I suggest a campaign about ...

An end to the flawed technology of wind "farms"

Wind "farm" technology is flawed and has been disproven. It's "popular" because the huge corporations make vast profits from the subsidies available.
If no other fact persuades you, our coldest spells of weather coincide with no or little wind and thus windfarms are redundant at times of peak demand - as happened in December.

1,501 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Richard GilbertRichard Gilbert shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    620 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Bob RobertsBob Roberts commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Wind turbines are not efficient, they are expensive and a blot on the landscape (seascape). Why not use the time and money to perfect tidal flow to generate electricity. The tide comes in and the tide goes out every day. The wind does not blow every day! Quite a number of locations on the UK coastline are suitable for tidal power stations.
        I'm sure that nuclear power is safe enough in this country, so if we are expecting to have an abundace of electrical energy on demand, it's the only way to go. We should not be drawing comparisons with the problems in Japan, we don't suffer from severe earthquakes or tsunamis so it should not cloud our thinking or our decision making. If there is a concern as to the safety of nuclear power stations we need only look 20 miles away across the channel to the north coast of France where a number of power station sites exist.

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Lyndsey: I did not mean that wind-power would affect petrol prices! I implied that they, like other fossil-fuels, are a finite resource as as such will ultimately become more scarce & costly to extract, therefore this country should be exploiting wind, wave & whatever else becomes available in technology and the sooner the better.

        Your costs in terms of running costs are way over the top and I suspect have been gleaned from the corporate perspective. If anyone would like to investigate original-thinking and actual costs associated with this green technology, it would be worth looking at the detailed costs at tranquilityhouses.com

      • LyndseyLyndsey commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Paul, I'm not sure why you are repeating your reply to me that you made 20 days ago. I am beginning to suspect you are employed in the renewables industry.
        I wouldn't call wind power 'non-polluting'. I have researched this and I can assure you that if for a second I thought wind power did not add to pollution and was a viable, cost effective form of energy and would save the planet I would support it. Wind is wrong on so many levels. No you can't put back the land as it was before. At a recent exhibition I had it confirmed by the developers that where there are large disturbances of peat turbines may not be carbon neutral for 14 years. Peat lands are made over thousands of years. There are also thousands and thousands of tonnes of concrete (polluting in it's manufacture) used in the bases of the turbines and in the infra structure needed. I have already posted here about the pollution in China that is caused by the mining and production of Neodymium used in the new turbines. People are actually suffering terrible health problems, including cancer, toxic filth is leeching into their farmland so they can't grow crops. Oh yes - did you say wind power was non polluting? Absolute rubbish. Let's spend our money on something that is not adding more to the pollution than it can save, that performs better, that doesn't destroy the beautiful wild land we have and need all over the UK, doesn't kill birds and bats, doesn't divide communities, doesn't ruin our tourist industry, doesn't cause immeasurable stress to the citizens of this country etc etc Paul we will never agree. Do you live near a wind farm? Do you care about the environment? Do you care about what happens in China?

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        '... redundant at times of peak demand - as happened in December.' - Right! So peak-demand only occurs in December, then?!

        Without overstating the flippin' obvious, of course there won't be any generation when the wind does not blow above 6m/sec but I still assert that is no reason to be wholly relying upon the nuclear option! The facts that corporations make money from wind-parks because of subsidies, may be a fact of life but then that's what coporations do ... make money. As you imply, once the subsidy has been removed, we'll see which ones stay in the business!

        All those in favour of the nuclear option would, I suggest, be the first to condem them if a plant was to be built within close proximity to where they live.

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Lyndsey: I did not mean that wind-power would affect petrol prices! I implied that they, like other fossil-fuels, are a finite resource as as such will ultimately become more scarce & costly to extract, therefore this country should be exploiting wind, wave & whatever else becomes available in technology and the sooner the better.

        Your costs in terms of running costs are way over the top and I suspect have been gleaned from the corporate perspective. If anyone would like to investigate original-thinking and actual costs associated with this green technology, it would be worth looking at the detailed costs at tranquilityhouses.com

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Every construction project in which man engages, has a carbon footprint and so, even those sites projected as being 'green' will have a carbon cost attached to them. In that respect, you are right ... wind is not (wholly) green, but if you compare wind's carbon-cost with a nuclear plant, it is peanuts!

        The fact that Britain is blessed with an ample wind & wave capability (if not solar!) means that we should explore it's whole, non-polluting and generally lesser carbon-polluting, capabilities. I am not from the wilds of Scotland and therefore cannot attest to what is 'being destroyed forever' but would assume that anything constructed, can be deconstructed at some point in the future ... and at a great deal less cost (howsoever measured) than nuclear.

      • NickNick commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The way wind is being 'explored' in the wild lands of Scotland is disgraceful
        with no regard for what is being destroyed for ever. Wind power is not green and the installation and manufacture is highly polluting. It is just wrong on so many levels.

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Nick, I wasn't making a comparison (of technological building practice), I was trying to make comment that (as we seem to agree) all other forms of safe power generation should be exploited before entering the nuclear option in a big way.

        Wind-power may be expensive, but so is nuclear. Wind-power may not be 100% efficient but then it has none of the drawbacks or emmissions of nuclear. It may not be a total power-source but we really ought to be exploring it's full potential before discarding it and considering fusion.

      • NickNick commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        You cannot compare what is happening in Japan with nuclear power with what could happen here. Those power stations are 40 years old and were nearly ready to be decommisioned in a country that has earthquakes and tsunamis. We should be using less energy and looking at all alternatives but that doesn't mean we have to join the ill fated rush for wind. Wind is not reliable and the price ot it is too high in terms of money, environment, people's lives etc etc - enough said!

      • Paul TaylorPaul Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Atomic? Just 'not in my back yard', eh?

        I'd rather live an energy-poorer, more frugal life than have one of those within a few miles of me, as I'm sure those affected in Japan will say (if they'd had a choice). We should be opting for all 'green', sustainable methods of power generation in the UK first and moderating our energy consumption, before contemplating the nuclear option. It'll be the final solution, in more ways than one!

      • David CraggDavid Cragg commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Costly. Ruin the countyside. Must be backed up by conventional. What we need is more nuclear. A couple of large atomic ones tucked in under the mountains by the river would feed electricity to all of Wales and part of England. With wind foreigners make money we live with the horrors on our skylines.

      • John GrahamJohn Graham commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Jeremy, It is not an either or option. There is Tidal, Geothermal, waste plasma, Bio-mass and a whole raft of others. However most have an element of intermittancy or taking land out of food cultivation. Wind is a 50% subsidised tecnology that doesn't do what it says on the box. What it does do is divert funds into a white elephant that could be used for something less destructive of our environment. Might even operate to better than 20% too. Not my figures, Scottish and Souithern Electricity!
        All wind farm developers quote the max capacity of the turbines and then correlate those figures to a fairy town of houses powered. But that figure would only be attained if they worked at full capacity all the time. They don't and they don't. Therefore the statement, colluded in by the Government, is a fabrication. Never trust a LIAR.

      • Andrew SherwoodAndrew Sherwood commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Just reading some of the posts. I don't think anyone is saying that wind power is the whole solution but it should and can be part of the solution. If we use small scale wind, solar, tidal, ground and air heat pump technology we can reduce our carbon emissions substantially and when the winds not blowing something else will be providing the energy. The answer to the climate change dilemma will have to be micro generation as close to the user as possible, and by having lots of small scale schemes covering the country supplying surplus energy to the grid we will be able to reduce the number of wind farms that spoil our countryside.

      • richard hoylandrichard hoyland commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please try to be logical in your own post. How can the technology make "huge profits" while at the same time being "flawed".
        The huge profits do not come from the subsidies. The subsidies for large scale wind of around 5p/unit (either as Renewable obligation certificates ROCs or feed in tariff FIT) are small in comparison to the feed in tariff for small scale domestic solar 42p/unit. If you want to criticise a renewable technology try that instead.
        The CO2 produced in construction of wind turbines is on average 'paid back' in CO2 emissions saved within 6 months of operation - to me that doesn't seem like a flawed technology!

      • HuntsmanHuntsman commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Check out the BLOOMBOX Technology www.bloombox, this replaces Nuclear Energy. A box that measures 4" x 4" inches square produces 5KW of energy at a cost of £2000 per house hold. MP Hume will not entertain it as it was not patented in this country. These boxes are being used in the USA by Fedex, Google, Coca Cola to name but a few. Nicola Tesla is turning in his grave, especially after inventing Free Electricity.

      • HuntsmanHuntsman commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Check out the BLOOMBOX Technology www.bloombox, this replaces Nuclear Energy. A box that measures 4" x 4" inches square produces 5KW of energy at a cost of £2000 per house hold. MP Hume will not entertain it as it was not patented in this country. These boxes are being used in the USA by Fedex, Google, Coca Cola to name but a few. Nicola Tesla is turning in his grave, especially after inventing Free Electricity.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base