Wind Turbines

Exactly, we’re lagging behind for no better reason that restrictive planning laws and right wing nimbyism.
Ideal industry to tackle Cornish unemployment.

Blup
 
blup said:
Exactly, we’re lagging behind for no better reason that restrictive planning laws and right wing nimbyism.
Ideal industry to tackle Cornish unemployment.

Blup
Click to expand...
They are widely unpopular, that's just the way it is. Putting up with them for the common good is one thing, but if it's to make some French people rich, that invokes the Sod Off clause! A definite vote loser if there ever was one.


Quite a good article I think. US/international view https://www.structuresinsider.com/post/wind-energy-overview-onshore-vs-offshore-farm-costs
Avoid the parochial ones, except to see what pro/anti crap people come up with.

This sort of thing should be Nationalised and 100% UK owned and run, is my gut feeling.
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
And the profit goes to..... some bloke in Frankfurt or Paris or Benidorm.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Britain should have some kind of national body, making investments and reaping the benefit for the whole country.

Somebody should suggest that.
 
JohnD said:
Perhaps Britain should have some kind of national body, making investments and reaping the benefit for the whole country.

Somebody should suggest that.
Click to expand...
You aren't being hostile in that post, so I assume it's facetious. Is it?

I don't now how it works overall. Couldn't agree more that it should be as you say, but any such body would need a separate and independent critical inspector.



I heard on the radio that poiticians are finding that people don't want to speak to them at the door because it lets heat out.
Understandable. Put wood in't ole.
1666860230415.png
from the WIki link.
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
Shame on you, what a crap article!
Sure everyone lkes the idea, with the unspoken assumption that "someone else" puts up with them.
It's the first obvious thought, until you get into the stuff about "Who benefits?".
Click to expand...


78% support, 7% oppose. They are popular, there's no doubt of that. Nor is there any doubt that there are a few NIMBYs in that overwhelming majority. But onshore wind is popular.
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
They are widely unpopular, that's just the way it is. Putting up with them for the common good is one thing, but if it's to make some French people rich, that invokes the Sod Off clause! A definite vote loser if there ever was one.


Quite a good article I think. US/international view https://www.structuresinsider.com/post/wind-energy-overview-onshore-vs-offshore-farm-costs
Avoid the parochial ones, except to see what pro/anti crap people come up with.

This sort of thing should be Nationalised and 100% UK owned and run, is my gut feeling.
Click to expand...
Off shore seems to be the intent again. I've had a feeling that it allows bigger more easily and also steadier wind speeds. That sort of area makes cost comparisons more difficult. England is rather densely populated. Scotland and Wales make that look better when the UK is viewed as a whole. We need productive land for other reasons. We only have so many hills. ;) The ones around B'ham are recreational.

Paying for it. I don't see why a gov can not produce a business plan just as businesses have to in order to get their hands on the money needed. This is a different type of debt. It doesn't mean the gov need to run it. They could just hold all of the shares as happens in some areas in other countries.

The Tory way appears to be to get some company to generate the plan and offer to back their loan to help them get low interest rates. :) My parents used to take the Sunday Times. Interesting article yonks ago now. People being contacted and asked if they would like to get into power generation and offered help with the loan.

Solar. Personally I think the attraction is quickest to do but with the lowest gains

Nuclear. Can't be done quickly. Why - probably reduces the need for storage the cost of which doesn't appear to be mentioned. Lithium would appear to be gaining favour but so far maybe only for load levelling. A UK company has been working on sodium sulphur for yonks. The sulphur is molten. They have seen it's main use as being for grid storage. Some mention of use in vehicles with doubt about if it would ever happen. Some are in use

;) How Chloride are getting on with theirs pass. Not even sure how the company is doing. It was still jam tomorrow 35 odd years ago.
 
IT Minion said:


They are popular, there's no doubt of that. Nor is there any doubt that there are a few NIMBYs in that overwhelming majority. But onshore wind is popular.
Click to expand...
AH, so you're one of those extremist nutters, run along now and glue your eyeballs to your bamboo toothbrush!

IF you're going to quote numbers from a document,
for gods sake be honest.

Of all the renewable methods including solar, on and offshore wind, tidal, hydro.... Onshore wind was LEAST popular except for biomass.

LESS than 50% said they'd be happy or very happy to have a wind farm in their area:

1666865953935.png



There are plenty of objectors to the BEIS surveys, I don't suppose you're interested in those?
 
Last edited:
ajohn said:
Off shore seems to be the intent again. I've had a feeling that it allows bigger more easily and also steadier wind speeds. That sort of area makes cost comparisons more difficult. England is rather densely populated. Scotland and Wales make that look better when the UK is viewed as a whole. We need productive land for other reasons. We only have so many hills. ;) The ones around B'ham are recreational.

Paying for it. I don't see why a gov can not produce a business plan just as businesses have to in order to get their hands on the money needed. This is a different type of debt. It doesn't mean the gov need to run it. They could just hold all of the shares as happens in some areas in other countries.

The Tory way appears to be to get some company to generate the plan and offer to back their loan to help them get low interest rates. :) My parents used to take the Sunday Times. Interesting article yonks ago now. People being contacted and asked if they would like to get into power generation and offered help with the loan.

Solar. Personally I think the attraction is quickest to do but with the lowest gains

Nuclear. Can't be done quickly. Why - probably reduces the need for storage the cost of which doesn't appear to be mentioned. Lithium would appear to be gaining favour but so far maybe only for load levelling. A UK company has been working on sodium sulphur for yonks. The sulphur is molten. They have seen it's main use as being for grid storage. Some mention of use in vehicles with doubt about if it would ever happen. Some are in use

;) How Chloride are getting on with theirs pass. Not even sure how the company is doing. It was still jam tomorrow 35 odd years ago.
Click to expand...


Just on the windy bit, there are factors like the amount of wind the turbine will get. You can draw curves for annual, daily max, and median, average, no wind....
Costs are similarly complex - there's planned,maintenance, breakdowns, various degradations, storm likelihood. Then there are objections on the basis of the noise/vibrations affecting birds fish sheep and whales, "humm", chopping up of seabirds, all sorts.
 
Justin Passing said:
AH, so you're one of those extremist nutters, run along now and glue your eyeballs to your bamboo toothbrush!

IF you're going to quote numbers from a document,
for gods sake be honest.

Of all the renewable methods including solar, on and offshore wind, tidal, hydro.... Onshore wind was LEAST popular except for biomass.

LESS than 50% said they'd be happy or very happy to have a wind farm in their area:

View attachment 283862


There are plenty of objectors to the BEIS surveys, I don't suppose you're interested in those?
Click to expand...
And a maximum of 15% saying unhappy about it.

Wind farms are popular.
 
Justin Passing said:
Fracking? - We don't, for practical purposes. They're lying. Forget it.
France eg has far more than us and much less of problems with rock geology and locations, but they aren't touching it either.

Pollutants are horrible and there aren't the Standards to control them because nobody has enough experience,
You need a load of water - which nobody has spare. Thre are theoreticaly waterless methods but they bring a load more problems.
People don't like earth tremors either.
Most of our frackable gas is under densely populated areas, unlike France.

Somebody might come up with a better method, but it still leaks CH4 and produces CO2.
Click to expand...

Small scale "Fracking" already occurs in some parts of Britain, providing local areas with gas.
 
IT Minion said:
And a maximum of 15% saying unhappy about it.

Wind farms are popular.
Click to expand...
Nope. It doesn't say that. Still not honest. Never mind, you aren't kidding anyone.
Bear in mind most people have never seen one or considered having one close to them. Large areas would be needed too.
 
The UN climate lady was on the box. Must check this out. She is Danish. People have a phone app that tells them it's windy enough and their electricity is coming from that. It makes them happy and may restrict usage when it's not windy.

If true one country has got it's finger out of it's a rse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top