Wind Farms

[Keith Hart]

My daughter Karen tells me that the siting and construction of windfarms is harmful the ecology of the moors where they are often located.

Keith Hart


(

)

opps my brackets were blown awa y

[Scary Des]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Me too , used to drive past the ones north of Shap on the M6 huge great majestic pieces of engineering. But how much energy does it take to make one compared to what we get back ?

Pete

I think one of the issues is the concrete used for the base, environmentally, concrete when produce is very polluting and this tends to be forgotten by those in favour of wind farms. Having said that I like wind farms and look at them as a necessary evil and I would far rather have a wind farm than an oil powered power station belching out smoke Incidentally did you know that Fawley Refinery is one of the dirtiest in Europe and has the highest density of population within a ten mile radius of any of them Lets hope they know what they are doing Des.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Scary Des

... Incidentally did you know that Fawley Refinery is one of the dirtiest in Europe and has the highest density of population within a ten mile radius of any of them Lets hope they know what they are doing Des.

Who gave you this information? I'm sure the good people of Liverpool, Runcorn, Warrington, Chester, Birkenhead and Widnes will sleep safer in the knowledge that they are considered "less dense" than those of the Southampton locality. and that’s just the refineries in the UK.. Mind you if Hull and Grimsby got taken out...who would care?

Did your source tell you on what basis Fawley was dirty? Catalyst emissions, water pollutants, gas escape? Did they say how much Exxon were investing in new equipment to further exceed their environmental targets?

Also, do you know when the refinery was built? How many of the peolpe living in your 10 mile radius have moved in since that time and how many prior to that time? Perhaps you should re-phrase to : "do you know how many people chose to live within 10 miles of a large oil refinery?"

Speaking as someone who has visited pretty much all refineries in Europe and a huge number in the rest of the world, I am fascinated to know your source of information...

You may also want to read this thread before making accusations on a public forum.. http://www.rib.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9413

...and before anyone asks... yes, I am feeling grumpy this morning...

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Keith Hart

My daughter Karen tells me that the siting and construction of windfarms is harmful the ecology of the moors where they are often located. Keith Hart ( ) opps my brackets were blown awa y

Yes but who would want to live in the wilds of Scotland if there is enough wind to blow your brackets away then I would keep very very quiet, less someone suggests an environmently friendly wind farm in your back garden. Us southerners need lots more elecy to pump water round the garden and fish ponds


Pete

[Matt]

I can answer this one. Probably about the same number of people that moved to Heathrow and then started complaining about the noise.

Originally Posted by Jono

Also, do you know when the refinery was built? How many of the peolpe living in your 10 mile radius were have moved in since that time and how many prior to that time? Perhaps you should re-phrase to : "do you know how many people chose to live within 10 miles of a large oil refinery?"

[Scary Des]

Originally Posted by Jono

Who gave you this information?

It came from there own figures.

Originally Posted by Jono

Did your source tell you on what basis Fawley was dirty? Catalyst emissions, water pollutants, gas escape? Did they say how much Exxon were investing in new equipment to further exceed their environmental targets?

Just checking on this.

Originally Posted by Jono

Also, do you know when the refinery was built? How many of the people living in your 10 mile radius have moved in since that time and how many prior to that time? Perhaps you should re-phrase to : "do you know how many people chose to live within 10 miles of a large oil refinery?"

This is not a nimby comment, what I was trying to do was comparing the potential impacts of currently acceptable forms of energy Vs wind farms. As I said I see a lot of this as a necessary evil, I like diesel and electricity and I accept that it has to come from somewhere.
And as for you being grumpy this morning I couldn’t tell the difference, they say hormone replacement therapy is good
Des

[Rogue Wave]

You tell him Des, he's probably a bit techy cos he made the chimneys or something. It has to be said refineries are incredible / awesome pieces of design and engineering

[Matt]

Bum licker!

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

It has to be said refineries are incredible / awesome pieces of design and engineering

[Jimbob]

Bottom line in the future - we have no choice

We must find methods of generating energy that protects our plant.

I donagree they dont look very nice, however neither will factory 5000 suncream, if we dont change

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Scary Des

It came from there own figures.

Mmmm...... could you tell me where these figures are published? Just checked their press releases Etc and can't find 'em as quoted...

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Jimbob

Bottom line in the future - we have no choice

We must find methods of generating energy that protects our plant.

I donagree they dont look very nice, however neither will factory 5000 suncream, if we dont change

When will people realise - ot is NOT the way windfarms LOOK that is the main problem - it is the fact that they just aren't viable. Generating electricity at NORMAL prices they can't even break even!!!

The ONLY reason Blair is pushing them is because he rashly signed up to the Kyoto accord - promising to slash Britain's CO2 output. The USA refused to sign - China and Russia don't give a toss - the rest of the world trying to comply just doesn't make much of a difference.

Nuclear power is the ONLY thing that can produce enough energy without increasing our CO2 and causing global warming.

[Scary Des]

Originally Posted by codprawn

When will people realise - ot is NOT the way windfarms LOOK that is the main problem - it is the fact that they just aren't viable. Generating electricity at NORMAL prices they can't even break even!!!

The ONLY reason Blair is pushing them is because he rashly signed up to the Kyoto accord - promising to slash Britain's CO2 output. The USA refused to sign - China and Russia don't give a toss - the rest of the world trying to comply just doesn't make much of a difference.

Nuclear power is the ONLY thing that can produce enough energy without increasing our CO2 and causing global warming.

Codders, calm down dear, this is only a forum
I agree and disagree nuclear is great but would you trust some countries to use it One thing the west can really do is stop the developing world going through the same learning curve that we have gone through. Wind power and low voltage technology might be the answer and the only way we will find out is by encouraging this type of technology Des

[slimtim]

I tell you what, if my crazy house mate didn't stop leaving the lights on during the day, we wouldn't need wind farms

[Rogue Wave]

Originally Posted by MadMat

Bum licker!

nah! you must be confusing me with some other sycophant! mebbe one of your mates.

for someone (me) who is genuinely impressed with the craftsmanship that went into FGT's lifting eyesthen being lucky enough to be part of the design and construction of a refinery or pharma plant is truly fascinating!

[Matt]

Let's be clear. There are 2 types of 'Nuclear', fission & fusion. Fission is the old fashioned way, creates highly dangerous byproducts with a long half life, and the fuel for it 'can', if further refined in the right way be used to make bombs (gArf take note). All in all, not a good thing.

Fusion uses hydrogen (oh, ok, deuterium & tritium) from water and lithium for fuel to replicate the process by which the sun creates energy. Both the fuels in isolation are very safe, and useless to a terrorist, and the byproducts of fusion have a reasonably short half life, so they won't still be dangerious in 10000 years! Plus the amount of energy expended by fusion is HUGE.

It is very important to differentiate between the 2 if you're going to discuss 'nuclear' as being the future, pretty much everyone is in agreement that nuclear fission power stations don't have a future.

[Kernow Buoy]

This has to be the way to go


Wave power

[Matt]

Except ships run into offshore wave farms, so then you start having to have them subsea, which increases the development and maintenance costs massively. I reckon offshore wind farms are OK, at least they are visible, and the ongoing maintenance costs are reasonable since you don't need a submarine to maintain them.

I don't understand people who are so against wind farms, but I guess they're the same kind of people who wanted to put a speed limit on windermere, another decision which I can't understand.

[Matt]

Codpawn, do you care about CO2 and global warming? If not, then do you care about having enough power when we run out of gas and oil for conventional power stations? Or are you happy with the 20,000+ half life for some of the fuels&byproducts of fission that if 'release' will not only pollute for your kids lifespans, but for pretty much the rest of history?
OK, so fission is bad, gas and oil are finite. Fusion won't be on line for at least another 20 years, quite probably more before it becomes viable to take over as a primary power source.

So what do you propose in the meantime? We go back to living in caves?

Originally Posted by codprawn

When will people realise - ot is NOT the way windfarms LOOK that is the main problem - it is the fact that they just aren't viable. Generating electricity at NORMAL prices they can't even break even!!!

The ONLY reason Blair is pushing them is because he rashly signed up to the Kyoto accord - promising to slash Britain's CO2 output. The USA refused to sign - China and Russia don't give a toss - the rest of the world trying to comply just doesn't make much of a difference.

Nuclear power is the ONLY thing that can produce enough energy without increasing our CO2 and causing global warming.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by MadMat

Codpawn, do you care about CO2 and global warming? If not, then do you care about having enough power when we run out of gas and oil for conventional power stations? Or are you happy with the 20,000+ half life for some of the fuels&byproducts of fission that if 'release' will not only pollute for your kids lifespans, but for pretty much the rest of history?
OK, so fission is bad, gas and oil are finite. Fusion won't be on line for at least another 20 years, quite probably more before it becomes viable to take over as a primary power source.

So what do you propose in the meantime? We go back to living in caves?

I thought it was pretty obvious I care a hell of a lot about CO2 output as I have been harping on about it!!! I also happen to care a great deal about the environment which is why I hate seeing the amount of CO2 we chuck as as people are so scared of the N word.

Who says fission is bad??? PROPERLY controlled it is NOT so bad. Take a trip to trawsfynydd some time - you will find it pretty hard to believe there was ever a powerstation there.

The greens are stopping DECENT countries from having nuclear power whilst countries like China and Russia arte reaping the benefits of cheap power.

Gas and oil are NOT repeat NOT finite - there are more oil reserves now than there were in the 70s - the more the cost increases the more viable other oil sources become. BUT having said that buring oil and gas for power generation causes vast quantities of CO2 to be released.

It is about time the greens of this world stop attacking their OWN countries and start targetting the REAL polluters. China for example is like Britain was at the start of the industrial revolution - only a hell of a lot bigger.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Scary Des

Codders, calm down dear, this is only a forum
I agree and disagree nuclear is great but would you trust some countries to use it One thing the west can really do is stop the developing world going through the same learning curve that we have gone through. Wind power and low voltage technology might be the answer and the only way we will find out is by encouraging this type of technology Des

True I need to take a chill pill but it is so annoying that the greens stop countries like Britain - Germany - Sweden etc from using nuclear power whilst places like China are building 40 new power stations!!!

Wind power is SO inefficient it is a joke and solar power is even worse.

The ONE thing I do agree with is tidal power - why oh why didn't they take advantage when the second Severn crossing was built and build a tidal barrage into it? Believe it or not that would generate about 25% of the whole countries power needs!!!

Another thing that WOULD help is getting householders to cut their energy usage - low wattage bulbs etc can help but an even bigger saving would be if people turned their heating down a touch - normal room temp should be 20C and yet I will bet most people's missus have the heating whacked up to about 25C - wear a jumper and save the world!!!

Also worth a mention is the massive increase in streetlighting - including on motorways in the middle of nowhere.