Your views on wind farms?

"Aled Evans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi,

From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
out the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
countryside.
What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
any health danger issues?
Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

Any attempt to solve the energy crisis using wind farms will result in a lot
of expense for very little return, in other words a total waste of time and
money.

Alan

Quoted message said:

Aled Evans
www.letsescape.co.uk
www.healthmagnet.ik.com

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|Hi,
|
|From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
|the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
|What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
|any health danger issues?
|Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Please quote, with quote
character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.

Modern windfarms are no problem Quite soporific watching them.
However - if the government got its act together (there has to be a first
time) then all new houses would have photovoltaic cells on their roof, and
their own turbine on the garage. Additional cost would be minimal at
construction stage, and spare energy could be cycled back to the National
Grid. Planning permission for major alterations could also include the need
to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|Hi,
|
|From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
out
|the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
countryside.
|What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are
there
|any health danger issues?
|Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Please quote, with quote
character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.

Aled Evans said:

From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
any health danger issues?
Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

IMHO it's one of various avenues to go down in some circumstances, but
those circumstances need to be better than "It's the tax-break du jour!"
which seems to be the main driving force at the moment, and other
avenues should be concurrently explored.

Also some sort of policy on siting, rather than anywhere landowners
looking for the T-BdJ feel like applying, so the tourist trade isn't
dented in wild areas when already developed regions would be equally
sensible spots to put them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Gordon Burns said:

to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.

There are plenty of votes to be lost, though, when it comes to
siting nuclear power stations. Or, indeed, onshore windfarms.

-adrian

Ysgrifennodd "Adrian Godwin" <[email hidden]> mewn neges
newyddion:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gordon Burns said:

to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.

There are plenty of votes to be lost, though, when it comes to
siting nuclear power stations. Or, indeed, onshore windfarms.

-adrian

Yep, and the unwashed masses in North Wales seem to have the votes that mean
the least....

T Dave R.

Gordon Burns said:

Additional cost would be minimal at
construction stage, and spare energy could be cycled back to the National
Grid.

What spare energy would that be?

Currently they can barely generate enough power to keep your
household appliances on standby let alone any spare.

This seems to be one of the subjects where people seem to forget
the basic laws of physics.
--
Regards

Nick

"Aled Evans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi,

From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
out the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
countryside.
What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
any health danger issues?
Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

I would give 100% backing to OFF SHORE wind farms,

Some argue they are too expensive, but if you add on the long term damage to
the tourism industry by siting these farms in our wild and open areas, then
Off Shore starts to become the better deal all round!

Quoted message said:

Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting better.
As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear a
boost in 40+ years.

Aled Evans said:

Hi,

From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
any health danger issues?
Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

They don't bother me to look at, and I've never heard any noise. Even
in areas of the Hoche Eifel where there are dozens of the things.

I have yet to be convinced over whether they help much on energy when
you subtract the cost of building the things and the standby power for
windless days.

The big minus seems to be they chop up eagles and other such big birds.

We need fusion, and no government has been prepared to back it enough to
help. We should have funded Culham properly, then we could have had it
25 years ago.

Andy

In message <[email hidden]>, Aled Evans
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Hi,

From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
any health danger issues?
Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

Hate them; hate the infrastructure around them; hate the sound they
make; hate the limited electricity they make; hate the name - they are
wind power stations.

--
Martin Richardson
272/284 Munros - 4% to go 34/34 'Furths'- 0% to go
56/89 Donalds - 37% to go 494/1554 Marilyns - 68% to go
376/525 Hewitts - 28% to go (E=178/178; W=137/137; I=61/211)

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Dave Fawthrop <[email hidden]>
said

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|Hi,
|
|From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
|the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
|What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
|any health danger issues?
|Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.

Maybe if we built them from wood. The ones I've seen are massive
concrete and steel things which look like they took as much energy to
construct as they will ever deliver. And they are springing up in some
remarkably urban places - a whole set has just turned up on the A6 just
South from the A14 junction.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
better.
As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear a
boost in 40+ years.

I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me that
economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2 capture and
long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power stations. There was
actually an article on the BBC site today
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
committee has also come to that conclusion.

And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way to
go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor so the
research can get moving a bit faster.

Dave

"Dave Randman" wrote after

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thompson" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
better.
As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear
a
boost in 40+ years.

I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me
that economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2
capture and long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power
stations. There was actually an article on the BBC site today
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
committee has also come to that conclusion.

And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way to
go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor so
the research can get moving a bit faster.

But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.

--
Regards
Bob

"Bob Hobden" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dave Randman" wrote after

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thompson" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

> Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
better.
As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear
a
boost in 40+ years.

I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me
that economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2
capture and long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power
stations. There was actually an article on the BBC site today
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
committee has also come to that conclusion.

And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way
to go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor
so the research can get moving a bit faster.

But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.

Eh! Have you fogotten your basic physics. Energy can neither be created nor
destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything on
top of anything. It's got nothing to do with global warming.

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Bob Watkinson <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.

Eh! Have you fogotten your basic physics. Energy can neither be created nor
destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything on
top of anything. It's got nothing to do with global warming.

That's about as incorrect as you can get. Global warming means the
average temperature rises, which means more energy arrived at the
Earth's surface than left. Now 99% of the energy arriving at the earth's
surface comes from the Sun, true. However energy from fusion, fission,
or burning coal, counts too.

Energy leaves just one way - it is radiated back into space (heading
into the background temperature level of about 3 degrees above absolute
zero). Radiation is proportional to absolute temperature to the 4th
power, so a 1% temperature rise means you can dump ~4% more energy per
unit time by radiation.

Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Currently I don't have a view on a wind farm, and I'd like it to stay that
way! :-)

Paul

Quoted message said:

Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

Wasn't that what I said? How am I incorrect?

Quoted message said:

But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has
provided us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat
pollution.

Assuming they create heat which is then used to make electricity in the
same way as normal power stations then they wouldn't be any worse in that
respect than normal power generation, with the added advantage that they
won't be chucking out CO2

Anyway, won't much of the heat be converted to some other form of energy?