FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Wind Turbines - for or against
Wind Turbines - for or against
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
An application is planned for 5 of these 500metres from our garden - they stand 126metres high. Landowners get approx £20k per turbine per year and the energy companies get massive government - sorry taxpayers ie our money - subsidaries.
Yes the UK have commotted to hit targets - but is this the way to go? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
But if the government have to heavily subsidise them...are they viable?
In recent months I have learnt of lots of projects throughout the UK similar to the one near us, that are cashing in on government hand outs. Surely if the technology was self subsidising, tax payers wouldnt (a) be out of pocket and (b) anger communities when applications fall on their doorstep.
This is happening all over the UK! Energy companies are cashing in on tax payers money... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Oh sorry - and get this...i hear that the energy companies are hiking their prices as well to help along the way.....
to put this into perspective, these turbines are nearly as high as the london eye....and they want to plant these in our garden just about
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Just came back from Spain, there are fields all over with hundreds of turbines there, I am all for it
Also saw a massive solar panel array. Don't think it works as well in the rain  "
For what benefit? they aren't self subsidising...
and
- they are noisy
- cause flicker
- reduce house costs
At least the solar fields dont piss off local residents.... the down side to these of course is they take up space that cannot be farmed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just came back from Spain, there are fields all over with hundreds of turbines there, I am all for it
Also saw a massive solar panel array. Don't think it works as well in the rain "
Was that the Solar Tower and array near Valencia? It looks like a bloody big needle from afar.
Or phallic symbol if yer a bit weird. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One further upside of solar arrays in semi-desert areas such as Arizona is that flora is able to grow in the shaded areas that are created by the panels.
I quite like the sight of windmill farms but on balance, i'm against them on economic grounds.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if the government have to heavily subsidise them...are they viable?
In recent months I have learnt of lots of projects throughout the UK similar to the one near us, that are cashing in on government hand outs. Surely if the technology was self subsidising, tax payers wouldnt (a) be out of pocket and (b) anger communities when applications fall on their doorstep.
This is happening all over the UK! Energy companies are cashing in on tax payers money..."
You will be thankful when the Zombie invasion comes and all the power plants bar wind are off. You can build an electric fence to keep the flesh eaters out and hook it up to the windmill   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An application is planned for 5 of these 500metres from our garden - they stand 126metres high. Landowners get approx £20k per turbine per year and the energy companies get massive government - sorry taxpayers ie our money - subsidaries.
Yes the UK have commotted to hit targets - but is this the way to go?"
are they being put up by the energy companies or the land owners? doesnt make much difference i guess, i was just trying to work out how the energy company gets a subsidy for them unless they are claiming the FIT - although not entirely sure they can 
you all already pay for renewable energy any way (well i dont as dont pay energy bills ) as part of the costs you pay are then dished out to people who have renewable energy generating technology installed such as solar PV and wind etc.
Happy Thursday |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wind farms are a blight on any landscape. We have one of the biggest wind turbine sights just off the coast here and that is marginal ok as no one lives there and we can't see or hear them. Waste if money though.
We should just build nuclear plants and be done. I'd use power plants like the ones used in nuclear subs and have one for every city. Last for 30 years without refuelling. No emissions. Simples!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They dont look any worse than the Pylons for the National Grid that have blighted the landscapes for years.
These lines of steel blots on the landscape have been around so long they are part of life and no one notices them anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They dont look any worse than the Pylons for the National Grid that have blighted the landscapes for years.
These lines of steel blots on the landscape have been around so long they are part of life and no one notices them anymore."
They could always combine the two. Have pylons with blades!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think they look awesome. Bit untidy when they aren't all spinning in unison, but when they are they're cool.
I don't think I would object to them being near me , but until it was suggested I couldn't honestly say.
Better than pylons though right?
Google pylon design and look at some of the alternatives, some are pretty sexy too. My fav is the two curved poles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Nimby..........just a thought "
Not at all. I have never been a supporter of them. I have to say that isn't the case for all the residents affected though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm sorry, that came out totally wrong, I guess some people don't mind them until they're in your back yard....personally I don't mind them ( and we have some very near ) but I can see the pros and cons, sorry again didn't mean to offend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Against.....not financially viable
Prefer Nuclear"
Errr...you're against wind power because it's not financially viable...but you prefer nuclear?
You do realise that nuclear is the very definition of a power source with an elastic cost of operation, to be paid for indefinitely by the tax payer? IE not financially viable? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Wind farms are a blight on any landscape. We have one of the biggest wind turbine sights just off the coast here and that is marginal ok as no one lives there and we can't see or hear them. Waste if money though.
We should just build nuclear plants and be done. I'd use power plants like the ones used in nuclear subs and have one for every city. Last for 30 years without refuelling. No emissions. Simples!
"
Oh Lordy, here's another one!
I guarantee that anyone who says that they prefer nuclear has no clue whatsoever what a nuclear power plant costs to decomission or guarantee safe storage of the waste it produces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am for renewable energy, but more for figuring out HOW! at the moment wind turbines cost so much that it takes 8 years to recover the purchase cost plus whatever the maintenance cost is, which is why they are subsidised. Effectivly they are a political statement of CO2 reduction effort, rather than an effective power generation method.
BUT like all things mass production reduces unit cost and improves design and efficiency so having all these expensive "model T" wind generators may one day lead to efficient and cheap turbines that will be a boon to civilisation.... maybe...
Until we figure it out then probably then best we know is nuclear which has to be on the coast line due to the massive ammount of heat it produces and the need for sea water to cool it... Oh hang on..... global warming anyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
There's no easy solution I know.
I'm just hoping that if this site goes ahead, the local "scrap it" metal fraternity that kindly relieve people of metal goods will see fit to paying the windmills a visit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Better than a nuclear power plant 2000 meters away. "
Have you ever been in a nuclear facility or met the people in charge of such facilities?
When was the last nuclear accident in the UK?
*cough*
Russia are bad examples and the Japanese? WHo didnt see that coming. A country slap bang in the middle of a quake zone and it was only a matter of time and whatdoyouknow? It happened.
America has never had a bad accident.
The facilities are guarded by the military and armed police.
You can fly a plane into the protective building surrounding the reactors and it will not even dent it.
Then you have the 'renewable' idiocy this country seems to be in love with.
Tidal dams, river barges etc damage the environment. In the US they have destroyed entire areas of ecology because they put tidal barges across large rivers like the Mississippi.
Green eco stuff is all about raking in the taxes of the public, nothing more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Oh Lordy, here's another one!
I guarantee that anyone who says that they prefer nuclear has no clue whatsoever what a nuclear power plant costs to decomission or guarantee safe storage of the waste it produces."
Ever had your house value cut in half thanks to a large piece of metal on the landscape?
Ever seen one of these windmill farms generate power during bad weather?
Ever seen them work to an 'IN DEMAND' energy production/model?
You know, the type of energy demand that occurs when people switch on the heating, kettles, showers etc?
Windmills cost a lot more to nature and the taxpayers than simply putting them up and have them generate little energy or none at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No idea why you quoted my post, as you made a series of hysterical points that had no connection to what you quoted....but carry on! "
Ofc it had something to do with your post.
You hate nuclear but love nature destroying, tax whoring eco energy directives.
I pointed out the very real facts about them and you say it has nothing to do with what you put?
"Whatever"  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wind farms are a blight on any landscape. We have one of the biggest wind turbine sights just off the coast here and that is marginal ok as no one lives there and we can't see or hear them. Waste if money though.
We should just build nuclear plants and be done. I'd use power plants like the ones used in nuclear subs and have one for every city. Last for 30 years without refuelling. No emissions. Simples!
Oh Lordy, here's another one!
I guarantee that anyone who says that they prefer nuclear has no clue whatsoever what a nuclear power plant costs to decomission or guarantee safe storage of the waste it produces."
Living not far from one of the largest Nuclear Plants and have certain connections with people working there I think I certainly know more about the subject than you suggest and probably more than you do. But I am happy to have a constructive discussion about the subject. Let me offer some discussion points:
How many nuclear accidents have we had in THIS country? How many people have been killed by nuclear power in THIS country? How many miners like my Grandfather were killed digging out the coal that fired power stations? How much eco damage do the coal and gas fired power stations do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Better than a nuclear power plant 2000 meters away.
Not necessarily. I recently read an article on residents of Dungeness(sp, Kent saying how peaceful and tranquil the area was. "
I have been there and would agree if you ignore the fact that the army have a shooting range near the beach and the huge thunder storm that hit whilst we were camping out  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello all,
wind turbines are inefficient,unreliable, feeble and very expensive to build. Often built in relatively unpopulated areas which also means more pylons to connect to the grid.
As the government is committed to reducing CO2 and reducing dependency on fossil fuel, Nuclear power is not an option, it is essential which, belatedly, the government has realised.
Because of the unreliability of wind turbines (remember the merchant navy gave up on sails years ago) there are fossil fuel stations running but not producing power because of the variability of the wind.
Alec |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
 yes it's very noble of us to make this committment. Just a pity that the number of countries worldwide prepared to actually target climate change are so few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello BNC,
typical of this country, we bend over backwards where others pay lips service, if that, to agreements.
The cause of climate change is another argument, as is what we are doing about making economical sense, i.e., is the cure worse than the disease?
Alec
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if the government have to heavily subsidise them...are they viable?
In recent months I have learnt of lots of projects throughout the UK similar to the one near us, that are cashing in on government hand outs. Surely if the technology was self subsidising, tax payers wouldnt (a) be out of pocket and (b) anger communities when applications fall on their doorstep.
This is happening all over the UK! Energy companies are cashing in on tax payers money..."
governments will subsidise them because they have obligations under worldwide agreements to invest in renewable energy.
simple fact is we are running out of natural sources for energy, coal, oil gas etc and we have to do something now..
nuclear is really the only long term answer but that has is objectors too because of the disposal of the waste. it is however still the cleanest form of energy.
no easy answer because we all have the 'not in my back yard' feeling but where do we go from here??
solar is ok and improving but we dont get enough sun to fulfil the requirement.
wave energy is expensive to harness and wind is a viable option in the long term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Kenny,
"wind is a viable option in the long term."
The Scandinavians who have a lot of wind powered generators are finding it is not as good or effective as they had hoped.
Really, wind generation has many problems, not least being it takes huge numbers of them to generate any real amount of power, with their availability being not much more than one third of their installed capacity.
Alec |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Just came back from Spain, there are fields all over with hundreds of turbines there, I am all for it
Also saw a massive solar panel array. Don't think it works as well in the rain
For what benefit? they aren't self subsidising...
and
- they are noisy
- cause flicker
- reduce house costs
At least the solar fields dont piss off local residents.... the down side to these of course is they take up space that cannot be farmed"
They're not noisy. The stories about 'sub-sonic' noise are bullshit.
They don't cause flicker on well tuned TVs.
They reduce house costs? What does that mean?
The land can be farmed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Hello all,
wind turbines are inefficient,unreliable, feeble and very expensive to build. Often built in relatively unpopulated areas which also means more pylons to connect to the grid.
As the government is committed to reducing CO2 and reducing dependency on fossil fuel, Nuclear power is not an option, it is essential which, belatedly, the government has realised.
Because of the unreliability of wind turbines (remember the merchant navy gave up on sails years ago) there are fossil fuel stations running but not producing power because of the variability of the wind.
Alec"
Your point about spinning reserve could easily be solved by utilizing pumped storage - there's not enough of it and there's a very good scheme planned for up here which government ought to finance.
The rest of your points, especially the childish one about sailing ships, don't stand up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"
Oh Lordy, here's another one!
I guarantee that anyone who says that they prefer nuclear has no clue whatsoever what a nuclear power plant costs to decomission or guarantee safe storage of the waste it produces.
Ever had your house value cut in half thanks to a large piece of metal on the landscape?
Ever seen one of these windmill farms generate power during bad weather?
Ever seen them work to an 'IN DEMAND' energy production/model?
You know, the type of energy demand that occurs when people switch on the heating, kettles, showers etc?
Windmills cost a lot more to nature and the taxpayers than simply putting them up and have them generate little energy or none at all."
All you've managed to do is make the case for pumped storage (and probably flywheel based storage, but that's a little further off and will probably work with smaller turbines in distributed generation models).
Incidentally, you do know that before we had wind farms the CEGB depended on pumped storage to balance the load don't you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Hello Kenny,
"wind is a viable option in the long term."
The Scandinavians who have a lot of wind powered generators are finding it is not as good or effective as they had hoped.
Really, wind generation has many problems, not least being it takes huge numbers of them to generate any real amount of power, with their availability being not much more than one third of their installed capacity.
Alec"
What is the availability of a gas powered station when we run out of north sea gas? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Better than a nuclear power plant 2000 meters away.
Have you ever been in a nuclear facility or met the people in charge of such facilities?
When was the last nuclear accident in the UK?
*cough*
Russia are bad examples and the Japanese? WHo didnt see that coming. A country slap bang in the middle of a quake zone and it was only a matter of time and whatdoyouknow? It happened.
America has never had a bad accident.
The facilities are guarded by the military and armed police.
You can fly a plane into the protective building surrounding the reactors and it will not even dent it.
Then you have the 'renewable' idiocy this country seems to be in love with.
Tidal dams, river barges etc damage the environment. In the US they have destroyed entire areas of ecology because they put tidal barges across large rivers like the Mississippi.
Green eco stuff is all about raking in the taxes of the public, nothing more.
"
America has never had a bad accident? three mile Island? Hello? Ever heard of the Windscale fire? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An application is planned for 5 of these 500metres from our garden - they stand 126metres high. Landowners get approx £20k per turbine per year and the energy companies get massive government - sorry taxpayers ie our money - subsidaries.
Yes the UK have commotted to hit targets - but is this the way to go?"
shall we turn the argument on its head and ask the anti brigade what their solution would be..??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Awayman,
"What is the availability of a gas powered station when we run out of north sea gas?"
I did not advocate gas as a solution, even though we had that frenzied "dash for gas" some decades ago. I said we have no effective option at the moment other than more nuclear stations.
We do have pump storage stations at the moment but they are only useful for peak lopping, they are inefficient as they use a lot more power than they produce.
Alec |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
As you will see by the tone of my posts I don't have an answer. I'm just not happy about this is a solution.
And as for the above query on house prices. Well it stands to reason that our property value would be greatly reduced and far less attractive if the scheme goes ahead.
If I was looking for a new house and found out a property I liked would be so close to such a proposal , there would be no way id be interested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The nuclear industry has massive subsidies, and will leave a legacy that will extend many 1000's of years into the future. Some of the biggest subsidies were when the electricity, gas and other industries were sold off too cheaply, without tough regulation and restrictions of their pricing put into place. The losers are largely the general public.
As for wind turbines, I am largely in favour, have one a little further away from me than these are, and wouldn't want one that's huge and noisy on my immediate door step. That said, if there are noise constraints, and also knowing that these should be built somewhere, then I don't quite know what the answers are.
So, where should they go - absolutely not where there is noise pollution that's at unreasonable levels, where areas of outstanding beauty are significantly spoiled, and potentially at nuclear sites where there's sufficient wind: maybe they're already built here, I don't know.
I did read of potential subsidies for local residents, when these are built, and this seemed a reasonable idea, if there is some disruption, but not if there isn't. We can't stop progress, but need to stop unreasonable 'progress'. We definitely have to minimise global warming, so that the future world is better for our kids, and greener fuel sources are essential - it's a question of what and how. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
since i ws ignored last time I posted lol, I sorta knew I was talking about how windfarms may affect the environment, My example from this was watching a programme about severe weather.My example was in texas,houston I think...where they have a high level of heat generated by buildings etc, causing more severe weather anomolies.
Ive just now looked at an article:
New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.
Researchers used satellite data from 2003 to 2011 to examine surface temperatures across as wide swath of west Texas, which has built four of the world's largest wind farms. The data showed a direct correlation between night-time temperatures increases of 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) and the placement of the farms.
"Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology," Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change said in an e-mail to Discovery News
like I say, the weather sytstem can be severely affected by mass structures, especially those that would cause changes to the already erratic weather system...producing larger fluctuations will surely be more detrimental.
So shuttup about the costs etc lol...its more about the actual earth itself! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arrasCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We're not interested in any form of cashing in on this. We chose this house because of the spot it's in - out in the countryside. If we had known an industrial plant could be installed at the end of the garden we wouldn't have bought it.
Anyway there's quite a variance of replies to this. If those in favour would forward on your postcodes please, I will let the energy companies know there's a prime spot where they won't get opposition.
.... Awaits messages ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah!"
It would appear the norm is that house owners do not get compensated and do not benefit from free fuel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah!
It would appear the norm is that house owners do not get compensated and do not benefit from free fuel. "
is compensation ur only issue...rather than helping the environment lol????....think further ahead I suggest
*I've already said I'm not suggesting more windfarms as an answer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Nope as I said not into compensation and it's not up to me to come up with alternative answers.
I could have trawled the Internet and come up with a load of righteous arguments but im guessing most people posting on here are not experts either and use whatever bit of info they can find to counter their argument.
My attitude is the same I have with lots of other things in life, which is that I'm happy for others to do what they wish but I don't like things being forced on me. It's plainly obvious by the groans all up and down the country that this solution is making a lot of unhappy. It shouldn't be the few that burden the responsibility of government targets now.
So I won't be looking any further for alternative solutions. I pay enough taxes to government thanks, it's up to them to champion solutions that are viable and it should be their responsibility as an elected body to make sure they don't alienate small communities like ours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Hello Awayman,
"What is the availability of a gas powered station when we run out of north sea gas?"
I did not advocate gas as a solution, even though we had that frenzied "dash for gas" some decades ago. I said we have no effective option at the moment other than more nuclear stations.
We do have pump storage stations at the moment but they are only useful for peak lopping, they are inefficient as they use a lot more power than they produce.
Alec"
So what's the availability of coal powered stations when we run out of coal?
Or oil fired? Or any other fossil fuel based generation?
Pumped storage utilizes power, in the fossil fuel model, that is expensive, you're right. But in the renewable model it load balances, storing power generated overnight (which would have been wasted because of low demand) until it's next needed. As I say, flywheel storage is also an option in small scale local generation schemes.
The problem with nuclear is that it's incredibly expensive with no realistic calculation of full cycle costs since we still haven't figured out what to do with all the waste. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"We're not interested in any form of cashing in on this. We chose this house because of the spot it's in - out in the countryside. If we had known an industrial plant could be installed at the end of the garden we wouldn't have bought it.
Anyway there's quite a variance of replies to this. If those in favour would forward on your postcodes please, I will let the energy companies know there's a prime spot where they won't get opposition.
.... Awaits messages !"
What a stupid point. My local windfarm, about a quarter of a mile away, is due for a refit with much larger turbines. I'm happy about it. You're not, because you think you should be allowed to tell other people what they can do with their land in order to protect your property values. The world doesn;t work like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh I agree with u, although it is partially up to u, regardless ofur expertise..many non-experts have stumped experts in providing solutions to problems.
I only trawled the internet(one google click lol) cos I knew I had some knowledge of global meteorology and applying some quantum dynamics with my latest theories I came up with the argument of caution on windfarms.My papers just been published in Italkshitsometimesbutcouldberight.com |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Wind farms are a blight on any landscape. We have one of the biggest wind turbine sights just off the coast here and that is marginal ok as no one lives there and we can't see or hear them. Waste if money though.
We should just build nuclear plants and be done. I'd use power plants like the ones used in nuclear subs and have one for every city. Last for 30 years without refuelling. No emissions. Simples!
Oh Lordy, here's another one!
I guarantee that anyone who says that they prefer nuclear has no clue whatsoever what a nuclear power plant costs to decomission or guarantee safe storage of the waste it produces.
Living not far from one of the largest Nuclear Plants and have certain connections with people working there I think I certainly know more about the subject than you suggest and probably more than you do. But I am happy to have a constructive discussion about the subject. Let me offer some discussion points:
How many nuclear accidents have we had in THIS country? How many people have been killed by nuclear power in THIS country? How many miners like my Grandfather were killed digging out the coal that fired power stations? How much eco damage do the coal and gas fired power stations do?"
It's typical of people who blindly support nuclear power, that as soon as anyone questions the cost, they spout off about accidents instead, and completely ignore the reality.
HERE IS THE NEWS: Everyone knows that nuclear power plants are relatively safe today. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the taxpayer always has to bear two infinitely elastic costs: plant decommissioning, and safe waste storage. That no waste storage can be guaranteed safe just compounds the issue.
Try thinking about what you are posting, rather than posturing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah!"
Better to go buy some Solar Panels for your roof. More efficient, lower cost and you get paid if you have a surplus of energy. OK they are subsidised by the taxpayer but at least they are a good isea and don't blight this 'green and pleasant land'.
Personally I would have developers fit them them on every new house or building. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah!
Better to go buy some Solar Panels for your roof. More efficient, lower cost and you get paid if you have a surplus of energy. OK they are subsidised by the taxpayer but at least they are a good isea and don't blight this 'green and pleasant land'.
Personally I would have developers fit them them on every new house or building."
plus u get to play those mad Japanese gameshow games where u lie on the panels for as long as u can!!!!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's typical of people who blindly support nuclear power, that as soon as anyone questions the cost, they spout off about accidents instead, and completely ignore the reality.
HERE IS THE NEWS: Everyone knows that nuclear power plants are relatively safe today. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the taxpayer always has to bear two infinitely elastic costs: plant decommissioning, and safe waste storage. That no waste storage can be guaranteed safe just compounds the issue.
Try thinking about what you are posting, rather than posturing."
I always try and think about what I post but thank you for reducing the debate to personal remarks for a second time. Are you related to 'Awayman'?
I do not blindly support Nuclear or ideed any form of power generation. It just seems to me (having worked with those in the sector in 'a previous life') that the REALITY is we are heading for a moment in time when the lights will go out because the UK, unlike other Countries, has committed to Carbon Emmission reduction and is decommissioning fossil fuel power stations. We are also decommissioning life expired Nuclear power but failed to build the required replacements be they Wind, Solar, Tidal, Hydro, Nuclear, Gas and Coal with Carbon Capture, etc etc
I ADDED the accident element to the debate I didn't try to REPLACE the cost element.
The taxpayer will always have to fund energy resources to some extent especially when 'kick start' funding is needed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Don't really understand why people would be against Wind turbines. If it means we burn less fossil fuels and use less Nuclear power surely that is a good thing.?
Would I have one in my back-garden... If it meant I got free electricity then hell yeah!
Better to go buy some Solar Panels for your roof. More efficient, lower cost and you get paid if you have a surplus of energy. OK they are subsidised by the taxpayer but at least they are a good isea and don't blight this 'green and pleasant land'.
Personally I would have developers fit them them on every new house or building."
You do know that if you did that you;d increase the cost of new houses by reducing the number you could build per acre don't you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"lol they are rare round here i took pics of them on my way home from scotland,how sad am i lol "
and why didnt ya stop in to see me on ur way back....oops...hya |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The London Array in the Thames estuary is going to have about 150 of them. I quite like the look of them. They'd be awesome if they had coloured blades like the little windmill things you can buy at the seaside.
Shame they appear to be a waste of money tho |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Better than a nuclear power plant 2000 meters away.
Not necessarily. I recently read an article on residents of Dungeness(sp, Kent saying how peaceful and tranquil the area was. "
and what glowing skin peeps had when they swam there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
4. I believe the subsidies are given as a kind of "investment" in our future energy needs and to allow these to be supplied by green and home grown providers.
Look at the problems with oil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't see why they have to put them so close to residences though. There is still plenty of green space in the UK."
stop opening ur legs...i hate seeing that kinda green space |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Awayman,
"So what's the availability of coal powered stations when we run out of coal?
Or oil fired? Or any other fossil fuel based generation?"
You are not listening.
Pump storage does not use 'wasted' electricity, it doesn't work like that.It uses spare generating capacity at night, not quite the same thing.
My fundamental objection to wind farms is that they are puny relative to their size, so very many are required for a modest amount of power. A conventional power station of say 1000 Mwatt needs over three hundred 10 Mwatt (which s large for a wind turbine) to equal it.
Our largest power station, Drax is nearly 4000 Mwatt.
Alec |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think that wind turbines are a good idea but dont really think I would like one in my "backyard". However i could overcome these feelings thinking more about the earths resources running out. Still think that tidal power is better. Horozontal turbines that can be lowered and raised (for cleaning) on a central spindle. The tide comes in and goes out 24 hours every day supplying power all the time. Our hydrogen supply on earth is huge taking up about 72 percent of our atmosphere. Also can be extracted from sea water and other natural substances. Hydrogen fuel cells in a car give you no nasty emissions. Hydrogen cars have been produced since 2005 yet I believe there are only a couple of filling stations in the uk. The cost of harnessing hydrogen is quite expensive but some people say it would work out slightly cheaper than what we are paying for petrol/diesel today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
As I've already said, I'm loathed to start quoting facts and suggestions, as don't really understand or trust too much what I read about either side of the arguments. But tidal energy appeals to us too. At least it's regular and guaranteed!!
Thank you guys for your posts. It's been interesting reading what you all think, regardless of whether that's for or against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"
You do know that if you did that you;d increase the cost of new houses by reducing the number you could build per acre don't you?
If you say so ...."
I say so - you can't optimize houses per hectare using current techniques if all houses have to have a south facing aspect large enough to carry a full weight of PV cells to current standards. Next generation PV will probably be more flexible, but right now, that's the reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If they can generate enough power and if it means one less nuclear power station then yes, I'm in favour of it.
We have a field of about 15 massive turbines at Linton, about 4 miles away from us and to be honest they look fine and don't seem to be causing any problems.
Previously when entering the area, the first thing you'd see were the four stacks from Blyth A&B stations belching out their ash - they have now gone thankfully, Alcans smoke stacks will be gone in a few years, so I guess the turbines will be the new landmarks for our area |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"Hello Awayman,
"So what's the availability of coal powered stations when we run out of coal?
Or oil fired? Or any other fossil fuel based generation?"
You are not listening.
Pump storage does not use 'wasted' electricity, it doesn't work like that.It uses spare generating capacity at night, not quite the same thing.
My fundamental objection to wind farms is that they are puny relative to their size, so very many are required for a modest amount of power. A conventional power station of say 1000 Mwatt needs over three hundred 10 Mwatt (which s large for a wind turbine) to equal it.
Our largest power station, Drax is nearly 4000 Mwatt.
Alec"
Apologies for labouring the point, but you're confusing the current model for pumped storage (the spare capacity model - often nuclear, since they're the hardest power source to shut down and restart) and the renewable model, where wind and solar will produce power irrespective of demand, and ways have to be found to avoid 'wasting' that production.
As I say, I think localized storage for small schemes will come along, using the flywheel technology that is being explored, as will smaller more localized pumped storage.
Your size argument is intriguing but reflects as much our wasteful approach to electricity in the fossil fuel era - using 60W bulbs when 7W will do and using ineffective heating systems when insulation would reduce the need. Part of moving away from fossil fuels is also about reducing consumption - which negates something of your size argument. Another part of moving away from fossil fuels is distributed generation and a new national grid that is tailored to that, rather than accepting transmission losses as being part of the price of having huge power stations designed to reduce the cost of fuel transport and handling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is no way that wind or solar is ever going to produce power that is going to be 'wasted' currently renewables produce something like 7% of energy needed in 2011 now let's go mental and say that that raises to 50% (which it won't) how is it going to be wasted?
The current larfest capacity wind turbine is 7mw. But typically 3mw turbines are used inland and 5mw turbines offshore.
With only a third running at any given time and only when conditions are 'just so' how is that efficient? Especially when combined with build costs and the subsidies involved.
If these companies were not paid to build them then garauntee'd a return on the energy they produce do you think they would build them? I don't because I know they would not be able to make any money on them.
Oh and using current technology to replace a 1000mw station you are talking about 600 5mw turbines.
Also spinning reserve doesn't exsist any more typically slack is picked up on the grid by GT sets on frequency response (that's gas or sometimes oil).
With main units on 1 to 16 hours notice depending on various different factors.
It's also no co-incidence that those countries producing the largest amounts of their required energy by renewables are also those countries withthe highest energy bills.
At the end of the day this country needs nuclear end of story. We are losing huge amounts of our capacity over the next 15 years, 8 nukes alone at 2000mw+ each. Work out how many wind turbines that would be!
Expect your bills to rise sharply over the next few years as this country becomes more and more reliable on gas. Because starting January next year we are going to be shutting down plant all over the country and there's nothing replacing it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You're looking at this as a nimby and fair enough - butt ugly and the asset lifetime is about 25 years so your nice countryside view will be (probably) changed until you expire.
At over 125m that's a big mast, will be a big turbine but the £20k incentive won't even pay for the Garrad-Hassan consultancy. It wouldn't even pay for a good hi resolution (down to 100m) wind study from the met office so to be real, this is big finance and unless you can make a solid case for it not going ahead, you don't stand a china mans chance.
Wind farm generation volatility and powe forecast into the grid is easy to manage simply by spreading your portfolio over a wide area and calculating averaged - its easy and that's why the big investment banks and capital investment funds love it - no one has, as yet lost out on any commercial wind farm investment deal as the deals are structured so that risk is managed very well.
Here to stay, that's the fact to get used to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wind farms are a joke, and a really bad one at that.
The energy they are capable of producing is not dependable and for each unit of energy that a wind farm can produce there has to be spinning reserve. At the moment that means if you build a wind farm you have to build another power plant of something dependable like nuclear or gas turbine to ensure continuity of supply.
It is all a con by big business lobbying and ignorant politicians who are easily led.
A much beter approach would be to reduce the population by removing the extra 10 million non-native people who have flooded into the country over the last 15 years and let their governments worry about supporting their carbon footprints rather than us having to. It's this sort of cost that isn't factored in to the cost of allowing such large scale immigration. and wait fot all those young Greeks, Spaniards and Portugese to make things even worse.
Wind farms are just a result of bad policy decisions and a government full of lawyers rather than scientists, engineers and business people.
Pet rant over
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They dont look any worse than the Pylons for the National Grid that have blighted the landscapes for years.
These lines of steel blots on the landscape have been around so long they are part of life and no one notices them anymore."
And they don't send your mobile reception all to cock either! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At the end of the day this country needs nuclear end of story. We are losing huge amounts of our capacity over the next 15 years, 8 nukes alone at 2000mw+ each. Work out how many wind turbines that would be!
Expect your bills to rise sharply over the next few years as this country becomes more and more reliable on gas. Because starting January next year we are going to be shutting down plant all over the country and there's nothing replacing it.
"
Forgive me not quoting all of your excellent post Phoenixcouplexx but space forbids.
Excellently argued point of view and what I was trying to say but in a poor way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think that wind turbines are a good idea but dont really think I would like one in my "backyard". However i could overcome these feelings thinking more about the earths resources running out. Still think that tidal power is better. Horozontal turbines that can be lowered and raised (for cleaning) on a central spindle. The tide comes in and goes out 24 hours every day supplying power all the time. Our hydrogen supply on earth is huge taking up about 72 percent of our atmosphere. Also can be extracted from sea water and other natural substances. Hydrogen fuel cells in a car give you no nasty emissions. Hydrogen cars have been produced since 2005 yet I believe there are only a couple of filling stations in the uk. The cost of harnessing hydrogen is quite expensive but some people say it would work out slightly cheaper than what we are paying for petrol/diesel today "
So the Earths atmosphere is 72% hydrogen is it? I think someone wasn't paying attention at school it's actually nitrogen gas that makes up 72% percent of the atmosphere. Production of hydrogen from sea water is done by electrolosis, yes the hydrogen produced is clean burning and probably cheaper than diesel or petrol but requires quite a large amount of electricity in its production. Hydrogen fuel cells are basically rechargeable batteries, hydrogen and oxygen react in the cell to produce electricity then when the fuel is exhausted the process is reversed consuming electricity, great as a means of storing electricity but not generating |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hydrogen fuel cells for cars (and even trucks) will become viable as fuel costs inexorably increase. But they take a lot of electricity to extract the hydrogen and where does that come form?
To me as a confirmed 'nukisti' and 'solaristi' it seems all the arguments for things like electric trains, hydrogen powered cars and the like are flawed if the electricity required to power them is created from fossil fuels. And people forget the power that is consumed by the National Grid itself in heat and other losses in transmitting electricity.
Just think locally produced power by smaller nuclear units and Solar power on houses, warehouses and factories is a more eco friendly solution and would make wind farms even more pointless than they are now. They would also cost less than massive power stations and Grid lines and be quicker to roll out.
Would create a few thousand jobs more evenly spread all over the UK as well. Rolls Royce make pretty good nuclear power units for subs so why not for towns and cities? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The one thing about widespread uptake of fuel cells would mean that there is a reservoir for energy storage out there. Distributed rather than centralised. This may make some forms of renewable energy far more dependable. Lots of battery technologies will come on stream over the coming years though and as the charge density increases, fossil fuel dependence will go down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"There is no way that wind or solar is ever going to produce power that is going to be 'wasted' currently renewables produce something like 7% of energy needed in 2011 now let's go mental and say that that raises to 50% (which it won't) how is it going to be wasted?
The current larfest capacity wind turbine is 7mw. But typically 3mw turbines are used inland and 5mw turbines offshore.
With only a third running at any given time and only when conditions are 'just so' how is that efficient? Especially when combined with build costs and the subsidies involved.
If these companies were not paid to build them then garauntee'd a return on the energy they produce do you think they would build them? I don't because I know they would not be able to make any money on them.
Oh and using current technology to replace a 1000mw station you are talking about 600 5mw turbines.
Also spinning reserve doesn't exsist any more typically slack is picked up on the grid by GT sets on frequency response (that's gas or sometimes oil).
With main units on 1 to 16 hours notice depending on various different factors.
It's also no co-incidence that those countries producing the largest amounts of their required energy by renewables are also those countries withthe highest energy bills.
At the end of the day this country needs nuclear end of story. We are losing huge amounts of our capacity over the next 15 years, 8 nukes alone at 2000mw+ each. Work out how many wind turbines that would be!
Expect your bills to rise sharply over the next few years as this country becomes more and more reliable on gas. Because starting January next year we are going to be shutting down plant all over the country and there's nothing replacing it.
"
Sorry, but at night time demand is low and wind production continues - so either you turn off other generators or you sue that power - from large windfarms you drive pumped storage, from small turbines or small scale hydro (which we've only just begun to exploit) you utilize distributed storage.
To say wind turbines only work when conditions are 'just so' is deliberate misinformation on your part.
How many times do we have to repeat that we can't afford the whole cycle costs of nuclear? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
From the little knowledge i have of these they are a waste of time, just read recently that the uk would have to cover the hole landscape just to produce the same amount of energy that one nuclear power station pumps out, its a EU agaenda and a total watse of taxpayers money, the hole carbon foot print in the uk wouldnt change anything in the world compared to the big industrial countries, India America etc etc Its just another way to stealth tax us and for the goverment to look good,
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think that wind turbines are a good idea but dont really think I would like one in my "backyard". However i could overcome these feelings thinking more about the earths resources running out. Still think that tidal power is better. Horozontal turbines that can be lowered and raised (for cleaning) on a central spindle. The tide comes in and goes out 24 hours every day supplying power all the time. Our hydrogen supply on earth is huge taking up about 72 percent of our atmosphere. Also can be extracted from sea water and other natural substances. Hydrogen fuel cells in a car give you no nasty emissions. Hydrogen cars have been produced since 2005 yet I believe there are only a couple of filling stations in the uk. The cost of harnessing hydrogen is quite expensive but some people say it would work out slightly cheaper than what we are paying for petrol/diesel today
So the Earths atmosphere is 72% hydrogen is it? I think someone wasn't paying attention at school it's actually nitrogen gas that makes up 72% percent of the atmosphere. Production of hydrogen from sea water is done by electrolosis, yes the hydrogen produced is clean burning and probably cheaper than diesel or petrol but requires quite a large amount of electricity in its production. Hydrogen fuel cells are basically rechargeable batteries, hydrogen and oxygen react in the cell to produce electricity then when the fuel is exhausted the process is reversed consuming electricity, great as a means of storing electricity but not generating"
Oops, apologies. Got my gases wrong lol. I do know it has something to do with being the most abundant gas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".....To say wind turbines only work when conditions are 'just so' is deliberate misinformation on your part."
Mr _wayman, you really can't just disagree with people can you? Where is the justification in being so discourteous to the poster by saying he is deliberately misinforming us?
" How many times do we have to repeat that we can't afford the whole cycle costs of nuclear?"
Well I am sure you (singular) will keep saying this as you clearly believe it to be true. Some of us take an alternative viewpoint. Difference is we don't try to accuse you of being dishonest.
But we have been here before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Oops, apologies. Got my gases wrong lol. I do know it has something to do with being the most abundant gas."
Well personally I blame Global Warming on cows farting and producing methane. Pity we couldn't capture it and burn it ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Oops, apologies. Got my gases wrong lol. I do know it has something to do with being the most abundant gas.
Well personally I blame Global Warming on cows farting and producing methane. Pity we couldn't capture it and burn it ... "
Lol them dam cows. We could do with a herd for our lawn! I think that the RSPCA would probably want to intercept on any cow- fart capturing though!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry, but at night time demand is low and wind production continues - so either you turn off other generators or you sue that power - from large windfarms you drive pumped storage, from small turbines or small scale hydro (which we've only just begun to exploit) you utilize distributed storage.
To say wind turbines only work when conditions are 'just so' is deliberate misinformation on your part.
How many times do we have to repeat that we can't afford the whole cycle costs of nuclear?"
You are quite right the wind doesn't stop at night. But being as you have the other 93% of plant produce energy from other means then youdon't need to worry about the drop in the ocean that is wind production!
Deliberate mis-information? Yeah ok....
Typically energy production starts when wind hits 3-4 metres a second. Optimum production is reached at 15 metres a second and the turbines shut down at 20 metres a second to protect it from vibrations and mostly the gearbox oil overheating.
Of course technology moves on and this will improve in time.
Right now wind is not a viable mainstay. I am not misleading any body and I am not grabbing facts out of thin air. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
".....To say wind turbines only work when conditions are 'just so' is deliberate misinformation on your part.
Mr _wayman, you really can't just disagree with people can you? Where is the justification in being so discourteous to the poster by saying he is deliberately misinforming us?
How many times do we have to repeat that we can't afford the whole cycle costs of nuclear?
Well I am sure you (singular) will keep saying this as you clearly believe it to be true. Some of us take an alternative viewpoint. Difference is we don't try to accuse you of being dishonest.
But we have been here before."
You can whine about my manner all you like, but the reality is that it is deliberate misinformation to say wind turbines only work when the wind is just so.
They have a lower limit of wind level, below which they won't work. They have an upper limit above which they're feathered to protect the mechanical works. In between, which is about 90% of wind conditions, they work. That's not just so, it's pretty much most of the time.
I don't get all this whining about my manner. People in this thread have said soem outrageous things, and misrepresented others repeatedly, and you haven't squealed, but as soon as I wpeak up you start whining. If you find what i say so distressing, don't read it - it really is that simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".....To say wind turbines only work when conditions are 'just so' is deliberate misinformation on your part.
Mr _wayman, you really can't just disagree with people can you? Where is the justification in being so discourteous to the poster by saying he is deliberately misinforming us?
How many times do we have to repeat that we can't afford the whole cycle costs of nuclear?
Well I am sure you (singular) will keep saying this as you clearly believe it to be true. Some of us take an alternative viewpoint. Difference is we don't try to accuse you of being dishonest.
But we have been here before.
You can whine about my manner all you like, but the reality is that it is deliberate misinformation to say wind turbines only work when the wind is just so.
They have a lower limit of wind level, below which they won't work. They have an upper limit above which they're feathered to protect the mechanical works. In between, which is about 90% of wind conditions, they work. That's not just so, it's pretty much most of the time.
I don't get all this whining about my manner. People in this thread have said soem outrageous things, and misrepresented others repeatedly, and you haven't squealed, but as soon as I wpeak up you start whining. If you find what i say so distressing, don't read it - it really is that simple."
It is not deliberate misinfomation atall! Two posts above this you will see I have added actual speeds of operation for a wind turbine how the hell is that misinfomation?
You know you may even be telling people they are wrong who actually work in the industry you claim to know so much about!
Depending on where it is very few wind turbines produce anywhere near their optimum generating capacity 90% of the time. Infact it is far less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I must say I have been disappointed by the tone of some of the replies.
I wanted to hear genuine peoples feelings about something that has become quite personal to us. There have been some fantastic replies for and against thank you.
Yesterday I had to stop posting because of the rudeness of one individual and I didn't wish to be involved in a forum slanging match. He was one example but not the only one I thought crossed a line.
I don't care whether you're for or against but if you have to resort to slandering other posters it's a poor show and as soon as I read anything bordering unnecessary aggression I don't read the rest anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Thats me out of this Thread.
For the record I find Mr Awayman just too personally impolite at best and downright abusive at worst to want to carry on any further discussion.
Thanks to all the others who added knowledgable and humorous posts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Thats me out of this Thread.
For the record I find Mr Awayman just too personally impolite at best and downright abusive at worst to want to carry on any further discussion.
Thanks to all the others who added knowledgable and humorous posts. "
Well that's a shame because I liked your contributions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
