So what we need is some big dams built for power storage

If only we had the correct geography to allow that.

yes

Aren’t dams for power storage the ones where you have two dams one at the top which is in effect a battery and one at the bottom? We can’t use much hydro electric as we do not have rivers with high flows with enough potential energy. Power storage is a bit different.

Windfarms: NO!

Costing taxpayers a fortune for little benefit!

Windmills are uneconomic and a blight on the landscape.

The total of UK man made emissions is between 2% and 3% of the global output produced by us humans. Therefore, the proposed UK reduction (if successful) equates to a 1% drop (at best).

85% of global CO2 emissions are produced from natural sources.

The UK’s expensive CO2 reduction scheme will therefore reduce global emissions by an insignificant 0.15%!

Allegedly, this will cost each UK household at least £600 a year. There has been a £525M subsidy to be paid for by energy companies (who will pass these costs on to you). A further £425M of tax payer’s money set aside for household insulation, double glazing etc. A further provision of £405M of public money to encourage the development of low carbon energy and advanced green manufacturing.

An 0.15% reduction. Will that make any difference whatsoever? Is it really worth it?? I personally don’t want a £600 increase in my energy bills in these economic times!

A commitment from every country in the world would make a worthwhile difference, but then these countries are much more commercially focused than our clueless Labour administration! The rest of the developed world, who have vastly less public borrowing debt, are more focused on rebuilding their economies. The French for example are busy are selling their cheap nuclear energy to us at a healthy profit. They even own most of our utility companies.

What a farce!

Hey, I have a great idea. Lets give all our money to some “crazy” unstable countries around the world who spread ideologies that totally oppose our own. Build more nuclear power stations who’s at best radioactive materials have a half life of 1000’s of years (and that’s not just the fuel but all the piping, ect in the installation) and at worst could cause an accident that could easily make a large part of our country uninhabitable. I am a bit unsure how they factor in the cost of handling radioactive waste over 10000 years. Or gas which is either running out, or out of our control. Or coal which is really dirty and pollutes rivers lakes etc.

While we are at it lets buy all the stuff we want from

countries (that)are much more commercially focused than our clueless Labour administration

that do build loads of dirty coal fired power stations and generally do not give much of a monkeys about the environment and do not think it is a good idea to have a welfare state. Makes it cheaper for us great, we can buy more rubbish we don’t need?

I would have to say yes!

Some people say that there useless when theres no wind, well isn’t a coal power plant useless when theres no coal?

Theres always gonna be wind, maybe not 24/7 but the majority of the day it will be producing power.

Offshore ones are brilliant but initial cost is far greater and not always feasable as harder to maintain.

Just my thoughts!

Pump storage works but its fairly small scale – there is a bit of it in Scotland but again its only a part of the answer

This thread almost made me change my mind about windpower. How can we square the circle generate power from wind and store the energy?

Well Dr Mark Barrett has had a fantastic idea

Immersion heater battery

OH GOD NO!

We’re just about to get the countries largest wind farm plonked on the mountains just down the road from us (just of the A458 Welshpool to Mach)

The problem is that the idiots in power think far too big – its got to be a big power station, a big nuclear installation, centralised production blah! blah! Blah! What is really needed is local energy production solutions using small scale wind, wave, tidal, hydro and solar energy solutions. With 70% of all power generated being lost via transmission large scale centralised production is a nonsense – small scale would also leave us less vulnerable to terrorist attack.

All these bloody wind farms and still they are going to build more nuclear – ffs! If nuclear was such a good and safe thing then

1. Build in central London
2. Don’t leave our production capabilities with the French!

………….and breath

People need to use less energy and the government needs to think seriously about reducing the size of the population – end of

I’d agree with TJ and MattO&A in general. There is no one answer but we have to start diversifying and decentralising our energy system which puts it in the face of the energy consumer. Hopefully this will make people think more about where energy comes from rather than being out of sight out of mind and the excessive consumption that comes with it.

Andy_K – Member

Wind turbines? i’ve seen ’em

what’s the circle on the right at the start of the vid, mate?

Windfarms? – As a cyclist it’s a definate NO!

Have the rest of you not noticed how much harder it’s become riding around recently since they started putting these bloody things up? It always seems to be windy now, and most of the time it’s headwinds that they create. Tear them down I say!

With 70% of all power generated being lost via transmission large scale centralised production is a nonsense

You’re an order of magnitude out on that one I’m afraid.

Electrical losses are an inevitable consequence of the transfer of energy across electricity
distribution networks. On average, around 7 per cent of electricity transported across
local distribution systems in Great Britain is reported as electrical losses.

From here.

Centralised production like we have will always be more efficient than local small scale production, but hey lets not let a minor thing like facts get in the way of a good rant.

Apologies gonefishin – should have checked facts, knew there was a 7 in it tho’ 😆

O.K. lets examine the case for small scale energy production would you agree that although it is likely to be less efficient it could have ‘other’ key benefits

1. Less open to terrorist attacks or sabotage
2. Local production would/could make the end-user think more about energy wastage
3. Less pylons
4. Local employment and use of materials rather than shipping commodities from the other side of the world – I’m thinking about wood fuelled combined heat and power plants; but there are many other solutions.
5. Community ownership of the project(s)? Not so far fetched – what would you rather have (a) the decisions about your energy use being dictated to by shareholders and world fuel prices or (b) having a say on how and why your energy is generated

Can you see what I’m getting at here? By centralising power production it may be more efficient but the key stakeholders in the decision making process of its production and its consumption is you the customer. This is the moral argument for localised production for the people by the people and for the benefit of the people.

Decentralised power production has advantages, but for wind power it doesn’t work very well as it is much more vulnerable to interference from terrain and surroundings. Same with hydro, so you’re left with biomass (great if you have a wood handy), solar heating (which doesn’t produce electricity) or PV (which is rottenly inefficient). So it isn’t an ideal situation.

I’d agree with MattOutandabout’s take that what needs to happen first is making sure new buildings meet the highest energy efficeincy standards, and doing everything we can to bring the existing ones up to scratch.

the government needs to think seriously about reducing the size of the population

Just enough of me, way too much of you. 😉

Mr Agreeable – I can always loose more weight 😉

I think they are beautiful. Renewables and one more generation of nuclear have got to be the way ahead, 50 years hence fingers crossed we’ve cracked renewables technology altogether.

We produce 20% of our electricity from nuclear, Switzerland does 40%, our loyal allies the French manage 87.5%!

The French are our allies?!!

…..i was being post-modern

I biked over Cefn Croes the other day, loads of windmills.
It was blowing a hooley but only half of themm were going round and those that were were going dead slow.
Cant see it working really, we should have gone nuclear but its too late now.

They are shite. Blinkin roads all over Rooley moor to each windmill giving increased access to motorcross fools.

Nulear is the way forward.

The roads thing is a big issue km’s of them to service a wind farm. Building them can really have a big impact on the peat bogs if not done very carefully.

Turbines their place but unfortunately this is Britain and single vector solutions done to death is what we love – its British to Binge.

Everything has its place including using wave, tidal, less plus micro generation. Bring back Salters duck.

What about geothermal?

Looks good

Eden – Geothermal

Geothermal Q&A

Love the idea of each home having a turbine.
So much so I applied to Peak Park Planning Authority to put a small turbine next to my chimney (we are on top of a hill and get a strong SW wind most days) and citing their green agenda.
Response – it is not in keeping with the local built environment.
Thinking positively, when we are all dead at least the Peak District will look nice.
Well except for Lafarge cement works (the manufacture of which is the single worst environmental industrial process), Longcliffe calcium carbonate manufacturing, various quarrying firms and buildings such as the trendy apartments in Hathersage.
Arseholes the lot of them.

MASSIVE Yes.

We need to make energy generation more localised. People need to appreciate it isnt just magic that makes their tv turn on

WIndfarms would be a great idea if they actually worked efficiently.

They are really just a vehicle for large multi-nationals with suspect connections to milk huge subsidies from the taxpayer.

it isnt just magic that makes their tv turn on

😯 come off it!

And I thought it was just the fish putting the blinds up.

Tim – Member
MASSIVE Yes.

We need to make energy generation more localised. People need to appreciate it isnt just magic that makes their tv turn on

So, you think that ripping up massive areas of upland Britain is acceptable so that we can turn our TVs on? Do you really think that the majority of the population care where their power comes from as long as they can get their 42″ flatscreen to pick up the footie?

We have planning applications for something like 150 turbines in 4 windfarms within 15 miles of my house. Every upland area surrounding Swansea has an application, plus an application for an off-shore windfarm.

The nearest nuclear power station is across the Bristol Channel, so we really have the best of all worlds don’t we?

I seriously find it amazing that a group of people who supposedly spend time in the forests and mountains would not see the drawbacks of windfarms. Suppose that they were efficient. Suppose that there wasn’t a lot of subsidy attached to building them, which always makes me question the motives for building them. Would the destruction of this ‘natural’ habitat make it worthwhile, just so that we can carry on blithely using more and more energy to maintain our quality of life?

Tim, I would suggest that the answer is to get people to turn their TVs off occasionally.

Coming from the country side I can see why the townies who have paid top wack for a quite get away in the country would not want them built but do we really want to listen to them.

Nonsense. Most windfarm objections come from the folk who live locally. And quite right to object they are too.

Windfarms are a pointless, ugly, token gesture, and the only folk really in favour are those making a quick buck from them. Nuclear, plus a greatly reduced world population, that’s the answer.

1. Less open to terrorist attacks or sabotage

Is that really a massive concern? I know fuel security is an issue, but…

2. Local production would/could make the end-user think more about energy wastage

This is a good idea in principle, but it creates other issues – namely the nimbyism that goes with not wanting any form of generation nearby. Look at the recent objections to a biomass plant in Barry, Wales. The objection is ill founded and incorrect, and appears to be largely based on nimbyism.

3. Less pylons

Not a bad one, but they’re not a huuge blot, are they?

4. Local employment and use of materials rather than shipping commodities from the other side of the world – I’m thinking about wood fuelled combined heat and power plants; but there are many other solutions.

A good idea, and works to a certain extent in Germany, where microgeneration is big.

Wood for biomass (whether CHP or otherwise) is a problem right now in the UK – there is not enough of it (waste or virgin) to satisfy the demands for biomass generation (and thank god Drax hasn’t decided on the co-firing route). In any event, fuel needs to be transported and stored. Granted, import of overseas wood makes this situaiton worse….

5. Community ownership of the project(s)? Not so far fetched – what would you rather have (a) the decisions about your energy use being dictated to by shareholders and world fuel prices or (b) having a say on how and why your energy is generated

You mean organisations like Community Wind Power? There are plenty more of the same popping up. A good thing, I’m sure you’ll agree.

1. Less open to terrorist attacks or sabotage

Is that really a massive concern? I know fuel security is an issue, but…

But it’s good propaganda isn’t it?

As is “windfarms or nuclear, it’s your choice”.

Nuclear, plus a greatly reduced world population, that’s the answer

You’re Ahmadinijad and I claim my five pounds.

🙂

CO2 production is irrelevant. the UK is already at the mercy of other countries for our power, especially gas that comes from russia via a number of countries before it reaches us. windfarms are not going to help much if at all. if it comes down to it and we dont have any gas and it is a nice clear still frosty night would you happily freeze or chuck a bit of coal on the fire.
i personally think they are just a “fashion” item much the same as SS or fixies and will be gone in a few short years. 😉

a lot of this is politically driven, apart from the “eyesore” factor not many people oppose windfarms. a lot of people oppose “dirty and dangerous” nuclear and the other tried and tested methods. no government is going to damage its short term popularity for long term gain.

new fossil fuel power stations have been approved but they have to use unproved and very expensive sequestration techniques. a recent article by James Lovelock made a very good point, you could grow lots of quick growing crops on unused land eg willow and simply bury it. cheap and simple and you could easily remove CO2 from the atmos if you think that is a problem.
we simply dont have the luxury of being fashionable and right on we have to sort out our power needs right now.

the UK is already at the mercy of other countries for our power, especially gas that comes from russia via a number of countries before it reaches us.

The gas that arrives from Russia via pipeline represents about 2% of our overall needs. The vast majority of our gas still comes from the North Sea, whether from the Norwegian, Dutch or UK sectors. The amount of gas that comes via pipeline will now actually be declining with the new LNG terminals that have come on stream so no the UK is most definately not at the mercy of other countries for our power, or at least not more than any other country save those very few that are energy self sufficient.

windfarms are not going to help much if at all. if it comes down to it and we dont have any gas and it is a nice clear still frosty night would you happily freeze or chuck a bit of coal on the fire.

Well that’s a great big strawman argument right there. No one has suggested that wind turbines are the only solution that we should be progressing, only that it should be a part of the overall mix of energy solutions in the same way that we currently use a mixture of Gas, Coal, Oil, Nuclear and Hydro at the moment.

CO2 sequestration itself may be quite a new thing but the separation of a single gas from a mixture followed by compression and storage are not in and of themselves new and do not require the use of any new technologies. To describe them as unproven is disingenuous at best. That doesn’t mean that CO2 capture by using crops is a bad idea however it does require that fertile land is given over to the production of this crop rather than to grow food.

No.

1. They are ugly. Grass looks better than steel.

2. Cheap way for Government to try and persuade people that they are doing SOMETHING about climate change. They aren’t.

3. Misses the point completely. Until we have a free limitless supply of power, generating more is like advocating liposuction as the best way of alleviating obesity.

I’ve got no issue with how they look, in fact I’m yet to see a farm that grated on the eye… Maybe it’s still an element of novelty value, I like the otherworldliness of driving or riding through a big farm, and I love that when the light’s just right at sunset I can see a farm over in fife, skylined… It looks fantastic, to me. But I can see why others disagree, it’s not hard to see why they could be considered an eyesore. And the power production and environmental arguments are dubious in a lot of places.

My own position is nuclear now, and further research in sustainable power. I’ve a feeling tidal will prove to be our best option, but we’ll see. Wind could be made to be a useful part of a bigger picture though, I don’t doubt that. Urbanised turbines are becoming more common and the arguments for them are better- no transmission losses, no need to build new infrastructure. Plonk a small turbine on the roof of tower blocks and other large buildings, frinstance, it minimises the visual impact too.

Offshore wind has the potential to power every home in the UK and provide up to 70,000 jobs, according to the government

Monbiot did an interesting interview with the guy in charge of the CPRE. The CPRE object to loads of windfarms, but have never once objected to open cast coal mining. Monbiot reckoned it was all to do with the perfect sites for wind farms also being places where middle class people live.

miketually – Member
Monbiot did an interesting interview with the guy in charge of the CPRE. The CPRE object to loads of windfarms, but have never once objected to open cast coal mining. Monbiot reckoned it was all to do with the perfect sites for wind farms also being places where middle class people live.

I’d have to disagree with that – if Monbiot really thinks that he is living a very sheltered life.