, more effecient batteries....and, probably 'some' nuclear power, though I hate to see it. Even cheap solar stoves that work much like a magnifying glass for cooking in places where the trees are almost gone.

We must do these things in order to cope with the future and survive in any comfortable manner. If Global Warming IS, in fact, a reality for the next few decades or centuries, we need to plan now. If an ice age comes, we need to be ready...etc...

The other thing that needs to be considered is that we need to control (preferably reduce) the population in order to make better use of what energy we CAN produce, and to facilitate living in reduced areas if either ice age or serious warming happen.....

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 02:24 PM

What's it go to do with energy? We absolutely need windfarms - where will the wind come from if we don't have them. Everyone knows that wind is made by trees waving their arms. With all the deforestation going on there are just not enough trees to produce wind for us so we need to have huge fans generating more.

What? What have I said? Am I missing something?

Cheers

DtG

(Great believer in kinetic energy btw. Have a huge ring orbiting the world in the opposite direction to the rotation. Connect it by towers with huge wheels on all round the equator. Bingo! Biggest dynamo in history...)

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 03:56 PM

Hmmm...I don't know much about all this except that in the state of Pennsylvania, if you have a windmill on your property that is supplying your electricity for you, the electric company has to PAY YOU for any surplus that the windmills have created and you have not used.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 05:59 PM

in one study an economist (in a recent nyorker) calculated one hidden cost of oil (that of military action and spending in the mideast-) adds up to a hidden tax of 10to 20cents per gallon.

of course oil, along with wind and hydropower are all solar energy anyway - (oil being stored solar energy from the past, wind being a result of solar heating, and also the water cycle of evaporation/rainfall etc. also due to solar energy)

I remember a university geography class on the subject of solar energy that hits the earth at any given time: 30% percent is reflected back into space, another large part goes into latent heat(ie. heating the ground etc) and a large part into water evaporation.
I asked the professor how much actually goes to sustain life on earth, and the answer was astounding: negligible - less than 1% OF THE TOTAL SUNS ENERGY.

www.hubbertspeak.com has an interesting calculation comparing the
amount of solar energy to hit the earth in 24hours being equal to the known or estimated oil reserves of the Earth (all the oil thats ever been used and has yet to be used).

To say that there is no future in wind for instance is ridiculous,
25% of Denmarks energy comes from offshore windfarms. Not Insignificant.

Last spring I was in the Czech Republic, and everywhere you look there were rapeseed (canola) fields. BioFuel is becoming a large factor. I fact theres a team from BC driving an old diesel van across Europe to Vladivostok, running purely on waste cooking grease and methanol.

Alexander Graham Bell suggested that we start using alcohol when petroleum becomes too expensive, you can make alcohol from any plant
- the growth of which should offset co2 increase.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 06:17 PM

It isn't that growing plants offset CO2 increase, it's that they don't contribute to it. In growing they take up CO2, and in burning they give it back to the atmosphere. It's a convenient way of using solar energy.

Burning fossil fuel means putting back into the atmosphere the CO2 that was safely stashed away over millions of years. Not a very good idea, because that is an awful lot of CO2.

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:23 PM

I agree wave-power is part of the way forward, but what i was whinging about in the initial post was people complaining about windfarms based solely on their cosmetic apppearance. Where are these people? Do they exist? They're being uncharacteristically quiet...come on, NIMBYs, scared or somethink?

Subject: RE: BS: NIMBYs and Windfarms
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:18 PM

well one objection I heard to the windfarm,,
was the constant and repetitive whoosh sound they make
but Id take that than smog anyday.