Are you in favour of wind generators?

Post Reply New Topic

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

as you say, a tricky one. i'm afraid it HAS got to the "damage limitation" stage. i'm noh for and against, for the reasons you state above, antieverything. but environmental damage has gone so far... i can't think about it as it make me both distressed and very, very angry.

so, people - keep on using your aerosols, and using air conditioning, and eating at MacBastards, and throwing away all your plastics, and buying all your consumer goods, and leaving your computer on all the time, and then the world will be completely f****d, and we won't have the wind farm dilemma at all.

(for those of a non-sarcastic disposition, that was sarcasm of the highest order).

The only problem with wind generators is that they produce a lot of noise...

And they have to be all over the place to produce enough juice to run a medium-sized city...

That said... it's much more environmentally sound than burning oil and coal...

Viva Nuclear Power!

At least we can bury the highly compacted nuclear waste instead of spraying carcogens into the atomsphere!

Wind farms are a waste of time, IMHO. Noble effort, but a drop in the bucket.

With standariszation, nuke power will be the wave of the future.

Oh, no! Bad idea. Someone's already mentioned the noise, but there's the visual pollution, too. They turn the beautiful English countryside into something resembling Teletubby land. It's hard enough finding a part of this country where mans infrastructure's not a visual blight, without adding those monstrosities.

But, you do have a point in that our government does need to urgently address the problem of providing new means of power generation, and wind turbines are certainly one thing to be considered, though preferably off-shore. There are lots of other options, too; I remember coming across a project using geo-thermal energy, in Malvern, a while back, but I don't know whether that's something that can be applied on a large scale. Then there's the much talked of Severn Barrage. That would really provide a significant input. Trouble is, though, tides are of a cyclical nature both on a daily basis, with flow speeds varying between high and low water, and those daily maximums varying over the course of a month. Similar problems, but of a less predictable nature occur with wind turbines. In particular, during the coldest months of the year in the UK, when electricity demand is at its highest, we often have large areas of high pressure with slack winds sat over us.

So, that brings us nicely to nuclear power. That is the only currently viable, reliable, relatively environmentally friendly option. I'd suggest it should be used in parallel with things like wind turbines, until reliable, economically viable alternatives are developed. I think if you read up a little on the actual volumes of nuclear waste involved, it's pretty insignificant compared with all the other dodgy stuff we throw into the environment; at least, because of its nature, we have to keep it stored safely.

As for the oil reserves, well, when I was a lad, I remember being told in a lesson that the worlds oil resources would run out in 20 years. That's obviously not happened as additional oil fields have been discovered and methods of extraction have become more efficient. I think current news regarding oil ($60/barrel??) is more to do with political effects, as well as a surge in demand due to economic growth in countries like China, rather than there not being enough there. But I don't know much about these things, I'm sure there are people here much more able to give an accurate, politically unbiased, synopsis of the current situation. Anyway, it still shows the folly of relying on a resource from such a volatile part of the world, so the more we do to lessen our reliance, the better.

It's funny you should mention wind farms. The people up here in wisconsin where I live are currently fighting with an energy company trying to put a wind farm in.

The people who are against the turbines talk about the horrors these things will cause and how it will be the second coming of christ when their built.

I can't help but laugh at them when I hear them complain though.

There Wind Turbines!!

These same people live less than ten miles from the point beach nuclear power plant which has the worst safety record in north america, who's liscense is currently up for renewal, and their isn't even 1/10th the effort being put into shuting down point beach by the locals as there is going into stopping the wind turbines, yet the potential effects from an accident at point beach would be indescribeably worse than than any accident at the wind turbines would ever do.

As for noise, would someone please fill me in as to what kind of "noise" these things make. Having grown up on the shore of lake michigan, I can attest to the fact that any noise a wind turbine would make would pale in comparison to the noise a gale makes out on lake michigan.

I can see the local wind farm from my backyard, it's a long way off so I don't hear it.

I think the noise is like a constant drone that never stops, probably like a fan noise. I hate fan noise myself.

Compared to nuclear power plants and coal burners... a wind turbine is a candy shop...

Or a gardening store...

That said... filthy power sources are more cost-effective... and nuclear power generates an almost limitless supply...

oil is not a infinite resource! Wind is! Yay!
for wind power and also Solar, since the sun is more
infinite than oil as well! Again, I will say yay! to wind
and Solar power both!

Sincerely,
Ghosthunter

Plenty of wind here in the Pennines.... I live quite near a wind farm, and there are plenty of turbines up here. They aren't as intrusive as you'd think, I quite like them myself. The only problem is that large numbers of turbines can dry out the peat, causing damage to the moorland - I guess you can't win. Beats radiation and sulphur dioxide emissions though.

Dunc

SORRY???

It really is. It's a shame that people equate nuclear power plants with nuclear weapons as a knee jerk reaction, since the world could be in a much better position than it is now. We would have to experience five hundred Chernobyls per year just to equal the damage we are currently causing through other energy sources.

erm... sorry to contradict and all that, but i would hardly describe 30 odd years of being involved in (and appalled by) environmental issues a knee jerk reaction.

Well, if you disagree, vetivert, why not communicate the details? Or, do you not wish to sully your reputation by engaging in dialogue with the likes of me?

i don't understand that last bit...

however, i would love to engage in a dialogue, but have to go and work very soon (about an hour ago, to be honest ), but you can check out information on the greenpeace and FOE websites, which isn't a cop out, but a genuine wish to help here.

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/ ... index.html


http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/so ... uclear.cfm

Oh great, a boring hippie debate. I thought this was going to be a thread about baked beans.