Wind turbines – love 'em or hate 'em?
They seem to be the Marmite of structures. Not that they’re darkly coloured and utterly vile, but that they seem to totally polarise opinion.
I went for a ride through the scout moor wind turbines last night. Here
(and on the cover of this months mag):
It was quite surreal really. They remind me of a sort of benign version of War of the Worlds. They’re impressively huge when you’re up close. I really like them. I think they even add to the scenery in some way. And obviously they’re doing something a bit useful.
So… love ’em or hate ’em? and why?Posted 6 years agojoao3v16Member
Love? No. Hate? No. Tolerate? Yes.
Wind turbines aren’t too bad visually. They’re certainly not the worst things we’ve polluted the landscape with.
I’ve never seen a single man-made thing that even comes close to being comparable with what nature had preceeded it with.Posted 6 years ago
Hate them, mainly because they’re bloody useless.
Those who actually know about and have objectively studied these things know that they’re a waste of time, money and resources. We’ll be ripping them out within 10 years.Posted 6 years agostumpy01Member
I don’t mind them, but the landscape does look better without them.
I like the idea of industrial units/estates having their own wind turbine systems where it is worthwhile doing.Posted 6 years ago
There’s a massive Nike building in Belgium with several wind turbines and Wood Green Animal Shelter near Godmanchester has it’s own wind turbine. Smaller scale stuff like that providing ‘local’ power seems like a good way forward.
1/10 on rate my troll backhander please try harder
from your own link
Non-technical readers should be aware that the findings of this report apply only to currently available models of building-mounted wind turbines, designed for connection to the national grid. As anyone who knows anything about wind power will attest, urban environments and building mounting is probably the most challenging context in which to try to make wind power work, and the findings of this study cannot be generalised to larger-scale wind, nor to freestanding wind of any size mounted on poles or masts well away from obstructions. All the evidence (and theory) is that wind power is an excellent and highly effective choice for such conditions, which exist widely across the UK away from buildings and towns.
The title was wind turbines, are you suggesting that rooftops are not wind turbinesPosted 6 years ago
I have recently looked a 2 off 30 meter masts located in the south west. Combined, these at peak load supply 12kW/day or 0.5kW/hour, . That’ll do a couple of laptops however most days it’s a fraction of this. Whats the production ratio on WTs; 13-26%? Its just greenwashing, the way that these things are being marketed and sold is a disgrace.
Edit; flowerboy, wind your neck in.projectMember
Whats better a widturbine that doesnt pollute, and can be recycled, or a large nuclear pile of scrap, protected by armed police 24 hrs a day for ever, that we dont know how to recycle, or even keep safe for the next generation.
Bit like a chav neighbour,(nuclear power that is) as long as you keep throwing money at them, and having the police call round theyre happy, until theres a big bang.Posted 6 years ago
Whats the production ratio on WTs; 13-26%?
13-26% of the wind which is free, so something for nothing. You are not talking about a 26% efficient engine that only gets 26$% of the energy from a litre of finite resources here – you are talking about efficiencies from FREE renewable resources.Posted 6 years ago
Wind turbines are not free, the opposite in fact. Flowerboys is just jumping on a subject he knows nothing about (just like rugby) because I’m posting. Rustynail has it correct, they are a plaster for a sucking chest wound.
Even EON who have installed quite a few are aware of the poor performance of WTs.
Have not herd that phrase since I was at school. Internet hard man at work!Posted 6 years ago
If you have nothing to contribute; **** off.neninjaMember
I love watching them – it’s somehow calming to sit on a wall mid ride and watch them.
However as a genuinely useful energy source they are a little dubious. They are simply too inconsistent in energy generation and only produce about 30% of the claimed output in reality. If the huge grants and subsidies didn’t support them and their erection wasn’t forced on energy companies to meet imposed quotas I doubt they would be viable.Posted 6 years agoD0NKSubscriber
I like ’em, not that ugly, supposedly helping with the environment etc.
But the cynical side of me worries that:
They don’t provide much electricity
they aren’t that green
During their life cycle they aren’t even carbon neutral nevermind carbon reducing
They are being put up by private companies with massive grants from the government (ie it’s a money earner not an earth saver)
The infrastructure implemented to build the things probably harms the environment more than it helps.
No stats to back any of this up, it’s just my cynical expectationsPosted 6 years ago
the E-ON paper references data from 2004 in a limited region of Germany. Therefore, it is limited in value due to date and geography.
Wind turbines are not perfect and are generally more efficient in production when sited offshore. The bigger the turbine the more efficient it is (laws of physics here kids) and the siting of them is all important.
They are part of an answer to a problem we’ve not yet solved – most of our power comes from finite resources that are becoming more expensive and the consumption of them pollutes and warms the environment. We will need a blend of generation techniques to provide enough energy for the future – especially as we go further towards a total electric requirement.Posted 6 years agostumpy01Member
Whats better a widturbine that doesnt pollute
problem is you need a LOT of them to produce meaningful amounts of energy, which means lots of factories, materials, energy used in production etc.
I bet the energy payback time for a windturbine is massive. Not saying that they aren’t good for some situations, but I don’t think you can just blanket the land in them and expect our energy woes to disappear.
I think we need to stop using more energy to start with. Do we really need street lights all over the place at night? On motorways at 3am in the morning??Posted 6 years ago
Industrial estates where all the buildings are left illuminated overnight, no doubt with 10’s if not 100’s of PCs using power unnecessarily, electronics on standby in millions of homes….everyone says, but it’s only a few watts (for their household), but multiply that by every household in the UK & it starts to mean something….
I think that the E-ON wind energy report 2005 is about as respectable as you’ll get.
what the one with the massive caveat which I quoted that is only about home mounted wind turbines…… you really do need to try harder.
All the evidence (and theory) is that wind power is an excellent and highly effective choice
most of our power comes from finite resources that are becoming more expensive and the consumption of them pollutes and warms the environment. We will need a blend of generation techniques to provide enough energy for the future – especially as we go further towards a total electric requirement.
I absolutely agree with this, I just don’t think that wind is going to provide an amount of energy which will make a difference. There are currently some very interesting developments with wave/tidal technologies (the anaconda). I’m certainly not anti renewable but there is an awful amount of greenwashing going on.Posted 6 years ago
There are currently some very interesting developments with wave/tidal technologies
Not that work effectively. Although I do believe we need to pursue them much faster and further. Then again, the environmental impact of a Severn Estuary tidal system would have been massive.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Wind turbines – love 'em or hate 'em?’ is closed to new replies.