winfarm locations

[mpcsmith]

i attended a lecture rececently given by the president of the institute of mechanical engineers. the subject was on future projects in the oil and gas industry. during the q+a the subject of renewables was brought up. going by his response its going to be a long, long time before we see any sort of surge in the amount of energy produced by renewables. he sited the brent oil field as an example. the brent oil field alone produces more energy than every wind turbine ever erected on the face of the earth, and the brent is a pretty tame size of oil field. his thoughts were that the sourcing of crude oil has probably got another 100yrs left to run(not because of lack of oil but of the relative difficuilty of extracting it makes it uneconomic). gas production is very much on the increase and will dominate crude oil production for the forseeable future. basically my point is that its going to be beyond our lifetimes before any significant progress is made, however it is important to get the ball rolling and few renewables is better than none atall!

[Apollo]

The point on the total wind energy input relative to oil is well made, and a reminder that each new technology should be applied where it works best.

It's a shame we can't be persuaded to make better use of what we've got, but as more clever electrical toys are pushed into our waiting arms, consumption is being fed instead of reduced. What energy supplier really wants to sell less anyway?

One real life example. I decided to remove every electrical item that went to standby instead of proper off, or always switch it off. Only one was left, the TV, after tests showed it consumed near zero when in standby.

The result of this was a refund cheque from the electricity supplier for just over £40 for the year, as I have fixed annual billing. Usually they don't bother as the year on difference is only a few pounds either way.

I'm not a power waster, so imagine the potential difference if this was repeated throughout the country.

[escotregen]

mpcsmith's point about the oil production dwarfing renewables does, I think, support the point about the problem being consumption not production. However, I suggest we cannot take comfort from notions of oil supplies lasting up to another 100 years. As markets become more aware of the future scarcity value of oil, the more that will influence their behaviours now - just like the periodic scares we used to have with supermarket shelves being cleaned out by panic buyers on the stregnth of some notional looming shortage of something. This is of course the reason we are engaged in war in Iraq again (I mean the oil; not the supermarkets!).
On the point about standby on electrical equipment, I'm a bit of a control freak in my house on this because of my experience several years ago. There was a project in the early 90s in an Easterhouse block of flats where the landlord and Scottish Power and/or Scottish gas installed all the latest energy-saving heating and cooking equipment and the highest standards of thermal insulation in windows, walls and loft.
It was a genuine attempt to measure the impact of conservation measures on every-day, and not very affluent, folks in real time households. Consequently, the monitoring went on for a sustained time. At the end of it all, the fuel-cost savings to the households were disappointing, even non-existant in some cases. Turned out it was because this was the period when 'stand-by' facilities were becoming standard in all household electric goods. Moreover, 24 hour TV and other media in the home had also arrived to increase the amount of 'stand by' consumption. The households were wholly ignorant of this increased passive consumption. Apollo's experience of the £40 saving is current verification of those pilot outcomes all those years ago.

[caine]

Well, if the rest of world really cared, they could quietly sanction or boycott the US without making a song and dance about it, but it won't.

.

while not related to this thread, the EC did impose heavy additional duty rates on goods from the usa, reaching 15% extra, on top of the normal duty and vat applied to imports from the usa. funnily, this never really seemed to be documented in the press, but it lead to a lot of US based firms going out of business as they couldnt sell they're goods to ec customers and several EC based companies who couldnt afford the additional duty lost out to cheaper importers from the middle east.

this went on for almost a year until bush decided to take action and at least listen to the demands of the commision, but these sanctions are based on actions by the US government over the past 20 years with regard to imports made by certain companies who were getting unfairly cheap import rates.

every day's a school day eh?!



but as far as wind farms go, theres one being built out in fintry. the land owner and local residents have struck a deal to get a bit of the profits made from the windfarm as they feel it would impose on their quality of life. i think the funds will either go back to the local parish council or be deducted from their bills.

[Paper Hankie]

A large windfarm (24 turbines, 300ft high) is proposed by an Irish company for the Duncolm area of the Kilpatrick Hills, an area mostly unspoilt. The largest area of support for this development locally is from the farming community who stand to profit from the sale/lease of the land, land supposedly protected by a number of laws but all of them open to manipulation and interpretation by the type of lawyer a large electricity supplier could afford.
The nearest communities in West Dunbartonshire will not benefit from the renewable electricity which will be hived off somewhere else yet they will suffer by their views being spoiled by these gargantuan monstrosoties. In fact they will be visible from Loch Lomond National Park, an area designated as a site of natural beauty.
They will also be the first image visitors flying into Glasgow get of our country.
I remember seeing some on a mountainside as I was kayaking on Loch Etive and they were just so out of place in such a serene setting.
It is possible in this day and age to install a small (2ft diameter) turbine in the roof of a home, as obtrusive as a Sky dish, and the electricity generated is for the benefit of the people who will be affected by the apparatus.
This is infinitely more appealing than giving up swathes of land and landscapes to profiteering conglomerates.
The wildlife and fauna which could be affected by this windfarm is considerable, with unspoiled marshland attracting a number of rare species.
Clydebelt have objected to the plans and asked for them to be thrown out.
http://www.clydebelt.org.uk/windfarm.html
In these forums we are constantly commenting on the haste and ease in which noteable Glasgow landmarks are removed or spoiled. What is so different about the green rural buffer areas around our city having the same protection that we wish for our architecture and history.
Remember, it's not just wind turbines, it's the associated roads and structures, the increase in traffic movements that add to the danger of upsetting a fragile eco-system that other creatures have to depend on.

[duncan]

this is my point; the argument against mostly boils down to "but it'll spoil the view." go tell it to the people who live within sight of any coal, gas or nuclear power station, who not only have to put up with the view, but potential health problems too.

surely we all benefit from the use of renewable energy over fossil fuels, regardless of whether or not the farmer gets paid for his land, or the energy goes to people in one area over another.

interestingly, one of the highest-profile anti-windfarm campaigners is Thatcher's press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham. His 'Countryside Guardians' have funded lots of local anti-windfarm groups, and claim to be responsible for the vast majority of defeats to proposed windfarms across the UK.
He's also been a consultant to BNFL, and is a director of an organisation called the Supporters of Nuclear Energy.

[escotregen]

Duncan I still think you are trying to broad brush out of the way a whole litany of arguments against windfarms by just belittling them as amounting to 'it'll spoil the view'.
Leaving that aside, I can't see the logic in seeming to say: some people in towns have horrible views with power stations etc., so let's spoil the countryside as well? I appreciate your earlier pointing out to me that windfarms are not built in the towns (gosh, and I never realised that!) but, a lot of those people with the poor town views escape for awhile to the unspoiled country. On current trends we end up with ugly town views and ugly rural views.
I think it would be rather naive to suppose we can have renewable energy in the place of of fossil(or nuclear) while the issue of consumption is not tackled in any meaningfull way. As pointed out earlier, we will need fossil and renewal energy supplies while we allow unmanaged consumption - and we may well still not have enough supplies eventually.
I read that there is a growing suspicion that windfarms are a Trojan horse that the conventional energy developers, and other types of developers, are happy with; once you have a network of fashionable 'good' industrial facilities i.e. windfarms, dotting the rural landscape - how do you then hold the line on subsequent development in the rural landscape and eventually in the greenbelt? I do not believe that the conventional large scale energy producers see windfarms and other renewals as any type of real long-term threat to their positions; so it's useful to these developers if in the meantime windfarms can literally plough up protected landscapes and prepare the ground for subsequent industrialisation... and future further energy demands!

[leper_2000]

the rate we waste power the americans must have the equivalent of university degrees in it.. we need as much in the way of renewable clean energy as we can get. im not really worried about global warming as all the evidence seems to say that the atmosphere naturally fluctuates constantly over a long time and ice ages come and go as do high levels of co2 so even the massive ammounts of crap we pump out arent making as much impact as the periods where there were a lot more volcanic erruptions and so on..
any thoughts on water power? there must be loads of mill lades and the like lying around unused that are already pretty unpleasant to look at thanks to graffitti and industrial leftovers. and any ideas on how much power ud get if u hooked the sewerage outflow to a turbine? theres a shite load of it after all:)

were in glasgowshire. were expected to expect eyesores and put up with it!

[duncan]

Duncan I still think you are trying to broad brush out of the way a whole litany of arguments against windfarms by just belittling them as amounting to 'it'll spoil the view'.
Leaving that aside, I can't see the logic in seeming to say: some people in towns have horrible views with power stations etc., so let's spoil the countryside as well? I appreciate your earlier pointing out to me that windfarms are not built in the towns (gosh, and I never realised that!) but, a lot of those people with the poor town views escape for awhile to the unspoiled country. On current trends we end up with ugly town views and ugly rural views.

do i detect a hint of sarcasm in your post? ;-)

i've yet to hear a whole litany of arguments.

[Paper Hankie]

Hunterston and Inverkip are hardly located in towns. Power stations can pop up in scenic rural locations as well (Pinkston ). Unfortunately I wasn't around to protest their construction.
Anyway, the argument against windfarm location is not singularly related to the visual impact. If you delve deeper you will find a raft of evidence as to it's ecological impact on habitat, wildlife and recreational pursuits.
I'm not wholly opposed to windfarms, however I am opposed to the siting of them in areas of special scientific interest and without the proper consultation process in respect of the Local and National Plans for the intended sites.
These local plans realise that the urban areas of Glasgow and its environs are enhanced by the surrounding rural areas.
Other than the visual pollution the major problems with windfarms being located close to a source of drinking water is that the windfarm site contains many pollutants that can find their way into the water supply. These include the handling of waste on the site, the use of fuel, the leeching of material from the concrete bases, the increase in vehicular traffic. There is also the fact that the concrete bases and roads related to these sites alter the natural drainage of the area with consequences to the natural equilibrium of burns, moors, bogs, etc. That in turn affects many species of wildlife that use the area, as well as the tributaries to our gradually cleaning River Clyde.
One of the things that makes Glasgow attractive is its close proximity to areas of extreme beauty such as the Kilpatrick Hills, Loch lomond, Clyde coast, etc.
If you stand on the Erskine Bridge and look east then west you'll see what I'm getting at.
Plus, there's a wee bit of urban exploration can be done inside the bridge structure, but that's another thread altogether.

[Sharon]

Plus, there's a wee bit of urban exploration can be done inside the bridge structure, but that's another thread altogether.

go on.....

[Fossil]

Plus, there's a wee bit of urban exploration can be done inside the bridge structure, but that's another thread altogether.

go on.....

Does it involve heights?

Fossil

[Apollo]

I'll add to the above hint of sarcasm, but the thought of 2 ft turbines on everyone's roof as making some sort of useful contribution, other than to the manufactuer's bank account has kept me in stitches until now.

These things can barely pay for themselves, and if you add the optional electronic power management option, count on over 10 years+ before you get enough out of it, assuming you live in a windy area.

They're great for remote locations with no power where you need a few Wh, but for domestic use.

Windfarms produce piddling amounts of power in the big picture, but score high on political brownie points because they're easy to take pictures of.

Hydro power would be nice, but Scotland's not as ideal for it as may be thought, plus, all the easy sites have probably been harvested. Though, you might think easy is a relative term if you look at the histories of the places like Pitlochry or Cruachan. These projects were expensive enough their day. With todays costs and legislations, one can only wonder at their cost in todays terms. Add to that the similar potential environmental uproar that damming, land and community loss that arises from creating the reservoir for a hydro station requires, and that option will attract as many protestors as the windfarm proposals.

[escotregen]

Duncan! really! as though I would employ sarcasm

[Closet Classicist]

What about tidal power? A tidal barrier across the Clyde around Bowling for example. Or wave power i.e. saltars ducks strung out across the firth? Surely these would be far more useful, predictable and reliable generators than wind? There are also sea bed facilities which would at least have the benefit of being less intrusive.