Those guys down there on the Isle of Wight seem to have something to protest about.
'Generalising' hat on, the government bailed out quite a few useless merchant bankers recently, but wont lift a finger to help a company producing wind turbine parts. Well I can understand, I mean where's the future in that! America and China it seems, can't help but find that ironic.

does seem very crap on the face of it.

Wind turbine company isn't in trouble, the plant is uneconomical compared to others. Have you ever though what would have happened if they didn't save the banks?

It's very easy to get taken in by the whole eco thing – and that's what the protesters seem to want to be the headline. Personally I'm just seeing an uneconomic plant with the company shifting production elsewhere. Should the government be propping up every single one of those?

Aren't they moving because there is no market for wind turbines in the UK, or that it's too small. And that those industrial demons USA and China do have a market for them.

OK it just seems sad that we don't have the market now or likely to have in the near future, where as those two countries usually seen as poluting ogres do.
I can't help think that the Danish company moved production here because there should have been a 'promised' demand i.e a move towards renewables and the industry it supports.
So yes I can understand the economics for the company and the move, but it looks like another nail in the coffin of renewables.

but it looks like another nail in the coffin of renewables.

Only if you consider wind turbines to be the only renewables, which seems to be the mistake an awful lot of people make.

Of course in reality we are unfortunately building loads of wind turbines, just not buying them from that company.

I don't know whether this was a major factor but a bunch of old nimbys have made it more difficult to site the things. Half the island was plastered with "Stop the baby-killing al-qaeda giant windturbines!" posters until their sons and neighbours all suddenly lost their jobs. I can't really blame the company for not feeling it was worth any further investment around here. The protesters call themselves 'Thwart' and are very well funded. Rumours suggest countryside alliance (ie, oil industry) money. It was all very Daily Mail; I have been told by quite a number of apparently educated people that wind turbines will kill birds by creating 'vortexes'! The best answer to this balls is to ask them to explain the mechanism for that, in a passive system, and then watch the cheeks turn purple.

Where I work (government land, exempt from planning restrictions) they've put up a medium-sized turbine and are confident of getting 15000kwh/annum which is, apparently, an excellent return on a purchase and installation cost of £45000. I'd have one if I had the land. Over twenty five years (the guarantee period) it'd pay for itself ten times over, I'm told. You wouldn't have to worry about your leccy costs if the pension went Maxwellwards, either.

It's technology bike enthusiasts might want to consider supporting. The leaps forwards in efficiency have been thanks to new materials and gearing developments. The cross over into bikes is obvious. Also, it's the sort of industry which supports small start-ups in installation and maintenance and it only concretes over a couple of square metres of land, instead of the thousands of square metres needed for oil refineries (the biggest blot on the island's skyline is Fawley) and power stations.

So, I'm with you, oldgit; I think the workers got a very raw deal, caught between opportunistic business, bad industrial and environmental policy and a level of ignorance about new power generation technology that is, at best, stupid, and, at worst, wilful and deceptive.

I have been told by quite a number of apparently educated people that wind turbines will kill birds by creating 'vortexes'! The best answer to this balls is to ask them to explain the mechanism for that, in a passive system, and then watch the cheeks turn purple.

How is it a passive mechanism when there are whirly blades (which do indeed create vortices!)

it only concretes over a couple of square metres of land, instead of the thousands of square metres needed for oil refineries

And how much does that couple of square metres of land contribute to out energy supplies compared to an oil refinery?

a level of ignorance about new power generation technology that is, at best, stupid, and, at worst, wilful and deceptive.

In the case of those advocating wind turbines as the solution to our energy needs, it's usually the latter.

Hmm. We need energy, the wind blows and generates it without any running emissions. Cost is paid off from selling the electricity.

Seems ok to me aracer…?

I think a lot of the 'it's all rubbish' camp are saying that it'll never work because you can't provide all the UK's energy with wind. That's true, but you certainly help 🙂

Hi aracer; Sorry, yes; I was imprecise. The vision I've had described to me is of a cone of sucking air beyond the turbine. To create such a vortex the blades would need to accelerate an area of wind; in other words, add energy to the system. They are, in fact, on a tiny scale, doing the opposite. You're talking about wingtip vortices which won't suck through the turbine: they're no different, as hazards, to flailing branches; just more predictable in their movement.

On the point about scale, I'm not advocating turbines as a replacement for current levels of consumption. They would have solved certain local needs here, such as the fact that our economy on the island is one of the poorest in the UK and we NEED those jobs. Bikes work, but not as replacements for 747s. Turbines work, but not as replacements for oil refineries. Personally, I have reduced my consumption as far as I can and will try to do so further. I am also worried about my old age and am looking for technology that might support me. I do not know how to save the world economy: as far as I can tell, in terms of fuel need, it is ****ed.

As for the last, I didn't mean you. This is a hot topic around these parts. You seem to care as well, but I hadn't registered your previous post when I posted. Sorry for any offence caused, etc. etc.

As I understand it, the problem is that we cannot effectively store electrical energy, therefore the energy produced by the turbines is only available immediately as the wind blows. I think that they are a complete eyesore and really only scrape the surface of the problem. I predict that our children and grandchildren will be ripping these things out. I had a CPD from a manufacturer recently and a 15m high shaft with a 5m blade would not "harvest" enough energy to heat a house. We're clutching at straws, sustainability is relevant to more than just energy and blighting our green areas with **** great white fans for future generations is not sustainable.

I read that the company was not economically viable – should the government bail out all uneconomical companys ? Or just uneconomical green ones ?

Have you been to the valleys? That area was pretty frigging blighted with industry and it was a damn sight worse than a few windmills. No-one really cared then.

Have you been to the valleys?

Once or twice. Completely different scenario though.
Those times were all about industry, these are all about social responsibility and I don't think it's socially responsible to erect these things. Have you heard of "externalities"? Horrible economists speak I know; but I just don't think the benefit is worth the cost for this tech. You can put a monetary value on energy harvested/saved but can you on our unique countryside?

We need to reduce our expansion in consumption to zero, or we are, by definition (without fusion power coming online) screwed. Renewables certainly help, all of them to some extent, but peoples over-reliance and expectations from wind power are misplaced. Most wind plants are put down with an expected output, yet they rarely get 30% of what they quote when planning goes in. The several farms near my flat are RARELY turning, when some turbines are, masses are not.

Regardless of what we have now, research into renewables and fusion both need to be stepped up a notch to give us a hope of coping, whether you care about climate change or not – ultimately we need a method of powering ourselves and at current rate of increase we'll need new planets in the coming few hundred years!

An interesting vid series (8 parts), posted a few months ago…

I just don't think the benefit is worth the cost for this tech

A lot of people do, which is why they are getting built. There are several reasons against, don't get me wrong. The thing about consistency of power delivery is valid, however there's certainly room for a fair amount of wind generation since it's cheap and emissions free. I referenced the Valleys to illustrate that those people whining about their view being spoiled need to suck it up for the common good. They won't even notice in a few years anyway – I don't.

Those folk whose anti-turbine argument is that it'll never supply our entire energy need are just setting up straw men. Clearly that's not the case and no-one with more than half a brain thinks so. There's no point in rubbishing the whole idea because of that tho – there's still room for a lot of wind power, the question is how much? Let's find out.

What coffeeking
I hate to say it, but IMHO nuclear is really the only short to medium term solution. I a daft mad scientist way, I like the piezo power; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1027362/Britains-eco-nightclub-powered-pounding-feet-opens-doors.html;jsessionid=8E5C2E2171677653186E8DE0E50ADDFF
Please forgive the source, but the streets of major cities, gyms, clubs etc producing power invisibly is great!

Molgrips, its about benefit vs cost and the benefit (not great) is not worth the cost. We will be ripping these out sooner than you think.
How about we put one into your back garden "for the common good"?

If they want to put one in my back garden in return for free electricity they can go right ahead. 🙂

I don't understand all the hostility to them – I think they are rather beautiful. I wouldn't want them to cover the entire surface of the countryside but then that's not going to happen. At least you would have the option to take them out and return the land to it's previous state, unlike with a nuclear power station.

And all these people talking about it being uneconomic – any idea how much subsidy nuclear power has received over the years?

grumm – they are quite pretty, but currently they're sprawled across scotlands landscape and they really do spoil the view in a lot of places. OFFSHORE is the way forward. More consistent winds, higher winds, closer packing possible etc etc.

backhander – I saw that club on the news too, though I'm not convinced at all TBH. I'd like to see how they come to their estimates of 60% of the clubs power. Piezo generation is very low quantity as it has a high internal resistance, meaning it can produce plenty of volts but current throughput is tiny, drastically limiting power output. I genuinely would like to see their equipment and calculations, if they're *actually* generating multiple kW from people dancing on piezos I have a heap of other ways of using it to make more power!

Wind turbine company isn't in trouble, the plant is uneconomical compared to others. Have you ever though what would have happened if they didn't save the banks?

what the banks did was very uneconomical, what the Government did to bail them out can be classed as the same, but you are right they had to be bailed out. But when it comes to manufacturing, hang on a minute…UK doesn't "do" manufacturing, so the jobs go elsewhere.

This must stop.

Apologies for the back garden comment it was a bit childish.
Once again, I'm in agreement with coffeeking. Offshore or in the cities where we've already ruined the landscape would be ideal. I'd like to see the calcs for the piezo, too. I'll dig out the numbers on wind from the CPD but they weren't impressive to say the least.

Once or twice. Completely different scenario though.
Those times were all about industry, these are all about social responsibility and I don't think it's socially responsible to erect these things. Have you heard of "externalities"? Horrible economists speak I know; but I just don't think the benefit is worth the cost for this tech. You can put a monetary value on energy harvested/saved but can you on our unique countryside?

That same countryside which is the result of industry e.g. farming? Personally i think FC plantations and arable fields are a hideous blot on the landscape.

eh? is that irony?
forests; a blot on the landscape?
You do realise that this is a MTB forum for people that, in general like the countryside?
Are you from London?

Backhander, you are right about continuity of supply, for now, but power storage is another technology making incredible strides.

I am a bit of a hippy and I truly hate a lot of the technology we have inherited, from cars, to aeroplanes, to weaponry, to nuclear power plants. I like to think that we are moving from the first rush of mass technology to a more mature relationship with our invention, where we design to meet need rather than to overcome nature, as has been argued is the case with the first industrial revolution. Certainly,there is an argument for saying that a technology's inherent weaknesses are unsolvable and that to look for replacements for a failed technology, rather than curing the desires that they have failed to answer, is stupid.

I believe that a new economy is required, based on new technology, rather than just trying to patch up the mess we've made with a new bunch of equally problematic business-as-usual giant projects. Nuclear is just the pollution of tomorrow, and the quangos that have taken over Cumbria's economy, in order to push through the idea that it's the only answer, look like corrupt profiteering, rather than an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.

One of the great things about wind turbines, solar energy, heat exchange technology and the rest of it, is that it is easy to pull up when it is no longer needed. One day, I hope, we won't need the equivalent of an eighteenth century Briton's lifelong energy usage to power a single household for a month; the gizmos will exist to run on low energy sources. For now, we should be scaling down, not building up.

eh? is that irony?
forests; a blot on the landscape?
You do realise that this is a MTB forum for people that, in general like the countryside?
Are you from London?

You think all forests are the same?

FC plantations are all the same species of tree, planted nice and regular in patches all over the hill side. They are blots on the landscape, literally.

I love the countryside. Fortunately we don't have too many arable field up here (NE England) which makes for a nice place. Personally, i'd like to see more indigenous forests around, like things used to be before industrial agriculture.

OK, do you prefer food to be imported with the associated travel costs?
Do you think local produce is not of good quality?
If we had less organic produce, we could really minimise the arable land usage here.

OK, do you prefer food to be imported with the associated travel costs?
Do you think local produce is not of good quality?
If we had less organic produce, we could really minimise the arable land usage here.

eh? more indigenous woodland = less arable land?

How about we put one into your back garden "for the common good"?

Fine. Although my garden is small, better put it at the end of the road. I've no problem with them.

Fortunately we don't have too many arable field up here (NE England) which makes for a nice place.

You have barren moors which are kept stripped of all flora and associated fauna by the ravaging of sheep.. so not natural either sorry 🙂

CaptJon – Member
That same countryside which is the result of industry e.g. farming? Personally i think FC plantations and arable fields are a hideous blot on the landscape.

Am I right in thinking that you are not a fan of farming? In an ideal world, the UK would still be all indigenous forest (and the riding would be ace). I see what your saying about the plantations, but they're angelic compared to fields of monsterous bright white turbines. At least the forests are organic.

You have barren moors which are kept stripped of all flora and associated fauna by the ravaging of sheep.. so not natural either sorry

Yeah, some are pretty desolate especially those managed for grouse shooting. But my point isn't about naturalness. Claims to naturalness in this country are naive and betray ignorance about the history of our landscapes.

Am I right in thinking that you are not a fan of farming? In an ideal world, the UK would still be all indigenous forest (and the riding would be ace). I see what your saying about the plantations, but they're angelic compared to fields of monsterous bright white turbines. At least the forests are organic.

No, i don't mind farming. Have to disagree about plantations vs turbines – i'd take the latter over the former.