IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wind farm for West Berks?, Secret site for turbines
Bofem
post Jan 19 2011, 02:15 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



Interestingly, I've just found out that WBC have identified a site for a wind farm on council property (somewhere in the AONB). There's been a big fight within the council about it though, but it looks like it could happen soon.

As the main objections to the incinerator seem to be protecting our landscape, what do you feel about a windfarm next to the M4?



--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jan 19 2011, 02:47 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Bofem @ Jan 19 2011, 02:15 PM) *
Interestingly, I've just found out that WBC have identified a site for a wind farm on council property (somewhere in the AONB). There's been a big fight within the council about it though, but it looks like it could happen soon.

As the main objections to the incinerator seem to be protecting our landscape, what do you feel about a windfarm next to the M4?


Quite happy. Like it or not, its progress. Suspect the same worries were raised when the railway was laid! Locally, we haven't been good at working out how best to deliver such changes as - the Technical College, New Hospital, Waste site, Show ground, Vodafone & so on testify.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 19 2011, 04:11 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



I tend towards seeing turbines as a suitable method of supplementing power supply for a localised site (Green Park) than as a mass-provider of power to the national network.

Maybe Greenham Common......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Jan 19 2011, 05:29 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,926
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



They are ineffective and unecessary - I would wholeheartedly object.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 19 2011, 05:33 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



A Wind Farm as a method of delivering required power to the community as a whole is indeed a waste of space. As a supplement on a closed community it can reduce the power cost for that site and even earn some money for the owner, especially given the way the cash benefits are currenlt constructed. Even then, I do not know how long it takes to recover the capital/maintain the system. It is not 'green'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 19 2011, 07:17 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I think the incinerator project is a good idea, and likewise a windfarm. I find the technology of both fascinating, and both are inovative solutions to difficult problems. The objections to both seem similar too: people are scared by new stuff. From what i understand people who live with turbines love them, and I have to admit that I love their shape in the landscape. Interestingly enough that's not so different with incinerators either if you see some of the modern Gaudi-esque designs - joyful indeed.

I do hope it's not getting funded with my tax money though - if it's commercially viable then let commerce do it, and if it isn't then don't get involved anyway.

Have to say though, I'm suspicious that this is all a bit of electioneering - have a mate propose something to get the twin-set and pearls frothing mad, like a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, or a permanent gypsy site, or indeed a windfarm and incinerator, and then bellow your opposition to it and ingratiate yourself with the reactionary middle-english electorate.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 19 2011, 08:39 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Wind farms cannot replace 'power stations' as the wind decides for itself when. where and how much it will blow. So the cost of installing the mass turbines never reduces the need to be able to generate power sufficient to meet the current demand.
Then take the actual output of a turbine (not potential) and factor in the capital and revenue costs and the electricity they produce is not cheap.
The fact the technology is fascinating (it is only the same as a windmill, so not new) and the turbines look interesting is not a case for their mass use.

Google 'wind turbines negative effects' and look at the results, or 'wind turbines christopher booker'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Jan 19 2011, 09:26 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,615
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



looking back , locals were up in arms re the canal, the railway and then the M4 ! Its progress and while someone can make money out of it its gonna happen like it or not, personally I think windfarms are a farcical idea and a blot on the landscape.

But there aint no escape. so buckle up and clench your cheeks cos here it comes !


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 19 2011, 10:00 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 19 2011, 08:39 PM) *
Wind farms cannot replace 'power stations' as the wind decides for itself when. where and how much it will blow. So the cost of installing the mass turbines never reduces the need to be able to generate power sufficient to meet the current demand.

Sure, wind power is only available when the wind blows, but there are ways around that. I suspect that wind power is most useful in combination with other generating and energy-storage technology. For example, wind farms could produce hydrogen fuel. Yes, you'd need enough generating capacity to cope if the whole country was sat in the doldrums for a week, but when the wind blows it's handy to displace that conventional generation.

Actually what I'd really like to see is significant investment (say £20G) in nuclear fusion, and then we wouldn't need wind or wave or solar or anything else.

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 19 2011, 08:39 PM) *
Then take the actual output of a turbine (not potential) and factor in the capital and revenue costs and the electricity they produce is not cheap.

How are you measuring the cost of electricity - as generated by coal, gas, and oil? That's not the true cost though is it. Add in the financial cost of the CO2 pollution and that makes wind farms comercially viable. The problem is that energy is just too cheap to want to deal with global warming, and politically it's a difficult one because people like cheap energy. Don't worry though, it'll get expensive enough soon enough, just wait until China and India start consuming.

Anyroad, as long as it's a commercial investment the commercial sense is just something the development company needs to think about, and this is why WBC should have nothing to do with it.

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 19 2011, 08:39 PM) *
The fact the technology is fascinating (it is only the same as a windmill, so not new) and the turbines look interesting is not a case for their mass use.

No, not a case for windfarms, but nimbyism has been a big obstacle to the introduction of windfarms, so it's significant that not everyone hates the sight of them.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 19 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jan 19 2011, 10:00 PM) *
Sure, wind power is only available when the wind blows, but there are ways around that. I suspect that wind power is most useful in combination with other generating and energy-storage technology. For example, wind farms could produce hydrogen fuel. Yes, you'd need enough generating capacity to cope if the whole country was sat in the doldrums for a week, but when the wind blows it's handy to displace that conventional generation.

Actually what I'd really like to see is significant investment (say £20G) in nuclear fusion, and then we wouldn't need wind or wave or solar or anything else.


How are you measuring the cost of electricity - as generated by coal, gas, and oil? That's not the true cost though is it. Add in the financial cost of the CO2 pollution and that makes wind farms comercially viable. The problem is that energy is just too cheap to want to deal with global warming, and politically it's a difficult one because people like cheap energy. Don't worry though, it'll get expensive enough soon enough, just wait until China and India start consuming.

Anyroad, as long as it's a commercial investment the commercial sense is just something the development company needs to think about, and this is why WBC should have nothing to do with it.


No, not a case for windfarms, but nimbyism has been a big obstacle to the introduction of windfarms, so it's significant that not everyone hates the sight of them.

1. Those ideas are a quantum leap from the current thinking. The energy companies will never allow really cheap energy that they cannot control access to. Also, Gov't would tax anything so beneficial to the multitude!
2. So you are not expecting any investment in the foreseeable future?
3. Total cost, from the first nut and bolt through to delivery to end user, including on-costs.
4. I don't think WBC will look to run it (Governments do not do well at running things, local or national. Better they stick to facillitating.
5. I don't hate the site of elephants, but I wouldn't want one in my garden.........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Jan 20 2011, 04:02 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



Everytime there is talk of wind turbines, the refuseniks come out in force to talk garbage.

Wind turbines are not the whole solution to climate change and the energy crisis, but they are a PROVEN technology which is improving all the time. The refuseniks just try and get people to think turbine technology stands still. It has improved hugely and will continue to.

Get those turbines up in West Berks I say and lets slash our emissions! Get building!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 20 2011, 04:44 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



This report is quite interesting as it deals in some detail with the issue of variability.

Other than what I've said about objecting to public money being invested in this kind of scheme my only other concern is birds and bats. I've seen reports that suggest that big turbines are pretty benign, but I'm still a little sceptical. Other than that I think it's a good idea, either along the A4, or indeed on Greenham Common.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 20 2011, 05:06 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Blake @ Jan 20 2011, 04:02 PM) *
Get those turbines up in West Berks I say and lets slash our emissions! Get building!

If that were true, we wouldn't be so sensitive about turbines.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 20 2011, 05:52 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 20 2011, 05:06 PM) *
If that were true, we wouldn't be so sensitive about turbines.

Do you really think the antis carefully weigh the need for energy security and carbon-neutrality against their objections? I rather suspect the sensitivity to turbines is unbridled nimbyism. That's not to say proponents have always weighed the pros and cons as carefully and sensitively as they might, I'm just saying that it's not obvious to me that objectors are taking a balanced, informed view.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 20 2011, 05:57 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jan 20 2011, 05:52 PM) *
Do you really think the antis carefully weigh the need for energy security and carbon-neutrality against their objections? I rather suspect the sensitivity to turbines is unbridled nimbyism. That's not to say proponents have always weighed the pros and cons as carefully and sensitively as they might, I'm just saying that it's not obvious to me that objectors are taking a balanced, informed view.

Just a second. IF turbines were a solution, there would be little to get in the way, but some turbines on some of West Berkshire's open spaces will NOT slash our carbon foot print - which is what my point was.

And while nimbyism is only natural in a society that values home ownership so highly, I wonder how many 'non-nimbys' are also not on the 'target' list.

I see Benyon MP stated that objections should be made on sound factual basis. Of course, the same should be applied in the other directions. It seems to me he might not be quite so impartial in all this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 20 2011, 06:31 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



I like wind energy, and I did spend a couple of days over in Bristol looking at potential wind energy sites with a wind energy company as part of our manifesto preparation. Unfortunately, there is very few suitable sites for a multi-turbine facility due to the AONB. I still think landowners should look at the technology with representatives of the AONB to see if there could be some smaller schemes, but the local authority will make very little money on it.

I don't neccesarily think all incinerators are bad either. But with regards to this site at Chievely, it just isn't suitable. As for the waste itself, as it will be coming from other parts of the country, let Grundon build the plant elsewhere. West Berkshire is already getting a waste facility in Padworth, and it's a very expensive one too. I didn't realise that the Chievely site had previously been identified as a possible waste site in a 1998 study that is apparently still valid now. So if this turns out to be the case, it will possibly get permission from a government inspector, regardless of what we all think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Jan 21 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



For every wind farm we put up China completes another 3 coal burning power stations!

We cannot go it alone - this is an international problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 21 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



I don't think climate change is the big issue. I think water and energy shortages pose a bigger risk to Man.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 21 2011, 10:56 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jan 21 2011, 10:52 AM) *
For every wind farm we put up China completes another 3 coal burning power stations!

We cannot go it alone - this is an international problem.


Exactly right, we are doing more in the UK than most countries. I'm not an eco warrior, but I do believe we have to influence people with the way we conduct our affairs in this country. The big question is how will we influence countries like China to become greener?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 21 2011, 10:59 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



Whilst there is some merit in weind power - powering single dwellings whi9ch are in the right locations etc, I have a feeling wind farms are just the 21st Flow country tax fiddle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th October 2019 - 10:35 PM