Ban on onshore wind turbines cost you £180 last year

And we have a cheaper, faster to produce, proven technology that has no environmental impact

No environmental impact?

To all intents and purposes offshore wind has the least environmental impact of any energy generating tech we can currently deploy.

I enjoyed this opening paragraph

I thought it was a tad rude.

I felt the point could have been made using more diplomatic prose.

The one thing I have learnt on STW is that whatever the subject there is always someone who has greater expertise.

But if only people at the top of their game commented there would be very little to discuss, on a forum which exists solely to exchange ideas.

Makes you feel warm and fuzzy does it?

Not really - I didn't understand most of it. I thought it quite zippily and snippily summarised the problem about being an expert in something about which people talk an immense about of bollocks online.

But the real galaxy brain moment is when you realise that we are all bollocks-talkers about most things. 🤯

it quite zippily and snippily summarised the problem about being an expert in something about which people talk an immense about of bollocks online.

Yup, I can totally relate to ehrob, it's quite frustrating when self appointed experts in here start spouting off and digging down despite either having zero expertise in the field or their most recent experiences being old enough to drink in the US.

Makes you feel warm and fuzzy does it?

Nah, just gave me a laugh that someone else called you out on the same page for talking utter nonsense.

@squirrelking:

just gave me a laugh that someone else called you out on the same page for talking utter nonsense.

Didn't call me out - called this whole thread out. I stand comfortably by what I've said. My o/h has been in the same field for 20 years now - her role is governance of the environmental side of design and bid and monitoring oversight processes for marine and ports across the UK and Ireland for a big multinational. Multiple wind farms/Mersey Gateway, the potential mersey barrage, stuff in the Severn estuary etc. etc - it's her job to manage the environmental SMEs. So yeah, an ornithologist who admits to having "limited data" can't really rule out environmental impacts other than "we don't reckon".

Whereas I'm interested in this at a governance level - and given our form (70% of all animals in the last 50 years is a pretty big data point), it's clear we don't govern build projects well because there's a pathetic legislative base.

stumpyjon
Full Member
I don’t think PV is the solution for the UK as our geography makes they very inefficient. As was said earlier working at 1/3rd capacity is not very efficient.

Not relevant,

Sadly it is because NGs models aren't clever enough to recognise the constraints so an X MW solar farm blocks out the same capacity in the grid even though it will on average only produce ~X/10 MW annually with both a daily and seasonal profile that could be modelled to reflect more closely the production. It is (in part) this that is hamstringing bringing on line new schemes as NG say no capacity when actually there is in real life.

That and zombie schemes, there is 200GW approved but not developed capacity sitting on the grid models which is why there is now a ~15 year wait for connections in some areas.

To all intents and purposes offshore wind has the least environmental impact of any energy generating tech we can currently deploy

It's not zero, which is what you claimed.

Yours
Ransos
Renewable energy developer.

@ransos

@chevychase Get your wife to explain to you why it's not a trivial point. I'm sure she'll speak slowly if you ask.

That's 3 now, can we manage another before page 4? Ooh exciting!

@chevychase Get your wife to explain to you why it’s not a trivial point. I’m sure she’ll speak slowly if you ask.

I’m glad I’d just finished my beer, my iPad and half the floor and my coffee table would have needed mopping off with a towel! 🤣

@ransos

Get your wife to explain to you why it’s not a trivial point. I’m sure she’ll speak slowly if you ask.

It's the lowest impact energy generation we have, you've clearly tacitly agreed on that, right?

Therefore, whatever impacts there are (and I've happily conceded there are (obviously) impacts), don't really matter in the grand scheme of "what are we going to do". Because we've no lower-impact technologies to roll-out then we're going to roll-out loads of wind. Period.

Of course, we'll build the industries required for recycling end-of-life turbines and their parts, and the connective infrastructure etc. etc. We'll (eventually) lower the carbon footprint of shipping and construction.

The average payback time for windfarms (for carbon footprint) is 3-5 months. And after that we benefit from the cheapest electricity we can produce, and we're not poisoning our kids with noxious gases and particulate emissions.

So yes - I point you back up the thread - you're "technically" correct, but compared to other technologies - yes - it's trivial.

Show me the data that stacks up against any other generation technology that proves otherwise.

See, this is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge tells you something is best so go all in, wisdom tells you that going all in leaves you open to failure.

Diversity of supply is the name of the game, it's the entire tenet of renewable engineering.