The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: sabrina on May 17, 2011, 09:58:36 am
-
Are you for or against. Have to say we have a lot around Aberdeenshire and I like to look at them. We are about to get more not far from us, we have wind most days so well suited to the area. If we had the money we would put up a smaller one for our own use as the time is coming that the black outs off the 70's will happen again. Power has to come from somewhere. My best friend is so against them and at this moment in time is fighting to keep them out of her area. We do not bring up the subject anymore as I worry she will have a stroke she gets so worked up yet when they have power cuts in the winter due to weather she goes mad. My eldest son lives near a power station and its far from a pretty site but over the years you just don't notice it the same.
-
Noticed a few planning applications for single turbines on farms .....am wondering if the farmers had been approached to have one on their land, as the farms applying were pretty near each other. All were refused planning, probably due to National Park regs, and green belt etc. Have seen some up on the moors, in clusters of about 15. Personally, to me, they are not a nice thing and hardly the natural look you would expect up on the moors ......and as they were quite near to some farms, I did wonder about noise, as there was a noticeable noise when you were close to them.
There again, they are prettier to look at than the power stations, so maybe the better option - so long as its not near where I live that is :D
-
I have mixed feelings, sometimes they can look elegant but the nice open spaces certainly look better without them but opposed to a power plant, much much better to look at BU..not sure if they are that cost effective re the energy they produce and cost to maintain and build, apparently they do not last tool long so have to be replaced, thats an energy cost in itself..I am no scientist so cannot comment but still think burning fostel fuel if cleaned (carbon capture) is better. I def do not like the idea of Nuclear energy...again, not a scientist so not too sure but I would rather live near a coal power station than a Nuclear one...hang on...I do :)
-
Its unfortunate that in the Scottish Borders here we are getting so that you can't go on a 20min journey in any direction without coming across a mass of them. I think the problem is that they are put in groups - it would be much nicer if everyone could have a personal one on their house - much the same as a chimney pot - becoming part of a new architectural domestic language. On mass though it does seem almost an old fashioned idea - like a mass of electricity pylons - underground or out at sea is a better idea for technology, or keep it domestic scale.
-
We have groups of them in every direction and some going up in ones and twos very close. Yes, the companies come and approach landowners and when one goes up they drop in on everyone else in the area, hoping someone else will get on the bandwagon. Planning is easy to get for them here. I think they are wonderfully elegant things, huge and magnificent, but then I love technology. I also wouldn't want them right on my doorstep and am not too happy about the ones which they are just building half a mile away right between me and a beautiful view. It will be interesting to see how long they last and how well they stand up to the weather. So I have mixed feelings about them too. One plus point is that once they go back out of fashion they will not be leaving huge scars on the landscape.
-
I'm not surprised that there is a lot of people jumping on the band waggon, for every big wind turbine on there land they get £100.000 per turbine for 20 years. Now people with 5 turbines getting half a million quid a year for 20 years won't need to bother going to work again.
-
I like them. I think they are a sign of a progressive outlook. My FIL hates them and is always spouting off negatively about them, but the power of the future will have to come from somewhere. I wouldn't like to see any more nuclear power generated in Scotland.
The sighting of them off-shore has its problems, though. Proposals to erect a wind farm off Arbroath worried the lobster fishermen. The turbines would have been erected on a rocky 'reef' which happened to be the area where the lobsters live and breed. There was to be a fifty metre restriction around each turbine, and boats could not operate within that distance. The turbines were to be placed 100 metres apart. That meant that the lobster fishers would be unable to work.
-
this is a difficult one depends on what side you are on these big wind farms and there equally big turbines (the hub can weigh up to 50 tons) are sited on forrestry commission land the FC gets up to £100,000 rent per year over the lifetime of the turbine(25 yrs) there was a plan to install 23 of them not to far from here now thats 2.3 million per year with a sweetener to the local comunity of £56 ,000 over the lifetime of the project
to me that equates to a bag of sweeties given to a child to shut them up(it works out near enough as 0.0001%)
they had a public display of there intentions attended by people outwith the village but directly affected with the plan well groomed yes people were in attendance with highly polished answers to a few questions now 18 months before this public meeting the FC spent nearly a million putting the access road in for this development 400 tons of blaes per day x 5 days per week x3-4 months capped of with stone (motorways don't have that engineering) this FC road is the main access for the turbines hubs blades and columns comming on site
asked about this NO COMMENT this plan was sited in stirlingshire and the site butting onto west lothian (west lothian have designated the area a site of great natural beauty) asked about this NO COMMENT who is the preferred contractor NO COMMENT how were they going to police the access routes(as they had designated) NO COMMENT had they done there tests on wind noise NO COMMENT was it going to be local contractors and employees NO COMMENT there were forms to fill in if you thought wind power was good they then sent your form (if you daft enough to fill it in)to the local planners as a support to there planning
now the cost of all this wind power nuclear power is sold for approx 5 pence per unit or cheaper it may not be the safest or the most pretty of constructions but compared to wind power that is sold for 25 pence per unit and is not available 24/7 is a lot cheaper(just recently some wind farms were paid not to produce electricity as there was to much in the grid) yes oil and gas is going to run out the same as fish was going to run out in the early sixty's it cost,s oil to mine the iron ore ship it to India electricity to smelt the ore or high grade scrap metal more oil to transport the finished turbine to where ever and more oil to transport the turbine to the site also oil to fuel the machines that are prepping the site energy to produce the concrete more energy to produce the re-bar for the base etc etc etc
so if you are lucky to have a big turbine on your land yes your in the money to bad for all the others that have to pay for it wind power is not the saviour that it is claiming and small turbines at the side of your house cant boil a kettle
the braes of doune site when we can see it is a blot on the landscape but you do get used to it as is true for all the turbine sites
in the end electricity is a commodity and it comes down to your individual choice if you support it or oppose it irrespective somebody will be making money on its back
if you agree or not with what i have written it will not upset me after all it is a public open forum and my input is just as relevent as others
-
Is that you Brian????? ;D ;D ;) :D
-
I'm not surprised that there is a lot of people jumping on the band waggon, for every big wind turbine on there land they get £100.000 per turbine for 20 years. Now people with 5 turbines getting half a million quid a year for 20 years won't need to bother going to work again.
Where on earth do you get those figures? My friend is about to install one at a cost of £80,000 - she will receive free electricity and £5000 a year - so it will take about 16 years to pay off the original cost, only then she will be in profit, providing it lasts the 25 years they forecast. The Governemebt have guaranteed the 'producer' element for a 25 year period so that may not continue after that. She lives on a farm, on top of a windy hill, so it is ideal for her. Personally I would be delighted if many more of these were put up all over the country, and also water power developed, instead of a nuclear power station which produces rods that stay live for thousands of years after they are buried, and the cost of storing them relatively safely adds to the cost of the elcetricity the power station produces.
As an aside, many wind turbines are painted white, grey, or black. They can actually be ANY colour you want, so they could be painted to blend into the countryside - or if you are a member of the SNP either tartan or blue and white ;D
-
I can see 4 coal fired power stations from my home, or at least the plumes of smoke and water vapour. I'd far rather see wind turbines instead.
-
I can see 4 coal fired power stations from my home, or at least the plumes of smoke and water vapour. I'd far rather see wind turbines instead.
I see, and hear, 4 coal trains a day, 23 carriages long, 100 tons of coal in each carriage, and another 4 through the night, trundling past my bedroom window on teh way to a coal fired power station. I'd rather see a wind turbine on every house in the village!
-
I like them, they look like giant dancers! They may not be as efficient as nuclear power plants but I would rather use less electricity AND pay more for it. As to being paid all that money to have one on your land----bring them on!! I could grow my runner beans up them ;D ;D ;D
-
annie the figures are from the turbine company's that were advertising for suitable sites they only quoted the prices for a short time that was for the largest turbine available your friend is only likely to have a small one in comparison is your friend buying the turbine (there are different schemes) the guaranteed income is the FIT feed in tariff what the taxpayer pays for :'( you are forgetting yellow ones
there will be some that will prefer the trains passing by houses rather than windmills going up
the water powered generation has the same argument those that want it and those that want the natural beauty
-
annie the figures are from the turbine company's that were advertising for suitable sites they only quoted the prices for a short time that was for the largest turbine available your friend is only likely to have a small one in comparison is your friend buying the turbine (there are different schemes) the guaranteed income is the FIT feed in tariff what the taxpayer pays for :'( you are forgetting yellow ones
there will be some that will prefer the trains passing by houses rather than windmills going up
the water powered generation has the same argument those that want it and those that want the natural beauty
Either way the quoted figures are rarely what actually happenes, and either way I'd rather have any non invasive scheme than a nuclear reactor.
-
Brian is my FIL's name, by the way.
Of course there are those who would want one thing, and many who would not, or would prefer something else, but many of them fall firmly into the NIMBY category.
I can't get my head round those who say they don't want the natural beauty spoiled by such things, yet would risk the health and safety of hundreds of generations to come (if the world lives that long) through the use and disuse of nuclear power. The truth is, if the global population continues to grow at the present rate, there will be very few places of beauty left...they will all be covered in housing and the trappings of human occupation.
There has to come a time soon when huge cuts have to be made to the amount of power consumed both locally and globally. Vast square miles of 24/7 (God how I hate that phrase) lit offices and businesses will surely become a thing of the past. When that happens, and we return to a more primitive lifestyle, without the Jeremy Clarksons and his like telling us what we should aspire to, wind farms will probably meet our needs quite well.
-
I will stand back slightly from the central issue.
This country needs new power stations. The traditional sort take at least 10 years to get approval, check the environmental impact - that sort of thing, and then construct.
In less than 5 years there will be periods when there isn't enough electricity to meet peak demand. So companies using a lot with have to shut down temporarily which will cost money and jobs. There may also be domestic cuts from time to time. Our politicians have known this and done nothing, each lot leaving it for someone else to pick up.
Back in the 1950's this country got very excited about nuclear power - electricity so cheap it isn't worth charging. Instead we finished up with ever more expensive electricity, partly to pay for the cost of cleaning up the radioactive mess they leave behind.
We now seem to be going flat out to cover the country with wind farms. A recent review of their performance has shown that they only produce 25% of their theoretical maximum and at the time of peak demand (early evening) it is typically less than 10%. This may be because in winter the wind drops after sunset. The same is true if we get high pressure over this country. So it is an unreliable source of electricity.
Around 2000, the dear old politicians agreed to have 10% of this country's electricity produced by renewables in 2010 and 20% by 2020. We missed the first target by miles and will probably miss the second by even more.
Alternative sources of renewable energy (electricity) include burning waste; rubbish, waste from any wood processing industry and from agriculture. This is low grade fuel so it isn't worth moving far. Therefore the power station has to be local and probably small. This will be similar to the wind farm problem. We are all NIMBYs. The is a big row around King's Lynn currently regarding a waste incinerator that will produce power for thousands of homes.
Back around 1980 there was a study regarding building a tidal power barrage across the Severn estuary between North Devon and South Wales. It would have produced as much as a full size coal or oil fired power station twice a day for about 120 years. It would have messed up the beaches on both coasts covering them in mud and probably ended the bird colonies on the Somerset Levels. That killed the project then. It has recently been reviewed and this time it was ruled out on cost. This would be several time that of a conventional/nuclear power station. However, the running cost is low (there is some maintenance required) and it is carbon-free. It also has a long life compared with the alternatives - 3 to 4 times as long, possibly more.
The could be a similar but smaller tidal barrage across the Wash and some of the big river estuaries in Scotland. There are secondary benefits as the barrage acts as a flood barrier and can provide a road link (e.g. Wales to Devon, Lincolnshire to Norfolk).
Th French have had a small barrage (a prototype for the whole idea) across the river Rance in Normandy for about 50 years. See for details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station)
There is still mileage in wave power if anyone can come up with a robust reliable system.
As a last comment, please understand that you need thousands of wind turbines to produce as much electricity as a big power station (Ferrybridge or similar) or a nuclear one. And that is provided there is any wind!
-
This country needs new power stations.
With respect, I think you'll find that is not what we want in Scotland. It's very different here now that the SNP has had a while to make their mark and, with another five years of their government, we can look forward to alternatives to nuclear in this country.
-
As a last comment, please understand that you need thousands of wind turbines to produce as much electricity as a big power station (Ferrybridge or similar) or a nuclear one. And that is provided there is any wind!
As has been noted they operate on average at 21/24% capacity, on top of which it takes 15 years to eliminate the carbon footprint generated by their construction, furthermore there has to be sufficient alternative generating capacity (coal, gas, nuclear etc) available to make up the shortfall.
To add insult to injury the windfarm project was instigated by politicians eager to outdo their rivals in 'green cred' but who were quite happy to see the cost borne by the taxpayers in the form of huge subsidies (added to our electric bills) at a time when our energy costs are at an all time high.
While I totally agree there is an urgent need for clean energy 'wind' is not the answer
-
This country needs new power stations.
With respect, I think you'll find that is not what we want in Scotland. It's very different here now that the SNP has had a while to make their mark and, with another five years of their government, we can look forward to alternatives to nuclear in this country.
-
This country needs new power stations.
With respect, I think you'll find that is not what we want in Scotland. It's very different here now that the SNP has had a while to make their mark and, with another five years of their government, we can look forward to alternatives to nuclear in this country.
What does the SNP intend to produce Scotlands power?
-
I work for one of the largest companys in the UK for green energy so I know the benefits and i'm all for it and yes most of the largest wind farms are owned by the company I work for and biomass plants
-
Well this is a can of worms :D
problem is that there are too many people with ever increasing energy consumption.
We need to reduce energy consumption not build more power stations.
My feeling of wind farms is that they are a necessary part of the solution to meeting our energy needs. The question of whether they are pretty is irrelevant - although it is the primary motivation of the NIMBYs.
In the last two years the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets have been melting faster even than many of the environmentalists' predictions on global warming had estimated. If we don't reduce our CO2 emissions, large parts of the country will soon be underwater - then the NIMBY's will be the ones demanding why nothing was done sooner.
We now seem to be going flat out to cover the country with wind farms. A recent review of their performance has shown that they only produce 25% of their theoretical maximum and at the time of peak demand (early evening) it is typically less than 10%. This may be because in winter the wind drops after sunset. The same is true if we get high pressure over this country. So it is an unreliable source of electricity.
true- wind will never provide all our power all the time, but it is quite rare that there is no wind anywhere in the country - so when one windfarm is becalmed another one elsewhere in the country will be producing power. It doesn't matter if a windmill isn't producing 100% of it's rated output - they were never expected to - what matters is that they are reducing the amount of power produced by fossil fuels.
now the cost of all this wind power nuclear power is sold for approx 5 pence per unit or cheaper it may not be the safest or the most pretty of constructions but compared to wind power that is sold for 25 pence per unit and is not available 24/7 is a lot cheaper
But that's because nuclear is very substantially subsidised - Alas I don't have figures to quantify how much. While windmills do have a significant carbon footprint (the large concrete base in particular) it is small compared to the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power stations (do you have any idea how many 1000 tons of concrete go into the construction of a nuclear plant?) - let alone the cost of containing nuclear waste - and if you factor in the possible costs incurred in the event of a nuclear accident it gets even worse. Also, even though the mill itself had a lifetime of 25yrs, the concrete base (if properly constructed) can probably be re-used for the mills' replacement.
While I totally agree there is an urgent need for clean energy 'wind' is not the answer
Then what is?
Alas there's no easy answer to that question. And probably no single 'right' answer.
IMHO:
There are too many people - well there's no morally acceptable quick solution to that problem.
The first part of the answer is reducing our consumption (substantially) - insulation, and turning things off. I think we are going to have to get used to living with a lot less. Not just electricity, but transport fuel too.
Fuel for shipping goods (though perhaps not food & medicine) should be taxed - we shouldn't be shipping ore halfway across the world to be turned into metal, then shipping ingots again to where they are turned into machine parts only to ship them back to where they are going to be used. We should be encouraging local production and manufacturing - that's not patriotism - it's simple common sense.
On a more local level we've got a crazy system in parts of this country where high earners who work in the towns live out in the countryside buying up all the rural property, which forces the people who work in agriculture (i.e. in the countryside) to live in the cheaper town properties. It's utter madness to have these people commuting past each other every day.
the trouble is, while it's easy to see these problems, straightening them out is problematic.
m
-
What does the SNP intend to produce Scotlands power?
We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? I don't think it will be nuclear though somehow. If it was me, I'd have lots and lots of wind turbines along our side of the border, all facing south, so that we could generate all of our electricity needs from the hot air coming out of Englandshire, especially after the demise of the union. :D ;D :P
-
What does the SNP intend to produce Scotlands power?
We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? I don't think it will be nuclear though somehow. If it was me, I'd have lots and lots of wind turbines along our side of the border, all facing south, so that we could generate all of our electricity needs from the hot air coming out of Englandshire, especially after the demise of the union. :D ;D :P
Brilliant thinking, I'm with you! ;D
-
I have no problem with the look of wind turbines. In fact I quite like to see them. The problem is the noise from them that you just can't get away from.
-
Scanned through this thread with interest. I think the biggest problem with them is the unknown. When an applicAtion pops up in your area the fear is that you just don't know how these things are going to affect your life. The other biggest unknown is the health implications. There is evidence out there that these things cause quite severe symptoms of I'll health leading to serious complications. Our government is doing a good job at the moment of ignoring warnings. The World Health Organisation is recommending that no turbine should be located within 2km of a dwelling to prevent these health issues.
Farmers are being approached all the time, and the carrot is the pennies! My problem with this is that the farmer then does not need to farm and land is left idle.
I am pretty much on the fence with them but really don't think they are the answer.
The real problem facing us is population growth and demand for energy. We need to tackle these issues. What bothers me more than erection of turbines is the colossal loss of quality agricultural land to low quality housing. I don't know the figures but acres and acres are torn up everyday reducing this countries ability to produce food. It's crazy.
-
I work for a renewable energy compony as ellisr does. We need more power and I would prefer it to come from a renewable source but the government are making things increasingly difficult for developers now, with the change in the Feed-In Tarrif. We have lots of turbines in Cornwall ... I don't mind them and livestock can still graze around them etc so apart from visually, the impact on the land is minimal.
I just can't understand why people would be so against further sites ... I'm not keen on seeing fields and fields of pilons, or the local water treatment works, but I understand that their essential for the things that I take for granted.
-
What does the SNP intend to produce Scotlands power?
We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? I don't think it will be nuclear though somehow. If it was me, I'd have lots and lots of wind turbines along our side of the border, all facing south, so that we could generate all of our electricity needs from the hot air coming out of Englandshire, especially after the demise of the union. :D ;D :P
Ah, no change then, you still intend to sponge off rely on the english should 'independence' come about
-
Then what is?
Alas there's no easy answer to that question. And probably no single 'right' answer.
IMHO:
There are too many people - well there's no morally acceptable quick solution to that problem.
While there are no 'easy answers' the total reliance on wind for our energy needs is certainly not the answer, tidal turbines should recieve as much encouragment as possible as should other forms of sea powered generation, biomass? yes if it is produced on poor quaility land and not prime arable, waste incinerators (including sewage, as is done in scotland) ar another possible part of the solution, but we would have to exempt ourselves from the relevant EU restrictions, there are many solutions, but the drive to wind, driven purely by the subsidy and high profits wants knocking on the head pronto.
More work on birth contorl in the developing world coiuld also be part of the solution
-
<<More work on birth contorl in the developing world coiuld also be part of the solution>>
Have you noticed how family size is on the increase in Britain? In the 70s the aspirational size of a family was 2 children and the average was 2.4. I don't know the current figures, so it's just an impression but many young families now have 3 children or more, and 3 seems to be the aspirational size. So is our population rising? In which case we should be addressing our own birth control. Which of course brings us back to immigration/emigration ratios as another way to control our population size - all of which is impinging on the rights of the individual, a moral dilemma. My personal view is that in the interests of humanity as a whole, we may have to reduce the rights of the individual when it comes to matters which affect us all.
As several people have commented in this thread, we as a nation need - in fact have to reduce our energy consumption to fit in with what we can produce. We use far far more energy in many ways than we did even twenty years ago, and so much of it is wasted or unnecessary - this is where we need to do more work, by a mix of legislation, education and pricing, to reduce our energy greed.
-
Yes, but will other countries do the same? ::)
-
Yes, but will other countries do the same? ::)
Well take China, taking a very responsible (if controversial) approach to population growth but building two coal fired stations per month! makes our efforts seem to be a to be a waste of time, and the projected world population going up by a third by 2050? are we in effect peeing into the wind?
-
strange our wind farm has a 50% rating and has paid for itself in 5 years or so. we are just about to have one installed at no cost we get the free power. its good to have a nice view but its better not to have a £2400 power bill.
-
strange our wind farm has a 50% rating and has paid for itself in 5 years or so. we are just about to have one installed at no cost we get the free power. its good to have a nice view but its better not to have a £2400 power bill.
Is it situated in the Shetlands though? and if so, given that rate of efficiency no doubt your nice Mr Salmond will soon have both the Shetlands and the Orkney's covered with wind turbines
:)
-
No, I think I heard him say he was keen to see them offshore. And yes, he is VERY nice, I've met him twice, first time wandering round a local fair and stopped to watch the dog show, and chat to owners about their dogs, second at an SNP event - equally relaxed. Completely natural and extremely fond and proud of his country of birth - as I am!
-
Completely natural and extremely fond and proud of his country of birth - as I am!
So am I, I just don't feel the need to emphasise the point.
-
Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this? England, Wales and Scotland share an island and we all have to face the problems of population and energy. Slinging mud across the border achieves nothing - lets work together
-
Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?
No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?
-
Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?
No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?
And I object to the implications that Scotland is being feather bedded - is that really what you are saying? Anyway, I think if you read all the reports you will see that not ALL Scots want independence (I think it's about 50/50 at the moment, and a lot depends on what happens in the next couple of years) - the Union would be a great thing if there wasn't such bias towards England by the Westminster Governement. We need more devolution for all four sections of our Union, then there would be a fair system in place. You would be happy, I would be happy, but there are always moaners. ;D
-
Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?
No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?
And I object to the implications that Scotland is being feather bedded - is that really what you are saying?
Scotland, Ireland and Wales all benefit from the Barnett formula, now given that Salmond brags that Scotland has one of the highest regional GDPs do you think that is appropiate?
Anyway, I think if you read all the reports you will see that not ALL Scots want independence (I think it's about 50/50 at the moment, and a lot depends on what happens in the next couple of years) -
Aye, and rest assured that Salmond will use the extra funding to make sure the Scots enjoy a higher standard of living than the rest of us and by doing so, con more and more Scots into voting for independence
the Union would be a great thing if there wasn't such bias towards England by the Westminster Governement. We need more devolution for all four sections of our Union, then there would be a fair system in place. You would be happy, I would be happy, but there are always moaners. ;D
I agree about the Union however I feel devolution is not the answer, better representation yes, but not devolution
-
being English in Shetland im all in favour of more independence. after all how would England have coped in the 1980s without Shetlands oil. England has milked Shetlands oil and fish. your in hock to us for trillions. So its best not to start making out how generous you have been to the backwards cousins. When England commits to producing a 100% of its power needs from renewables. you will be able to lecture us.
-
Then what is?
Alas there's no easy answer to that question. And probably no single 'right' answer.
IMHO:
There are too many people - well there's no morally acceptable quick solution to that problem.
While there are no 'easy answers' the total reliance on wind for our energy needs is certainly not the answer, tidal turbines should recieve as much encouragment as possible as should other forms of sea powered generation, biomass? yes if it is produced on poor quaility land and not prime arable, waste incinerators (including sewage, as is done in scotland) ar another possible part of the solution, but we would have to exempt ourselves from the relevant EU restrictions, there are many solutions, but the drive to wind, driven purely by the subsidy and high profits wants knocking on the head pronto.
I agree - wind alone is not the answer, and we should be developing all the renewable technologies as you say; but the british isles (I'm staying out of whole Scottish devolution issue BTW ;) ) are uniquely well placed in Europe for wind energy - particularly offshore wind energy - so there is some justification for pushing that particular technology here, as you'd push solar in spain. Having said that I must concede that the same argument holds true for tidal and wave energy, but perhaps the technology or those is less well developed ATM.
<<More work on birth contorl in the developing world coiuld also be part of the solution>>
Have you noticed how family size is on the increase in Britain? In the 70s the aspirational size of a family was 2 children and the average was 2.4. I don't know the current figures, so it's just an impression but many young families now have 3 children or more, and 3 seems to be the aspirational size. So is our population rising? In which case we should be addressing our own birth control. Which of course brings us back to immigration/emigration ratios as another way to control our population size - all of which is impinging on the rights of the individual, a moral dilemma. My personal view is that in the interests of humanity as a whole, we may have to reduce the rights of the individual when it comes to matters which affect us all.
Very true!
Having children should be viewed as a privilege rather than a right, but we need gov't's to start discouraging large families (by introducing financial incentives for e.g), but politicians are timid when it comes to suggesting such unpopular policies (note recent controversy about restricting child support).
mab
-
being English in Shetland im all in favour of more independence. after all how would England have coped in the 1980s without Shetlands oil. England has milked Shetlands oil and fish. your in hock to us for trillions. So its best not to start making out how generous you have been to the backwards cousins. When England commits to producing a 100% of its power needs from renewables. you will be able to lecture us.
Shetlands oil? makes a change from "Scotlands oil" in fact its British oil just as the RBS bailout is a british problem
-
back on topic,
you work it out.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/ene-energy (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/ene-energy)
-
nope. it Shetlands. Shetland was only ever loaned to scotland to cover a marrage debt. It never became scottish so never became British. Most of the oil from the north sea and that being taken from the east and soon west of shetland falls within its recognised territorial waters. Shetland had its own laws and language until the Scots took over and imposed there will. just as the scots and irish are not over fond of the English. The same is felt for Scotland up here. In fact there is a small independence movement that want to be free from scottish/british and eu rule. in fact a lot would prefer to be part of norway than the uk.
were is the english oil fields and gas.
-
back on topic
nuclear waste generation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated)
spot the pattern....
would u like it buried in your back yard?
better than a wind farm that COULD be temporary whilst we develop truly green energy?
-
I've only just sat down with a cuppa to read this thread. Up until it went off topic I was full of warmth and admiration for all contributors, all opinions thoughtfully and level-headedly expressed. Green energy and particularly wind energy has been a bit of an interest of mine for a few years now, ever since I saw the eerily beautiful installation near Llandysul and discovered how proud the local people were of their (then) unusual adornment of the skyline.
Subsequently I lived in an area of North Devon where a 1-mile chain of them was proposed along a ridge. I suggested the 'Say YES to WIND' poster campaign and was amazed and pleased at how many people did put up a 'Yes' poster. (Many didn't and at least some of them feared their neighbours' reaction to any positive support and so were closet supporters.)
We looked into a farm-scale windmill at my previous farm. There are not very many places more windy on mainland Britain so it seemed sensible to look into it. In our case, we decided against having realised that yes, they don't boil kettles. They're great for all that 'background' consumption (lights, computers, TVs) but anything drawing kilowatts per hour will sap them very quickly. So no we couldn't harness the wind to cook or to heat the farmhouse. Since we were by no means frugal in our use of electricity we concluded that by the time we'd concreted a platform on one of our few bits of good ground, overall we and the planet would be better off if we just got more efficient at using the energy we paid for. There were other issues, such as you couldn't realistically have one that both paid you for excess electricity and was available to you in the event of a power cut, and such as it was not possible to predict if there would be a whine. (Some do and some don't, apparently.) Financially we would have been better off going for it, but only because of the grant support available at the time. And we could make similar savings by turning things off a bit more...
Later we looked at a community-sized one, owned by the community, using the wind on our land. This was a much better idea but the site was unsuitable because we were so far (2.5km) from a connection where we could feed into the grid. A group of people are still looking into this option but it will not be on that farm.
We saw the windmills on Orkney and were led to believe that further development of exportable windpower on Orkney requires a bigger pipe to take the electricity back to the mainland. So again, a windy site is too remote to be, at this point, practicable as an energy-generating resource except in a local context.
-
A couple of points to enhance your education on Scotland, Coley. ;)
There are no such places as 'The Orkneys' or 'The Shetlands', as you describe them. They are correctly known as either The Shetland Isles, or Shetland, and The Orkney Isles, or Orkney.
You say you are a unionist, yet you say if Scotland wants independence we should get on with it and not wait four years. Surely, as a devolved government, the SNP have the ball at their feet and can decide, for Scotland, when we shall hold the referendum. This is something you can't control and must wait for.
I suspect your racist and class attitudes extend beyond the 'Pikeys' and horse owners, and you may, like many other English people still domiciled in Englandshire, view us Scots as an inferior people. I hope I am wrong.
Scotland has always been a thorn in the side of the English government with the West Lothian question. Isn't it awful, and shockingly unfair, that Scots MPs should have a say on English matters in Westminster? Yet the English decided on all Scottish matters for three hundred years, during which time we did not have our own parliament.
I'm afraid, Coley, the time is fast approaching when the Scots will be the sole deciders of what is good for us, and whether or not we wish to continue to be servile to covetous, overbearing neighbours, or whether we shall declare ourselves free and the architects of our own destiny.
Perhaps that will be the best thing that's ever happened to Englandshire. You will be able to spend all your own money without having to subsidise us. You will be able to argue the points of debate in London without interference from our MPs. You will be able to say you are English, not British, and you will be able to embrace your nationality and be proud of who you are...once you have identified those points.
You will have your very own queen to reign over you, and you can be secure in the knowledge that you are all subjects of hers, and you can have all your union flags back from us, if you want them. We may even have a few Tory MPs to spare, if you need them.
I think it will be good for Englandshire to be free of the Scots, and the Welsh. You'll still have a bit of Ireland to keep you all occupied. :D
-
From a Dundee lass living in the Borders, that was superb Mr Og :D
-
I agree, well said from a very proud Scots ;D :wave:
-
Pure dead brilliant, as my old Dad used to say! He was Glaswegian, a proud Scot, and SNP member; my Mum was an Aberdonian, also a proud Scot; me, I'm a half caste - and a very new SNP Member. All of us very proud of the heritage that not many countries can aspire to.
Yours for Scotland
Annie
-
Shetland had its own laws and language until the Scots took over and imposed there will. just as the scots and irish are not over fond of the English. The same is felt for Scotland up here
Whey, if thr Scots do get 'independence' then it seems they will have the same problems as they are presenting us :) go for it ;D
-
I am finding the arguments and counter-arguments all very interesting re: the independence of Scotland etc.
But I really wish someone (who knows how to) could and would split this thread into two so that the also very interesting original thread on wind power could continue on for those of us with no particular axe to grind on the national borders issues.
Happy to be over-ruled if that is not the majority opinion! ;) :D
-
A couple of points to enhance your education on Scotland, Coley. ;)
There are no such places as 'The Orkneys' or 'The Shetlands', as you describe them. They are correctly known as either The Shetland Isles, or Shetland, and The Orkney Isles, or Orkney.
You say you are a unionist, yet you say if Scotland wants independence we should get on with it and not wait four years. Surely, as a devolved government, the SNP have the ball at their feet and can decide, for Scotland, when we shall hold the referendum. This is something you can't control and must wait for.
I suspect your racist and class attitudes extend beyond the 'Pikeys' and horse owners, and you may, like many other English people still domiciled in Englandshire, view us Scots as an inferior people. I hope I am wrong.
Scotland has always been a thorn in the side of the English government with the West Lothian question. Isn't it awful, and shockingly unfair, that Scots MPs should have a say on English matters in Westminster? Yet the English decided on all Scottish matters for three hundred years, during which time we did not have our own parliament.
I'm afraid, Coley, the time is fast approaching when the Scots will be the sole deciders of what is good for us, and whether or not we wish to continue to be servile to covetous, overbearing neighbours, or whether we shall declare ourselves free and the architects of our own destiny.
Perhaps that will be the best thing that's ever happened to Englandshire. You will be able to spend all your own money without having to subsidise us. You will be able to argue the points of debate in London without interference from our MPs. You will be able to say you are English, not British, and you will be able to embrace your nationality and be proud of who you are...once you have identified those points.
You will have your very own queen to reign over you, and you can be secure in the knowledge that you are all subjects of hers, and you can have all your union flags back from us, if you want them. We may even have a few Tory MPs to spare, if you need them.
I think it will be good for Englandshire to be free of the Scots, and the Welsh. You'll still have a bit of Ireland to keep you all occupied. :D
Thank you Angus for the info re; the Shetland isles, I always appreciate extra knowledge, now I imagine you will agree with me a newly independent Scotland would surely accede to an independence movements request for an independence referendum in those Isles?
As for the rest of your reply, well what can I say? my mother and her parents were Scottish, as for the timing of the referendum, if you and your countrymen really desire to throw off the yoke of us tyrannical English why wait? vote now and throw off your chains, cast down your manacles, or is it the fear you could end up like Ireland, no, carry on hedging your bets, why rush things when you can carry on having your cake and eating it ;D
-
I am finding the arguments and counter-arguments all very interesting re: the independence of Scotland etc.
But I really wish someone (who knows how to) could and would split this thread into two so that the also very interesting original thread on wind power could continue on for those of us with no particular axe to grind on the national borders issues.
Happy to be over-ruled if that is not the majority opinion! ;) :D
[/quote
Sorry ;D
-
Thanks, Coley. Accepted! :)
-
Yup, all apologies from you, Coley, also accepted by me ;) ;D Are you and your parents good swimmers, btw? ;) ;D
-
in 1979 or whenever it was Shetland opted to remain in the union. the legal system was based on the rights of the common person. the king was the head of state but he did not own the land. hence the crown estates are a big issue up here. they milk each fish farm and any water born renewables for the uk goverment. this is against udal law were the sea bed belongs to no one.
The 1669 Act of Annexation was a Parliamentary Act passed during 1669 by the Parliament of Scotland to establish Orkney and Shetland's status as Crown Dependencies following a legal dispute with William, Earl of Morton, who held the estates of Orkney and Shetland.
The Act made Orkney and Shetland exempt from any "dissolution of His Majesty’s lands". In 1742 a further Act of Parliament returned the estates to a later Earl of Morton, however, the original act of Parliament specifically proscribes this, stating that any such change is to be "considered null, void and of no effect".
The 1669 Act specifically removed Orkney and Shetland from the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament and places it firmly in the care of the Crown, restoring the situation as it was 200 years prior at the time of the pawning of the islands by King Christian I of Denmark/Norway to Scotland's James III
intresting reading if you can be bothered
http://www.udallaw.com/udalprogress.htm (http://www.udallaw.com/udalprogress.htm)
-
in 1979 or whenever it was Shetland opted to remain in the union. the legal system was based on the rights of the common person. the king was the head of state but he did not own the land. hence the crown estates are a big issue up here. they milk each fish farm and any water born renewables for the uk goverment. this is against udal law were the sea bed belongs to no one.
The 1669 Act of Annexation was a Parliamentary Act passed during 1669 by the Parliament of Scotland to establish Orkney and Shetland's status as Crown Dependencies following a legal dispute with William, Earl of Morton, who held the estates of Orkney and Shetland.
The Act made Orkney and Shetland exempt from any "dissolution of His Majesty’s lands". In 1742 a further Act of Parliament returned the estates to a later Earl of Morton, however, the original act of Parliament specifically proscribes this, stating that any such change is to be "considered null, void and of no effect".
The 1669 Act specifically removed Orkney and Shetland from the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament and places it firmly in the care of the Crown, restoring the situation as it was 200 years prior at the time of the pawning of the islands by King Christian I of Denmark/Norway to Scotland's James III
Very interesting, If there is ever a vote on independence than clearly the Orkney and Shetland Isles should have their own options.
intresting reading if you can be bothered
http://www.udallaw.com/udalprogress.htm (http://www.udallaw.com/udalprogress.htm)
-
And back to wind farms........
I have passed a few turbines being taken down the M5 towards Devon in the last week so there must be a new farm being built down there which I personally think is a good thing
-
Shetland has progressed since then Paul. Dont bring those Forvik nut cases lot into a friendly forum. Most folk on Shetland laugh at them. It is a scam to claim money out of folks, thats all . Hope you have not sent them money to plant a tree on a rock the leader is conning everybody around the world with. Strange cult type person he is just stirring trouble , thats why he gets his cars smashed etc. Nothing to do with windfarms , keep your Shetland opinions to Shetlink the Shetland forum. If it was up to Shetland the oil would still be underwater , we cant even make a fuse for the vac in the Sullom Voe Canteen, we owe the oil companies a lot ... or would you go back to gravel tracks and no fires in the schools, no subsidised transport etc etc. Shetland is well off at the moment dont knock it. You were not here before oil or fish farms so leave those opinions to those who lived in the conditions that Shetlanders suffered before, they bless the oil and the fish farms.
Back to windfarms please.
-
Dan should be able to split this thread I think.
-
Shetland has progressed since then Paul. Dont bring those Forvik nut cases lot into a friendly forum. Most folk on Shetland laugh at them. It is a scam to claim money out of folks, thats all . Hope you have not sent them money to plant a tree on a rock the leader is conning everybody around the world with. Strange cult type person he is just stirring trouble , thats why he gets his cars smashed etc. Nothing to do with windfarms , keep your Shetland opinions to Shetlink the Shetland forum. If it was up to Shetland the oil would still be underwater , we cant even make a fuse for the vac in the Sullom Voe Canteen, we owe the oil companies a lot ... or would you go back to gravel tracks and no fires in the schools, no subsidised transport etc etc. Shetland is well off at the moment dont knock it. You were not here before oil or fish farms so leave those opinions to those who lived in the conditions that Shetlanders suffered before, they bless the oil and the fish farms.
Back to windfarms please.
thats just the point they were ground down by the incoming overlords. simular to how the scots were treated by the english. if a population is hammered for hundreds of years it takes time for them to escape that mentality
anyway back to the wind farm issue. in shetland there was 20 odd idividual planning applications either waiting for or been granted approval last time i looked. For those south there is a very heated debate over a mega windfarm that the council and scottish and southern are planning to build with a massive converter station to pipe the energy south.. Its split the community so there are plenty of good things alternative energy supplies can do but it needs handling carefully.
its quite possible that shetland and the north and west of scotland will be covered by large and small farms and single turbines. is this wrong personnally i don't think so.
-
While I see nowt wrong in wind farms being part of our energy supply package, its the way politicians and the energy companies see it as the only way of meeting our carbon emissions target (why they set our sights so high I cant understand) there are many other solutions out there which attract little investment or interest, undersea turbines seem much more practicable, coal gasification, shale gas and many other alternatives and yet still we insist on building these white elephants
-
I have followed this thread and some seem to be getting quite het up about it. Mud slinging across the border Scotland v England, we are all the one nation and should work together. Yes, the English did think that they were better than the Scots way back, but is it not time that what was in the past, stays in the past, and learn to move forward for all concerned, and not be like Ireland where the catholics v prodestants. Or is it a case of "you wish". This is just my thoughts on this.
-
we are all the one nation and should work together.
Totally agree ;D
-
While I see nowt wrong in wind farms being part of our energy supply package, its the way politicians and the energy companies see it as the only way of meeting our carbon emissions target
I'm not sure I see that they do see it as the only way, it's always a part of the solution. Can't be anything else really. There's been a lot of funding for solar and ground source schemes and a lot of research support for wave power, to mention just a few other sources that government have shown support for.
On the one hand it seems silly not to capture that energy that's blowing around 'for free' - just the cost of the installation, of course. But I don't think anyone has ever really suggested we can power the country just on wind. The anti's like to pretend that that's the argument, of course, because it's easy to get people to agree that you can't run the country on wind and make it sound as though the anti lobby are winning the debate.
-
Well, I am off line a lot lately and know very little about politics or power stations/wind farms etc so I have been reading to get more info, unfortunatley all I have picked up is the horrid attitude and think some of the hot air generated on here could certainly power a computer at least. Has knowone an understanding that the politictions in power are the decision makers and not the people who live in the country, it is so sad that the discussion changed direction into a slagging match and I do not find it at all helpful!!
I just want to point out, very few people will be privy to all knowledge on both sides of the fence, most of us can be pursuaded to swing the way people in power want them to swing and usualy for their benifit.
There are two sides to every story! THe best quote out of all of this in my opinion is :-
England, Wales and Scotland share an island and we all have to face the problems of population and energy. Slinging mud across the border achieves nothing - lets work together
I am an English women living in Scotland with a Scotish Grandad, an Irish Grandma and a Welsh mum, so, ::) confused.com!!
-
As my other half is always saying when something bad happens in the world, We are doomed whatever way we go. Not enough has been done in the past to take care of the plannet. It has always been about making money before the welfare of the common man/woman. We try to do our bit but as someone has already said, what about the rest of the world. The future of our children and grand children looks bleak with no jobs, not enough food being produced now in our own country plus their is very little pride now on being British, what do we produce in this country most of our factory's have been closed and now are abroad because of cheap labour. Why was that allowed to happen. A fair pay for a good days work should be the right of everyone but life is not like that. I have worked all my life, some of the jobs I did when my kids were young the money was terrible, in 1975 i had an evening job in a hotel that paid 45 1/2 pence an hour. I worked very hard, no dishwasher. There were only 2 of us on at a time but we had a laugh and I was earning something towards the household bills. I have never been on the dole and it must be heartbreaking for the kids today who want to work but there is nothing out there. How do they plan for a future when everything looks so bleak.
-
I think prospects are poor for most of us at the moment Sabrina! we are encouraged to want more so we spend more and then need more power, its the politictions often in the pockets of powerful industrialists (is that the word I am looking for?) the few rich in any country actualy rule, we, well most of us, get brain washed into having more than we can afford. At least as a member of th e UK we have a fairish governemt, or do we???? Not too long ago we all found what those nice politicitons were creaming off and what the bankers were doing with our money, so how can we argue who/what is good and who/what is bad for OUR world!!
-
While I see nowt wrong in wind farms being part of our energy supply package, its the way politicians and the energy companies see it as the only way of meeting our carbon emissions target
I'm not sure I see that they do see it as the only way, it's always a part of the solution. Can't be anything else really. There's been a lot of funding for solar and ground source schemes and a lot of research support for wave power, to mention just a few other sources that government have shown support for.
Not disagreeing that wind should be part of the package, its the emphasis on wind to the detriment of other sources, wind farms are popping up like mushrooms on a cow pat while other sources of energy are, if they are lucky, just at the development or pilot stage
-
And back to wind farms........
I have passed a few turbines being taken down the M5 towards Devon in the last week so there must be a new farm being built down there which I personally think is a good thing
Thats the other annoying thing, our politicians claim we are at the 'leading edge' of green technology but I will bet you half a dollar those turbines you saw are produced overseas ???
-
Well, I've had a sound history/political lesson :) :) but the fact still remains that we waste too much fuel. Surely the answer is to put the price up to such a rate that people will begin to think of their own alternatives. I brought up my children in the back of beyond with no electricity, gas, telephone or mains water. We did very well and so could others. Save the energy for hospitals etc. which couldn't do without it. Or am I talking enough hot air to power a town! :-\
-
Sylvia NOW for a financial lesson the biggest electricity co in the world is general electric (they have more money than a horse could Shiite) i fail to see why any sane person would contemplate showering these mega rich company's with more money there latest acquisition was the wood group (big Aberdeen oil supply co) paying something like a billion to get it (somebody may correct me) it was not ten bob and a twix GE bought into everything that was making money one of them was plant hire and leasing and the money that was lost on both ventures was phenomenal
now you may want to gift these bar stewards your money but I DONT FUEL IN ANY FORM IS TO EXPENCIVE
AND THE POLITICIANS THEY WERE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE THE ONLY THING IS WE ARE STUCK WITH THEM FOR THERE TERM IN OFFICE OR UNTIL THEY SLIDE ON THERE ARSE IN THE GRAVEY TRAIN
the trams in our capital is a prime example of graft greed and gravy :( :( :(
-
We will work together, as equals. ;)
-
now you may want to gift these bar stewards your money but I DONT FUEL IN ANY FORM IS TO EXPENCIVE
Too true, and the 'renewable subsidy' is another cash cow being busily milked, its one thing to provide a subsidy so that renewables can compete on a level playing field but there must be one helluva profit to be made given how all these scams are springing up, want a solar panel on your roof anyone?
-
Well said coley, that is why my valley will remain turbine free... oil company to turbine company dughhhh. People bang on about leccy and power companies then put the dishwasher on!!!! who pays for technology and then is jealous of the folk making money out of it. dughhh. All senseless to me unless you cut the cord and go powerless (excepting those freezers full of a years of meat ) The only turbines I will have on my land are self sufficiency ones that have battery back up for me and no one else.
Question .... do insurance companies insure freezers on windpower , cause thats a lot to me ,my freezers being the only concern. I would live on oil lamps and R ayburn otherwise.
-
We will work together, as equals. ;)
Of course, who could say or think differently :)
-
The only turbines I will have on my land are self sufficiency ones that have battery back up for me and no one else.
Looked into that, bliddy expensive though and complicated into the bargain but it was the unreliability of it that put me off in the end.
But dishwashers! anyone who has contributed to this thread and who owns a dishwasher wants to feel a thousand shames ::)
-
Well said coley, that is why my valley will remain turbine free... oil company to turbine company dughhhh. People bang on about leccy and power companies then put the dishwasher on!!!! who pays for technology and then is jealous of the folk making money out of it. dughhh. All senseless to me unless you cut the cord and go powerless (excepting those freezers full of a years of meat ) The only turbines I will have on my land are self sufficiency ones that have battery back up for me and no one else.
Question .... do insurance companies insure freezers on windpower , cause thats a lot to me ,my freezers being the only concern. I would live on oil lamps and R ayburn otherwise.
you valley? there is a turbine just across the road from you. the grindins are having two and we are having one. and there will be more. have you looked at your stream it does not take a lot of water to generate enough power for what you want. i think your daughter may object to living without power. i agree the dishwasher is a waste of power and time. thou if the power for the dishwasher comes from a green source and it can produce enough to run it then it causes no harm. if you have a turbine why object to selling your spare power its just the same as selling anything else you produce on your croft.
-
The turbine for the hall is not on my land, you and the grindins are in the next valley and they have been refused as I believe so many folk objected. No one else lives in my valley above me so it will remain turbine free. We are into self sufficiency and will go for an independant turbine for our use if we ever get one, with battery storage. We are taking a back seat at the moment as all we hear are bad stories and regrets with grid connected ones from cracked towers to having to wait three days to be connected again after power cuts, that is why I asked about insurance for freezers . There has been talk about a small windfarm (5 to 6) being set up by a neighbour to set him up for life selling leccy , good luck to him. I would go powerless if it was not for the freezers and the boiler pump, we dont use a fridge much at all,when it goes we wont replace it, no appliances in the kitchen except an emergency leccy cooker for when the rayburn is not playing , only one telly that goes on for the news at teatime then gets switched off. We dont use much at all really, we actually went to look at a house that was off grid, off water and off sewer , it was fab but Sarah would have objected, especially about hair straighteners being fire tongues as they used to be! For the leccy we use, a self sufficient, self bought turbine would be seven thousand that is up , connected and running. If you go for a grant they can be up to 30 odd thousand ???We have looked at the stream especially the waterfall but the archaeology around there means I cant even plant a tree on the burn. The pump house had a feasability study done on it for the hall to make leccy using a turbine as it is still connected to the loch and the grid, it was ok , now we own the pump house so that could be an option as well.
-
i was wondering why it was taking them so long to get planning. if you were to share the power from the pump house with the hall they could get grants to cover most of the cost. I was a little surprised that they were planning to put them on the same hill as the standing stone. if they had brought them to the front then it should have passed.
with the smart grid that they are planning think carefully about sticking to a battery system. it would be slightly daft using older tech when they are going to spend millions on newer storage systems.
who is thinking of putting up a 5 turbine farm there are only a couple of folks who have enough land to cope with that level of turbines. they would have problems connecting to the grid as well. the only way that they will get connected is if the viking scheme is built. they have to allow upto 3. something to be connected ours is a 5mw so may need limiting.
an alternative would be a larger community one that would support the houses at skeld. have you looked at air/ground source pumps.
-
Whatever we feel about them near us I think we can not avoid them. I absolutely approve if they are community owned - even if we don't earn a million soon ;D- but I do have problems with the giant farms which are privately owned. Our neighbours set a single turbine up last year and it just made so much noise that they had to take it down again. I hope the replacement will work better and be quiet, then I won't mind... :&>
-
Whatever we feel about them near us I think we can not avoid them. I absolutely approve if they are community owned - even if we don't earn a million soon ;D- but I do have problems with the giant farms which are privately owned. Our neighbours set a single turbine up last year and it just made so much noise that they had to take it down again. I hope the replacement will work better and be quiet, then I won't mind... :&>
That is the other annoying thing, no matter how much local objection there is the plans nearly always get approval, usually at great expense to the local authorities involved.
-
That is not the case here. People seem to object out of principle which I think it not the right attitude. Most plans were rejected. :&>
-
surely the point about renewables is the environmental impact. currently britain produces 18% of its electric from nuclear energy, and is the worlds second worse generator of nuclear waste, currently millions of tonnes. there is no strategy in place for disposal so its all stored above ground at places lke sellafield. this is happenng right now and will only get worse.
the rest of our energy bar about 8% of green energy is fossil fuel.
wnd turbines, water turbines whatever have to be better than the above.
id be much happier knowing our whole country was covered in turbines rather than nuclear waste, left for our childrens childrens children adinfinitum.
get a grip on reality please, this debate is rapidly depressing me due to the nimbyism and naievety on show.fgs
-
get a grip on reality please, this debate is rapidly depressing me due to the nimbyism and naievety on show.fgs
Its not 'nimbyism' its about a huge scam being perpetrated in the name of 'clean energy' what provides the power when the wind drops, fgs,? fossil fuel or nuclear thats what. offshore wind is a lot more reliable than onshore but it doesnt provide the same profit due to higher installation costs, so we are being lumbered with these huge monstrosities blotting our landscape purely in the name of profit.
-
funnily Shetland is a trial site for energy storage from green energy. there is a 1 mw battery being installed and thermal water tanks for district heating and all council housing and housing association are being fitted with new storage heaters and smart meters. Not the cure for no wind but a good buffer. with the advance of tidal and wave technology then the grid will not need to just depend on wind. having gas as the backup would help as it does not need to be on line as much as coal.
a lot of anti wind farm is nimbyism our anti windfarm group argues over peat disturbance but fails to mention the amount of peat being moved to build the new total gas plant. they argue over animal life but failed to mention the said gas plant is on a very densely populated otter coast with lots of important wildlife. there main real issue is money. the Shetland islands council is investing 40% into this scheme.
-
I can never quite see why, just because wind cannot meet all of the energy needs, some people think that means we shouldn't use wind power at all.
Surely if wind can supply a percentage of our energy needs then that means that we need less fossil fuel or nuclear?
-
I agree with a few on here that we need a more balanced view on producing energy. We need solar energy, wind, and water too, in order to be able to stop using nuclear plants and their possible ensuing disasters, and also to stop taking fossils fuels out of the ground again with possible impendign disasters - I often wonder if that is why we now have so many floods and earthquakes. Something has to fill those dirty great holes, hasn't it?
-
''so we are being lumbered with these huge monstrosities blotting our landscape purely in the name of profit.''
nimbyism...
the point is that wind turbines are part of a TEMPORARY solution whilst other tech is developed like the hydrogen fuel cell, salt water osmosis plants etc etc
nuclear waste is a PERMANENT legacy
fossil fuels are PERMANENTLY depleted
pass the prozac will u FFS!!!!!
-
I can never quite see why, just because wind cannot meet all of the energy needs, some people think that means we shouldn't use wind power at all.
Surely if wind can supply a percentage of our energy needs then that means that we need less fossil fuel or nuclear
That's it in a nutshell for me.
-
''so we are being lumbered with these huge monstrosities blotting our landscape purely in the name of profit.''
nimbyism...
Rubbish, if wind farms were the solution (and at an earlier stage in my life I thought they were) then the drive would be to build them offshore where they have a much greater production to capacity ratio, but a little thought reveals they are being hoyed up as quickly as possible to catch the subsidy and not to provide energy security.
whilst other tech is developed like the hydrogen fuel cell, salt water osmosis plants etc etc
You missed nuclear ;D
-
so youd happly have a nuclear power station n your back yard?
or maybe you could take advantage of the subsdy to store nuclear waste assuming you could gaurantee its security for the next 100000 years.
im not sayng wind power is THE solution just part of one.
ive got turbines all around me and they just remind me how lucky i am not to be lookng at a nuclear power plant.
there is no long term future for nuclear power we cant even work out what to do with the waste and the risks are blatantly obvious, arent welsh sheep still checked for radiation years after the fall out from chernobyl?
here in cornwall we have the first solar farm being built, and the wave hub off hayle to allow development of these power sources, in the mean time build wind farms, everywhere.
-
deepinthewoods the welsh sheep the cumbrian sheep the scottish sheep(2 sites) and i am sure others as well were not only checked for radiation but were not allowed into the food chain
-
Sheep in Upper Clydesdale have just (this year) been cleared to enter the food chain, 25 years on.
-
so youd happly have a nuclear power station n your back yard?
Given the possible alternatives? yes, I would have no problems having a modern NPS built locally
in the mean time build wind farms, everywhere.
Aye, but you (and nobody else) has answered the problem of where do we go for power when the wind drops, per GW generated, Nuclear is the safest form of power we have.
-
I apologies if someone has already mentioned this, there are so many responses here that I've not the time to read through them all, but for what its worth, my view is that we all need to use much less energy. That way perhaps our needs could be met via renewables. This is an age of conspicuous consumption, too many energy guzzling gadgets and machines. We need to stop relying on them and get back to basics. The only electrical items I have in my kitchen are a kettle (used when range not lit) a toaster and a washing machine. I have no microwave, no tumble dryer, no dishwasher etc. Perhaps we should all cut back on our gadgets, and think twice before we go and buy an item we 'need' because were 'too busy'. We all have that excuse! As for Windfarms, I don't have a problem with them on the whole, there are plenty here in windy north Wales, but I do object to the fact that most of them are there not because the Government and the energy companies (if there's any real distinction between two !!!) care about the environment but because there is serious money to be made out of them - the landowners included. It might be an idea to all have our own small wind turbines on our roofs and a couple of solar panels to heat the water - and make do with what we can get from them. Cheers all
-
Oh for God's sake - Nuclear SAFE? Are you off you're damned head? Of course it may be (relatively) safe for you personally if you don't live near one, but goodness knows how many folk are suffering from cancer because of the bloody things - and look what is happening in Japan - didin't you see the messages sent by those select few who stayed behind to try to make the plant safe - saying goodbye to their families? They knew that they were putting their lives at risk, but stayed behind to try to protect the rest of their countrymen and the world - but this is only temporary because if the spent fuel storage repositories are compromised in anyway we are ALL doomed! Blooming things are going to be the undoing of the World regardless of what else we do in the way of power generation1 Wake up, man!
I cannot believe that apparently sensible, logical, thinking people would EVER say they are SAFE!
-
Oh for God's sake - Nuclear SAFE? Are you off you're damned head?
No, tell me how many were killed or injured in the 3 mile island incident or how many have been killed by the Japanese meltdown? instead of lashing out with hysterical outbursts just have a look at the actual number of people killed or injured by nuclear generation and compare that number with, for instance, those killed in coal mining in the same period.
I cannot believe that apparently sensible, logical, thinking people would EVER say they are SAFE!
Comparatively safe, and a helluva safer than the consequences of running out of power, ever thought of those consequences?
-
I used to be well against nuclear power due to our inability to look after spent fuel and the fact we were using dodgy designs - but gone are the days of the zx-81 - we have progressed in terms of being able to safely control a nuclear reactor under normal conditions. Yes the spent fuel is a problem - but reactions like this go-on throughout the universe and harnessing that power safely will be the future.
Yes I am a nimby - I wouldnt like a nuclear power station in my back yard - nor a wind farm - but then I also wouldn't want a gravel pit, builders merchant or even a shop to come in my back yard. Come to think of it I wouldnt even want a hippy in a van, whos whole life was aimed at being the greenest thing on earth. So lets hope that puts it into perspective.
I hate the fact that companies can jump on the green bandwagon, I hate the fact that the parks are miles behind in giving permission to small scale stuff - I wish that energy consumption and production could be linked and localised.
Energy consumption and production needs to be localised - I dont see any reason why I cant have a small scale wind mill on my farm.
Instead of the welsh assembly committing to new houses having fire water thingies in - they should have committed to having every new house having solar panels.
Everybody knows the laws of resistance so why commit to having energy produced so far from where its consumed?
Baz
-
I used to be well against nuclear power due to our inability to look after spent fuel and the fact we were using dodgy designs - but gone are the days of the zx-81 - we have progressed in terms of being able to safely control a nuclear reactor under normal conditions.
I wish I shared your faith in the technologists who put these things together. Before I was a farmer I was a professional in technology and I can tell you that most computerised systems are nothing like safe these days. In fact I am dubious that anyone is left in the industry who really knows how to build a really safe system. And even if anyone is left, their bosses won't let them spend enough money to make the system properly safe.
I would love to be proved wrong but I very much doubt that I will be, sadly.
-
Everybody knows the laws of resistance so why commit to having energy produced so far from where its consumed?
A good point, why should the Welsh have to put up with a truly massive windfarm in order to A, generate electricity for the English, B, provide even vaster profits for energy companies
-
I feel like I am certainly right next to you on that - but I prefer to look to the future rather than look behind in retrospect.
Everything has a risk - yes nuclear does have greater risks- well great great great risks - but it certainly shouldnt be dismissed.
For the near future I think that power consumption should be localised - these green grants should be spent on 'experimenting' with people who want to experiment. I'd gladdy have the government put a wind turbine up here or fit my solar panels - they have already volunteered to pay for it over 15 year and then give me profit after - how about cut out the middleman and come fit my panels and do their own experiments. I am pretty sure that as technology develops they will find a way of harnessing the power of our air, light and heat to accommodate on a micro scale - each house being able to produce the energy needed - we are a relatively scarcely populated country in comparison - the UK should be a pinoneer of this - we are supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the world and energy is going to be the next world war along with water. We should lead and 'let' others follow because it works.
Of course wih the tories in charge we are never going to have rael 'free thinking', 'free trade' and the top down effect social structure. It may look like long term thinking giving grants to people who have a solar panel - but in reality its passing the buck on.
Localise energy production - yes have a national grid as a backup - but local energy is always oingto be more productive, less intrusive and well a better deal.
Baz
-
As a degree qualified physicist I learned long ago about the issues of nuclear waste storage so I am firmly in the anti-nuclear group. That's without considering the risks of accidents - Japan is a first world country and is a world leader in understanding the risks of earthquake and tsunamis - the recent quake was large, but it was a predicted event and nothing happened that geologists couldn't have anticipated, and yet the nuclear station failed (spectacularly) to cope.
Yes the spent fuel is a problem - but reactions like this go-on throughout the universe and harnessing that power safely will be the future.
Oh? they haven't found a solution to the problem of spent fuel waste in the last 50 years - what makes you think a solution will magically appear in the next 50 years?
I do reluctantly acknowledge that nuclear power is probably required whilst a more permanent solution is found because gov't will not want to strangle the economy by forcing industry to reduce consumption.
No, tell me how many were killed or injured in the 3 mile island incident or how many have been killed by the Japanese meltdown? instead of lashing out with hysterical outbursts just have a look at the actual number of people killed or injured by nuclear generation and compare that number with, for instance, those killed in coal mining in the same period.
Well the trouble with radiation is that its effects are cumulative over time and deaths / illnesses are hard to distinguish from other possible causes. If someone dies of cancer in the vicinity of windscale (sellafield), it's hard to tell if the cancer was caused by exposure to radiation or not.
Energy consumption and production needs to be localised - I dont see any reason why I cant have a small scale wind mill on my farm.
Nor I. I try to produce as much of my own electrical power as I can, and use solar for heating or burn locally sourced wood (bits of the hedge usually). localised energy production is good - up to a point - but there are economies of scale - the environmental cost of five-hundred 1kw turbine installations is significantly more than the cost of one 500kw turbine; and the 500kw turbine would be taller, see more wind and produce more power over its life.
-
Japan is a first world country and is a world leader in understanding the risks of earthquake and tsunamis - the recent quake was large, but it was a predicted event and nothing happened that geologists couldn't have anticipated, and yet the nuclear station failed (spectacularly) to cope.
The main problem (as I remember) was caused mainly by the failure of back up diesel pumps for the coolant, which doesn't indicate a very through degree of preparedness given the incidence of tsunamis and earthquakes, given this incidence why was the PS built so close to the sea?
Also the Japanese PS is, I believe 40 years old, I would suggest technology has moved on a great deal since then and there is the possibility of a thorium reactors being developed in the near future which will be a great improvement on the current designs
-
Aye, but you (and nobody else) has answered the problem of where do we go for power when the wind drops, per GW generated, Nuclear is the safest form of power we have.
most uk nps are due for decomissoning cos they are so old and inefficient. we produce some of the highest VOlUMES of nuclear waste in the world (MILLIONS OF TONS) and only get 18% of our leccy for it. thats only 10% more than the renewables we have SO FAR.
we have NO SOLUTiON to the waste generated so far and you want more.
that is not a safe form of power. its a desecration of our natural environment and an appallng legacy to leave our kids.
id much prefer my grandchildren, (assuming i have some one day) to be deccommissioning a wind farm rather than burying nuclear waste and trying to deccommison a nps.
oh yeah if the welsh etc sheep were radioactive dont you think we all are.....
-
there is an increase in cancer cases especially in farming circles at least up in Scotland but try getting the government scientists to admit that
you have more chance of winning the lottery :wave:
-
Aye, but you (and nobody else) has answered the problem of where do we go for power when the wind drops, per GW generated, Nuclear is the safest form of power we have.
most uk nps are due for decomissoning cos they are so old and inefficient. we produce some of the highest VOlUMES of nuclear waste in the world (MILLIONS OF TONS) and only get 18% of our leccy for it. thats only 10% more than the renewables we have SO FAR.
we have NO SOLUTiON to the waste generated so far and you want more.
that is not a safe form of power. its a desecration of our natural environment and an appallng legacy to leave our kids.
id much prefer my grandchildren, (assuming i have some one day) to be deccommissioning a wind farm rather than burying nuclear waste and trying to deccommison a nps.
oh yeah if the welsh etc sheep were radioactive dont you think we all are.....
Now I hate to be annoying, but again, where do we get our power from when the wind aint blowing?
By 2020 we will have lost over 40% of our generating capacity due to closures of current plant due to age and EU directives, whats going to replace it? we produce millions of tons of nuclear waste? where did you get those figures from? if you dont mind me asking
We are all radioactive to a certain degree.
-
my post on page 3
''nuclear waste generation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated)
spot the pattern....
would u like it buried in your back yard?
better than a wind farm that COULD be temporary whilst we develop truly green energy?''
-
ive just reread the table and cant find where i worked it out to 'millions' of tons its more like 1000's Im humbly sorry for beng inaccurate tho it really doesnt change the point of my argument.
-
i dont want to get betwean two lovers but the differance i would say is 990,000 tons not just a drop in the ocean
and no i am not trying to minimise the waste problem
-
this is the quote i extrapolated incorrectly from...
''The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 (i.e. a volume of under one litre). Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (with only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate-level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced (equating to around 25 cm3 per UK citizen per year), it contains 95% of the radioactivity.''
from
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html)
-
my post on page 3
''nuclear waste generation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nuc_was_gen-energy-nuclear-waste-generated)
spot the pattern....
would u like it buried in your back yard?
better than a wind farm that COULD be temporary whilst we develop truly green energy?''
But we would be left with nowt everytime the wind drops, now even if we covered the British isles in windfarms so when the wind blows we actually produced enough energy to meet our demands the minute the wind drops we would be cream crackered, the big fault with wind generation is that it needs conventional fossil burning PSs to be ticking away in the background.
This country is going to be hit with blackouts in the near future unless something is done PDQ and blackouts will hit us a lot more severely than the three day week, due to our much higher reliance on gas and electric, spend a few minutes visualising the consequences of regular and major power cuts.
-
i agree wind farms arent the solution but nor is nuclear.
reducing our reliance on energy, and maximising our development of safe low impact energy probably is.
fyi http://www.wavehub.co.uk/ (http://www.wavehub.co.uk/)
-
But we would be left with nowt everytime the wind drops, now even if we covered the British isles in windfarms so when the wind blows we actually produced enough energy to meet our demands the minute the wind drops we would be cream crackered, the big fault with wind generation is that it needs conventional fossil burning PSs to be ticking away in the background.
Firstly, I don't think anyone has suggested that we should use windfarms exclusively - there will always be something else - hopefully several different sources.
Secondly, the windfarm output won't drop out instantaneously over the entire country, windfarm output will have a steady decline over hours/ days as the weather-system moves off - which can be predicted and the conventional PS (be it nuclear/fossil/other) can be spooled up over those timescales to meet demand. We already have Powerstations 'ticking over' in the background to cover short-term fluctuations in demand which happen faster than a PS can be spooled up, and wind generators won't change that (e.g. when an (alleged) 2million people switched on the kettle after the royal wedding).
This country is going to be hit with blackouts in the near future unless something is done PDQ and blackouts will hit us a lot more severely than the three day week, due to our much higher reliance on gas and electric, spend a few minutes visualising the consequences of regular and major power cuts.
Well, as I said in my last post we probably will have nuclear for the near future. If the Thorium cycle plants are developed and live up to their press they will be much better than existing technology (much less waste, and they failsafe instead of going into meltdown), but like wave & tidal power, the technology is still in its infancy.
The main problem (as I remember) was caused mainly by the failure of back up diesel pumps for the coolant, which doesn't indicate a very through degree of preparedness given the incidence of tsunamis and earthquakes, given this incidence why was the PS built so close to the sea?
That's right! But that's the point - they were the LAST backup system bar the battery (which kept the pumps running for 8 hours). I think they call it a 'common mode failure' - when something happens that takes out ALL the backup systems along with the main systems; historically, people who plan for disasters tend to overlook the common mode failure.
Power stations have to be built with access to large quantities of cooling water (they're typically less than 30% efficient, so need to dump a lot of heat). This is a bit speculative on my part but I think nuclear plants are usually placed by the sea as it was historically considered a 'good' place to dump contaminated cooling water in an accident (gets dispersed quickly - away from humans).
Sorry Coley, I hope you don't take all this personally, but as the pro-nuclear voice in this debate it all seems to be directed at you. ;D
IMHO there should be more gov't effort directed at reducing consumption of energy, then development of new technologies for generation, transmission and storage of energy.
-
i agree wind farms arent the solution but nor is nuclear.
reducing our reliance on energy, and maximising our development of safe low impact energy probably is.
fyi http://www.wavehub.co.uk/ (http://www.wavehub.co.uk/)
You might find this surprising but I totally agree with you, however, and its a big however, there is going to be a huge energy gap between 2020 and 2050 when most of the renewables are projected to start coming 'on stream' and its this (and the previous govts) seeming belief that this gap can be covered by wind.
Now I dont want to be alarmist, but I am sure you can remember the chaos when we had a realatively short lived shortage of fuel a few years ago? imagine that (and peoples behaviour) if that shortage became a shortage, on not just fuel for cars, but a shortage of all the essentials we daily take for granted and you will perhaps see why I would like to see something proven and reliable in place to cover the projected shortfall.
-
But we would be left with nowt everytime the wind drops, now even if we covered the British isles in windfarms so when the wind blows we actually produced enough energy to meet our demands the minute the wind drops we would be cream crackered, the big fault with wind generation is that it needs conventional fossil burning PSs to be ticking away in the background.
Firstly, I don't think anyone has suggested that we should use windfarms exclusively - there will always be something else - hopefully several different sources.
But thats the problem we seem to be putting all our eggs (and money) into the windfarm basket, all other options are still at the development or pilot stagem and there are many other options, perhaps we can keep the plants due to close in operation to cover the gap but it doesnt look likely with this govts slavish obssession with meeting CO2 reductions
Secondly, the windfarm output won't drop out instantaneously over the entire country, windfarm output will have a steady decline over hours/ days as the weather-system moves off - which can be predicted and the conventional PS (be it nuclear/fossil/other) can be spooled up over those timescales to meet demand. We already have Powerstations 'ticking over' in the background to cover short-term fluctuations in demand which happen faster than a PS can be spooled up, and wind generators won't change that (e.g. when an (alleged) 2million people switched on the kettle after the royal wedding).
When we had those very cold months during the winter windfarm output was practically zero across the whole country
This country is going to be hit with blackouts in the near future unless something is done PDQ and blackouts will hit us a lot more severely than the three day week, due to our much higher reliance on gas and electric, spend a few minutes visualising the consequences of regular and major power cuts.
Well, as I said in my last post we probably will have nuclear for the near future. If the Thorium cycle plants are developed and live up to their press they will be much better than existing technology (much less waste, and they failsafe instead of going into meltdown), but like wave & tidal power, the technology is still in its infancy.
there has been a lot of effort gone into it over the last few years and it would seem converting some existing plant to a combined thorium/plutonium would be a viable short term option
The main problem (as I remember) was caused mainly by the failure of back up diesel pumps for the coolant, which doesn't indicate a very through degree of preparedness given the incidence of tsunamis and earthquakes, given this incidence why was the PS built so close to the sea?
Sorry Coley, I hope you don't take all this personally, but as the pro-nuclear voice in this debate it all seems to be directed at you. ;D
No, of course not, I fully understand where people are coming from, there was nobody more anti nuclear/pro wind than mesel at one time but I dont fancy the consequences of severe power shortages which are now a real possibility due to years of govt ineptitude.
IMHO there should be more gov't effort directed at reducing consumption of energy, then development of new technologies for generation, transmission and storage of energy.
Totally agree but they seem to have left it a tad late :)
-
i agree ''a tad late'' so lets not cause more delay by obstucting windfarms eh?
-
With regards to consumption of energy and our government. Our Building Standards are being updated on a very regular basis to ensure all new houses, extensions, alterations and commercial project are built to better and better insulation standards and lower carbon emmisions. The regulations also take account of the performance of an existing building in terms of insulation and if not to a minimum standard any alterations and extension will have to be designed to a higher spec to compensate.
In order to lower carbon emissions to the accepted level most new houses now are fitted with solar panels, wood burning stoves etc.
There is also now recognition for sustainable buildings and every new house will be awarded a medal dependant upon certain measures put in place.
In this regards I think our government is trying very hard to reduce energy consumption and riase awareness much to the displeasure of the developers. Every new house now costs more to build as a result.
I'm afraid our economy is stuck on the consumerism train and it will be very hard to stop.
Small localised renewables rurally are great but my experience is that all of these are either backed up by the national grid, or if off the grid a diesel generator. So not exactly a complete answer either. Also cost of these systems against payback makes them a life style choice for the wealthy. Perhaps a global energy network would be a better idea, so when the wind isn't blowing in Scotland and it is in the
Sahara we still have power. We could power the whole world with renewables if we had global network which would also help pull third world countries out of poverty. Check out this website and see what you think.
Www.Geni.org (http://Www.Geni.org)
-
I spent quite a bit of time in California (specifically San Francisco) in 2003/4 and was amazed to find that 'brownouts' are common and scheduled. Businesses cope with no computers, no air conditioning by publishing timetables when it would be a good idea for people to be in offsite meetings, having time off to volunteer in the community, or be working from home. In the domestic situation people make sure their freezers are freezed up before the scheduled power cut and they have anything out of them they'll need before the power is back on, etc. Local power cuts would typically be 2-4 hours and could be at any time in the 24 hours. I think the timetables were published a week or so ahead.
-
i agree ''a tad late'' so lets not cause more delay by obstucting windfarms eh?
No, while wind farms can be a valuable part of the 'energy mix I would suggest we look for a quick fix that would keep the lights on when we have no wind,
Gas fired generation would be the quickest to construct but then we have problems with 'security of supply' which could be resolved by shale gas extraction, something I dont even think has been even considered by this or the previous govt
-
well they don't deep drift mine coal any longer there was was a company in Scotland that was extracting methane gas and running generators just the same as the waste tips do and supplying the grid with electricity parafin young beat you all on this one extracting the shale oil and leaving the shale bings as a monument to the industrial past :wave:
ps i am sure dan and rosemary could see the nodding donkey from there old house ;)
-
there is no quick fix.
we're all doomed i tell ye doomed. ;D
-
So, none of us has mentioned anaerobic digesters yet....
-
or the fact that at present its urrrr too windy for the turbines to turn??? ::) ::)
Whats that all about?
Mandy :pig:
-
In order to lower carbon emissions to the accepted level most new houses now are fitted with solar panels, wood burning stoves etc.
No, I`m afraid not, at least not around here, most are built to be heated by gas, electric or oil, not a solar panel or turbine in sight amongst all the new build.
-
power cuts would typically be 2-4 hours and could be at any time in the 24 hours
I am concrened the power cuts we are facing will be a lot longer than that and we havent got californian sunshine to fall back on :)
-
Coley,
If you are in Scotland and the new houses being built round by you do not have solar panels etc, they are either very old permissions or super insulated to compensate. Either or the end result is the same the carbon emissions from the house have to achieve a certain level. Of course this is all done as a measurement tool to assess the house and not an accurate calculation of actual emissions, it is how the house is used at the end of the day that will affect actual carbon emissions.
Hopefully you will see more innovation from the developers near you soon.
And perhaps everyone can also spend a little to insulate their own homes, it's not always easy but every little bit helps.
-
I am concrened the power cuts we are facing will be a lot longer than that and we havent got californian sunshine to fall back on :)
Aye, no Californian sunshine to reduce the need for heat - but they have their air-conditioning on all the time instead!
-
or the fact that at present its urrrr too windy for the turbines to turn??? ::) ::)
Whats that all about?
When we were looking into a turbine on our farm, it was explained to us that there are various designs and it is important to choose the type most suited to your local conditions.
If your site is averagely windy you probably do best with a certain type (sorry can't remember the different types and names) but the downside is that they cannot work in winds above a certain speed. Some fold up or back their blades to avoid damage. If your site is very very windy and/or gusty then you should have a type that can handle higher speeds / gusty winds (though none of them is very efficient in gusty winds), but the downside is that they are less efficient at lower wind speeds than the first type.
I think most of them need to stop and protect themselves at the 70mph gale winds we've been having the last 24 hours...
-
And aircon does use a LOT of power.
or the fact that at present its urrrr too windy for the turbines to turn??? ::) ::)
Whats that all about?
Mandy :pig:
Ah well that's just physics:- the power harvested by a windmill is proportional to the CUBE of the wind speed; i.e. if you design a mill to produce 10Kw in 10mph winds, then, if the wind reaches 100mph, your mill will be harvesting 10,000Kw - it'll either fly apart or burn out (or both). If you fitted a generator big enough to handle the strong winds, then it'd be too big and heavy to be turned by the normal winds. Hence they just to shut them down and feather the blades in strong winds.
I know this 'cos I'm trying to build a wind genny for my off-grid system - it's not easy. :-\
Coley, I think we are close to agreeing re: nuclear - there's going to be a need for some nuclear in the near future - I don't like it and, personally would prefer a more radical energy consumption reduction strategy - but that's not going to happen.
As for the wind farms; well I still think they should be increased to a practical maximum (we're not there yet) as they are the more established renewable source. So I support the current drive to build more.
personally I don't see some minor scheduled blackouts as a disaster - in fact, the sooner they start them the sooner people will appreciate the need for conservation.
When I used to work as a physicist I was constantly frustrated by people who were intelligent and 'aware' of environmental issues who still couldn't be bothered to make an effort to save energy. I got into one argument with a colleague who wanted the aircon left on in a lab that wasn't going to be used until a new job came in "in case a new job came in". I pointed out that it only takes a day to stabilise the temperature and it takes several days for a job reach the point where work actually starts - so I won that argument in the end and turned the aircon off - it stayed off for 3 months before a job came in requiring that lab. The trouble is I was the only one turning the things off - most other people didn't see the point if they weren't paying the bills.
bah Salliy'i'nth - you beat me to posting about high winds - Oh well :D
-
personally I don't see some minor scheduled blackouts as a disaster - in fact, the sooner they start them the sooner people will appreciate the need for conservation.
I absolutely agree. At the moment everyone seems to think that they should have what they want whenever they want it. That applies to any electrically-driven equipment as much as to what were once seasonal foods.
Having even a very low level of regular blackouts will start to raise awareness that everything does not need to be on all the time. And educate people to plan a little more about when they use their electrical equipment. I had a bit of an epiphany some years ago when looking at an off-grid property. "You soon learn that if the wind isn't blowing then it's not the day to do the washing. So you just put that off until you get a windy day." Makes sense too, as you want a wind to dry the clothes after you've washed them.
-
personally i do not like them, but i do understand we need change.
Infact we sold our last croft as it was sighted immediately ajacent to a proposed Wind Turbine Development. 2 years on I am so glad we sold up as the turbines now dominate the landscape & give the whole area an eary feeling with now 13 of them loom in every direction from that property, and I heard this week the direct neighbour is intending building another 4.
-
they are either very old permissions or super insulated to compensate
Aye, thats the wriggle, the previous lot were going to ensure all new build were going to have solar and local turbines but that was quickly watered down by the building lobby to 'super insulated'
-
So, none of us has mentioned anaerobic digesters yet....
Good idea for local heating and generation, and it could be useful on a national level, given the amount of 'anaerobic material' dumped in the sea or landfill, actually there is research going on to see if it can be used to 'digest' coal in seam to produce methane.
-
Ah, looks like I need some education. I thought the anaerobic digesters basically ran on cow poo, and needed to be sited in conjunction with a 'zero-grazing' (cattle indoors all the time so their poo can be collected) cattle operation.
-
Coley, I think we are close to agreeing re: nuclear - there's going to be a need for some nuclear in the near future - I don't like it and, personally would prefer a more radical energy consumption reduction strategy - but that's not going to happen.
I doubt anyone likes the idea but realism rules
As for the wind farms; well I still think they should be increased to a practical maximum (we're not there yet) as they are the more established renewable source. So I support the current drive to build more.
Fair enough, provided we have backup for when there is no wind and I still think offshore is a better alternative
personally I don't see some minor scheduled blackouts as a disaster - in fact, the sooner they start them the sooner people will appreciate the need for conservation.
If alternatives arent in place I think we will be looking at more than 'minor blackouts' dont forget we are going to lose 40% of our generation capacity, that equals more than 'minor blackouts'
-
Ah, looks like I need some education. I thought the anaerobic digesters basically ran on cow poo, and needed to be sited in conjunction with a 'zero-grazing' (cattle indoors all the time so their poo can be collected) cattle operation.
Any waste product (poo/manure if you like ;D) can be used, as can any green waste and some crops are grown for the purpose.