Royalist Nutter in ED (Lounged)

[Asset]

OK,

As far as I know, they are relatively inefficient i.e. they have to be turned off in high winds! The foundations for the turbines are massive holes pumped full of concrete that will never be able to be removed, access roads have to be built to them, they cause problems for fledgling birds; in Scotland there have been issues with endangered birds e.g Golden Eagles being killed by the sails and there are the huge costs involved in manufacturing the turbines and the land subsidies. Not to mention the fact that they are fairly unsightly and pretty noisy if you live close by.

My mother, who lives in rural Scotland, looked into having one small turbine installed to provide power but apparently she has the 'wrong type of wind'.

I'm all for renewable energy but sometimes the options smack of jobs for the boys and lining pockets.

Harnessing wave energy would be far less impactful and much more efficient but fewer people would be able to make any money from that.

If governments in future really want to make a difference, there needs to be legislation that makes all new build houses have a solar panel, ground source heating etc etc. Oh hang on though if houses convert to ground source heating what will the gas and oil companies do then?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Asset Wrote:

OK, As far as I know, they are relatively inefficient

i.e. they have to be turned off in high winds!

.... Not to mention the fact that they are fairly

> unsightly and pretty noisy if you live close by...

Now look Asset please...I'm NOT a great Royalist,in truth,but I will NOT have this fine,noble,upstanding and dignified Family maligned in this way!!:X:X

[mockney piers]

Hmm, I think concrete foundations go into pretty much every building bigger than a shed, and even then....

Turbines don't have nearly the impact on bird populations that just about any other human activity has, if you're that concerned about our feathered friends ban cats as pets.

In fact the RSPB are pro wind farms and you'll notice the only examples of negative impact on bird populations they give aren't in the UK http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/index.asp

Indeed small turbines attached to your house are little more than gestures, have you noticed how big they need to be?

Turbines are very efficient, and yes they may be intermittent, but what isn't, even coal powered stations need down time. But get this, it's totally clean and ... ooh renewable.

So they're pretty ugly (I actually think they're rather majestic but hey); world is dying and bigger sacrifices will have to be made, and made soon, than having the horizon a bit cluttered.

"I'm all for renewable energy but sometimes the options smack of jobs for the boys and lining pockets." poppy cock, fuck sight cheaper than ploughing it all into a new generation of nuclear power stations that will not only cost untold billions but will lump future generations with enormous clean up bills just as we're having to pay astronomical costs now for the first generation of stations.

Wind farms are no magic solution but they're a bloody start.

[mockney piers]

sorry back to some imbred foreigners...(though agree with Loz...President Blair (or even Madam President Beckham?) EEEEK!!!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

mockney piers Wrote:

So they're pretty ugly (I actually think they're

rather majestic but hey);

I'm really getting confused now.

O.K. We seem to have accepted that The Royal Family are ugly but they would be "majestic" if nothing else,schurely?

[Jeremy]

One problem which is often cited regarding wind turbines is that the level of wind is not reliable. There was another discussion on here a while back about energy storage, or a possible "global grid", which was an interesting concept.

I have to be honest, I am not so bothered about concrete foundations, access roads, or aesthetic issues - to me, these are preferable to the side effects of conventional power stations.

And I don't really buy the oil and gas conspiracy stuff, isn't the UK a net importer of oil? And in any case, it's in the interest of the energy giants to look into renewable technologies as future revenue earners, because at some point it will no longer be cost effective to drill for what little oil we have left.

Wave energy is in it's infancy, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out... especially after the embarrasment of "Salters Duck". But on it's own it won't be enough, that much is certain. We'll need to harness all the energy available to us... be it wave, tidal, wind, solar... it seems unfortunately inevitable that nuclear fission power stations are here to stay, but hopefully they can be kept to a minimum if there is a real effort to push renewable sources and reduce consumption.

[Asset]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> Hmm, I think concrete foundations go into pretty

> much every building bigger than a shed, and even

> then....

>

> Turbines don't have nearly the impact on bird

> populations that just about any other human

> activity has, if you're that concerned about our

> feathered friends ban cats as pets.

> In fact the RSPB are pro wind farms and you'll

> notice the only examples of negative impact on

> bird populations they give aren't in the UK

> http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/in

> dex.asp

>

> Indeed small turbines attached to your house are

> little more than gestures, have you noticed how

> big they need to be?

> Turbines are very efficient, and yes they may be

> intermittent, but what isn't, even coal powered

> stations need down time. But get this, it's

> totally clean and ... ooh renewable.

>

> So they're pretty ugly (I actually think they're

> rather majestic but hey); world is dying and

> bigger sacrifices will have to be made, and made

> soon, than having the horizon a bit cluttered.

>

> "I'm all for renewable energy but sometimes the

> options smack of jobs for the boys and lining

> pockets." poppy cock, @#$%& sight cheaper than

> ploughing it all into a new generation of nuclear

> power stations that will not only cost untold

> billions but will lump future generations with

> enormous clean up bills just as we're having to

> pay astronomical costs now for the first

> generation of stations.

>

> Wind farms are no magic solution but they're a

> bloody start.

They should be off-shore.

[mockney piers]

Can't believe I said the world is dying...as the Mash said:

Earth - "I'll be just fine"

[lozzyloz]

If the UK adult population spent an hour a day on one of these then we could generate 6.8 Billion Watts of electricity a day, cure obesity and heat our homes with the Methane by product!

[Jeremy]

Sorry, pedant alert, I know the previous post was not altogether serious... watt is a measurement of power, not energy! For energy, you need joules, or kilowatt hours.

Population of 15-64 year olds: 40 million.

1 hour a day each

average 0.08 KW of power

Works out as 3.2 million KWh per year.

UK energy consumption is around 350 billion KWh per year.

Better start peddling!

[mockney piers]

World leader in Wind energy apparently.

Tee hee, power to be supplied by dong energy *sniggers*