|
U-Know! Forum » Wind farms are shite - more evidence |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
CraigR 479 posts |
Aug 17, 2007, 14:32
|
||
|
"I had rather hoped to move the debate along from nimby-ism and anti-nuclear knee-jerks" I am very, very sorry.......... "the debate about renewable resources is not under question - and please, as a doctoral level landscape archaeologist I know about landscape, peat bogs, land use history and the fact that there are NO natural landscapes left anywhere on the planet - every inch has been largely affected by human action". Oooooh get her.........! "I was trying to provoke some 'thinking outside the box' debate beyond the usual human trait of if 'it's broke - build some new bigger stuff'!" What box. Everyone keeps banging on about this fucking box. Where is it? Do I need to take a 'helicopter view' to see it? "New, massive industrial installations of any kind are not making individuals responsible for consumption. we need to be thinking about individual and community-scale production, but first REDUCTION." As previously pointed out, reduction is indeed an issue which needs to be addressed, but how so? I always thought people were held 'responsible' by their account billing, you pay for what you use. I am currently responsible for the sustainability and environmental issues on a large site which my company is rebuilding over the next 5 years. The new builds going up are BREEAM top of the class, all the M & E is the most energy efficient available etc, so how do I continue to reduce energy consuption when I have hit a bottom line? You see reduction is finite too!
|
|||
muddy knees 11 posts |
Aug 21, 2007, 06:56
|
||
|
Yes - I quite like the look of them too - but in a kind of awe like you get when standing close to a very large aeroplane - I also like the smell of petrol - doesnt make it good though does it? To quote CraigR What box. Everyone keeps banging on about this fucking box. Where is it? Do I need to take a 'helicopter view' to see it? As previously pointed out, reduction is indeed an issue which needs to be addressed, but how so? I always thought people were held 'responsible' by their account billing, you pay for what you use. I am currently responsible for the sustainability and environmental issues on a large site which my company is rebuilding over the next 5 years. The new builds going up are BREEAM top of the class, all the M & E is the most energy efficient available etc, so how do I continue to reduce energy consuption when I have hit a bottom line? You see reduction is finite too![/quote] The box Craig as I see it is the one where we do not question the construction of such 'large sites' as your company is doing though they are certainly to be applauded for making as many enery savings as possible within that remit. I dont wish to go back to the Stone Age but we are certainly doomed if we keep building, driving, flying and consuming. The next Ice Age is almost certainly inevitable (then I will be out of a job because the glaciers will scrape all the lovely archaeology off to a depth of dozens of metres and deposit it in a big pile somewhere near Normandy). Wind technology must play a part in our future but wind farms are just another form of industrial power station. If we covered the whole of the UK with turbines we wouldnt come anywhere near meeting the UK demand. They are not little towers. They are not temporary. Some doubt that they would even offset the carbon generated required to design, manufacture, install and manage them. Miles of new access roads, hundreds of deliveries from Germany on 'mega-lorries' (whatever they are), connection to the grid via over-ground pylons for something with a projected life-span of less than a Nuclear Power station. One 'farm' estimated that the annual CO2 emission savings would be in excess of 100,000 tonnes over its lifetime - but compare this to the annual emmissions of a typical jumbo jet at 520,000 tonnes. If in any doubt about the scale of this enterprise - check out the pics on. http://www.popular-pics.com/pictures-series.aspx?photoid=472&seriesid=500 Its not something that keeps me awake at night necessarily - we just need to be talking about it dont we?
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 21, 2007, 23:27
|
||
|
Pretty crap article in my view. Biofuels / agrofuels are certainly far less "green" than they are being made out and will almost certainly lead to both environmental and social catastophe if adopted on a large scale. Wind farms, however, are about as "green" as it gets. The idea that they "destroy the landscape" is bollocks. Certainly they can be badly planned and located (draining peat-bogs to build a windfarm, for instance, is clearly madness), but that says everything about the people we have planning these things and nothing about wind farms themselves. For example, how exactly do offshore windfarms destroy the landscape? Also, even when located on land, it's a completely aesthetic thing rather than an ecological one. If you think they look ugly then clearly you'll feel they degrade the environment they're in. On the other hand, if you think they look nice (as do I) then they don't. I mean, clearly we don't want every single square inch of countryside filled with windmills, but nobody is suggesting that should happen. Indeed there's nothing to prevent wind farms being erected on existing farmland with a fairly small loss of physical space for crops or grazing. So theoretically they needn't have any impact whatsoever on what's left of the "natural landscape" (anyone who suggests that levelling the land, dividing it into boxes, ploughing it up and growing crops on it has less of an impact on "the environment" than building windmills is simply talking nonsense). Of course I agree that we need to consume far far less, but the extreme urgency with which fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced means that at the same time we're trying to power down society, we also need to be bringing genuinely green alternatives on stream with all haste. Keeping our massive population warm and well fed takes a lot of energy (far less than we're currently consuming, of course, but still lots), and it has to come from somewhere.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 22, 2007, 17:03
Aug 22, 2007, 00:32
|
||
|
muddy knees wrote: Wind technology must play a part in our future but wind farms are just another form of industrial power station. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that statement stands up to scrutiny. Let me start by pointing out that I've spent the best part of ten years studying patterns of energy production and consumption, and spent the decade prior to that working as an industrial systems analyst. Almost without exception (I'm including hydro here; certain geothermal projects provide the exception), all previous "forms of industrial power station" have had a significant negative ecological impact... usually in the form of pollution. Wind farms do not share this rather significant defining feature. This makes them anything but "just another form of industrial power station". To suggest otherwise is misleading. > > If we covered the whole of the UK with turbines we > wouldnt come anywhere near meeting the UK demand. > Citation please? And even if you can provide one, it's still an extremely misleading statement. First off, let's look at "UK demand". Pretty much everyone on this forum (leastways of those who post on this topic) agrees that massive reduction in demand is a key component of any future energy strategy. Indeed that seems to be the cornerstone of your own argument too. Yet you're criticising wind-power for an inability to meet current consumption. Right? Is that deliberate doublethink, or just a failure to think your argument through? Worse than that, though, is the fact that you are completely ignoring offshore resources. According to every study I've read (point me to one that contradicts this if you can find it), offshore generating capacity alone is equal to between one and three times UK current demand. (*1) And that's without erecting a single wind generator on solid land. > > They are not little towers. > No argument there. > > They are not temporary. > Well that's debateable. As a big fan of The Long Now Foundation I tend to think of pretty much everything we do as temporary. But that's a question of perspective I suppose. One thing I would remark on, however, is just how remarkably quickly those massive electricity pylons began to disappear from our landscape when efficient underground cable-laying techniques became available. I can recall travelling around Ireland as a nipper and being utterly captivated by the vast network of overhead power lines. These days electricity pylons are a relatively rare sight. > > Some doubt that they would even offset the carbon > generated required to design, manufacture, install and > manage them. > "Some doubt"? Who? Well, whoever they are they clearly don't know how to undertake basic research. According to a study carried out by the UK Department of Trade & Industry, for instance, "... the average wind farm will pay back this energy [manufacture & installation] within 3-5 months and with a 20-25 year lifetime turbines will produce far more energy than they consume." (*2) In fact, of 64 studies carried out on windfarms throughout the world, 63 of them reported an ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) of greater than 1 (with a single US study from 1981 reporting an ERoEI of 0.98). The highest, incidentally, was a Danish study in 2000 at the Fjaldene wind farm which reported an ERoEI of 76.92! (*3) Put that in perspective... crude oil has an ERoEI of between 30 and 90 depending on the well. So anyone who doubts the energy return on windfarms, is doing so from a position of complete ignorance. > > Miles of new access roads, > Not if they're built on existing farmland or offshore. > > hundreds of deliveries from Germany on 'mega-lorries' > (whatever they are), > Not if they're manufactured locally. Or are you saying that building a wind-turbine factory can't be done in Ireland or the UK? If not, why not? > > connection to the grid via over-ground pylons... > Why not via underground cabling like they do in Denmark? That's just a bizarre objection, frankly. > > for something with a projected life-span of less than > a Nuclear Power station. > Hang on! First they're not temporary enough for you. Now they don't last long enough? I don't understand your reasoning at all, mate. Also, how the hell can you complain about wind turbines being trucked in from Germany and then use nuclear power as a counter-example? As I say, we can manufacture them closer to home, but there's sod all we can do about the fact that the uranium mines are all in Africa and Australia. > > One 'farm' estimated that the annual CO2 emission savings > would be in excess of 100,000 tonnes over its lifetime - but > compare this to the annual emmissions of a typical jumbo jet > at 520,000 tonnes. > So because jumbo jets pump out huge amounts of CO2, the savings made by windfarms are irrelevant? Seems to me that's just an argument against jumbo jets not windfarms. And again, I think you'll find most of the folks here aren't suggesting that jumbo jets are a good thing. > > Its not something that keeps me awake at night necessarily > - we just need to be talking about it dont we? > Absolutely. But could I suggest that when we do talk about it, that we try to do so in an informed manner? *1 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file17789.pdf http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/energy.htm http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/offshore/overview.html *2 http://www.earthpeace.co.uk/Wind/index.html *3 http://www.eoearth.org/image/Wind_analysis_metadata_table.png
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 22, 2007, 00:42
|
||
|
Lupus wrote: If windturbines is such great idea, why not put them up where they can't threaten any sensitive eco-system or other "systems" worth protecting: in the cities & suburbs! Well, there are certain issues with erecting wind turbines near high buildings (the turbulence created by the wind being channeled around buildings can lead to a dramatic loss in turbine efficiency). That said, it's not an insoluble problem and wind farms can indeed by erected in low-lying suburbs and non-highrise districts of cities. This has already been done with some success in northeast London, and I agree we should do more of it. Personally I favour utilising existing farmland which tends to already have the necessary access and distribution infrastructure and rarely has the high-building / turbulence problem. Your point about draining bogland or situating them in highly sensitive ecological areas with no existing infrastructure (necessitating the construction of access roads) is completely valid though. As I've said elsewhere though, that's a problem with the people planning the windfarms, not with the windfarms themselves.
|
|||
|
CraigR 479 posts |
Aug 22, 2007, 13:53
|
||
|
"The box Craig as I see it is the one where we do not question the construction of such 'large sites' as your company is doing" Whoa there. I said REBUILD, not 'construct'. We are constructing but nothing additional, it's a case of build new, knock down old delapidated building and return to natural environment, repeat for x number of buildings. The sqm3 is of built environment is atually decreasing. Big difference!!
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
