Wind Farm In Bedlington?

[curly]

it sounds to me like we actually don't have any control over this problem at all, obviously every solution has an inherent problem.

Corporations control, we are just on the recieving end.

does everyone want to go back to the dark ages,

everyone will be back to cutting down trees to cook and then we will complain of deforrestation, loads of smoke because people burning 'green' (undried) wood.

solar panels as you say use aluminium and silicone and both have to be mined and smelted, coal has to be burned or at least processed in some way. Oil is split into its various fractions and used throughout industry.

todays society is very dependant on oil, we need to diversify and we need renewable sources to supplement other energy forms, Britain as you know is not a sunny country, so we must at least try to use what we have a lot of - WIND and if that means building windmills then i for one are not opposed to them being built. May be not large expanses of land being used but smaller units (on per house basis), surplus could then be sold back to the grid as people do with the solar/photvoltaic panels.

[Adam Hogg]

it sounds to me like we actually don't have any control over this problem at all, obviously every solution has an inherent problem.

Corporations control, we are just on the recieving end.

does everyone want to go back to the dark ages,

everyone will be back to cutting down trees to cook and then we will complain of deforrestation, loads of smoke because people burning 'green' (undried) wood.

solar panels as you say use aluminium and silicone and both have to be mined and smelted, coal has to be burned or at least processed in some way. Oil is split into its various fractions and used throughout industry.

todays society is very dependant on oil, we need to diversify and we need renewable sources to supplement other energy forms, Britain as you know is not a sunny country, so we must at least try to use what we have a lot of - WIND and if that means building windmills then i for one are not opposed to them being built. May be not large expanses of land being used but smaller units (on per house basis), surplus could then be sold back to the grid as people do with the solar/photvoltaic panels.

The two most effective renewable sources are solar and tide power. Wind is no good on a small scale they are useless, if you put a wind turbine on your house (a small one) your house will be damaged because of vibrations from the wind turbine.

[curly]

The two most effective renewable sources are solar and tide power.

never denied that...........we just don't get a lot of sunshine in the north east, i've seen some of the masive solar collectors in france close to andorra and or course there are the fields of solar collectors in california and other parts of the world, but can you imagine the hew and cry if huge areas were taken over for solar panels... no objection to peoples houses / roofs then but then again most houses arn't strong enough to take the panels but up they go anyway!

and where are the viable tide power projects at present generating electricity

Wind is no good on a small scale they are useless, if you put a wind turbine on your house (a small one) your house will be damaged because of vibrations from the wind turbine.

never suggested for one moment attaching a small windmill to a house, and as for vibration........ well... if it vibrates too much its off balance!

Edited July 26, 2012 by curly

[Symptoms]

Crackers, the lot of you! Relying on puffs of wind and the crashing of waves ... poo. What we need is a fuel that is abundant, secure and local, doesn't need to be processed before use, has an age of proven technology behind it, leaves behind no deadly waste, ticks just about all the boxes for employing lots of people, and so on. Oh, and anything that's good for the Chinese should be good enough for us. COAL I say!

And another thing - I don't want to hear all the ninnies here bleating on about how dirty/polluting it is or how unhealthly it is for the workers. Investment in clean coal technology (a small amount compared with the huge sums needed to be spent shielding our giblets from being zapped by the atom rays for 1000s of years); decent face masks will halt 'miners lung'. Do we really want every skyline covered with windmills and even more trampled underfoot by mile upon mile of giant pylons; do we really want our shoreline carpeted with nodding wave/tide machines and then the beaches trampled underfoot by even more pylons? No, I say!

Also, a good plan would be to round-up all those feckless teenagers I identified in another post ... maybe we could call them The Bevan Symptoms Boys ... and draft them down the pit to dig the stuff.

You all know it makes sense!

[11011100]

Crackers, the lot of you! Relying on puffs of wind and the crashing of waves ... poo. What we need is a fuel that is abundant, secure and local, doesn't need to be processed before use, has an age of proven technology behind it, leaves behind no deadly waste, ticks just about all the boxes for employing lots of people, and so on. Oh, and anything that's good for the Chinese should be good enough for us. COAL I say!

And another thing - I don't want to hear all the ninnies here bleating on about how dirty/polluting it is or how unhealthly it is for the workers. Investment in clean coal technology (a small amount compared with the huge sums needed to be spent shielding our giblets from being zapped by the atom rays for 1000s of years); decent face masks will halt 'miners lung'. Do we really want every skyline covered with windmills and even more trampled underfoot by mile upon mile of giant pylons; do we really want our shoreline carpeted with nodding wave/tide machines and then the beaches trampled underfoot by even more pylons? No, I say!

Also, a good plan would be to round-up all those feckless teenagers I identified in another post ... maybe we could call them The Bevan Symptoms Boys ... and draft them down the pit to dig the stuff.

You all know it makes sense!

Coal is a fossil fuel and finite. even the chinese realise this and there are 14 nuclear plants on the mainland and about 27 are in construction. so yes let's follow the chinese! ;-)

[11011100]

Related but a bit off topic!

What is the effect of using renewable energy, if any? the absorbing or slowing down the wind to turn windmills, absorbing wave energy, absorbing heat from solar panels, thermal pumps etc, All of these things must have some affect on weather trends, patterns etc even if only very minutely. "The butterfly effectâ€.

Energy cannot naturally be created or destroyed! (or so I'm told!) Which of the renewable energy's has the least undesirable side effects, making solar panels is supposed to be quite a dirty process! other processes use things like fibre glass, Kevlar, silicon etc, much of which I'm sure is mined!

Vic - I think you're right, we should be careful before using new technologies, NASA has found raised land surface temperatures especially at night, in a HUGE wind farm in Texas.

Absorbing wave energy has no effect near to the shore, as the energy will dissipate naturally on the shore anyway. We should monitor the effects, but the effects of global warming will probably overshadow them all.

You are correct - Energy cannot naturally be created or destroyed - however it can be transferred to another form, which is the general basis for all energy production. Also making solar panels is a dirty process. We need to invest in these processes to make them cleaner and greener. and yes other processes use things like fibre glass, Kevlar, silicon etc, much of which is mined - but who said mining was wrong???

[Symptoms]

Yeh, but we've got 200 years worth of coal under OUR feet. I say tosh to the rest of the World, let's keep Blightly warm and lit. Anyway, non of it really matters 'cos in 200 years we'll all be slaves of those from another place beyond ... a situation caused completely by this website. They had no reason to swing by our corner of the Cosmos until they received that free haircut offer*.

*for our younger viewers and those new visitors here just wait ... somebody will be along to explain.

[Adam Hogg]

Crackers, the lot of you! Relying on puffs of wind and the crashing of waves ... poo. What we need is a fuel that is abundant, secure and local, doesn't need to be processed before use, has an age of proven technology behind it, leaves behind no deadly waste, ticks just about all the boxes for employing lots of people, and so on. Oh, and anything that's good for the Chinese should be good enough for us. COAL I say!

And another thing - I don't want to hear all the ninnies here bleating on about how dirty/polluting it is or how unhealthly it is for the workers. Investment in clean coal technology (a small amount compared with the huge sums needed to be spent shielding our giblets from being zapped by the atom rays for 1000s of years); decent face masks will halt 'miners lung'. Do we really want every skyline covered with windmills and even more trampled underfoot by mile upon mile of giant pylons; do we really want our shoreline carpeted with nodding wave/tide machines and then the beaches trampled underfoot by even more pylons? No, I say!

Also, a good plan would be to round-up all those feckless teenagers I identified in another post ... maybe we could call them The Bevan Symptoms Boys ... and draft them down the pit to dig the stuff.

You all know it makes sense!

Hear Hear, Coal is the best energy soruce in the UK, thanks to the research carried out by the NCB, British Coal and now the Coal Authority we can now use clean coal technology yes some renewables work, so why not use both Clean Coal and renewables? no need for oil, nuclear and gas power stations then, Energy gap solved, UK's lights and heat on, if the green's out there want the county powered by only renewables then they should go to the island of Jan Mayen (a island in the North sea) and try it there and if it works they should stay there and leave us to power our country as we want to.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Adam Hogg

[Malcolm Robinson]

Now now Symptoms, let sleeping dogs lie!

When I read the topic title I thought...................

[Vic Patterson]

Vic - I think you're right, we should be careful before using new technologies, NASA has found raised land surface temperatures especially at night, in a HUGE wind farm in Texas.

Absorbing wave energy has no effect near to the shore, as the energy will dissipate naturally on the shore anyway. We should monitor the effects, but the effects of global warming will probably overshadow them all.

You are correct - Energy cannot naturally be created or destroyed - however it can be transferred to another form, which is the general basis for all energy production. Also making solar panels is a dirty process. We need to invest in these processes to make them cleaner and greener. and yes other processes use things like fibre glass, Kevlar, silicon etc, much of which is mined - but who said mining was wrong???

Done in a controlled manner, nothing wrong at all! as I said earlier considering health, safety and the environment, I live in a mining town!

[11011100]

When I read the topic title I thought...................

Nice one! hahaha

[Andy Millne]

*for our younger viewers and those new visitors here just wait ... somebody will be along to explain.

Happy to help...

How on earth do you lure little green tourists?

[Cyril]

Ripped off an economics site I use.......

''The UK is the windiest country in Europe with off and onshore wind together having the potential to deliver 30% of the UK's electricity supply by 2020. Despite the UK government pushing wind power, the national grid has stated that it would not be able to cope with the surge of power from wind farms and estimates that turbines would have to be switched off on 38 days every year, because it would be too windy. They are currently switched off for 25 days a year, but this is forecasted to increase as more turbines come online. With wind farm operators being paid £2.6mn to keep their turbines idle last year, the UK government's decision to push for a seven-fold increase in wind power generated electricity is somewhat questionable.

In addition, there is a strong campaign to stop the spread of wind farms, especially onshore, in the UK. Campaigners sight high costs, inefficiency and also blighted views as reasons for not wanting more wind farms in their own backyards. To compound matters, there is a suggestion that winds sweeping the UK may be on the wane, with 2010 being the "stillest†year of the past decade.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change views nuclear power as low-carbon, affordable, dependable and capable of increasing diversity of energy supply. The government has allocated an investment of £40bn in nuclear power, which should deliver 16GW of new capacity. However, concerns persist over high plant construction costs, uncertainty over government subsidies, safety and increased regulatory scrutiny. The end result is that the UK's current policy on renewable energy sources is highly unlikely to meet its commitment at the supranational level.''

Just a thought WHY on earth do we need a Bio-mass power station at North Blyth when we obviously produce MORE than enough power to meet our demands so much so we turn off our wind turbines............ Mind you IF it produces local jobs for local people I,m all for it.......... not wanting to contradict my question but Jobs in my opinion should be a priority........

Edited August 7, 2012 by Cyril

[Malcolm Robinson]

Wind farms..........

[Malcolm Robinson]

Why don't we have Thorium reactors?

Only reason………..can't make bombs out of it!

Who controls UK energy policy these days……………EDF. (Electricity De France!)

This country needs a dammed good shake to wake itself up!

[Adam Hogg]

Why don't we have Thorium reactors?

Only reason………..can't make bombs out of it!

Who controls UK energy policy these days……………EDF. (Electricity De France!)

This country needs a dammed good shake to wake itself up!

No they don't this little guy does, who has taken the nations heart in his bird bath

[threegee]

It wouldn't bother me. neither do wind turbines, but we need a source of power, and if it needs to be in my backyard then fine by me.

200 years - so by definition unsustainable - what happens when it runs out? Nuclear + renewables is the only way forward.

1 truck of uranium produces as much energy as 1000 trucks of coal!

And, there's the clean and intrinsically safe Thorium alternative. There's vastly more Thorium on Earth than Uranium, and all of it can be used - unlike Uranium at about 1% usage! If we'd put the money into this, instead of buying into very iffy US PWR designs that don't scale well, we'd be showing the rest of the world (and in particular the French) how it is done - like we once did! Even the anti-nuclear luddites would be at a loss to find anything to exaggerate out of all proportion.

Other countries are moving ahead on this, but many of the designs ape Uranium technology and are missing the innovation we could easily contribute. A total lack of leadership and imagination by our Don Quixote politicos!

Whoops - I now see you beat me to it Malc!

[Malcolm Robinson]

And, there's the clean and intrinsically safe Thorium alternative. There's vastly more Thorium on Earth than Uranium, and all of it can be used - unlike Uranium at about 1% usage! If we'd put the money into this, instead of buying into very iffy US PWR designs that don't scale well, we'd be showing the rest of the world (and in particular the French) how it is done - like we once did! Even the anti-nuclear luddites would be at a loss to find anything to exaggerate out of all proportion.

Other countries are moving ahead on this, but many of the designs ape Uranium technology and are missing the innovation we could easily contribute. A total lack of leadership and imagination by our Don Quixote politicos!

Whoops - I now see you beat me to it Malc!

Great minds GGG, great minds! Doh.........

[threegee]

The government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003, described nuclear power as economically "unattractive", and concentrated instead on the potential for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

A programme is now under way to shut down many of the oldest nuclear power stations, and by 2023, only 4% of Britain's electricity will come from nuclear power.

But in 2005 the Labour Government put the issue of nuclear power back on the agenda, calling for a public debate about its future, because of concern over the shortage of fossil fuels.

A consistent approach brought to you courtesy of the Labour Party. The party which, thorough history, has never missed an opportunity of describing other's tenure as "Wasted Years".

http://newleftreview.org/I/24/t-w-twelve-wasted-years

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Three_Wasted_Years.html?id=W2qKGQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

etc etc etc.