Offshore wind farms

[Admiral Huddy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...nt/6188133.stm


|I think this is a superb idea, one of which I've been harking for years. Living not to far from the North Sea cost it's madness not to.

Over 441 turbbines to be introduced creating enough power for nearly 1 million homes and contributing to 1% of the electricity in the UK.

I can't help thinking that there must be a away of enforcing the reduction of the amount of electricity we all use. Wshing machnes, dryers, Street lighting, xmas house decorations etc..

What are your views?

Would you like to see more windfarms?

What would you like to see to hep the cause?

Discuss?

[Will]

In Cyprus and other middle eastern countries they have been using solar power a lot for taking the load off the power stations. Furthermore for heating up water - even if only to take the chill off it in winter so as to use the immersion heaters for less long.

We have an abundance of natural renewable energy sources it seems daft not to use them.

Obviously at the moment it costs more and uses a lot of resources just to create these systems, but in time they'll become cost effective.

If the whole world could reduce it's requirement for fossil fuels by even 10% it would make a huge dent in the natural resources being used. And cut down carbon emissions by a significant amount.

In holland land owners get a lot of revenue for having a turbine installed on their land.

In time when they can harness the natural resources more efficiently it will definitely be the way forward - at the moment it uses more energy to convert the natural resource to useable energy - this will change in time.

[Dr. Z]

The problem with wind power is that its unreliable and ludicrously expensive compared to the cost of "traditional" power. They also ruin landscapes (which isnt a problem if they are out at sea, but it IS a problem if you start wanting to put them on the mainland where it is windy!!).

There is an obvious and fairly easy solution to converting from fossil fuelled power stations to "other" types - go nuclear. The problem with "nuclear waste" is the fact that just about everything used in a nuclear power station is classed as exactly that, nuclear waste. Even if it is just as radioactive as an old fire alarm, it still gets classed as nuclear waste. If this stuff was treated just like any other waste (eg fly ash etc) then the actual cost of disposing would be limited to just the really harmful stuff, which is just a few Kgs per year.

Of course, when I say Nuclear, I mean reactors that produce electricity as their primary output rather than weapons-grade plutonium...

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by DRZ

They also ruin landscapes (which isnt a problem if they are out at sea, but it IS a problem if you start wanting to put them on the mainland where it is windy!!).

I'd say "ruin" is debatable, I personally consider a donking great big power station far more of an eyesore than an array of wind turbines. I do also find them rather relaxing in a slightly mesmerising way, although I do not have any particularly near I have stood next to a few and found them pretty inoffensive generally, I do live next to mobile phone masts and they don't strike me as any more or less obtrusive than those. They might not be ideal but in a fairly windy country they seem a reasonable solution to provide some of the power.

I'd be happy to see more windfarms in the UK, I'd like to see solar panels installed as a matter of course on new build properties and subsidies offered by the government (I believe there are some already) for installation on any property. There should also be more done to emphasise the value of insulation in houses (there are again already some subsidies) but it is a relatively inexpensive way to reduce energy consumption. It might not add up to a huge amount individually but overall I think it could make a fair dent.

[Messiah Khan]

Im thumbs up fot this offshore windfarm. Its not going to save the world, but its certainly a step in the right direction. We still have to take a lot of things into consideration though; Will it affect shipping lanes/Environment/Marine Life etc etc. Im also all for land based wind farms, but again these need to be very carefully considered. The largest planned windfarm in the world(I thinks its the world, might be Europe) Is planned for North Scotland, in the middle of nowhere. Now this might seem a great idea at first, but it does however drastically change a very large area of beautifull untouched wilderness.

[Mark]

I hope they actually go and do it this time. It's been talked about before but it got mired in politics.

[Dr. Z]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

I'd say "ruin" is debatable, I personally consider a donking great big power station far more of an eyesore than an array of wind turbines.

You can easily stick a power station in the middle of an old quarry or be built in such a way as to hide it if you really wanted to. Wind farms generally have to be put where it is windy and the wind isnt obstructed. Best places for that kind of thing are smack bang in the middle of (northern) national parks etc.

To provide enough energy for the UK would need a quite frankly ridiculous quantity of wind turbines. Two or three decent sized nuclear power stations would let us take a fair few fossil-powered stations offline to provide more viable long-term power.

Remember, carbon emissions are way, way down on the list of what is speculated to be causing "climate change". If carbon is a problem, it can be sorted by simply planting trees rather than mowing down rainforests. Im fairly sure the sea does more in the way of producing greenhouse effects than the whole of the human race combined, per day.

[Welshy]

It would obviously increase houseprices yet more, but i think roofing tiles with solar power cells inside them is easily one of the easiest ways to cut down on emissions. Doesnt harm the landscape, create any form of waste, doesnt really affect our lives much at all.

Back OT, windfarms ftw!

[Garp]

The government is quite keen on promoting wind farms and so has subsidised them to the hilt.

What they neglect to mention is that the wind farm in the north sea is going to generate electricity for just 30% of the time, and that with the carbon offset from producing them they'll take many years to even begin to have an impact. Oh and they're not using any kind of storage either (apparently its too expensive) so electricity generated by them that isn't used by the grid at that time will be wasted.
The estimates of their value in carbon reduction shows that the government would do better to buy every household in the country 3 energy saving lightbulbs. It'd be cheaper too.
I would have thought tidal / wave generators would be a much much better choice. Wind is unreliable, but there is more often than not some kind of tidal or wave action taking place.

The biggest incentive for energy companies in chosing renewable resources are some vouchers (I forget what they're called, something like ROF or ROM?) that the government will provide to each company for ever couple of % that they produce by renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. These vouchers then get sold on the energy market alongside the electricity, which will result in a hike to our electricty bills. Nice one Tony.

[Mohinder]

Should make Desmo live on Sealand.

Then he'd be an offshore wind farm himself.