Your views on wind farms?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Aled Evans, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. Aled Evans

    Aled Evans Guest

    Hi,

    From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    any health danger issues?
    Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

    Aled Evans
    www.letsescape.co.uk
    www.healthmagnet.ik.com
     
    Tags:


  2. Alan Holmes

    Alan Holmes Guest

    "Aled Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Hi,
    >
    > From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
    > out the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
    > countryside.
    > What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    > any health danger issues?
    > Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?


    Any attempt to solve the energy crisis using wind farms will result in a lot
    of expense for very little return, in other words a total waste of time and
    money.

    Alan

    >
    > Aled Evans
    > www.letsescape.co.uk
    > www.healthmagnet.ik.com
    >
     
  3. On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    |Hi,
    |
    |From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    |the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    |What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    |any health danger issues?
    |Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?

    I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
    are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
    from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.
    --
    Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Please quote, with quote
    character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
    Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
    use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.
     
  4. Gordon Burns

    Gordon Burns Guest

    Modern windfarms are no problem Quite soporific watching them.
    However - if the government got its act together (there has to be a first
    time) then all new houses would have photovoltaic cells on their roof, and
    their own turbine on the garage. Additional cost would be minimal at
    construction stage, and spare energy could be cycled back to the National
    Grid. Planning permission for major alterations could also include the need
    to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
    thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.


    "Dave Fawthrop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > |Hi,
    > |
    > |From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
    > out
    > |the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
    > countryside.
    > |What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are
    > there
    > |any health danger issues?
    > |Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?
    >
    > I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
    > are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
    > from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.
    > --
    > Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Please quote, with quote
    > character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
    > Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
    > use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.
     
  5. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Aled Evans wrote:

    > From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    > the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    > What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    > any health danger issues?
    > Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?


    IMHO it's one of various avenues to go down in some circumstances, but
    those circumstances need to be better than "It's the tax-break du jour!"
    which seems to be the main driving force at the moment, and other
    avenues should be concurrently explored.

    Also some sort of policy on siting, rather than anywhere landowners
    looking for the T-BdJ feel like applying, so the tourist trade isn't
    dented in wild areas when already developed regions would be equally
    sensible spots to put them.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  6. Gordon Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

    > to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
    > thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.
    >
    >


    There are plenty of votes to be lost, though, when it comes to
    siting nuclear power stations. Or, indeed, onshore windfarms.

    -adrian
     
  7. Ysgrifennodd "Adrian Godwin" <[email protected]> mewn neges
    newyddion:[email protected]
    > Gordon Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> to incorporate such devices. Trouble is we would need some joined up
    >> thinking, and, lets face it, there are no votes in saving energy.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > There are plenty of votes to be lost, though, when it comes to
    > siting nuclear power stations. Or, indeed, onshore windfarms.
    >
    > -adrian


    Yep, and the unwashed masses in North Wales seem to have the votes that mean
    the least....

    T Dave R.
     
  8. Nick Mason

    Nick Mason Guest

    Gordon Burns wrote:
    > Additional cost would be minimal at
    > construction stage, and spare energy could be cycled back to the National
    > Grid.

    What spare energy would that be?

    Currently they can barely generate enough power to keep your
    household appliances on standby let alone any spare.

    This seems to be one of the subjects where people seem to forget
    the basic laws of physics.
    --
    Regards

    Nick
     
  9. Stuart

    Stuart Guest

    "Aled Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Hi,
    >
    > From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding
    > out the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the
    > countryside.
    > What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    > any health danger issues?
    > Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?



    I would give 100% backing to OFF SHORE wind farms,

    Some argue they are too expensive, but if you add on the long term damage to
    the tourism industry by siting these farms in our wild and open areas, then
    Off Shore starts to become the better deal all round!
     
  10. > Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

    Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting better.
    As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
    advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear a
    boost in 40+ years.
     
  11. Andy Champ

    Andy Champ Guest

    Aled Evans wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    > the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    > What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    > any health danger issues?
    > Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?
    >
    >
    >

    They don't bother me to look at, and I've never heard any noise. Even
    in areas of the Hoche Eifel where there are dozens of the things.

    I have yet to be convinced over whether they help much on energy when
    you subtract the cost of building the things and the standby power for
    windless days.

    The big minus seems to be they chop up eagles and other such big birds.

    We need fusion, and no government has been prepared to back it enough to
    help. We should have funded Culham properly, then we could have had it
    25 years ago.

    Andy
     
  12. In message <[email protected]>, Aled Evans
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Hi,
    >
    >From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    >the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    >What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    >any health danger issues?
    >Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?
    >

    Hate them; hate the infrastructure around them; hate the sound they
    make; hate the limited electricity they make; hate the name - they are
    wind power stations.

    --
    Martin Richardson
    272/284 Munros - 4% to go 34/34 'Furths'- 0% to go
    56/89 Donalds - 37% to go 494/1554 Marilyns - 68% to go
    376/525 Hewitts - 28% to go (E=178/178; W=137/137; I=61/211)
     
  13. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the
    wonderful person Dave Fawthrop <[email protected]>
    said
    >On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:46:28 -0000, "Aled Evans"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >|Hi,
    >|
    >|From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding out
    >|the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    >|What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    >|any health danger issues?
    >|Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?
    >
    >I like the look of windfarms, the noise of modern ones is not great, there
    >are no health issues. They provide a useful diversity of supply, away
    >from gas fired stations. They save greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.


    Maybe if we built them from wood. The ones I've seen are massive
    concrete and steel things which look like they took as much energy to
    construct as they will ever deliver. And they are springing up in some
    remarkably urban places - a whole set has just turned up on the A6 just
    South from the A14 junction.

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
  14. Dave Randman

    Dave Randman Guest

    "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

    >
    > Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
    > better.
    > As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
    > advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear a
    > boost in 40+ years.


    I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me that
    economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2 capture and
    long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power stations. There was
    actually an article on the BBC site today
    (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
    committee has also come to that conclusion.

    And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way to
    go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor so the
    research can get moving a bit faster.

    Dave
     
  15. Bob Hobden

    Bob Hobden Guest

    "Dave Randman" wrote after
    > "Mark Thompson" wrote ...
    >>> Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.

    >>
    >> Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
    >> better.
    >> As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
    >> advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear
    >> a
    >> boost in 40+ years.

    >
    > I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me
    > that economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2
    > capture and long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power
    > stations. There was actually an article on the BBC site today
    > (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
    > committee has also come to that conclusion.
    >
    > And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way to
    > go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor so
    > the research can get moving a bit faster.
    >

    But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
    us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.

    --
    Regards
    Bob
     
  16. "Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Dave Randman" wrote after
    >> "Mark Thompson" wrote ...
    >>>> Nuclear seems the only sensible long term approach to me.
    >>>
    >>> Surely it's best now, as the (green) alternatives are still getting
    >>> better.
    >>> As time goes on developments in these alternatives will eat into the
    >>> advantages that nuclear currently enjoys. S'pose fusion'll give nuclear
    >>> a
    >>> boost in 40+ years.

    >>
    >> I have a friend who researches this kind of stuff and he's persuaded me
    >> that economically and environmentally the best way to go is with CO2
    >> capture and long term storage from conventional fossil fuel power
    >> stations. There was actually an article on the BBC site today
    >> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4695478.stm) saying that a commons
    >> committee has also come to that conclusion.
    >>
    >> And yes fusion would be great although, as you say, there's quite a way
    >> to go yet! At least now they've chosen a site for the ITER test reactor
    >> so the research can get moving a bit faster.
    >>

    > But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
    > us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.
    >


    Eh! Have you fogotten your basic physics. Energy can neither be created nor
    destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything on
    top of anything. It's got nothing to do with global warming.



    >
    >
     
  17. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the wonderful person
    Bob Watkinson <[email protected]> said
    <snip>
    >> But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
    >> us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.
    >>

    >Eh! Have you fogotten your basic physics. Energy can neither be created nor
    >destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything on
    >top of anything. It's got nothing to do with global warming.


    That's about as incorrect as you can get. Global warming means the
    average temperature rises, which means more energy arrived at the
    Earth's surface than left. Now 99% of the energy arriving at the earth's
    surface comes from the Sun, true. However energy from fusion, fission,
    or burning coal, counts too.

    Energy leaves just one way - it is radiated back into space (heading
    into the background temperature level of about 3 degrees above absolute
    zero). Radiation is proportional to absolute temperature to the 4th
    power, so a 1% temperature rise means you can dump ~4% more energy per
    unit time by radiation.

    Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
  18. Currently I don't have a view on a wind farm, and I'd like it to stay that
    way! :)

    Paul
     

  19. > Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    > by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    > which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    > Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.
    >


    Wasn't that what I said? How am I incorrect?
     
  20. > But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has
    > provided us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat
    > pollution.


    Assuming they create heat which is then used to make electricity in the
    same way as normal power stations then they wouldn't be any worse in that
    respect than normal power generation, with the added advantage that they
    won't be chucking out CO2

    Anyway, won't much of the heat be converted to some other form of energy?
     
Loading...
Loading...