Wind Turbine & a Friday Poll

[vanilla]

Tidal power has really good potential but it still in the development stage and requires further work.

Personally I wouldn't mind a wind turbine close to my home, as I'd much rather prefer to have electricity / gas (and all things that come with it like heating and hot water) than worry about aesthetics etc. I guess you have to choose what is more important to you, sustainable energy generation and warmth / convenience or a little eyesore..eiher way i think we all need to be more conscious / responsible about our energy use. The number of times I see people leaving lights / appliances on unnecessarily..

 

[sam1832]

Everybody wants to use electricity but nobody wants the generation near to their house

If everybody was to oppose we would all be sat in the dark before long

That said I would prefer a nuke near by than wind generation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[sars]

There is only one viable way of mass producing clean (relatively) electricity....Nuclear

everything is else is just window dressing

 

[ekimj10]

There is only one viable way of mass producing clean (relatively) electricity....Nuclear

everything is else is just window dressing

Totally agree with sars and the worry is we've done nothing for the last 10 years, and if Hinckley Point does go ahead, it will be at least 7 years from now before we see anything being generated.

 

[Ewazix]

Everybody wants to use electricity but nobody wants the generation near to their house

If everybody was to oppose we would all be sat in the dark before long

That said I would prefer a nuke near by than wind generation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

+1.
Hinkley Point nuclear power station is about six miles from my place and can been seen from a hill in the village looking over the bay. I'm reasonably happy and certainly prefer it to a sodding great turbine by the house because at least HP will produce electricity! I'm pretty confident about safety as I've seen the extraordinary lengths that are gone to frequently in excess of aircraft quality control and multi-layered safety systems. In a previous career (30 years ago) I helped design some critical components of the previous plant at Hinkley and elsewhere and none went bang or had a melt down ldman:

 

[TitanTim]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear, we can't even run a Health Service. Plus the problem of nuclear by-products etc etc.

Do you have a right to view, no you don't, fact of life if you have a nice view from your property it will be lost in time. We lost our lovely river view to new housing.

There are alot of worse things than a Wind Turbine close to your property, my list would be,

1) Nuclear Installation.
2) Gypsy Site.
3) High Voltage overhead power line.
4) Open Prison.
5) Pub/club.
6) Farm.
7) Waste Landfill.
8 Abattoir.
9) Petrol Station.
10) Industrial Estate.

Turbine wouldn't even register.

Tim.

 

[sars]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear

Tim you should stop believing everything you read in the press and stop making completely uninformed comments, it just makes you look like a numpty.

The nuclear incident in Japan was caused not by anything to do with the Nuclear reactor, but diesel generators and human stupidity, This incident could not happen here and we have one of the best safety records in the World

 

[Machine monkey]

Sars your right the only viable option we have is nuclear power at the moment. But there are lots of very clever people working on lots of clever stuff. Who knows what's around the corner??

 

[sam1832]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear, we can't even run a Health Service. Plus the problem of nuclear by-products etc etc.

Tim, Japan is a bad example fukushima power station was archaic to say the least it was built in the 60's

As sars says it was caused by an earthquake, that caused a tsunami that took out all of the ancillary power so the cooling water couldn't be pumped round anymore which caused the meltdown

To say nuclear is bad because of that is like saying its bad becuase of chernobyl

This is a reason why we are in the position we are now with wind farms, becuase people believing nuclear is bad and is going to kill everyone for no good reason and the uk's nuclear programme is behind

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[mac27040]

Have a read of this might help

http://www.countryguardian.net/fight.htm

 

[Carol M]

Sars, I love you. That is all.

 

[TitanTim]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear

Tim you should stop believing everything you read in the press and stop making completely uninformed comments, it just makes you look like a numpty.

The nuclear incident in Japan was caused not by anything to do with the Nuclear reactor, but diesel generators and human stupidity, This incident could not happen here and we have one of the best safety records in the World

I agree Nuclear is probably the only option at the moment but external circumstances as in Japan proves it isn't safe regardless of what safety measures are in place. Plus as for us having the best safety measures according to you, that may be but nuclear is not a safe energy resource. You can flower it up all you like.

PS......You need to have a little more informed background before tagging people as Numpties, Silly comment :roll:

Tim.

 

[strugglinauthor]

Tidal power has really good potential but it still in the development stage and requires further work.

Personally I wouldn't mind a wind turbine close to my home, as I'd much rather prefer to have electricity / gas (and all things that come with it like heating and hot water) than worry about aesthetics etc. I guess you have to choose what is more important to you, sustainable energy generation and warmth / convenience or a little eyesore..eiher way i think we all need to be more conscious / responsible about our energy use. The number of times I see people leaving lights / appliances on unnecessarily..

I'm with you, Carol. I'd oppose, although not just because I'm a nimby but because as other people have said, the impact vs output equation just doesn't stack up. I think they're more there to make us (the government?) feel good about our green credentials.

It's funny that tidal power is mentioned because I understand that the long running Severn Estuary project is perfectly viable in the short/medium term but is being successfully blocked by environmental concerns. There are also economic concerns of course, with the whole scheme needing subsidy, but what renewable energy project in its infancy doesn't? Don't get me wrong, I care about animals and birds and fish but unless we're all going to turn our TVs, ovens and lights off (fat chance), then we need power.

 

[TitanTim]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear, we can't even run a Health Service. Plus the problem of nuclear by-products etc etc.

Tim, Japan is a bad example fukushima power station was archaic to say the least it was built in the 60's

As sars says it was caused by an earthquake, that caused a tsunami that took out all of the ancillary power so the cooling water couldn't be pumped round anymore which caused the meltdown

To say nuclear is bad because of that is like saying its bad becuase of chernobyl

This is a reason why we are in the position we are now with wind farms, becuase people believing nuclear is bad and is going to kill everyone for no good reason and the uk's nuclear programme is behind

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I would say Japan is a good and bad example, todays technology will be old technology in 40 years time.

The reason why were behind in our Nuclear programme is cost. I don't wear rose tinted spectacles and believe any power stations built in this country would be built to a budget. I'm all for it if safe and the by products can be safely disposed of. But I doubt it.

Tim.

 

[Swiftly]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear

Tim you should stop believing everything you read in the press and stop making completely uninformed comments, it just makes you look like a numpty.

The nuclear incident in Japan was caused not by anything to do with the Nuclear reactor, but diesel generators and human stupidity, This incident could not happen here and we have one of the best safety records in the World

It's still a disaster Sars which ever way you look at it. You can't eliminate human error, hence why I hate nuclear power, just saying

 

[sam1832]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear, we can't even run a Health Service. Plus the problem of nuclear by-products etc etc.

Tim, Japan is a bad example fukushima power station was archaic to say the least it was built in the 60's

As sars says it was caused by an earthquake, that caused a tsunami that took out all of the ancillary power so the cooling water couldn't be pumped round anymore which caused the meltdown

To say nuclear is bad because of that is like saying its bad becuase of chernobyl

This is a reason why we are in the position we are now with wind farms, becuase people believing nuclear is bad and is going to kill everyone for no good reason and the uk's nuclear programme is behind

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I would say Japan is a good and bad example, todays technology will be old technology in 40 years time.

The reason why were behind in our Nuclear programme is cost. I don't wear rose tinted spectacles and believe any power stations built in this country would be built to a budget. I'm all for it if safe and the by products can be safely disposed of. But I doubt it.

Tim.

I don't believe its down to cost, its purely public interpretation

RWE and EDF would fund and slap a nuke where ever it could if the government would let them. Nuclear is alot cheaper to run than a coal fired power statio and can run for longer

Again it comes down to what people want wide spread black outs or 24/7 electricity like we are used too

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[sars]

Nuclear power = great when it works an environmental disaster when it goes wrong. Look at Japan who are struggling and thats an advanced country, god forbid if this country went completely Nuclear

Tim you should stop believing everything you read in the press and stop making completely uninformed comments, it just makes you look like a numpty.

The nuclear incident in Japan was caused not by anything to do with the Nuclear reactor, but diesel generators and human stupidity, This incident could not happen here and we have one of the best safety records in the World

It's still a disaster Sars which ever way you look at it. You can't eliminate human error, hence why I hate nuclear power, just saying

There is a certain amount of risk with anything, Nuclear has lots of risk, but it can and is managed accordingly with systems in place to minimise it.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal fired one

 

[bigdog]

strugglinauther hit upon something that I had eluded to in my last last post. The environmental movement. No matter what you come up with, Doesn't matter whether it's green or not they will oppose it. Why? Most of those groups tend to be anti-human more than pro-environmental. I once was a member of the Sierra club. I joined because I believed the sales pitch about "conservation" As in, enjoy the land and manage the resources wisely and try to leave the land as you found it, Boy was I wrong. They are a preservationist organization. As preservationist's they advocate that the earth should not change one bit and believe that humans are a blight on the earth and should be controlled and not have access to the land. They do not believe in ANY private property rights when it comes to land.
One evening at a meeting in South Dakota they were advocating protests against ANY Timber sales at all. A few days later I received a call from the Sierra club HQ in San Fransisco asking me to join a planed protest. I asked this guy why they opposed ANY cutting down of trees, Nor the mining of ore/ coal, Nor oil drilling, Nor nuke power. I then asked as the club disapprove of those things, What was the Sierra clubs alternative for energy, housing and so forth. And that if he was using any of those things. I.E. I asked him whether any of the electronics he was using, Or the building he was calling from or where he lived was made using any of those activities that he was asking me to protest. He had not one answer for me. I canceled my membership on the spot and saw that their main agenda was quite frankly chilling in the way they viewed and talked about people at the meetings as if they were vermin. Well not everyone, They of course excluded themselves as they are the enlightened ones.

So now when I hear about a new green low carbon foot print energy source or at least a non-oil based source. The very first thing I say to the wife is I wonder what environmental group will speak out against it first. I say build more nuke plants.

 

[Nanu]

The only way to reslove this argument is first convince people that global warming (which is now called climate change when it was discovered that the planet isn't actually warming) is not happening then we have sensible energy policy that reflects need not subsidising those in the "green" industry

 

[Anonymous]

Sars, I love you. That is all.

Oh get a room you two :wink: