Wind Turbines

JohnD said:
Looks like somebody complaining they can see windmills, to me
Click to expand...
Are you that niaive? We have flooding problems which have been exacerbated by the way these things were built. They are damaging the environment - peat moors which have existed since the last ice age and which form a major carbon sink as well as forming a control over flood events by acting as a reservoir.

You are concerned about the way the Tories ruroughshod over everything, yet seeunable e to comprehend what went on up here when these things were foisted onto us by a Labour government which changed planning law in such a way that it became almost impossible to object. I have no objection to wind farms, per se - in fact I visited the first one in the area with Greenpeace in the early 1990s - but like a lot of people round here I have a major objection to the shear numbers built. Your weak, and frankly ill-considered comments show that you are utterly clueless when it comes to health, industry, pollution or environment in the Pennines. Or is it justvthat because this is the north of England, and the rules wete dreamt up by a Labour government, it doesn't matter - or we don't matter
 
Wind turbines aren't perfect, they're just better for the environment than any fossil fuel. So yes, we have to accept some changed skylines and some damage to ground when they're installed. But there are no better alternatives.
 
IT Minion said:
Wind turbines aren't perfect, they're just better for the environment than any fossil fuel. So yes, we have to accept some changed skylines and some damage to ground when they're installed. But there are no better alternatives.
Click to expand...
They are an example of what is increasingly happening over time. It can be said that they are unsightly, noisy and good at milling birds. So some are unhappy about them and others come up with other aspects to be unhappy about that are likely to be far from clear cut. Factors that may well be exaggerated, Then of course blame some party that happens to be in power.

The same factors can figure the other way round. This is good so some one will come up with reasons for it to be even better usually ignoring complications rather than adding them, Eg storage for wind. Where to put it has it's interesting aspects as well.

People have a habit of reinforcing their own views.
 
Windfarms are currently generating 59% of UK supply.

Well done, wind!
 
Has been delivering about 15GW for the past few days. Around half of average demand.

More gas saved!

Nukes around 5.
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
That's what I was on about. Reminder - £37.35 per megawatt hour is 3.735 pence per kWh.
Even the nuke strike rate is only a third of the (subsidised) energy cap price we're paying.
So most of what we're paying to heat our houses and cook, goes to the exchequer.
Any fault in that logic, please?
When the CfD contract ends, the plant is foreign owned so we pay market rate - which is based on the most expensive price out there. The exchequer does not make, out of that.

Even the strike rates don't reflect what it costs to produce.
If you look at proposals for turbines around the USA the figures aren't bound up in all the Cfd shenanegins.
You pay X for your windmill, Y a year to maintan it and its capacity is theoretically XX MW, and you can run at YY% . Simple sums, to get what your energy is actually costing per unit, and a payback period figure, which is not long.

All of which says WE should own the installations so what the energy costs is the bulding costs, spread out over the period of operation, (or repayments on the loan for building it if you like) , plus the the plant maintenance costs.
That model is the one which local people think of when someone suggests putting onshore turbines in their nice location, while they hope to benefit ftom the "free" energy. Their aspirations couldn't be further from the truth. It'll be some foreigner making money out of their nice environments, at no benefit to them.

DIdn't Truss /Kwarteng propose a de-linking of energy prices somehow? Can't remember what they called it so I can't find it.
Click to expand...
That model sounds similar to the success of Ripple, where the UK based co-op owners are benefiting from the energy...
 
There was a time when public services and utilities were collectively owned by the people of the nation, but this was not in accordance with Thatcherite doctrine.

Now many of them are owned by foreign investors and even foreign governments.

So the British consumer subsidises the foreign taxpayer.

Good idea, eh?

Who do you think owns Scotia Gas?

It's not the French Government. They only own London Electricity, SWEB, Seeboard and British Energy.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-gas-sse-swalec-edf-23655922
 
Justin Passing said:
So most of what we're paying to heat our houses and cook, goes to the exchequer.
Any fault in that logic, please?
Click to expand...
Not quite, it goes to OfGem, who then share it out over our bills. Up until now it has been a negative figure, so we were paying into the fund rather than getting paid by it because of older systems being paid higher CfD and a lower strike price.
 
IT Minion said:
Not quite, it goes to OfGem, who then share it out over our bills. Up until now it has been a negative figure, so we were paying into the fund rather than getting paid by it because of older systems being paid higher CfD and a lower strike price.
Click to expand...
Got a link? I looked but don't see any fund like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top