[Closed] Wind turbines, evil or good for the environment and us the consumer

I don't mind them asthetically or environmentally but they're not the great saviour people think they are electrically.

Discuss nicely.

😆

Hate them.

Reasons:
They are completely pointless - the Govt has decided that nuclear is the future - turbines are a visible sop to environmentalists.
Wave power preferable but less visible.

They are very, very ugly. Just my opinion, obviously.

What we need is to cut down on energy consumption, switch off motorway lights and all advertising lighting after say midnight,enforce strict energy saving measures in all large companies etc.

And limit all couples to two children, one house, one pet and one car/motorbike/van, obviously. 😀

Not much point in switching stuff off when it's late at night and there's a power surplus.

Also, easily built? Offshore ones especially are very expensive to build.

Personally I'm not a fan. The engineer in me likes them, but at the same time hate seeing them everywhere!
Give me nuclear any day. Can I say that now that the Dark Lord is no longer here?

What happens when there is no wind? We all can't go on the STW forum..

Nuclear is where its at. 😈

Rusty - And n+1 bikes

iomnigel- No wind? Plenty of wind and hot air so long as STW survives.

Easily recycled? Nope.

I like them. I also make money from them being made, but I liked them before that. I also like tidal and wave energy machines as I think we should be able to satisfy all our electricity needs without fossil fuels.

What we need is to cut down on energy consumption, switch off motorway lights and all advertising lighting after say midnight,enforce strict energy saving measures in all large companies etc.

Domestic consumption is the huge problem. Need to retrofit existing housing stock and try to make people use less.

We still need to produce that energy, so there is still a place for renewables - coal and oil burning are not helping things.

I'm biased* and in favour but also realistic about them. The big problem (offshore anyway) is cost, both to build, and maintain, however the industry is acutely aware of this currently. It's an industry that is at least employing at the moment, I've taken 70 on in the last few months on my sites alone.

* I look after said West Kirby and new North Wales ones (160 by the way).

Last week in the office:
[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

What is this Nuclear you speak of the same one that caused,
windscale to blow up, and pollute a waste area,

3 mile island , america,

Chernobyl,

Fukishima, and lots more , probably unreported events.

Brycey are you also involved with the building of them at Cammell Lairds site, if so can i ask a favour of a visit to the building site. or even a singletrack site visit.

Fraid not fella, I'm Ops & Maintenance so only run the farm once it's built. Don't have anything to do with construction.

and lots more , probably unreported events.

You are TJ. I claim my £5

Personally don't like them; from both an asthetic stand point and just don't see how they are "better" than other options as you always seem to need a back-up for when the wind isn't blowing...

Future is bringing demand down combined with tidal / nuclear I reckon.

They cannot respond to load demand and are therefore only useful in assisting existing more reliable forms of energy supply, there are several successful/profitable bio-gas powered independent power stations springing up.

Having lived in the polluted waste land that windscale left behind mining shaped the landscape more.

Wind is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the solution. Yes every little helps but it keeps stopping.

Nuclear .int the non experimental or military way - windscale or flawed design - chernobyl or built in an earthquake zone is the energy that will allow us to transition to a lower carbon base. Covering the country in turbines won't.

I rather like them. They're graceful and don't fart out smoke or steam over the place.

My own preference isn't a popular one though, I'd like to see more nuclear stations in the medium term to help plug the fossil fuels gap. There's a lot of hype and misinformation out there, it's also time we started serious work on thorium reactor technology too. But you an't make bombs out of the byproduct.

In the meantime, I'm happy to share my outdoors with wind turbines.

I like the look of them but they are only part of the solution

But you an't make bombs out of the byproduct.

To clear some more hype and misinformation we currently dont. There is a separation of Civil and Military nuclear material that is strictly observed in the west at least.

i dont mind them, but im not under any illusions that they are doing much to help us.
interested in the views expressed above re: turn off motorway lights/advertising after midnight though, as i feel the same way.
but really, as humans we need to consume less energy, in the form of endless new cars/bikes/iphones/tv's/whatever.
and we definately need to drive less in the cars we have.
all of us humans i mean.

mikewsmith - Member

But you an't make bombs out of the byproduct.

To clear some more hype and misinformation we currently dont. There is a separation of Civil and Military nuclear material that is strictly observed in the west at least.

For the time being.

Who defines the separation? The lawmakers, i.e. the politicians. They can change their minds very quickly when required.

As for wind turbines, well I see them as part of the contemporary landscape up here.

Nuclear and wave generation. We are surrounded by water, with some very high tidal variations, and fast running tides, too. But a huge barrier like one proposed across the Severn is insanely expensive, and environmentally very damaging. Much better to have lagoons dotted across the width of the estuary and staggered along its length to maximise utilisation of the tidal flow. Nearly fifty feet of tidal rise and fall, with tides running at around five knots, power ought to be generated almost continually, unlike bloody wind turbines!

Who defines the separation? The lawmakers, i.e. the politicians. They can change their minds very quickly when required.

Er the International Atomic Energy Authority

We still hold Military material (ie it's not going anywhere)

Yes based on trust but also well observed.

Not trying to make this a nuclear thread just clearing up a few things

I like them, I have no idea if they work or not.
The idea is good though.
Building a turbine can't be much more difficult than drilling for oil.
I still say GIVE everyone a solar panel. Not sure of the cost but it must be cheaper than building a wave machine or any other "wacky" idea.
No maintenance,proven technology and its not a nuclear target.

i think a few of them, here and there, can even make the place look nicer.

but if we're going to be serious about wind power, if it's going to make a meaningful contribution/difference, we need chuffing THOUSANDS of them.

and we still need 'traditional' power stations for when it's not windy.

they're almost pointless, and a waste of rare-earth magnets.

PV definely not cost effective this far north. Subsidy farming at its best.

Also it generates best on at summer midday and never when you really need the energy on a December or January evening.

I'd ban solar electric quite happily and spend the money on something that works. And don't come on and tell me you're making money out of one unless you've first deducted the huge subsidy (biggest of all generation subsidies as I recall).

Onshore wind on the other hand is one of the cheapest forms of renewable energy - offshore is a fair bit more expensive.

I don't mind them visually (we have them in our rural area), I find them graceful, I also like annoying the NIMBYs by refusing to sign their petition as they never have anything positive to say about anything and they cannot bare the fact I disagree with them. On the plus side if one day we get a really good solution, then when you remove turbines there's very little left to show they were there. Unlike coal/nuclear.

The only neg for me of having them in the dale is they make it feel smaller, as you can see them from everywhere, so you never feel like you're very far away from them[pennypot] so the area feels smaller.

Wind turbines are a minor distraction on the map to a robust future energy profile. They are handy to let the enviromentalists think something is happening to "save the planet" but those mentalists have no concept of "power density".

Read this:

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

to understand the problem.

On the plus side, they are not too damaging to their immediate local environment, and can easily be taken down when we finally come to our senses, drop all the sensationalist "nuclear kills children" c**p and put in place a future energy road map that is actually practicable and sustainable..............

They're not the worst looking things but there are so many of them springing up now they are beginning to be an eyesore - especially the roads and tracks that are put in place to service them.

As a small corner of our energy production I think they have a place but they're not really a lot of use overall. It's also not clear just how green they are either.

Oddly, I find them rather attractive and compellling to look out *, although would admittedly feel differently if they were in my back garden!!

Are they a solution to the energy problem......I doubt it!

* Can't imagine how people must have felt when pylons were first introduced. I just about ignore them now, but they remain tremendous eyesores (and health risks?)

easily built and recycled at lifes end

I'm surrounded by the remains of industrial revolution buildings. Copper/tin/steel works, engine sheds, pitheads, all sorts. All of which were made from recyclable stone and are 'easily recycled'. I wonder why they weren't?

I'd guess that in 150 years the hills around here will be covered in rusting turbines, or at least the remains of their foundations and access roads.

Just because structures are easily recycled, it doesn't follow that they will be - that's just an argument put forward by the pro-turbine groups.

I like then, and not just because I earn a reasonable living from them.

As long as the years of wind/weather investigation support the justification for the site, so that there is sufficient wind to make them worthwhile. There are some onshore sites that look awful though, I don't like those.

Amongst other, I'm heaving involved in the construction of the 160 turbines in the Irish sea Brycey talks of, a site visit is fairly unlikely though to be honest.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Are you Wind Power gsp?

Switch off the mind and let the heart decide.

johnners - Member
Switch off the mind and let the heart decide.

slainte 8) rob

I quite like offshore windfarms at the moment as I'm making decent money from working on the installation process of em, off to do some more on tuesday.. But the rest of the time I'm doing work related to subsea oil fields, so gotta balance all me carbon out with renewable work! As for the eyesore aspect of them, I dont think they are too unsightly, even on land. Seen plenty more industrial process plants that look much worse, oil refineries for example.

I work for a turbine manufacturer Brycey, one you will be more than familiar with.

I'm intrigued by the yoyo system on that TP, looks quite different to the typical falcon / mansafe system.

Wind turbines can be a bit ugly, they are mechanistic things to put on the landscape but they do provide a visual manifestation of the energy we consume. More jarring than a power station tucked away from most of us pumping out invisible gases but tough titties. We use a lot, we should face up to it. Not hide it away like we do with 'white goods' and the incredibly wasteful modern cars we design in clever ways to perpetuate a beautiful illusion.

Nuclear is techy isn't it. It's powerful, it's us kicking the natural order in the balls. It's blokey, it's scientific. I think that's why so many people like it. But hang on a minute.

"Because the government and the power utilities, including Tepco, were biased by the safety myth, thinking they would never ever face such a serious accident, they were unable to realize that such a crisis could occur in reality. This appears to be the fundamental problem," said the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co.

A big question is whether the government and the power industry have really liberated themselves from the myth and have a [b]humble[/b] attitude needed in handling nuclear technology

It said that "beyond expectations" in the usage by the nuclear power establishment means excluding low-probability events from consideration because it is financially impossible to deal with every predictable event.

This shows that both the regulators and the power industry have not paid serious attention to the fact that once a severe accident happens at a nuclear power plant, it causes irreparable damage, even if the probability of such an accident is extremely low[/i].

That's still the problem isn't it. I always hear that the next generation of nuclear reactor will be safer, but every accident seems to highlight a lack of imagination by the engineers at the time.

And sod humans, the potential damage to every other species on this planet from nuclear power rules it out for me. What a selfish technology it is. I always ask advocates "what do you need to power so desperately that justifies your share of nuclear waste & risk."

Long term - we must live within our current solar income, as everything on this planet has done for aeons. Sorry, but the 100-200 year hydrocarbon bonanza we've had will not come around for some time again, and it is childish to use that as our baseline of energy use for the future.

Sounds like we have the same employer gsp, I'm Service (E S SR) though.

It's the Latchway system from memory. Burbo Banks was one of the early offshore windfarms, and as such as a few bits and pieces the newer ones don't.

these threads are evil .... they bring out all the TJ clones..... lots of ill researched cut and pasted comments selectively cropped from accross the internet.....

project - Member
What is this Nuclear you speak of the same one that caused,
windscale to blow up, and pollute a waste area,

3 mile island , america,

Chernobyl,

Fukishima, and lots more , probably unreported events.

Well, it's a whole lot better than that coal and oil that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, polluted and destroyed thousands of square miles, changed the very composition of the air we breath, and possibly knackered the whole earth's climate, isn't it?

Coal was only used because we had nothing else, same with oil until it got to expensive, now we have very expensive nuclear, where the production cost faisl to add in the cost of security, insurance if it goes bang, and the massive problem with waste, and decomissioning.

A wind farm you just either leave it there, or cut it down, float it back to the land on a barge , like how it got there and recycle it.

Like i said and others have we need engery conservation,all non essnetial lighting like advertising and motorway lights switched off at night, remember the power switch offs of the 1970,s

And turn your central heating down (apologies to the woodstore man this probably doesn't apply to you, and apologies again as I can't remember your name - crafty old hen was good tonight).

14c was good enough growing up in the 70s/80s, it should be good enough now (OK I'll let you have 17c like I have these days). On-one do some nice cheap thick merino if you're cold.

http://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/cuts-loom-for-on-shore-wind-farms-in-subsidy-switch/
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

I'm good with the wooly jumper argument. Makes more sense than simply continuing to consume finite resources.

But I know nothing.

Please do read the "without the hot air" link i posted previously, especially the bit that works out how many turbines will be required to meet the UK's energy requirement if we were to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.

When you work out the £/Wh and the m2/Wh, wind is simply not viable as a bulk contributor. So we have broadly four options if we want to remove our reliance on fossil fuels:

1) Cut our energy consumption by a significant margin or face energy rationing

2) Face a huge increase in energy costs (estimates seem to vary from a 400% to 2000% increase in current costs) and cover our island from top to tail with all forms of renewables (unfortunately, even with the most optomistic plans for how long it would take to install these schemes, this cannot be done fast enough)

3) Invest in solar energy production in places like the sahara, and a massive distribution network to get the power to the UK (poliical nightmare on all fronts, with energy security not garenteed and the UK liable to being "cut off" and held hostage etc)

4) Invest in conventional Nuclear plants. (Plans show that even just adding more plants at exisiting sites would add significant generation capability without to much nimby-ism.) We have now had three "worst case" nuclear accidents and none yet have led to significant deaths. (compare the death toll at Chernobyl, with that in the Ukraine over the same period for smoking related deaths........)

Now i would love to say "NO" to nuclear, but there are simply no other options that will provide us with the energy we need in the next 50 years.

so we have to make a choice:

1) face an uncertain energy future (wars, blackouts, high costs, limited supply etc)

2) invest now in Nuclear plants that will "tide" us through the next 50 to 100 years until we can perfect nuclear fusion (such as the ITER project in France http://www.iter.org/ )

3) Do nothing and hope that global climate change is not as bad as it might be.

the choice is ours to make...................

Maxtorque - those 4 points are nothing new and the answer is it will be a little of all 4 probably. 1. It's called demand side management or DSR and it's happening now. 2. No one who knows the industry thinks prices are going anywhere but upwards. 3. Foreign solar is being talked about seriously and has a lot of the same problems as oil dependence. 4. There will be some nuclear in the mix - but not much new nuclear for a good long time due to the length of time planning consent, design and construction take (probably in the order of 10-20 years, which makes tiding us through for the next 50 a little tricky).
And remember that other sources will come into the mix - biomass is moving into the several hundred MW range at the moment, though hundreds of small community set ups might be anothe way forwards; tidal should not be ignored, it's probably where wind was 20 years ago.

Finally beware the without hot air - not the least biased opinion around - possibly not the most biased either of course in my opinion of course.

I like them, but hope they won't encroach on every single wild area.

Energy planning.
1. Reduce consumption.
- enforce strict limits on energy consumed by devices on standby
- energy efficient bulbs
- Insulate houses!!!
- charge users small cost per kwh for base load but increasse it exponentially for above that
- charge different rates for time of day
- install smart meters so people understand their Usage

2. Ensure that the true cost of energy is paid for
- cost of co2 pollution factored into coal/gas/oil prices
- cost of disposal factored into nuclear prices
Best done gradually to ensure smooth transition

3. Research
- more renewables
- Thorium reactors that consume nuclear waste have been developed. No idea where they are with them now

Basically bring the true cost of energy to the people. Job done!

Reduce energy consumption in one fell swoop:

Heavy users to pay higher tariff,
Light users to pay lower tariff.

A bit like taxes...

That will make it super cheap to use less.

Of course won't happen as it's back to front on a business sense.

EDIT - Just like you said above W

And sod humans, the potential damage to every other species on this planet from nuclear power rules it out for me. What a selfish technology it is. I always ask advocates "what do you need to power so desperately that justifies your share of nuclear waste & risk."

I take it you've never heard of a species (or tens of thousands of species) being threatened by climate change? 🙄

A mixture of wind, tidal, wave and nuclear is what's needed, with excesses being turned into hydrogen for use a peak time or for transport. That and using a lot less, but the latter is hardly likely to happen any time soon.

If you want to go on a crusade about how dangerous various forms of energy are, I really think you should start with coal. After that, anything else pails into insignificance.

And for those getting pissy and conflating civilian and military nuclear industries, go and have a look over how many wars there have been over oil. Then stop driving your car.

Reduce energy consumption in one fell swoop:

Heavy users to pay higher tariff,
Light users to pay lower tariff.

A bit like taxes...

That will make it super cheap to use less.

Of course won't happen as it's back to front on a business sense.

do i sound like a crackpot?

That's a very good point actually!

Very very few people realise what a kW.hr is, and how big it is, and how cheapily in fact they can buy one.

Averagely fit cyclists can probably knock out about 150w continuously, so it would take you 6.6hrs to output a kW.hr. A kW.hr costs about 20p at the most expensive rate in the UK.

So, if i said, i'll pay you 20p to pedal your bike whilst i watch telly for the next 7 hrs you'd say "F off"!!!! 😉

BTW, i'm not saying the "without hot air" report is unbiased, because that is actually impossible, but it is one of the least biased reports, and even if you don't agree with the conculusions, the science and figures used to get their are a sensible enough place to start.

Seems as if quite a few of us want lower consumption, and no nuclear power, and wind turbines are ok.

Now all we have to do is persuade centrasl governmnet and the big buissnes that are going to build and pay for nuclear power, when we have no idea how to make the old ones safe, and actually work all the time.

Seems as if quite a few of us want lower consumption, and no nuclear power, and wind turbines are ok.

Now all we have to do is persuade centrasl governmnet and the big buissnes that are going to build and pay for nuclear power, when we have no idea how to make the old ones safe, and actually work all the time.

I'd like to know what you're proposing to replace coal and gas (both more damaging than nuclear) with before you go about suggesting that we can replace nuclear with wind. Start with the bigger problem first.

it makes far more sense to address individual / community usage imho.

a combination of solar/small wind/biomass & AD when deployed sensibly and sensitively is the best solution. Renewables work, the problem is that the incentives tend to attract investors and the budgets get sucked away from the original intended recipients.

The distributed power model makes far more sense, its more resilient and communities/individuals can (better) look after themselves.

I'd like to know what you're proposing to replace coal and gas (both more damaging than nuclear) with before you go about suggesting that we can replace nuclear with wind. Start with the bigger problem first.

I'm not sure what the UK's plan is but I've just read that Germany has recently opened a brand new 2200MW coal fired power station, and the green light has been given to build a further 23 as they plan to go nuclear free and also reduce their expenditure on wind and solar power, which according to their energy & environment department, has proved to be too eratic at supplying power, and too expensive to keep subsidising.

You forgot to mention they are also importing nuclear-derived energy in greater quantities.

Pathetic greenwashing of the highest order saying they're going green by getting rid of nuclear, then importing it from elsewhere, and building coal-fired stations to fill the gaps.

The expert from Gardiner and Theobold who spoke at a Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) seminar I went to recently stated with confidence that wind turbines in the UK don't even return the energy which was used to manufacture them.

Energy planning.
1. Reduce consumption.
- enforce strict limits on energy consumed by devices on standby
- energy efficient bulbs
- Insulate houses!!!
- charge users small cost per kwh for base load but increasse it exponentially for above that
- charge different rates for time of day
- install smart meters so people understand their Usage

Okay, but all of that will be more than nullified by the arrival of affordable electric cars. Battery & charging tech is improving rapidly, it's only a matter of time.

wrecker - Member
The expert from Gardiner and Theobold who spoke at a Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) seminar I went to recently stated with confidence that wind turbines in the UK don't even return the energy which was used to manufacture them.

Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people. 🙄

PV [s]definely not cost effective this far north. Subsidy farming at its best[/s]increase in efficiency as the temperature drops

Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people.

Can you really not see that this is lacking in relevance?
Did I pass remark about money? Energy and money are different things you know.
It isn't that hard. They are investing because the government is subsidising it. It's not an investment without the subsidy.
Oh and this still ignores the embedded energy (which is just someone elses operational energy).

Which is of course why many very rich, very well educated and advised investors and pension funds invest billions in developing wind farms. Because thats how they made their money, poor choices and decisions. Damn those stupid rich people.

As wrecker says they do it because of the subsidies, impossible to make a financial case without them.

I love them - I'm a windsurfer so wherever I go it's a good indication of reliable wind.

But I have two major concerns: Do they slow down or speed up the rotation of the planet, and how much electricity does it take to keep those massive fans running all the time?

As wrecker says they do it because of the subsidies, impossible to make a financial case without them.

It would also be impossible to make a case for Nuclear, Coal, Gas and oil if the costs of their impact was included in their price. These are all subsidised - unfortunately by future generations.

We need to find some way of including these costs in the present (carbon trading is a good example - where done correctly).