Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:46:50 +0100 someone who may be Timothy Murphy wrote this:-

Indeed, which is why I put a smiley after it.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:46:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

That's an interesting distortion, but it doesn't progress the discussion.

You would probably class me as a member of the green lobby and I have always said that large wind turbines are big and need to be sited in the right place. I would be foolish to say anything else, as people can always go and look at one. However, the studies show that the majority of the public are happy about them.

In what way do you claim that they are not subject to strict planning controls and public enquiries?

Be careful not to distort in your answer. I already have some examples in mind.

Which organisation would this be?

Certainly the councils around here have control over planning, but not energy policy.

If you want to see bullying I suggest you study Donald Trump's proposed golf course in the Aberdeen area.

The numbers have already been given in this thread. Compared to the number of existing pylons the numbers are negligible.

Not usually. Indeed from near here I can see the preserved bings from the shale oil industry. Very impressive they are too.

Reasons why chimneys were removed are varied. Gas boilers don't need big chimneys. It is often easier to knock one down and remove a future maintenance problem. Removing the chimney provided space for yet more flats. Some chimneys were preserved.

I suspect that the children will still be very keen to look at them, as they are now. If told I suspect they will also wonder about the people who objected to wind farms, just as people now wonder about the people who objected to hydro schemes.

[meow2222]

the need for more gen capacity is obvious. As is the fact that some of it may be windgen.

illogic

how can the important pros and cons of each gen technology be covered by nuclear generation?

NT

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:49:03 +0100, [e-mail] wrote (in article ):

Of course. It may be. I think that there a lot more disadvantages than advantages (and I do count visual effect as an important disadvantage) of industrial windmills for electricity generation. The level of deployment required to make it worth bothering, is vast and set against the delivery potential of nuclear, it isn't worth spending time and money on it.

Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large areas of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.

These are very well known and has already been said several times, if a major objective is to substantially reduce carbon emission, energy supply has to be met by something with enough capacity, scalability and viability. taking a punt on energy consumption reduction, is a hell of a risk and is not likely to be realised in practice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the shortfall needs to be met with nuclear generation.

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:07:16 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

I don't think it's a distortion at all. That is exactly how the marketing runs.....

This of course depends on the questions that are asked. If you were to ask whether people mind about them when they have seen the present scaling levels and there are a few on a distant hillside a long way from where they live, I am sure that most people would have no objection. Reason? It doesn't affect them directly and they are Not In My Back Yard. Change the question and ask whether they mind when they are at the bottom of the garden or in large numbers across a lot of open country and the reaction will be very different.

You're right. In theory they are. The important part is the execution of the process and in that respect it's very lacking.

?id=643392004>

I don't hold Donald Trump in any higher esteem than Scottish Power.

Generation at present is minuscule. What do you believe the number of industrial windmills to be to generate the aspired to 20% of electricity or the 50% that will be required? How many Supergrid pylons are there?

Clearly you find industrial paraphernalia a thing of beauty. I'm afraid I don't....

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:46:59 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Oh come on.

You tried to alter the framework of the discussion from electricity generation to energy in general to try to imply that nuclear generation wasn't important because it represented only a small part of total energy production.

While the figures may or may not be correct, one must also take into account that one objective is to take fossil fuels steadily out of the equation, whether they are directly delivered to the point of use (i.e. natural gas) or via the medium of electricity.

If you do that, then of course generation of electricity by non fossil fuel means becomes much more important.

[Guy King]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

But almost every part of our landscape is already the result of man's interferance.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|The message |from Andy Hall contains these words: | |> Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large |> areas |> of land wrecked by industrial eyesores. | |But almost every part of our landscape is already the result of man's |interferance.

*Every* part of our landscape is already the result of man's interference. It all began 6000 years ago when there was Wild Wood from Lands End to John o Groats. A squirrel could go from Dover to Cape Wrath without touching the ground. Early farmers then cut down the trees.

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:40:20 +0100, Guy King wrote (in article ):

So no need to make it any worse.....

You can get R4 on DAB by the way....

[Timothy Murphy]

What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?

It is a different question, but it is relevant because it suggests that energy shortage is not the end of life as we know it.

I recall Fred Hoyle suggesting somewhere that if a strip of trees were planted round the equator this would give quite sufficient energy for our needs. (Of course that was long before global warming concern.)

[Owain]

In mono...

Owain

[meow2222]

Going to depend on design and policies. Real life is whats wanted, some of Britain's are running long past their designed end of life dates.

We're not facing an energy shortage. Sure prices will rise, but will be capped to the cost of the next least expensive technology.

As for bluesky stuff, there are plenty of vague ideas, but none are of real value until real life equipment materialises, is affordable, and has an acceptable level of issues. Wishful thinking doesnt come into the question of what to choose today.

Doesnt sound like a very well considered idea.

NT

[Steve Firth]

Umm it's stereo over in these parts.

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:18:13 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):

Versiwn Cymraeg?

[Tony Williams]

Google on "candu".

Lots of information about the reactors that we should be building alongside PWR's and comparison tables of cost and working life of different reactor tecnologies.

I don't mind nuclear power, in fact it is probably inevitable. What has dismayed me though is that the govt first announced our continuing possession of nuclear weapons, then a few weeks later announced an expansion of nuclear power stations.

2+2 = Power stations designed to produce weapons grade plutonium, and all that goes with that. :(

I think we should go CANDU.

[Guy King]

The message from Owain contains these words:

And low bitrate, and not on a portable round here 'cos the signal strength's too low.

[Ian White]

Sorry, that's a 2+2=5. The reactor design and operating conditions for sustained base-load power generation are almost exactly the opposite from those required to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

For the latter, the irradiated fuel needs to be removed and reprocessed long before the end of its useful energy-generating life. That was one of the less widely advertised reasons for locating the Calder Hall reactor on the same site as the (then) Windscale reprocessing plant, so that some of the fuel could be removed very early. In contrast, by the time the fuel for a power generating reactor has reached the end of its economic life, the plutonium content (if the fuel were ever to be reprocessed to extract it) would definitely not be weapons-grade.

Ah yes, a heavy-water moderated reactor whose major byproduct is tritium. Continuous supplies of fresh tritium are needed to support an H-bomb programme (Google for "chapelcross tritium") but tritium effluents are notoriously difficult to control - being mostly water and steam - and have been a continuing problem for the CANDU system.

However, it would be wrong to single out CANDU for too much individual criticism. Every nuclear reactor system has its advantages and disadvantages compared to the others.

And of course the same is true in a broader sense for every energy generating system. A grown-up debate on energy strategy needs to recognise the need for diversity. We need a mix of energy sources that has been specifically optimized to allow each one to do what it's best at, without leaving the whole of the UK exposed to any individual weaknesses. That means several different energy generating systems will each have a useful part of play - but the optimum mix should be chosen by strategic design, and not as the result of political tug-of-wars or short-term greed.

[Owain]

That's fersiwn and as I haven't been to Wales for 14 years (and the mental scars still haven't healed) I don't know if they've even got DAB.

Owain

[<me9]

I see more advantages for AGR types than the later (imported) PWR technology. The problem with getting the AGR sites running was they were all prototypes, rather than cloning the first working one, and so were much more expensive to build.

A new generation of AGRs would be the safest bet.

[Andy]

I am not sure that it would. I am currently siting no more than a couple of hundred metres from one of the largest wind turbines in the country. The opinions of people here are are very polarised - they either love it or detest it. I don't think that the pro/anti ratio has changed much since before it was built, and those in favour want more built along side...

Andy.