Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

This makes me sad. We do not need wind farms, yet so much money and greenwash is tied up in them that all we can do is to sit back and watch the deaths mount. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Deadly-blades-wind-farm-death-toll-mounts-as-birds-of-prey-are-massacred

if i can ease your mind nickbat - modern, large bladed , slow moving wind turbines are little risk to birds - it was the early fast, small bladed turbines that created this panic - unfortunately data from the new, intelligently sited wind farms doesnt bear out this bird killing

besides, how many birds die flying into windows and cars?

I would have thought that the location of these potential monstrosities is based more on the economics of the development in terms of cost to the investors rather than any great concern for the overall efficiency of the installation :-/

Of course with the saturation development envisaged, the casualty rate is bound to soar :-/

[Nickbat]

Yet another red herring I am afraid. Far more animals,birds and other wildlife are killed/wiped out by man across the globe than a few thousand wind farms can ever do.

For what it is worth, I believe that the Uk ought to get cracking with nuclear before it is held to ransom by  foreign power companies. Wait a minute too late - you are already paying for the capped by government energy prices in other sane EU countries because Britain fully embraces the "free market"!

v

No it isn't Varche. To quote from Bellamy's letter: On the Isle of Lewis, for instance, a wind farm is to be built in a designated Important Bird Area (Park UK224), and another in the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area (the Pentland Road road windfarm project)

If we have designated ornotholigically-important areas, placing wind farms on them is defeating their purpose. These places are special for bird life. The fact that, numerically, more wildlife is lost to other human activities is not relevant to the point I am making. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This makes me sad. We do not need wind farms, yet so much money and greenwash is tied up in them that all we can do is to sit back and watch the deaths mount. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Deadly-blades-wind-farm-death-toll-mounts-as-birds-of-prey-are-massacred

if i can ease your mind nickbat - modern, large bladed , slow moving wind turbines are little risk to birds - it was the early fast, small bladed turbines that created this panic - unfortunately data from the new, intelligently sited wind farms doesnt bear out this bird killing

besides, how many birds die flying into windows and cars?

I would have thought that the location of these potential monstrosities is based more on the economics of the development in terms of cost to the investors rather than any great concern for the overall efficiency of the installation :-/

Of course with the saturation development envisaged, the casualty rate is bound to soar :-/

I must disagree with that statement Zulu.  No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.  The siting of these wind farms is based on where it is considered the maximum amount of output will be generated from the wind, on average, available.  It just so happens that these sites are so often areas of "special natural interest".

As I touched on in my previous post mankind cannot rule its progress and developed on the fear we "may hurt something".  When has man ever worried about that when eating our Sunday lunches!!   No, we should make decisions based on efficiency, and for that reason wind farms are a waste of space in the numbers being built, and it will require hundred of thousands more to give us the power generation required for now and in the future.  They are a pure political sop to the 'environmentalists'! Therefore they are a nosense, not for the number of birds they may or may kill, but the ineffiecency of them.

The only efficent mass generating system that is viable as I stated before, is nuclear power.  If we are to abandon fossil fuel driven electrical generation, which in turn is harmfull to ALL life, then this is the answer.   Even the greens are starting to recognise this. 

So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business effiecency!

[Martin_1962]

Only answers are nuclear power and cutting back on wastage

[Dishevelled Den]

This makes me sad. We do not need wind farms, yet so much money and greenwash is tied up in them that all we can do is to sit back and watch the deaths mount. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Deadly-blades-wind-farm-death-toll-mounts-as-birds-of-prey-are-massacred

if i can ease your mind nickbat - modern, large bladed , slow moving wind turbines are little risk to birds - it was the early fast, small bladed turbines that created this panic - unfortunately data from the new, intelligently sited wind farms doesnt bear out this bird killing

besides, how many birds die flying into windows and cars?

I would have thought that the location of these potential monstrosities is based more on the economics of the development in terms of cost to the investors rather than any great concern for the overall efficiency of the installation :-/

Of course with the saturation development envisaged, the casualty rate is bound to soar :-/

I must disagree with that statement Zulu.  No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.  The siting of these wind farms is based on where it is considered the maximum amount of output will be generated from the wind, on average, available.  It just so happens that these sites are so often areas of "special natural interest".

As I touched on in my previous post mankind cannot rule its progress and developed on the fear we "may hurt something".  When has man ever worried about that when eating our Sunday lunches!!   No, we should make decisions based on efficiency, and for that reason wind farms are a waste of space in the numbers being built, and it will require hundred of thousands more to give us the power generation required for now and in the future.  They are a pure political sop to the 'environmentalists'! Therefore they are a nosense, not for the number of birds they may or may kill, but the ineffiecency of them.

The only efficent mass generating system that is viable as I stated before, is nuclear power.  If we are to abandon fossil fuel driven electrical generation, which in turn is harmfull to ALL life, then this is the answer.   Even the greens are starting to recognise this. 

So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business effiecency!

No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.



The investment strategy of the utility concerned will always have a weather eye on the profit return against investment made. 

These utilities are investing in this technology because, in my view, this useless administration is making it financially attractive for them to do so - the green levy applied to bills - and the freedom to site these highly concentrated installations at will.

It would be foolish to suggest that the location is chosen purely on the minimum investment required but I'm suggesting that it plays not an inconsiderable part in such decisions.  With a pliant administration the utility providers can have the freedom to develop at will and where private enterprise is concerned, the bottom line is the driving force.

As the development of this technology is aimed at providing a service which will have an instant and on-going demand without the need to market the product, the utility can place cost savings against efficiency quite easily, after all it's a captive market.

 
So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business efficiency!

  there's more decision making potential in my left testicle - forgive my freedom - than there is in the relevant Departments within this failed administration  

That's why we have yet another knee-jerk reaction to tackling a problem the skewed and highly selected details of which are being spoon-fed to this useless lot.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This makes me sad. We do not need wind farms, yet so much money and greenwash is tied up in them that all we can do is to sit back and watch the deaths mount. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Deadly-blades-wind-farm-death-toll-mounts-as-birds-of-prey-are-massacred

if i can ease your mind nickbat - modern, large bladed , slow moving wind turbines are little risk to birds - it was the early fast, small bladed turbines that created this panic - unfortunately data from the new, intelligently sited wind farms doesnt bear out this bird killing

besides, how many birds die flying into windows and cars?

I would have thought that the location of these potential monstrosities is based more on the economics of the development in terms of cost to the investors rather than any great concern for the overall efficiency of the installation :-/

Of course with the saturation development envisaged, the casualty rate is bound to soar :-/

I must disagree with that statement Zulu.  No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.  The siting of these wind farms is based on where it is considered the maximum amount of output will be generated from the wind, on average, available.  It just so happens that these sites are so often areas of "special natural interest".

As I touched on in my previous post mankind cannot rule its progress and developed on the fear we "may hurt something".  When has man ever worried about that when eating our Sunday lunches!!   No, we should make decisions based on efficiency, and for that reason wind farms are a waste of space in the numbers being built, and it will require hundred of thousands more to give us the power generation required for now and in the future.  They are a pure political sop to the 'environmentalists'! Therefore they are a nosense, not for the number of birds they may or may kill, but the ineffiecency of them.

The only efficent mass generating system that is viable as I stated before, is nuclear power.  If we are to abandon fossil fuel driven electrical generation, which in turn is harmfull to ALL life, then this is the answer.   Even the greens are starting to recognise this. 

So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business effiecency!

No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.



The investment strategy of the utility concerned will always have a weather eye on the profit return against investment made. 

These utilities are investing in this technology because, in my view, this useless administration is making it financially attractive for them to do so - the green levy applied to bills - and the freedom to site these highly concentrated installations at will.

It would be foolish to suggest that the location is chosen purely on the minimum investment required but I'm suggesting that it plays not an inconsiderable part in such decisions.  With a pliant administration the utility providers can have the freedom to develop at will and where private enterprise is concerned, the bottom line is the driving force.

As the development of this technology is aimed at providing a service which will have an instant and on-going demand without the need to market the product, the utility can place cost savings against efficiency quite easily, after all it's a captive market.

 
So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business efficiency!

  there's more decision making potential in my left testicle - forgive my freedom - than there is in the relevant Departments within this failed administration  

That's why we have yet another knee-jerk reaction to tackling a problem the skewed and highly selected details of which are being spoon-fed to this useless lot.

I don't think building windfarms off-shore, or in very remote parts of the country is a cheap option Zulu.  As stated before they are built where they can generate the most electricity for the owning company.

As for the Government, well yes they are very incompetent, but at least they have acknowledged the need for more modern nuclear power with contracts now signed. 

Once more I did state that windfarms and all nature harnessing devises are a sop to the environmentalists, although ironically it is a section of them that are now objecting to them on the basis of damage to wildlife and the 'country scene'!!

 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

In addition I can only repeat the following as I want to add nothing to it!:

Regardless of all the cons and pros with the need for power versus the affect, or not, on the environment, let's face the fact that everyone of us is constantly creating a demand for electricity.  No one that I know, including me, is prepared or can give up the 'essential luxury' of electrical power to give us the standard of living we enjoy today.

If we, mankind as a whole, was really worried about the effects of our activities on wildlife then we would give up all modern technology and go back to a time when we just lived off the land immediately around us.  But of course we will not because we do not want to sacrifice what we have.

Mankind has affected other life on this planet ever since we came into existence in some form or another.  But that should not be a problem because we are part of the whole; God / nature put us here, created our desire to continually evolve and advance, using the planet to fulfil our needs.  That is what was intended, and none of us within the history of mankind was ever able to change our direction and hunger for advance.  Only natural plagues and man-made wars have short term slowed down this progress, although because of these events we have in the long term advanced significantly after the sacrifice.

The problem now, as I see it, is that mankind is unsure of the best way to go forward, meeting our needs with the apparent dilemma about how we affect the planet.  It is a self inflicted psychological dilemma, as whatever we do is nothing compared to the scale of nature itself and we are inflating our perceived involved in that gigantic process.  But we still beat ourselves up over something that is not within our control. 

I am not saying we do nothing; humans have never done that!  No we should pursue more efficient ways to produce the power we demand for reasons of economy.  That IS nuclear power, not crazy windfarms or other so called harnessing of nature devises that can never be of sufficient numbers to produce the power we require, are an unnecessary blot on the environmental landscape, and in fact do have a significant cost during their manufacture, transportation, erection / construction and future use.

So the choice for mankind is this.  We either stop using power or we accept there is a cost whatever we do on the environment as there always has been, and just build the most efficient, suitable and economically viable generation equipment to produce our electricity.  No political pleasing of this that and the other NGO, lobbying movement, aunt Sally in the street, but just sound logical decision making to produce what we really need in viable quantities.  Nuclear power has been that answer for 50 years, and with development can be the answer for generations to come.

 

[Varche]

This makes me sad. We do not need wind farms, yet so much money and greenwash is tied up in them that all we can do is to sit back and watch the deaths mount. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13344-Wildlife-Conservation-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Deadly-blades-wind-farm-death-toll-mounts-as-birds-of-prey-are-massacred

besides, how many birds die flying into windows and cars?

I would have thought that the location of these potential monstrosities is based more on the economics of the development in terms of cost to the investors rather than any great concern for the overall efficiency of the installation :-/

Of course with the saturation development envisaged, the casualty rate is bound to soar :-/

I must disagree with that statement Zulu.  No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.  The siting of these wind farms is based on where it is considered the maximum amount of output will be generated from the wind, on average, available.  It just so happens that these sites are so often areas of "special natural interest".

As I touched on in my previous post mankind cannot rule its progress and developed on the fear we "may hurt something".  When has man ever worried about that when eating our Sunday lunches!!   No, we should make decisions based on efficiency, and for that reason wind farms are a waste of space in the numbers being built, and it will require hundred of thousands more to give us the power generation required for now and in the future.  They are a pure political sop to the 'environmentalists'! Therefore they are a nosense, not for the number of birds they may or may kill, but the ineffiecency of them.

The only efficent mass generating system that is viable as I stated before, is nuclear power.  If we are to abandon fossil fuel driven electrical generation, which in turn is harmfull to ALL life, then this is the answer.   Even the greens are starting to recognise this. 

So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business effiecency!

No business invests millions - building the wind farm - without a profit - from electrical generation - becoming quickly apparent.



The investment strategy of the utility concerned will always have a weather eye on the profit return against investment made. 

These utilities are investing in this technology because, in my view, this useless administration is making it financially attractive for them to do so - the green levy applied to bills - and the freedom to site these highly concentrated installations at will.

It would be foolish to suggest that the location is chosen purely on the minimum investment required but I'm suggesting that it plays not an inconsiderable part in such decisions.  With a pliant administration the utility providers can have the freedom to develop at will and where private enterprise is concerned, the bottom line is the driving force.

As the development of this technology is aimed at providing a service which will have an instant and on-going demand without the need to market the product, the utility can place cost savings against efficiency quite easily, after all it's a captive market.

 
So lets stop the 'dangle berries' and start making political decisions based on common sense and business efficiency!

  there's more decision making potential in my left testicle - forgive my freedom - than there is in the relevant Departments within this failed administration  

That's why we have yet another knee-jerk reaction to tackling a problem the skewed and highly selected details of which are being spoon-fed to this useless lot.

I don't think building windfarms off-shore, or in very remote parts of the country is a cheap option Zulu.  As stated before they are built where they can generate the most electricity for the owning company.

As for the Government, well yes they are very incompetent, but at least they have acknowledged the need for more modern nuclear power with contracts now signed. 
Once more I did state that windfarms and all nature harnessing devises are a sop to the environmentalists, although ironically it is a section of them that are now objecting to them on the basis of damage to wildlife and the 'country scene'!!

 

lets hope that the companies signing the contracts for the "more nuclear power" are British. Oops too late. In twenty years time Britain will be held to energy ransom by some foreign company. Still at least no birds were killed during the process. I am afraid Brits are very short sighted. they have already let control of a large % of the banks pass to the Spanish, wait till they harmonise the charges.

Incidentally I go walking under the wind farms that we have an abundance of around here, one is near a large Chough colony. I have yet to see one dead bird of any variety. They would be easy enough to see on the large expanses of white gravel under each one. Still it must be true if an expert has said it. If I do find one I will post it on to an Admin.

[Dishevelled Den]

In addition I can only repeat the following as I want to add nothing to it!:

Regardless of all the cons and pros with the need for power versus the affect, or not, on the environment, let's face the fact that everyone of us is constantly creating a demand for electricity.  No one that I know, including me, is prepared or can give up the 'essential luxury' of electrical power to give us the standard of living we enjoy today.

If we, mankind as a whole, was really worried about the effects of our activities on wildlife then we would give up all modern technology and go back to a time when we just lived off the land immediately around us.  But of course we will not because we do not want to sacrifice what we have.

Mankind has affected other life on this planet ever since we came into existence in some form or another.  But that should not be a problem because we are part of the whole; God / nature put us here, created our desire to continually evolve and advance, using the planet to fulfil our needs.  That is what was intended, and none of us within the history of mankind was ever able to change our direction and hunger for advance.  Only natural plagues and man-made wars have short term slowed down this progress, although because of these events we have in the long term advanced significantly after the sacrifice.

The problem now, as I see it, is that mankind is unsure of the best way to go forward, meeting our needs with the apparent dilemma about how we affect the planet.  It is a self inflicted psychological dilemma, as whatever we do is nothing compared to the scale of nature itself and we are inflating our perceived involved in that gigantic process.  But we still beat ourselves up over something that is not within our control. 

I am not saying we do nothing; humans have never done that!  No we should pursue more efficient ways to produce the power we demand for reasons of economy.  That IS nuclear power, not crazy windfarms or other so called harnessing of nature devises that can never be of sufficient numbers to produce the power we require, are an unnecessary blot on the environmental landscape, and in fact do have a significant cost during their manufacture, transportation, erection / construction and future use.

So the choice for mankind is this.  We either stop using power or we accept there is a cost whatever we do on the environment as there always has been, and just build the most efficient, suitable and economically viable generation equipment to produce our electricity.  No political pleasing of this that and the other NGO, lobbying movement, aunt Sally in the street, but just sound logical decision making to produce what we really need in viable quantities.  Nuclear power has been that answer for 50 years, and with development can be the answer for generations to come.

 

Are you sure Ms Zoom?

[Varche]

When we have all these nuclear power stations NGO's can send their waste products round to L Zooms recycling presumably or we could just bury it in deep holes and pretend it was never created and hope nothing untoward happens before man(or woman) figures out how to neutralise it?

Also what is the difference between an ugly windfarm and an ugly new housing development, nuclear power station, overhead lines, new airport or a space research telescope? Lets just clutter the planet up with cr*p, after all it is ours to do what we like with.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

In addition I can only repeat the following as I want to add nothing to it!:

Regardless of all the cons and pros with the need for power versus the affect, or not, on the environment, let's face the fact that everyone of us is constantly creating a demand for electricity.  No one that I know, including me, is prepared or can give up the 'essential luxury' of electrical power to give us the standard of living we enjoy today.

If we, mankind as a whole, was really worried about the effects of our activities on wildlife then we would give up all modern technology and go back to a time when we just lived off the land immediately around us.  But of course we will not because we do not want to sacrifice what we have.

Mankind has affected other life on this planet ever since we came into existence in some form or another.  But that should not be a problem because we are part of the whole; God / nature put us here, created our desire to continually evolve and advance, using the planet to fulfil our needs.  That is what was intended, and none of us within the history of mankind was ever able to change our direction and hunger for advance.  Only natural plagues and man-made wars have short term slowed down this progress, although because of these events we have in the long term advanced significantly after the sacrifice.

The problem now, as I see it, is that mankind is unsure of the best way to go forward, meeting our needs with the apparent dilemma about how we affect the planet.  It is a self inflicted psychological dilemma, as whatever we do is nothing compared to the scale of nature itself and we are inflating our perceived involved in that gigantic process.  But we still beat ourselves up over something that is not within our control. 

I am not saying we do nothing; humans have never done that!  No we should pursue more efficient ways to produce the power we demand for reasons of economy.  That IS nuclear power, not crazy windfarms or other so called harnessing of nature devises that can never be of sufficient numbers to produce the power we require, are an unnecessary blot on the environmental landscape, and in fact do have a significant cost during their manufacture, transportation, erection / construction and future use.

So the choice for mankind is this.  We either stop using power or we accept there is a cost whatever we do on the environment as there always has been, and just build the most efficient, suitable and economically viable generation equipment to produce our electricity.  No political pleasing of this that and the other NGO, lobbying movement, aunt Sally in the street, but just sound logical decision making to produce what we really need in viable quantities.  Nuclear power has been that answer for 50 years, and with development can be the answer for generations to come.

 

Are you sure Ms Zoom?

For once yes, as this debate will run and run whoever is in power.  The answer, to my mind, is simple, but I'm afraid there are just too many cooks in the kitchen to arrive at a straightforward answer!

[miked]

I'd rather have a predictable load factor with spinning inertia for fault tolerance.

Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge together is 8000MW

Current average wind turbine is 2.5MW

Thats 3200 wind turbines, 120 feet tall :-?

by the way, typical wind turbines have a typical load factor of about 25%,

steam plant has a typical load factor of about 75%

therefore

75% of 8000 = 6000WM
which would requiring 2400 wind turbines @ 100% load factor

or 9600 wind turbines at 25% load factor

or something like that after 4 or 5 glasses of wine.

As I think a few have said, they are not the answer.

Splitting the atom for the next 50 to 75 years is.

Energy crops and biomass fired stations (about 1500MW currently being proposed) are also viable alternatives, investing in the local community, farming, construction and permanent employment.

[Kevin Wood]

Wind farms aren't about making and selling electricity. They are about being given carbon trading certificates which you can then use to offset fossil fuelled plant or sell to those who operate fossil fuelled plant.

If there are some inconvenient truths that stop your product working in a real market, lobby for an artificial one and sell it there. 

Kevin

[Nickbat]

Wind farms aren't about making and selling electricity. They are about being given carbon trading certificates which you can then use to offset fossil fuelled plant or sell to those who operate fossil fuelled plant.

If there are some inconvenient truths that stop your product working in a real market, lobby for an artificial one and sell it there. 

Kevin

Correct, Kevin.

Artificial markets create bubbles...and we all know what happens to them eventually. 

[Jimbo B]

On a trip to Vienna I was speaking with the concierge at our hotel who told me that the greens in Austria had a law passed regarding green electricity from wind farms. Low and behold after passing this law the green party members became millionaires several years afterwards due to the massive expansion of wind farms in Austria. Can't move for them over there.