Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
|
|
Wind farm for West Berks?, Secret site for turbines |
|
|
|
Jan 19 2011, 02:47 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2011, 07:17 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2011, 10:00 PM
|
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 CO 2 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!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2011, 10:34 PM
|
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.........
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2011, 04:44 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2011, 05:06 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2011, 05:52 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2011, 05:57 PM
|
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 nimby ism is only natural in a society that values home ownership so highly, I wonder how many 'non-nimby s' 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2011, 06:31 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 10:56 AM
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|