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.
Richard Gilbert
shared this idea
618 comments
-
Lyndsey
commented
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 Taylor
commented
'... 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 Taylor
commented
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 Taylor
commented
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.
-
Nick
commented
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 Taylor
commented
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.
-
Nick
commented
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 Taylor
commented
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 Cragg
commented
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 Barnes
commented
not functionable and expensive
-
John Graham
commented
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. -
Jeremy
commented
If you don't want wind farms, you'll get nuclear.
Take your pick.
-
Andrew Sherwood
commented
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.
-
Nick
commented
For anyone who thinks offshore is ok see todays Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8382476/Wind-farms-blamed-for-stranding-of-whales.html
I would like to see the data that shows 6 month payback of CO2 emissions Richard - I haven't seen anything that shows that.
-
richard hoyland
commented
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! -
Marcia Simpson-James
commented
c
-
Huntsman
commented
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.
-
Huntsman
commented
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.
-
Lyndsey
commented
I have no objection to anyone foreign investing in this country. I do object to paying anyone 'too high' subsidies and having anyone make 'easy money from the tax payer' for something I, and many others, regard as unreliable and not economic. The fact that foreign developers are flocking here to build wind farms because the money is rolling in their direction is still wrong. Often they are from countries that are pulling back from wind power because their countries have discovered it isn't cost effective. The fault is with our government allowing it to happen in the first place. This forum is the right place for people to air their grievances about what is happening in relation to this flawed technology - whatever it is.
You cannot compare wind with coal/gas. We need base load power and coal/gas supply that. There was a reported 20% drop in wind output last year. http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/121853-utility-firm-reports-alarming-drop-in-renewable-power-outp .
As stated in the heading when it is very cold it is often not windy and wind produces little power if anything when we need it most. -
ben
commented
I'd just like to repeat the subject is wind farms not xenophobic "lets stop foreign people making money by investing in stuff in Britain". If the subsidies are too high and people are making easy money from the tax payer then that's one thing. if you hate that people from foreign countries are the ones making the money that's another. And if you think wind farms are useless, a waste of time, money, resources that you'll find is the subject.
Also remember when quoting capacity remember nothing achieves 100% capacity. Normal coal/gas fired power stations run at around 50% and wind farms are expected to run around 25-30%.
