Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 04 June 2012, 06:53:09
-
............Headlines in The Independent.
They claim that 70% of people want more wind turbines built across the countryside. Really ??!!
Ive yet to meet anyone who thinks they are anything but an expensive con and a blot on the landscape.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/build-more-turbines-poll-shows-public-wants-wind-farms-7814798.html
-
I like them Albs. Human resourcefulness at its best. :)
-
At least Lincolnshire is taken a stand against the useless things :y :y, Blot On The Landscape.
The science just doesn't stand up :(
-
I think they are great :y
In fact, I think every family should have one in there own back garden ;D
And those of you who live down south can have 2 each :D :D :D
And here is why.......... http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2173625/siemens-hails-major-step-forward-hull-turbine-plant
1 in 10 unemployed up here
1 in 4 youths ;)
-
OKeh stick 'em all in the Humber estuary as far Goole nothing to blot ;D ;D
-
OKeh stick 'em all in the Humber estuary as far Goole nothing to blot ;D ;D
As long as they are all on the south bank side I couldn't give a toss ;D ;D ;D
-
I think they are great :y
In fact, I think every family should have one in there own back garden ;D
And those of you who live down south can have 2 each :D :D :D
And here is why.......... http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2173625/siemens-hails-major-step-forward-hull-turbine-plant
1 in 10 unemployed up here
1 in 4 youths ;)
The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK
March 2011, Executive Summary, Verso Economics
"The report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland there is no net benefit from government support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs."
...
"In conclusion, policy to promote the renewable electricity sector in both Scotland and the UK is economically damaging. Government should not see this as an economic opportunity, therefore, but should focus debate instead on whether these costs, and the damage done to the environment, are worth the candle in terms of climate change mitigation."
http://www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf (http://www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf)
;)
-
And who exactly are verso economics? that document is 2 pages long with hardly any evidence in it. Just statements, based on what?
I for one would rather have wind farms rather then a nuclear power plant by my garden.
-
Personally, I would rather have the nuclear plant.
Where wind turbines are noisy, if you live near them, they can stop you receiving TV and mobile signals due to the rotating blades causing ghosting, they kill lots of birds that fly into the blades and only work 30% of the time, the other 70% has to be covered by base load power stations like, nuclear, gas and coal.
And they are very expensive for what they do with expensive maintenance schedules and breakdowns, which is why the electricity they generate is so expensive.
It would be far more sensible to spend the money on Thorium Liquid Sodium nuclear technology, like India (world leader), China and Russia are. The technology is orders of magnitude safer than Uranium reactors as they need a neutron beam to make the reactor work, turn that off and it stops, the liquid sodium can continue to circulate as a gravity feed, so a core meltdown is not possible with external pump failure (like in Japan). Once the fuel is fully used the major long lasting radiation by product is cesium137 which has a half live of 30 years (about 60%) of radiation gone, so it it safe to handle with no protection after about 30 years.
Where there is only enough left Uranium for about 100 years if most electricity was produced by them, there is over 1000 years of proven deposits of Thorium.
We were the world's leaders in civilian nuclear power in the 1950's. I don't know if anybody else has noticed, but this since the 1990's all UK Governments do not invest in developing world leading expensive technologies like this anymore. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
And who exactly are verso economics? that document is 2 pages long with hardly any evidence in it. Just statements, based on what?
I for one would rather have wind farms rather then a nuclear power plant by my garden.
I don't know about that D. A single turbine has been erected within commercial premises across the valley from me; the topography allows me to see only the tips of the blades, and only when the lighting conditions are just right.
When this first went up I drove across to see what it was like at close quarters - it was huge and quite intimidating. I imagined at first sight that the susurrations of the blades would have taken some getting used to at the best of times but when I paid another visit when it was quite windy, the spinning of such a large propeller and the noise generated by it - especially when positioned so close to the ground – looked (and sounded) distinctly dangerous.
Aside from these aesthetic matters I don’t fancy paying a quite unnecessary financial penalty to satisfy the whims of those who have capitulated to EU Directives – especially when those very people have unilaterally crippled this country with unrealistic laws to cap carbon output and, more so, when the results will be so punitively expensive for those who have no option but to use energy generated by this and other ‘renewable’ means.
-
That, of course Den, is the point. Without subsidies, wind (and solar) power is an expensive folly. ::) >:(
-
And who exactly are verso economics? that document is 2 pages long with hardly any evidence in it. Just statements, based on what?
I for one would rather have wind farms rather then a nuclear power plant by my garden.
I don't know about that D. A single turbine has been erected within commercial premises across the valley from me; the topography allows me to see only the tips of the blades, and only when the lighting conditions are just right.
When this first went up I drove across to see what it was like at close quarters - it was huge and quite intimidating. I imagined at first sight that the susurrations of the blades would have taken some getting used to at the best of times but when I paid another visit when it was quite windy, the spinning of such a large propeller and the noise generated by it - especially when positioned so close to the ground – looked (and sounded) distinctly dangerous.
Aside from these aesthetic matters I don’t fancy paying a quite unnecessary financial penalty to satisfy the whims of those who have capitulated to EU Directives – especially when those very people have unilaterally crippled this country with unrealistic laws to cap carbon output and, more so, when the results will be so punitively expensive for those who have no option but to use energy generated by this and other ‘renewable’ means.
I have to agree with most of what you said. Still prefer the wind farm to a nuclear plant though. Noisy, but hopefully not lethal and my dogs won't have 3 eyes instead of 2.
My response was purely to a the OP having never met anyone who wanted wind turbines built. The legislation and financial penalties are not fair at all. Doesn't really help push the concept forward does it?
-
And who exactly are verso economics? that document is 2 pages long with hardly any evidence in it. Just statements, based on what?
I for one would rather have wind farms rather then a nuclear power plant by my garden.
I don't know about that D. A single turbine has been erected within commercial premises across the valley from me; the topography allows me to see only the tips of the blades, and only when the lighting conditions are just right.
When this first went up I drove across to see what it was like at close quarters - it was huge and quite intimidating. I imagined at first sight that the susurrations of the blades would have taken some getting used to at the best of times but when I paid another visit when it was quite windy, the spinning of such a large propeller and the noise generated by it - especially when positioned so close to the ground – looked (and sounded) distinctly dangerous.
Aside from these aesthetic matters I don’t fancy paying a quite unnecessary financial penalty to satisfy the whims of those who have capitulated to EU Directives – especially when those very people have unilaterally crippled this country with unrealistic laws to cap carbon output and, more so, when the results will be so punitively expensive for those who have no option but to use energy generated by this and other ‘renewable’ means.
I have to agree with most of what you said. Still prefer the wind farm to a nuclear plant though. Noisy, but hopefully not lethal and my dogs won't have 3 eyes instead of 2.
My response was purely to a the OP having never met anyone who wanted wind turbines built. The legislation and financial penalties are not fair at all. Doesn't really help push the concept forward does it?
Are you referring to the huge taxpayer-funded subsidies they consume? If so, I agree. :y
-
Where do we start then? Surely you can think of various tax-payer funds that are being siphoned off for useless purposes. Don't forget the porn bill for a certain hubby to someone in a position of authority.
At least these generate something useful as opposed to tissues being flushed down a toilet after said TV show!
But I do see your point and mostly agree with it.