Wind power.

Sunbed · 12 Jun 2015 at 13:00

They are changing the feed-in tariff and planning legislation for onshore wind farms so I think it's likely new onshore wind developments will be dramatically reduced, probably because that's what posh influential Tory's want.

Personally I think decisions on energy policy shouldn't be governed by knee-jerk politics. There is an appetite and necessity for small-scale onshore wind and I think landowners and small developers should still be incentivised.

Liquidfox · 12 Jun 2015 at 13:05

There's a small handful of them nearby where I work, I drove through them one day in awe at their size. Dropped the window expecting to hear a really loud buzzing noise but couldn't hear a thing...

Still think Nuclear is a far better option though, too many scaremongers for it to happen anytime soon though.

Derek W · 12 Jun 2015 at 13:27

Amp34 said:
It's a waste of land and we should be concentrating on retrofitting buildings and compulsory installation in all new buildings.

You suggesting putting a big 'fan' ontop of a building?? When i was on an SBEM course for non domestic energy calculations, this was one thing which wasn't recommended by Building Services Engineers. Something to do with high winds.....

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/12/why-did-a-wind-turbine-self-co.html

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 15:05

Halfmad said:
I live on the edge of town but pretty much in the country and don't mind them, was raised in the countryside and can't see farmers being fussed about them if it's their land and them that's benefiting - That's the thing though, some of these farms are in the best spots for high/consistent wind speeds but right next to populated areas which seems a bit daft.

Although no more daft than fracking.

Farmers don't really care about any of it as long as they get paid.

Derek W said:
You suggesting putting a big 'fan' ontop of a building?? When i was on an SBEM course for non domestic energy calculations, this was one thing which wasn't recommended by Building Services Engineers. Something to do with high winds.....

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/12/why-did-a-wind-turbine-self-co.html

No, I'm suggesting we should be putting the solar panels installed on farmland onto roofs instead.

Ryan-3 · 12 Jun 2015 at 15:35

Bensons said:
It's just a load of hot air

Luke warm air, as they're helping against global warming.

arknor · 12 Jun 2015 at 15:46

Bluecube said:
Come to the Scotland. The damn things are everywhere.

seen quite a few up north too where the wind is

FISHGUTS · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:01

I own a 500 kw turbine.

Currently looking at a 250kw pv system although It looks like I'll be held up by the grid capacity.

Duke_ · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:06

thebennyboy said:
A very large wind farm is being built offshore in North Wales at the moment, when it's built and at full capacity it will be able to power 2/3 of Wales. I don't mind them at all, they're a **** load better than all those coal and oil power plants that are chuffing all that crap into the air we breath.

Coal and gas plants emit a lot of CO2 but then again the boats used to install the turbines and the process used to manufacture and maintain them is hardly squeaky clean!
IMO they are a waste if time and we should be investing in Nuclear projects like Thor energy which offer a longer term solution.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:14

Duke_ said:
Coal and gas plants emit a lot of CO2 but then again the boats used to install the turbines and the process used to manufacture and maintain them is hardly squeaky clean!
IMO they are a waste if time and we should be investing in Nuclear projects like Thor energy which offer a longer term solution.

Oh god what nonsense. Wind produces far more power than they take to create, install and maintain. So they don't even remotely compare to a coal power station.

And nuclear has it's own problems and isn't a 100% solution either.
As well as taking decades to build. Let alone reactors still under research.

kaptainmarc · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:19

I personally think they look great. And they are taking off in the UK.

Duke_ · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:38

Glaucus said:
Oh god what nonsense. Wind produces far more power than they take to create, install and maintain. So they don't even remotely compare to a coal power station.

And nuclear has it's own problems and isn't a 100% solution either.
As well as taking decades to build. Let alone reactors still under research.

I'm not just talking about embodied energy, just look at the environmental impact of producing and shipping all the turbines into their final location. When I queried the payback period for an offshore turbine at a recent conference the speaker couldn't give me a straight answer so don't dismiss this as nonsense unless you can offer another insight with some figures to back it up. I agree nuclear is not the complete solution, politically it's a minefield and we'll always need a mix. Combine it with solar farms and I think there's something more workable.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2015 at 17:46

Your still talking nonsense, the environmental impact is massively less than any oil or coal power plant.

You also realise that once they are up, the energy they produce can then be used to create new ones.
It's how it's always worked, the previous energy supply, builds the new one.

So yeah pull another one, it is absolute nonsense,
Net energy payback on wind is around 20-25x

What was this conference you went to, dreamland?

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152560/

This article reviews 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2006. This survey shows average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n=114; std. dev=22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n=60; std. dev=13.7). This places wind energy in a favorable position relative to conventional power generation technologies in terms of EROI.

And before you say more silly stiff, here's a comparison.

People think coal, oil etc is efficient, it isn't it's hard and expensive to get out the ground, it then has to be transported, energy recovery at the power station is relatively low. Etc. On top of all that at every stage it's horrendously polluting.

Malevolence · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:31

Glaucus said:
It's now it's always worked, the oreviuse energy supply, builds the new one.

Can anyone help me to decode this?

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:49

It looks fine to me

Randomface74 · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:51

I like the look of them, I'd like to see more. Same for solar panels. Same for electric cars.

Duke_ · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:55

Glaucus said:
Your still talking noises, the environmental impact is massively less than any oil or coal power plant.

You also realise that once they are up, the energy they produce can then be used to create new ones.
It's now it's always worked, the oreviuse energy supply, builds the new one.

So yeah pull another one, it is absolute nonsense,
Net energy payback on wind is around 20-25x

What was this conference you went to, dreamland?

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152560/

And before you say mire silly stiff, here's a comparison.

People think coal, oil etc is efficient, it isn't it's hard and expensive to get out the ground, it then has to be transported, energy recovery at the power station is relatively low. Etc. On top of all that at every stage it's horrendously polluting.

First up, with respect, wind your neck in. I'm entitled to my opinion so don't define it as 'mire silly stiff'.
I'm not endorsing carbon fuels as a long term solution, nor suggesting they are clean.
The article on EOEarth makes for interesting reading and as I'm sure you've read, but others browsing this forum might not have, is the paragraph's of negatives surrounding wind power. It contains a nice graph extoling the virtues of wind power, I too found a table on Wikipedia saying the same for nuclear - it all depends on where you data comes from and how it's interpreted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Here's another one:
http://energytransition.de/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/

Common sense suggests that to put large heavy structures somewhere incredibly inhospitable that will require maintenance, replacement and rely on government subsidies to be installed and cost the taxpayer money when they aren't generating isn't a particularly sustainable solution.

Conference - an offshore renewables talk in Aberdeen. I work in the energy industry so at least I have some credentials unlike your English teacher.

I'm clearly not going to change your point of view, nor am I trying to. I'm just raising another point of view. Pick up a beer, dictionary and snorkel (that we do agree on)

and enjoy the rest of your Friday night.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:56

Rofl.
You aren't stating an opinion.
And the cost of securing nuclear waste for thousands of years.

You are utterly and totally wrong on wind if you think a few days off an oil burning ship, out ways clean energy for years. Or you think It's just as polluting as a coal power station which burns hydrocarbons 24/7 there is no hope.

holymonk · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:58

Bluecube said:
I'm a member of the "it's an eyesore" crew. They're monstrous things that have single handedly destroyed the landscape and skyline across the country for little benefit. Should've just built a couple of nuclear power stations and have been done with it.

Where do you put the nuclear waste?

Mynight · 12 Jun 2015 at 18:59

holymonk said:
Where do you put the nuclear waste?

Scotland.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2015 at 19:05

holymonk said:
Where do you put the nuclear waste?

We could do fast breeder reactors. These produce 100x less waste and the waste that is left has relatively short halve life's sub 100years. Much better than the 100,000 year half life or what ever it is of conventional nuclear power plants.
Like everything there are downsides, mainly cost. But then again if waste handlement was actually taken into account, it would be far cheaper than current nuclear plants, which no one would build if the total cost was taken into account, rather than burying heads in sand.
And there's only been a couple of prototype rectors and most countries cancelled research projects decades ago.