jukeboxandy Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Nah, a windfarm takes between 6 to 10 months to payback the energy to construct them depending on how remote the site is, how windy, capacity etc etc. Glad to see all the wise people haven't brought the old "oh we'll kill all the birds" pish into the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey 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.Why don't you post some evidence for this bullshit claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Nah, a windfarm takes between 6 to 10 months to payback the energy to construct them depending on how remote the site is, how windy, capacity etc etc. Glad to see all the wise people haven't brought the old "oh we'll kill all the birds" pish into the debate. That is in no small part due to the imbalance in accounting between windfarms & everything else. Once you consider the infrastructure, the payback time extends considerably.Whilst the "kill all the birds" claims are overwrought, it is the case that a badly sited windfarm can do a fair bit of damage to sometimes precarious local populations. I've worked on one of those studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Why don't you post some evidence for this bullshit claim.Well it's something my sister learned in Geosciences at uni so I'll ask her for the evidence. It's not a bullshit claim, although I'm hardly surprised to see you jumping down my throat at something I post, as per usual. Actually, just found this from the Guardian. Report doubts future of wind power | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Talking of news articles on this, here is another (but more encouraging):BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | UK wind power reaches milestoneI'm all for renewables. I just wish I had the initial outlay to build my perfect carbon-neutral home. Maybe one day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Talking of news articles on this, here is another (but more encouraging):BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | UK wind power reaches milestoneI'm all for renewables. I just wish I had the initial outlay to build my perfect carbon-neutral home. Maybe one day...carbon-neutral souped to the max surround sound, hub of entertainment home? does that work?i thought elves were meant to live under flowers and in trees. they're pretty carbon neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Well it's something my sister learned in Geosciences at uni so I'll ask her for the evidence. It's not a bullshit claim, although I'm hardly surprised to see you jumping down my throat at something I post, as per usual. Actually, just found this from the Guardian. Report doubts future of wind power | The Guardian | Guardian UnlimitedThe fact that wind power has a cost is not the same as suggesting that setting up windfarms uses up more energy than they return, which is just absurd. So post the evidence for your claim or stop spreading bullshit rumours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 The fact that wind power has a cost is not the same as suggesting that setting up windfarms uses up more energy than they return, which is just absurd. So post the evidence for your claim or stop spreading bullshit rumours.Hahaha bullshit rumours. You're so lame. I'm currently scouring the academic journals to find the article that was quoted to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Hahaha bullshit rumours. You're so lame. I'm currently scouring the academic journals to find the article that was quoted to me.Don't waste your time, if windfarms cost more energy to create than they return, they simply would not be built. You are an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Don't waste your time, if windfarms cost more energy to create than they return, they simply would not be built. You are an idiot.How so little man? How so? Because I've been told something by a Geosciences student who I'd wager knows a lot more about the subject than you, and I'm trying to find the evidence because you're insisting on it? A lot of things are done because they are in good favour with the general public and therefore the government and so get subsidised. Did you even read that article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 How so little man? How so? Because I've been told something by a Geosciences student who I'd wager knows a lot more about the subject than you, and I'm trying to find the evidence because you're insisting on it? A lot of things are done because they are in good favour with the general public and therefore the government and so get subsidised. Did you even read that article?If it was the case, every anti-windfarm activist on the planet would be touting it their prime piece of evidence against their construction, and no windfarms would ever have been built because setting them up would not be financially viable even with subsidies, it would be a futile activity. Use your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Don't waste your time, if windfarms cost more energy to create than they return, they simply would not be built. You are an idiot.You've got some mouth on you wee man, talking to a lady like that!Anyway, getting back to your sit-on-fat-arse-passing-judgement-on-everything-whilst-doing-sweet-fuck-all-about-it-rant vis-a-vis windfarms, it might surprise you to know that Cruachan Power Station (near Oban) does actually use more power than it produces...Allow me to explain...Cruachan is sited half-a-mile underground in a mountain and has four turbines, which are driven by water channeled from a lake on top of the mountain.During the day (Peak Hours) the water is released spinning the turbines to produce electricity which is then sold to the National Grid at peak rates.At night, the turbines are reversed, pumping the water BACK up into the late, using considerably MORE electricity, purchased at White Meter rates. The station was completed in the mid 60's and had payed itself back within 5 years (a record I believe). I don't recall any smelly-can't-hold-a-job-down-live-off-the-state-can't-relate-to-grim-reality-do-gooder-cunts being "up in arms" about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 and no windfarms would ever have been built because setting them up would not be financially viable even with subsidies, Not exactly so. The Executive has admitted that for the most part, the bulk of Scottish windfarms will never be able to deliver a return. They still went ahead with all but the most blatently speculative/exploitative developments tho. Life is too short to search Scotland.gov for the link to that particular policy statement just now.Also, the Renewable Energy Foundation makes an argument here Note in particular the 'Read More' tab. You'll probably find you still disagree but at least this gives a better idea of why people are concerned about the mono approach to renewables.A couple more links on community level energy:Public Energy Network (PEN)ToolkitDistributed generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/Here is one promising technology for producing localised energy that can be piped back into the grid; a Stirling Engine is designed to exploit the waste heat of conventional heating systems. This is nice because it exploits a source of heat that's very distributed and very common. It obviously assumes you have some sort of fuel to burn though but given that people will continue to burn fossil fuels for a while, and that there are potentially several sustainable fuel types, screwing every last bit of energy out of it is good.Example Product Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DustyDeviada Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Funny thread, pretty easy to see which poster has an application for a wind farm next to either their, or more likely their parents' house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Not exactly so. The Executive has admitted that for the most part, the bulk of Scottish windfarms will never be able to deliver a return. They still went ahead with all but the most blatently speculative/exploitative developments tho. You are talking about a financial return. The post I was talking about claimed that they cost more energy in their construction than they return, which is quite different. Anyway as I said earlier, these projects are not about making money or even saving money, we should be prepared to pay for our mistakes, such as attitudes which allowed the blatently exploitative hydroelectric powerstation mentioned above to be built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 And all I wanted to know was where the nearest windfarm was....lol:popcorn: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogofish Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 You are talking about a financial return. Anyway as I said earlier, these projects are not about making money or even saving money, we should be prepared to pay for our mistakes, such as attitudes which allowed the blatently exploitative hydroelectric powerstation mentioned above to be built.Financial & as far as being quite unable to meet generating targets are concerned.Large-scale scale windfarms have only ever been about making money & our paying for them is holding back everything else.Cruachan & the other pump-storage schemes can hardly be deemed exploitative. They were designed to cope with a very specific power supply problem - namely peak time surges in demand. A pump storage scheme can go from idle to full output in a matter of seconds - something a traditional continuous-output station (of any form, renewable or not) cannot do. Within those terms, they have all been a stunning success & a provision like this would still be needed & run from off-peak capacity in any future renewable strategy anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 I have to admit that I cant see our flat being over carbon neutral with all the gadgets frying away. Im tempted to challenge Neil to be more eco friendly. (Note: I'm no angel myself)There are certainly some things we could do to reduce our nasty carbon output.Hahaha when he lived with me I made him recycle all the boxes for the various gadgets he bought. You could start him there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Hahaha when he lived with me I made him recycle all the boxes for the various gadgets he bought. You could start him there?But I need the boxes for when I sell my old gadgets to buy new ones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 BBC NEWS | Politics | Nuclear review 'was misleading' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachie Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 There's a wind farm application going through for 6 turbines to be set up at several sites around Methlick & Tarves at the moment, if folk who support wind energy could take a minute to send a letter off to help the case for getting planning permission it'd be much obliged:At the moment as you are probably aware we have an application for 6 wind turbines well spread out over our farms.Those that don't like wind turbines will always make a point of writing a letter of objection whilst those that do generally support wind energy are less likely to make their point to the council.Please could you take a few minutes to support our application.This can either be on the net or by snail mail.To support online use this email address :-fo.planapps@aberdeenshire.gov.ukor by visiting the following web site, using the application listed belowAberdeenshire Council - Planningthese are the details required in a letter of support :-Your name , address and datePlanning Office (Formartine)Aberdeenshire Council45 Bridge StreetEllonAberdeenshireAB41 9AADear Sir/MadamPlanning Applications – Methlick Farmers Wind Energy ProjectRef: APP/2006/ 3637/3646/3649/3651/3655I am writing in support of all of the above planning applications.Yours faithfully 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.