pogofish Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Of course they deserve consideration, but from what i can fathom, no one has plans to build windfarms on such important areas of landscape. Every windfarm i have seen has been on a desolate field with virtually no wildlife or plantation.We should look into long term solutions, but right now, we have wind, solar and water powered energy as a good resource to us, Its pointless to think that windfarms can harm us in anyway, when their benifits outway their cons as we speak in 2007.The windpower maps that have been circulating from the likes of the IAT since the mid-80s leave very little of upland Scotland & Wales off-limits for wind-development. Pretty much the core of the Cairngorms NP, Loch Lomond area & a few individual mountains & islands. Bigger turbines with greater operating ranges & higher density, both offshore & especially at altitude are the clearly stated aims. It is however the case that they have not gone for the most sensitive areas yet but applications for farms at places like Edinbane, Garve & the Tinto & Lowther Hills are beginning to push things into more marginal territory. Never mind parts of the route of the Beauly-Denny Interconnector etc.If windpower is to stand any chance of being a practical contributor at anything more than local level, making the turbines a lot bigger & sticking them offshore is about the only thing that might be viable. Any more land-based development is meaningless. Needless to say, the development costs for this jump up considerably & currently this is not attractive to all but the most far-sighted investors. They may not harm us directly but their full enviromental impact is only now beginning to be undestood & it is not as harmless as the industry would have us believe. Nor are they that quiet when you are underneath them picking-up chunks of umpteen kinds of dead birds. That one was ear-defenders all round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 BTW, practical large scale conservation started pretty early here, as long ago as the seventeenth century in fact. I think you meant to type industrialisation there instead of conservation.Better technology already exists I'm curious as to what this better technology is, and why it's not already in use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 It was certainly on the back of industrialisation but even back in 1600's Perthshire, they recognised the need to replant the forests that were being floated down loch Tay & to the West - What followed were the beginnings of large scale forest management in Scotland & some of those forests are still thriving today. Norway & particularly Australia are two countries where a very different set of policies mean you will find much wider choice of technologies. Some are also in use here (eg, local Hydro, limited biomass) but thanks to windpower hogging most of the funding, they remain woefully underfunded & positively cottage industry by comparison.Some of the variety of projects funded in Aus:Renewable Energy Industry Program (REIP)Renewable Energy ShowcaseRenewable Energy Industry Development ProgrammeInteractive map of all renewable projects:AGO - Renewable Energy Power Stations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted February 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Forestry has very limited damage to the environment (the lorries probably cause most of the damage). My dad is a Forestry harvesting manager and the amount of red tape he has to get through is unbelievable.By law, if you cut trees down, they have to be replanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 By law, if you cut trees down, they have to be replanted.Ooooh, really? My uni's just cut a load of trees down, that could be interesting in getting them to replant new ones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted February 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Ooooh, really? My uni's just cut a load of trees down, that could be interesting in getting them to replant new ones...Not sure if your Uni will be doing it in a commercial sense i.e. 10,000 acre forest? Regardless of this, sue them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Ooooh, really? My uni's just cut a load of trees down, that could be interesting in getting them to replant new ones...Good for you Cloudie, there's another spurious debate for you to get immersed in, despite having no actual knowledge of the subject, other than something you just read off the internet. You get stuck in, son...p.s. remember - 'exasperating your opponent until they realise the futility of continuing the exchange' does not equal winning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Good for you Cloudie, there's another spurious debate for you to get immersed in, despite having no actual knowledge of the subject, other than something you just read off the internet. You get stuck in, son...p.s. remember - 'exasperating your opponent until they realise the futility of continuing the exchange' does not equal winning...Actually Frosty, i was intending on tipping off my friends who are doing a Conservation degree who are upset about the trees being torn down for no apparent reason. Considering it's also in the Green Belt, they're quite mad about the whole thing.But you know, don't let the facts ruin your day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 But you know, don't let the facts ruin your day What facts? Actually, never mind.*exasperated* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 What I don't understand is why solar power hasn't really been embraced in the UK. Forgive me for not quoting exact figures but isn't it true that solar panels on the roof of an average british home would provide more than enough energy for the household in question? Why doesn't all new housing come with solar panels? I know it's initially costly but so what? Excuse my lack of education on the subject in question.Nah, not nearly enough. I'm pretty sure wind power is more effective than solar panels on a short scale, plus cheaper initially. Both wouldn't hurt though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherine Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I disagree, i know a large amount of people who find wind farms not only mesmorising but beautiful in their own way. I am one of them.im another.i love seeing them in the hills when driving. i think they look fasinating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 What I don't understand is why solar power hasn't really been embraced in the UK. Forgive me for not quoting exact figures but isn't it true that solar panels on the roof of an average british home would provide more than enough energy for the household in question? Why doesn't all new housing come with solar panels? I know it's initially costly but so what? The latest generation of panels may be efficent enough in theory but are very expensive - converting a house can cost tens of thousands. We also don't usually get enough or strong enough sun to use them to full advantage so the repayment time for an average house is well over a century. At that length, persuading housebuilders to make economies of scale by fitting them to newbuilds/renovations is difficult. Although this is just the sort of things that would bring the prices down, TBH Solar in its current state is not really the most suitable alternative for this country.There is one role where solar is well suited for here & that is partial heating of water for either domestic or central heating use. Even though it won't do all the work itself & is seasonal, the energy saved is significant & for these more basic panels, the cost/repayment period is a lot shorter. @7-10 years IIRC. I've seen quite a few houses with them, even in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Actually Frosty, i was intending on tipping off my friends who are doing a Conservation degree who are upset about the trees being torn down for no apparent reason. Considering it's also in the Green Belt, they're quite mad about the whole thing.If you know any trees likley to be affected by any sort of development or even good examples of any type, don't hesitate to get in touch with the council's Tree Protection Officer - who can issue an order that protects them to a considerable degree. This is best done well in advance as I found out recently that the TPO officer had been ordered to refuse to issue an order on a really fine tree at the end of my road which was later cut-down to make way for an utterly out of place & bloody suspiciously approved development. Intervening a few months earlier could have made all the difference. Also, a pal has just landed a major supermarket in deep shit after they pruned the TPO'd trees between their loading bay & her flat to the point of destruction. Interestingly, they applied for permission to expand the truck-park just after but are now facing a considerable delay whilst they are prosecuted for breaking the TPO instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 just back from a wee trip to holland and they have big fuck off massive wind power windmills over there bout three times the size of the ones in the UK. They look pretty neat in line positioned next to a motorway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b-bert Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Why spoil our landscape with windmills (I agree they do look like nice pieces of engineering though) when we can built some massive nuclear reactors where noone has to look at them. With some mordern types of reactor we have a near infinite supply of power. And that is not including Fusion which is on the way with the french hoping to open a test plant in 2020 i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted February 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Yep, great for the environment B-bert:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Why spoil our landscape with windmills (I agree they do look like nice pieces of engineering though) when we can built some massive nuclear reactors where noone has to look at them. With some mordern types of reactor we have a near infinite supply of power. And that is not including Fusion which is on the way with the french hoping to open a test plant in 2020 i think.o_O So, no down side to nuclear power, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b-bert Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 its not that there is no downside but with care it can be negligable.Not every renewable will save the enviroment either.How many pollutants were use to make/transport the steel etc..In the case of wave/tidal how will this affect change fish/wildlife.There worm type devices (being made in lewis i think) which are really clever wave power generation devices, but what if they fail and leak gallons of hydraulic fluid (nasty stuff) into the sea.Any offshore stuff in remote areas will increase sea traffic.I personally think way too much is made of renewables they are not perfect and on a big scale will make our country look ugly. But then they are an important part of the solution to 'climate change'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 o_O So, no down side to nuclear power, then?Well, being realistic, there's the massive problem that nuclear power stations will never be financially viable on their own. I'm sure a figure of 2 billion per plant was being thrown about recently. BNFL are also one of the few nationalised industries left, due to being completely unviable as a privately owned company. I also don't think the 2 billion a year figure includes the cost of decommissioning, so they're a very expensive power source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Well, being realistic, there's the massive problem that nuclear power stations will never be financially viable on their own. I'm sure a figure of 2 billion per plant was being thrown about recently. BNFL are also one of the few nationalised industries left, due to being completely unviable as a privately owned company. I also don't think the 2 billion a year figure includes the cost of decommissioning, so they're a very expensive power source.Being realistic, there's the main problem of them being fucking terrible for the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Well, being realistic, there's the massive problem that nuclear power stations will never be financially viable on their own. Never you say? Perhaps you should read this NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS For those that can't be arsed skimming it, this government document on the economic and financial viability of nuclear power plants basically says that, with current gas prices, it's touch and go which is cheaper.edit: Sorry, that's 2005 gas prices, as we all know they've risen since then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Being realistic, there's the main problem of them being fucking terrible for the environment. How terrible? As terrible as burning all the coal, oil and gas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 How terrible? As terrible as burning all the coal, oil and gas?6 and half a dozen. I'm all for renewable energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 6 and half a dozen. I'm all for renewable energy. It really isn't. I'd prefer if we were powered 100% by renewables, but I'm worried about what's going to happen while the renewable technology is progressing to the point where that's a viable proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 the problem with windfarms just now is that they use more energy building the damn things than they will produce. i'm all for them if they can find a more energy-efficient way of setting them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.