Wind Turbines, hopefully on their way out

Abraxaz1 said:
Well let's install a nuclear or coal power station instead, or is it a case of NIMBY?

They are trying to install a tidal lagoon in Swansea but the nimbys are out in force, saying it'll ruin the area, its ****ing Swansea not the Gower. Fisherman claim it will ruining the fishing. Except it will be fully open and there fore they can get their bait further out into deeper water.

Sometimes I think people need to be told instead of asked, I'd rather have wind farms putting our nonrenewable generators into rotating state. As it would lower costs and dependency on oil from questionable areas.

Hell mass installation of solar panels into a smart grid configuration would place more non renewable power stations into rolling stock.

People seem to think renewable systems are supposed to take over from non renewable but they are supposed to aid the non renewable systems by turning them into rolling stock.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Beside's the power generation, they are a finicial benefit to rural communities.
 
wilber said:
My friend work's on them and takes some cracking pictures.

Here's a couple

2z66sqp.jpg
Click to expand...

That one would look a lot better with no windmill, so prob not the best example.

-----------------------

The biggest complaint I have with wind power is you need so many of them to replace a power station, you need ~3000 of them to generate as much power as a modern nuke and thats a massive blot on the landscape compared to a single power station, especially considering modern ones don't even look bad.

It kinda goes to show that in North Wales the is significantly more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant, probably because only the former have damaged our tourism industry...
 
I like the turbines, though I'm all for any improvements.

I'd actually like to see a lot more of them around, if we are going to go for it let's really go for it, build plenty more on and off shore wind farms.
 
ubersonic said:
That one would look a lot better with no windmill, so prob not the best example.

-----------------------

The biggest complaint I have with wind power is you need so many of them to replace a power station, you need ~3000 of them to generate as much power as a modern nuke and thats a massive blot on the landscape compared to a single power station, especially considering modern ones don't even look bad.

It kinda goes to show that in North Wales the is significantly more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant, probably because only the former have damaged our tourism industry...
Click to expand...

Again subjective. It could look better with out the sheep, or the old broken down house.

What evidence do you have to support that last statement? My parents used to run a holiday cottage below a wind a farm and visitors would regularly walk up to the windfarm and comment on how pleasant it was...(this was an old site too, 20+ years old now, also not a small site it was the largest in the UK when it was deployed with 100+ turbines).
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
The biggest complaint I have with wind power is you need so many of them to replace a power station, you need ~3000 of them to generate as much power as a modern nuke and thats a massive blot on the landscape compared to a single power station, especially considering modern ones don't even look bad.

It kinda goes to show that in North Wales the is significantly more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant, probably because only the former have damaged our tourism industry...
Click to expand...
North Wales is happy with their new nuclear plant because they've grown used to living with one for 50 years and it provides a lot of jobs which are hard to replace in a location like Anglesey.
 
wilber said:
What evidence do you have to support that last statement?
Click to expand...

Did you mean the part about North Wales having more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant or that the windmills have damaged our tourism industry?

*EDIT* NVM I'll answer both to make sure.

The first one is something of a no brainer, you have locals campaigning to get the new power station built because it will mean jobs and experience of the current plant has been good (plus some imported eco-warriors campaigning against it), and also locals campaigning against more windmills because they mean more jobs for English contractors and damage our coastline.

The second one, our tourist board has carried out studies over the years excerpts of which have been published by local papers, the has been a measurable decline in tourism to our resorts independant of the recession, out of the repeat tourists interviewed (tourists who visited before/after the windmills were constructed) the majority have had an unfavourable view of the windmills and many have even said that they didn't plan on coming back due to them.

------

My view is simply that I prefer something like this:

Kashiwazaki_Kariwa.jpg

To something like this, times 100:

GP10290851.jpg
 
Last edited:
wilber said:
Incorrect, The wind is predicted fairly accurately up to 48 hours in advance, even more accurate at 24 hours. It take up to 4 hours to bring the power stations up (less for new gas stations). Watch Bang goes the theory by the BBC it explains how our grid functions. We need a mix of generation and renewable has its place. Regarding subsidies, onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy going

Every single form of energy production in the UK has backup. I suggest you learn what the term is actually referring too. Again its explained in bang goes the theory.

We need to embrace all forms of renewable, but onshore wind is the cheapest. Tidal has peaks and trough's with production the same as any other renewable energy source.
Click to expand...

Being able to predict wind strength is irrelevant, wind power is very expensive.
To say Wind has grid parity ignores 'add-on costs' http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

The market is rigged to make wind look cheaper, by taxing conventional power generation to make it more expensive.
This is done in an effort to conform to the 2008 Climate change act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

On 16 October 2008 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced that the Act would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050.

Renewable energy is great if it works without crippling our economy.
 
Nuclear must be on the agenda, we take too much from France and frankly the prices will just go up as the rest of Europe need the same level of continuous power.
 
alfiemarley said:
Nuclear power would be better as it is clean and does not spoil the countryside and is safer for swans and other birds for that matter.
Click to expand...

What about nuclear waste?

Nuclear power has higher avian mortality than wind per GWh not by much though.

ubersonic said:
Did you mean the part about North Wales having more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant or that the windmills have damaged our tourism industry?

*EDIT* NVM I'll answer both to make sure.

The first one is something of a no brainer, you have locals campaigning to get the new power station built because it will mean jobs and experience of the current plant has been good (plus some imported eco-warriors campaigning against it), and also locals campaigning against more windmills because they mean more jobs for English contractors and damage our coastline.

The second one, our tourist board has carried out studies over the years excerpts of which have been published by local papers, the has been a measurable decline in tourism to our resorts independant of the recession, out of the repeat tourists interviewed (tourists who visited before/after the windmills were constructed) the majority have had an unfavourable view of the windmills and many have even said that they didn't plan on coming back due to them.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to the tourist board studies please?

Would like to see the information for myself rather than some hyped up headlines

ubersonic said:
------

My view is simply that I prefer something like this:

Kashiwazaki_Kariwa.jpg

To something like this, times 100:

GP10290851.jpg
Click to expand...

Good aerial picture. Lots of people have sky houses near you sharing that view?

My view every morning is of the P+L windfarm, a neighbours 50kw turbine and his 50 kw solar array.

I think it looks amazing. As I said its all subjective.

4sd269.jpg

32 turbines are visable in that picture from my kitchen window.

I really would not want the view in your first image.

altus said:
Being able to predict wind strength is irrelevant, wind power is very expensive.
To say Wind has grid parity ignores 'add-on costs' http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

The market is rigged to make wind look cheaper, by taxing conventional power generation to make it more expensive.
This is done in an effort to conform to the 2008 Climate change act.
Click to expand...

Based on outdated research from 1997 by the former director of the National Grid who is an outspoken anti wind campaigner.

Mr Gibson’s research was based on a range of assumptions, particularly the need to build a new fleet of rapid-response gas power stations (known as open-cycle gas turbines, or OCGT) to back up wind generation on a MW-for-MW basis. These assumptions significantly inflate the cost of energy from wind. - See more at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/...es-on-the-work-of-cranks#sthash.dO9xFPrD.dpuf
Click to expand...

altus said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

On 16 October 2008 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced that the Act would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050.

Renewable energy is great if it works without crippling our economy.
Click to expand...

As has been stated in this thread it's reached grid parity.
And what about the billions in fines we will face if we do not hit our targets?
 
ubersonic said:
It kinda goes to show that in North Wales the is significantly more resistance to more windmills than the is to a new nuclear plant, probably because only the former have damaged our tourism industry...
Click to expand...

also cause a nuclear plant means jobs, and a big boost to industry.
 
wilber said:
Certainly the same with wind power.
Click to expand...

Not really, a nuclear power plant needs constant monitoring by production and a dedicated maintainance team.
Whilst a massive wind farm is self monitoring and can be monitored by a off plant team, also the maintenance team can be a lot smaller
 
Abraxaz1 said:
Not really, a nuclear power plant needs constant monitoring by production and a dedicated maintainance team.
Whilst a massive wind farm is self monitoring and can be monitored by a off plant team, also the maintenance team can be a lot smaller
Click to expand...

So basically, you just agreed with me. :rolleyes:
 
Wind farms have already created a lot of jobs, The grouting used for it is very complex and requires teams of people to formulate different materials for different climates/mixers etc
 
ubersonic said:
I'll try and Google it down for you later.




Not really, the difference is power plants create mostly local jobs, wind power creates mostly foreign jobs.
Click to expand...

Really because the only serious Nuclear power plant companies are all either French or Japanese, so...regardless i think it matters little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom