NationStates Jolt Archive

Wind Farms are a source of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm
Also Wind Farm projects help create jobs and help the economy, they are also more environmentally friendly than many other types of power to generate electricity.

Nuclear power plants also create energy for electricity, and create jobs, however they also produce waste products, some of which are harmful to plant and animal life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Coal power plants create energy for electricity, and create jobs to support and supervise them. But these have great risks to the nearby environment, and leave scars in landscape and global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

All these types of power plants are present all over the world.
So why does this happen?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7208991.stm
In a small community.

The BBC's Gaelic news service, Radio nan Gaidheal, has learned that Scottish Government ministers are "minded to refuse" the 181 turbine scheme.

More than 5,000 letters of objection to the proposals were received by the Scottish Government.
Who are these 5,000 letters from? I wasn't aware of any asylum nearby. This is sad news to me.:(

Supporters of the turbines pointed to potential economic benefits, claiming more than 400 jobs would be created during construction.
Okay economic benefit to a secluded society, sounds reasonable to me.

"The news was welcomed by local anti-wind farm campaigner Dinah Murray, who said the refusal would allow islanders' lives to return to normal.

She said: We are absolutely over the moon. We were opposed to this development from the start on the visual impact, on the damage to the landscape, the damage to the habitat, the damage to the moorland and also the danger there would be on the roads during construction."

Visual impact? I like wind farms, they are far more pretty than the other types and far less environmental impact.
Oh no your precious moorland, where would we be without, miles and miles of boggy marsh.:rolleyes:

Does anyone else think wind farms are a good idea?
Personally I do, but I realise my opinion could be biased.;)
Are there other types of power a small community like the Western Isles of Scotland can use?

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.

Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.

There's a large wind farm in southern Alberta. No one objeted to that one because (A) the terrain is pretty depressing, and (B) it's freaking windy down there. But in Ireland, I can understand.

[QUOTE]Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.
But at least they still create some energy

Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.
Wind farms aren't that bad looking, i think they're pretty.

There's a large wind farm in southern Alberta. No one objeted to that one because (A) the terrain is pretty depressing, and (B) it's freaking windy down there. But in Ireland, I can understand.
Well the terrian on some islands isn't that nice once you get used to it.
This topic is based in the Western Isles of Scotland. Ireland?

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.

Source?

Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.

Compared to coal mines, oil refineries and nuclear reactors, I would prefer windmills in my backyard.

There's a large wind farm in southern Alberta. No one objeted to that one because (A) the terrain is pretty depressing, and (B) it's freaking windy down there. But in Ireland, I can understand.

Your opinion on the terrain has little to do with the debate. Your criticism of wind is more valid. One would assume that this location was chosen because the winds are strong enough. However, that is an assumption on my part.

It is the local people's choice, nobody has the right to force it on them.

if there are good reasons not to put a wind farm on a certain spot, it should be carefully considered and perhaps denied.

given its obvious benefits, perhaps the downsides were just too large.

if there are good reasons not to put a wind farm on a certain spot, it should be carefully considered and perhaps denied.

given its obvious benefits, perhaps the downsides were just too large.

Perhaps.
But if you constantly get people complaining about not enough clean energy, then you propose a plan that uses clean energy and other people deny it, what can you do?

I don't understand your second point.
How can benefits mean the downsides are too large?:confused:

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence. It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized. In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.

Not to mention the fact that it's a lot easier to get wind power approved, built, and operational compared to coal; virtually every coal plant that has been proposed in the US in the past few years has been canceled due to public opposition. Of all available power sources, wind is the cheapest and easiest to install; nuclear power is great, but it's very expensive and time consuming to build.

The real question is where these people get their power; it would be stunningly hypocritical of them to complain about wind turbines when they're getting their power from an ugly and polluting coal plant somewhere else.

I actually find wind farms a bit tranquil and not an eyesore. They could paint them greens and browns to help reduce the eyesoreness to those who feel that way. But there is a significant net gain from them.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence. It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized. In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.

Not to mention the fact that it's a lot easier to get wind power approved, built, and operational compared to coal; virtually every coal plant that has been proposed in the US in the past few years has been canceled due to public opposition. Of all available power sources, wind is the cheapest and easiest to install; nuclear power is great, but it's very expensive and time consuming to build.

The real question is where these people get their power; it would be stunningly hypocritical of them to complain about wind turbines when they're getting their power from an ugly and polluting coal plant somewhere else.

Well, I heard that wind farming is very expensive and not very practical mostly because it relies on wind. Denmark for example, keeps all of its coal plants running all the time because the wind mills don't always deliver power to the grid when people decide to use it. When the wind dose deliver alot of energy, its usually when nobody needs it so they end up selling the electricity to Germany or France.

I also heard that build cost is the achilles heel of the windmill. Instead of a big furnace or nuclear reactor. You have 100+ giant turbines 200 feet in the air that are attached to huge spinning blades. Its a nightmare to build and maintain.

Until the day when wind farming can produce cheaper energy than coal or nuclear when people need it, there is really no point in making wind farms.

source (http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html)

Until the day when wind farming can produce cheaper energy than coal or nuclear when people need it, there is really no point in making wind farms.

Problem is, we're not going to build either of those, or at least many of them. The chance that anybody would even want to build a coal plant (I wouldn't) or a nuclear plant (I would) is pretty low, and even if they did it would take a long time to do so, which means we're going to need power from other sources. Wind power can be scaled up pretty quickly, and when combined with baseload sources like the aforementioned coal and nuclear sources, it is very useful.

I mean, I'd love it if nuclear power plants were springing up everywhere to supply power, but it takes so long to build and license them that to rely on them, let alone coal power, would mean price spikes and blackouts.

[QUOTE]Well, I heard that wind farming is very expensive and not very practical mostly because it relies on wind. Denmark for example, keeps all of its coal plants running all the time because the wind mills don't always deliver power to the grid when people decide to use it. When the wind dose deliver alot of energy, its usually when nobody needs it so they end up selling the electricity to Germany or France.

But that still shows income from selling energy.
How is it not practical when it relies on wind? If situated in a windy area (as the Western Isles are very much so) they will create energy.

I also heard that build cost is the achilles heel of the windmill. Instead of a big furnace or nuclear reactor. You have 100+ giant turbines 200 feet in the air that are attached to huge spinning blades. Its a nightmare to build and maintain.

Doesn't have to be 100+ turbines. And it's not expensive to create other types of power plant? But even when maintaining these Wind farms that would require skilled personel to station there, thus more jobs are created and it's a nice location too.

Until the day when wind farming can produce cheaper energy than coal or nuclear when people need it, there is really no point in making wind farms.
Not necessarily, coal runs out eventually, wind does not. I can see benefits of nuclear power but there's always opposition to them. In the long run Wind power can work to create energy, in the short run yes coal power/nuclear power creates more energy.


hmmm

Problem is, we're not going to build either of those, or at least many of them. The chance that anybody would even want to build a coal plant (I wouldn't) or a nuclear plant (I would) is pretty low, and even if they did it would take a long time to do so, which means we're going to need power from other sources. Wind power can be scaled up pretty quickly, and when combined with baseload sources like the aforementioned coal and nuclear sources, it is very useful.

I mean, I'd love it if nuclear power plants were springing up everywhere to supply power, but it takes so long to build and license them that to rely on them, let alone coal power, would mean price spikes and blackouts.

You know, China is set to build 40 nuclear power plants in the next few years. Its only hard to make nuclear power plants if the government makes it hard.

Personally, I think its a shame that America hasn't built any new coal or nuclear power plants in the last decade or so. Modern coal plants produce almost no harmful pollution and are extremely efficient. If we could build new coal plants, the price of electricity would fall.

A lot of new and exiting things are being done in nuclear reactors in Canada with neutron heavy water allowing for cheaper nuclear energy. But because America is not building any new nuclear plants, we are falling behind and the price of energy will go up.

[QUOTE=Soyut;13398411]

But that still shows income from selling energy.
How is it not practical when it relies on wind? If situated in a windy area (as the Western Isles are very much so) they will create energy.

Its not practical because you could spend less money making a coal or nuclear plant that is much more reliable and efficient.


Doesn't have to be 100+ turbines. And it's not expensive to create other types of power plant? But even when maintaining these Wind farms that would require skilled personel to station there, thus more jobs are created and it's a nice location too.

If you wanted to justify not building any new coal or nuclear plants, it would have to be 100+. Also, the jobs created would be essentially make-work jobs. I mean, the government could hire people to sit in offices and make little houses out of cards, but its not going to help the economy because that labor would be wasted.


Not necessarily, coal runs out eventually, wind does not. I can see benefits of nuclear power but there's always opposition to them. In the long run Wind power can work to create energy, in the short run yes coal power/nuclear power creates more energy.

hmmm

Now that I will agree with. No question wind energy has more of a future than coal, but right now its not practical. Unless there are some major advancements in the field or wind farming, nuclear seems to be the way to go in the long run.

You know, China is set to build 40 nuclear power plants in the next few years. Its only hard to make nuclear power plants if the government makes it hard.

Personally, I think its a shame that America hasn't built any new coal or nuclear power plants in the last decade or so. Modern coal plants produce almost no harmful pollution and are extremely efficient. If we could build new coal plants, the price of electricity would fall.

A lot of new and exiting things are being done in nuclear reactors in Canada with neutron heavy water allowing for cheaper nuclear energy. But because America is not building any new nuclear plants, we are falling behind and the price of energy will go up.

Oh, I agree. Nuclear power is a safe, clean, and abundant source of energy; I'd have no problem building hundreds of them to replace fossil fuels, but there are a lot of uninformed people out there who have been misled by the lies and scaremongering of the extreme environmental movement, resulting in opposition to nuclear plants that has no basis in reality.

Oh, I agree. Nuclear power is a safe, clean, and abundant source of energy; I'd have no problem building hundreds of them to replace fossil fuels, but there are a lot of uninformed people out there who have been misled by the lies and scaremongering of the extreme environmental movement, resulting in opposition to nuclear plants that has no basis in reality.

oh I know, you'd think that environmentalists would be all over nuclear power as a way to replace fossil fuels. They are really hurting their cause imo.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence. It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized. In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.

Not to mention the fact that it's a lot easier to get wind power approved, built, and operational compared to coal; virtually every coal plant that has been proposed in the US in the past few years has been canceled due to public opposition. Of all available power sources, wind is the cheapest and easiest to install; nuclear power is great, but it's very expensive and time consuming to build.

The real question is where these people get their power; it would be stunningly hypocritical of them to complain about wind turbines when they're getting their power from an ugly and polluting coal plant somewhere else.
Actually, Solar is now cheaper than coal (http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/).

They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.
...
Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets. The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S.
oh I know, you'd think that environmentalists would be all over nuclear power as a way to replace fossil fuels. They are really hurting their cause imo.
Because there's an environmental impact in waste removal and mining of a finite resource, both of which is what got us here in the first place. Perhaps they don't want to trade one problem for another down the road.

Perhaps.
But if you constantly get people complaining about not enough clean energy, then you propose a plan that uses clean energy and other people deny it, what can you do?

I don't understand your second point.
How can benefits mean the downsides are too large?:confused:

what i meant was that we know that there are good points but since the decision seems to be going against it, maybe that is because the detriments are far worse than the benefits.

Undersea turbines that make use of currents work essentially the same as wind farms, but have more predictable times of activity and also do not offend the eyes. They are a good addition to the power-suppy mix in my opinion. Obviously, though, one needs to be near the Ocean to use them (But hey, guess where the UK is?).

Personally, I think wind turbines are beautiful, and I wish we had more here in Canada. We have some great areas that have very good wind ratings for them, which simply need to be developed. Providing one uses energy storage methods (Even something as simple as using the turnine to pump water into a resevoir and then using its flow to run a waterwheel), wind farms can provide a constant stream of energy. The cost may be more to create, but there are fewer operationg expenditures (No fuel), and the cost of a breakdown is much less than an oil or gas leak, a fire, or a meltdown, and since windfarms are inherantly decentralised systems, the impact on power production of a single malfunction is less than would be the case if a vital part of a larger all-in-one-location plant were to break. Windfarms can even exist on the same land that is used for ranching or farming, so they have a lot of bang for their buck as far as property investment goes.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence. It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized. In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.
And when it is I'll support switching to it.

My region is powered primarily by coal, party because Alberta holds over 33 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves, and partly because they're not that hard to recover (shallow open pits and draglines).

I need to find a good resource to compare generation costs for coal, wind, and hydro power.

Considering the Scottish Government's opposition to nuclear and fossil fuel power, one can't help but wonder exactly where Salmond wants to power his independent Scotland from.

Actually, Solar is now cheaper than coal (http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/).

I wonder about the production cost of those cells. Capital costs matter.

Generally, coal has been the cheapest form of energy available to Africa, so anything cheaper than that would be hugely beneficial.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence. It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized. In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.


Why not Nuclear, Geothermal, and Hydroelectric? All three of which are, from what I've read, less expensive then Coal.

As for the concern about mining a finite resource, Nuclear energy is actually partially renewable because the waste can be reprocessed and reused many times, with a slight loss in terms of unstable wastes each time. But why should the fact that it's a finite resource matter? If we build enough production, development and investment capital off of these finite resources to pay for a 100,000,000,000 Solar and Wind Plants down the road, I really don't see how we're worse off. It's not like Power Plants are built to last that long anyways. 75 years, the estimated amount of time left on currently mined uranium reserves without reprocessing, is the approximate useful life of a power plant, and with reprocessing that 75 years could be stretched out to an amazingly longer time, as a very significant portion can be reused.

I think you guys are just reacting to whining on the part of First-Worlders who don't see exactly how good things are. The fact that we're even talking about Renewable Energy is a testimony to exactly how much income we've made off of unrenewable energy. Far from a mess, we've got it made!

Even if the sea level did go up 20 feet and the Southeast had a Cat 5 Hurricane touch down every year we would still be better off for not being stuck in the Middle Ages. At least no ones starving outside of places where they're being starved by horrible governments, most people can read, and we have sufficient construction, transportation, communication, education, and financial and organizational infrastructure to handle the complicatated components, intermediates and processes involved in making all these nifty useful toys like solar panels that would not exist if the steam engine and all the enterprise that came with it had not first been built.

Seattle got it's start in a Gold Rush - the Gold's gone but Seattle's still there, and thriving, a testimony to how much a little quick capital can build. We don't need a solution that will work for ten thousand years. We need something that will work until the Power Plant is broken and worthless. Wind Mills won't last that long either, they too have to be replaced, and why not with something else if there's something better?

Great concept, but they are eyesoars. Then agin they are in the middle of nowhere. They might endanger some birds but I think there way,way,way better then nuclear power plants. I mish the cold scale down the size a little. But still at least they are clean and creat jobs. If only they could get solar panels on the top and/or fan blades. That would create a ton of power.

Although I think geothermal is great, but its too hard and expensive.

I wonder about the production cost of those cells. Capital costs matter.

Generally, coal has been the cheapest form of energy available to Africa, so anything cheaper than that would be hugely beneficial.

It's the production cost that went down to make it where it is.

I can't blame them really it is just the old NIMBY rule. As for how they look they stick out like a sore thumb. We have a fairly large wind farm in Eastern Washington. It can be seen literally for 25-30 miles.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/10/10/2003298352.jpg

127 of these things dot the landscape. Notice the vehicle on bottom of the first full windmill.

i very much doubt their objection has anything to do with habitat conservation. that's just a sop to the ill informed branch of the environmental lobby to justify their nimbyism.

it's not like they're actually ugly. as power generators go they're actually quite attractive, even graceful i'd say. so they make a humming noise, try living on a city street. stupid country bumpkins.

You can farm wind?

So I am guessing that we are generating massive amounts of heat and the hot tempatures using it to generate wind on which we grow spores?:confused:

You can farm wind?



You can but it just doesn't taste the same as wind grown in the wild.

You can but it just doesn't taste the same as wind grown in the wild.While, that pine taste you cannot beat on a nice cool morning in Scotland.

Wind just isn't efficent enough at this time. Sure it's cheap, and cost-effective, but it's just not reliable. Some days it's blowing up a windstorm and you get a lot of energy, other times theres not even a small breeze and you get crap. Solar power also has a similar problem plus the overheating problem. The best(In my opinon) source right now would be nuclear power. It's efficent (even if somewhat costly) and produces plenty of power even for large cities. However, too many people are worried about Nuclear power killing people. Natural gas kills more people, but for some reason people seem to be scared of Nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Safety
One of the worst Nuclear accidents ever, Chernobyl only killed about 50 people whereas
The buildup of gas in the school went unnoticed, killing three hundred students and faculty when it ignited
Still I support wind farms,because if you abandon something, how can it become more efficent?

One of the worst Nuclear accidents ever, Chernobyl only killed about 50 people whereas

Uh, understatement much?

The plume drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data,[1] about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Wind Farms are a source of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm
Also Wind Farm projects help create jobs and help the economy, they are also more environmentally friendly than many other types of power to generate electricity.

Nuclear power plants also create energy for electricity, and create jobs, however they also produce waste products, some of which are harmful to plant and animal life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Coal power plants create energy for electricity, and create jobs to support and supervise them. But these have great risks to the nearby environment, and leave scars in landscape and global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

All these types of power plants are present all over the world.
So why does this happen?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7208991.stm
In a small community.


Who are these 5,000 letters from? I wasn't aware of any asylum nearby. This is sad news to me.:(


Okay economic benefit to a secluded society, sounds reasonable to me.



Visual impact? I like wind farms, they are far more pretty than the other types and far less environmental impact.
Oh no your precious moorland, where would we be without, miles and miles of boggy marsh.:rolleyes:

Does anyone else think wind farms are a good idea?
Personally I do, but I realise my opinion could be biased.;)
Are there other types of power a small community like the Western Isles of Scotland can use?

IIRC, wind farms produce sound pollution, as well as pose a risk to local bird populations. That, and many people don't like the looks of them.

IIRC, wind farms produce sound pollution, as well as pose a risk to local bird populations. That, and many people don't like the looks of them.

They don't have to. (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:TMA_Global_Wind_Energy_Systems)

Oh, I agree. Nuclear power is a safe, clean, and abundant source of energy; I'd have no problem building hundreds of them to replace fossil fuels, but there are a lot of uninformed people out there who have been misled by the lies and scaremongering of the extreme environmental movement, resulting in opposition to nuclear plants that has no basis in reality.

Nuclear plants only seem get built when the government has to help with the cost of building it. They also use large amounts of water, of some places don't have a lot of in the first place.

Considering the Scottish Government's opposition to nuclear and fossil fuel power, one can't help but wonder exactly where Salmond wants to power his independent Scotland from.
Salmond has a bit of a thing for hydroelectric power generation - something that Scotland is very well setup to make use of.

The country consistently produces more energy (electricity) than it uses, and exports the surplus down South, so I'd guess that he is of the opinion that we wouldn't be suffering any energy shortfall in an independent Scotland.

There are a whole heap of valid objections to independence, but energy needs are not one of them.

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.With externalities factored in?

Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.I'd love for you to show how the NIMBY problem doesn't apply to coal or nuclear power plants.

I'd love for you to show how the NIMBY problem doesn't apply to coal or nuclear power plants.

What can I say, there's nothing more beautiful than that brownish haze on the horizon over Lake Erie or the endless rail lines bringing cars filled with coal. Come to think of it, coal power plants are some of the dirtiest and ugliest plants I've ever seen.

(I do in fact live very close to a nuclear power plant...I'd rather take one of those than those hideous coal plants any day. At least they look cool.)

What can I say, there's nothing more beautiful than that brownish haze on the horizon over Lake Erie or the endless rail lines bringing cars filled with coal. Come to think of it, coal power plants are some of the dirtiest and ugliest plants I've ever seen.

(I do in fact live very close to a nuclear power plant...I'd rather take one of those than those hideous coal plants any day. At least they look cool.)I'd be seriously amazed if someone preferred higher rates of leukemia and the risk of a meltdown or breathing problems and the paint being eaten off their car to having a windfarm...

I'd be seriously amazed if someone preferred higher rates of leukemia and the risk of a meltdown or breathing problems and the paint being eaten off their car to having a windfarm...

I like it when my electricity comes from a source that can't kill me with its byproducts.

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.
On the other hand, we need to boost our renewable energy percentage or we get fines from the EU and all that jazz.
Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.
Meh, they're not actually that bad.
There's a large wind farm in southern Alberta. No one objeted to that one because (A) the terrain is pretty depressing, and (B) it's freaking windy down there. But in Ireland, I can understand.
If you don't think that the Western Isles are windy, then you've obviously never been there, ever. It's basically stormy all year 'round, to some extent, and the wind pretty much never stops blowing.

IIRC, wind farms produce sound pollution, as well as pose a risk to local bird populations. That, and many people don't like the looks of them.
The whole birds thing is an absolute crock. The windfarms in my area are absolutely bird-annihilation free, and the windfarms off Orkney and Denmark where, in both cases, they were worried about the deaths of various sea birds (Puffins and such) and the impact on seals, there were no deaths of any scale whatsoever, as the birds could see the swooshing blades, and understood extremely quickly to avoid such things. The seals (could they leap into the blades or something? I think not, but regardless) were fine, too.

Salmond has a bit of a thing for hydroelectric power generation - something that Scotland is very well setup to make use of.

The country consistently produces more energy (electricity) than it uses, and exports the surplus down South, so I'd guess that he is of the opinion that we wouldn't be suffering any energy shortfall in an independent Scotland.
Fair enough - but I doubt there's much more capacity for major hydroelectric power any more. Most modern hydroelectric generation projects are pretty small, from what I gather, although important in the areas they serve. However, that won't cover any fossil fuel and nuclear power plants that are to close in the near future, and won't get rebuilt. Scotland might export energy now, but that's not necessarily guranteed in the future.

There are a whole heap of valid objections to independence, but energy needs are not one of them.
I wasn't saying they were.;)

Considering the Scottish Government's opposition to nuclear and fossil fuel power, one can't help but wonder exactly where Salmond wants to power his independent Scotland from.
England, on the quiet.

Generally speaking, wind farms aren't terribly economically sound because they produce energy far less cost-effectively than other means.

What other means? And please do take secondary impacts into your calculation when trying to figure out cost-effectiveness.


Plus, there is the NIMBY problem. A lot of people like the idea of wind power, but many people don't like to look of wind farms. I can understand objections in scenic locales.

There's a large wind farm in southern Alberta. No one objeted to that one because (A) the terrain is pretty depressing, and (B) it's freaking windy down there. But in Ireland, I can understand.

There are plans for some major wind farms in Ireland, and they are mostly welcomed by the population. There is one major windfarm currently under construction just off the West Coast.

Wind farms are a great idea if you want to cope with the following

1. To replace the UK's power generation by wind would take somewhere close to 35 000 to 40 000 wind turbines, dont even bother with so called 'micro turbines' for houses
2. 35% of the time they dont generate any power, which would be fine if that period was midnight-8am every day, but could you imagine a cold december night say about 5pm when everyone is on the underground and the wind drops out :eek:
or what about a specialist steel maker... spends £10 000 of electritiy melting down some steel, (ironically to make bearings for wind turbines) and the power goes out because the wind has dropped? :rolleyes:

Sorry to say that at the moment the only reliable power generation tech we have that does not generate CO2 is nuclear, and the sooner people realise this the better.:headbang:

Oh and before the anti-nuclear people start up, France generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear.........and has the lowest carbon footprint in europe as a result. :cool:

We have a bunch of wind turbines lining some mountains (hills, if you're kyronea).

Apparently they sell it and lower our taxes.

Wind farms are a great idea if you want to cope with the following

1. To replace the UK's power generation by wind would take somewhere close to 35 000 to 40 000 wind turbines, dont even bother with so called 'micro turbines' for houses
2. 35% of the time they dont generate any power, which would be fine if that period was midnight-8am every day, but could you imagine a cold december night say about 5pm when everyone is on the underground and the wind drops out :eek:
or what about a specialist steel maker... spends £10 000 of electritiy melting down some steel, (ironically to make bearings for wind turbines) and the power goes out because the wind has dropped? :rolleyes:

Sorry to say that at the moment the only reliable power generation tech we have that does not generate CO2 is nuclear, and the sooner people realise this the better.:headbang:

Oh and before the anti-nuclear people start up, France generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear.........and has the lowest carbon footprint in europe as a result. :cool:

Yes, and it's storing it's nuclear waste in Germany, much to the joy of the residents.

I'm not disputing that at this very moment, nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient way to produce energy. What I'm not accepting though is that it will ALWAYS be the most effective and cleanest method. I believe that with more interest in alternative sources, we will find ways of making them more efficient. There was a report on the other day on solar receptors that are being produced now that are almost paper-thin, can be stuck on virtually any surface, are easier to recycle than the old solar cells, and are several hundred percent more effective.
I think it's save to assume that similar progress can be made with wind-energy as well.

Wind farms are a great idea if you want to cope with the following

1. To replace the UK's power generation by wind would take somewhere close to 35 000 to 40 000 wind turbines, dont even bother with so called 'micro turbines' for houses
Who would consider 100% of energy from wind? Nobody.
2. 35% of the time they dont generate any power, which would be fine if that period was midnight-8am every day, but could you imagine a cold december night say about 5pm when everyone is on the underground and the wind drops out :eek:
... Offshore wind farms, where it is ALWAYS WINDY are very plausible.
or what about a specialist steel maker... spends £10 000 of electritiy melting down some steel, (ironically to make bearings for wind turbines) and the power goes out because the wind has dropped? :rolleyes:
We'd be using nuclear, gas or coal to power that kind of site, to be honest.
Sorry to say that at the moment the only reliable power generation tech we have that does not generate CO2 is nuclear, and the sooner people realise this the better.:headbang:
What about tidal and geothermal?
Oh and before the anti-nuclear people start up, France generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear.........and has the lowest carbon footprint in europe as a result. :cool:
That's also because of the use of mass transit and, of course, The Bicycle there. Note that in Provence, the bicycle is changed for more Donkeyful methods of transport at all opportune moments.

Also, the French produce a lot of nuclear waste, they store it in Germany, which then gets sent to us at Sellafield, which is currently a complete shit-tip, and the walls of the containment facility are being broken down by the sheer amount of nuclear waste and its radiation output, which is quite a bad thing.

What are the problems with hydroelectricity? AFAIK it's extremely cost effective, and it's the most widely used source of energy other than fossil fuels after all. Clean and nice and reliable.

And complaining about wind farms for environmental or aesthetic reasons is absurd, when you compare it to what most of the alternatives do.

What are the problems with hydroelectricity? AFAIK it's extremely cost effective, and it's the most widely used source of energy other than fossil fuels after all. Clean and nice and reliable.
We've used all of the possible sites for it.

We've used all of the possible sites for it.

We have? For all I know, we're just exploring the possibilities of tidal power now...

We have? For all I know, we're just exploring the possibilities of tidal power now...
Tidal is a bit different from what people tend to mean as "hydroelectricity" - i.e. dams down mountain rivers etc., which is what has been essentially used up now.

We've used all of the possible sites for it.

Nonsense, Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it so it can't be true.

Fair enough, though, this sounds plausible. Though surely other sources of renewable energy are just as restricted by locale? Looking at you, solar and geothermal.

Though surely other sources of renewable energy are just as restricted by locale? Looking at you, solar and geothermal.
Geothermal is possible in Cornwall, actually, and we could just about get away with solar in Devon.

What can I say, there's nothing more beautiful than that brownish haze on the horizon over Lake Erie or the endless rail lines bringing cars filled with coal. Come to think of it, coal power plants are some of the dirtiest and ugliest plants I've ever seen.

(I do in fact live very close to a nuclear power plant...I'd rather take one of those than those hideous coal plants any day. At least they look cool.)

One of the largest coal plants in the SouthEast of America is about 20 miles north of where I live. Plant Branch. I go by it about twice a week and it only has water vapor coming out of it (and CO2 but thats invisible). Plant Branch is also the most thermally polluting coal plant in the world, meaning that it keeps the lake warm all year round. The Canadian geese never leave for winter because the fish population spawns all year round. It boasts some of the best fishing in Georgia. They use to have 2 giant 1,000 ft smoke towers but they don't need them anymore because of advancements in coal technology. They destroyed one of the towers and the people around the lake got mad because they were using the towers as a landmark for boat navigation, so they decided to leave the other tower standing. Its the tallest structure for miles and its very impressive looking imo.

What are the problems with hydroelectricity? AFAIK it's extremely cost effective, and it's the most widely used source of energy other than fossil fuels after all. Clean and nice and reliable.


Hydroelectricity is awesome. And more damns means more fresh water reserves and trendy lake-front houses. I heard that the reason hydroelectric hasn't caught on is that its expensive (you have to make a very big damn with turbines inside) and that there are very few locations suitable for such a power plant. But I think hydroelectricity has a bright future.


And complaining about wind farms for environmental or aesthetic reasons is absurd, when you compare it to what most of the alternatives do.

No its not, I think windmills are fugly. The coal plant near my house only occasionally makes a lot of fog that is scary to drive through at night. Thats it. No brown clouds, no acid rain, modern coal plants are very environmentally benign imo.

What are the problems with hydroelectricity? AFAIK it's extremely cost effective, and it's the most widely used source of energy other than fossil fuels after all. Clean and nice and reliable.

And complaining about wind farms for environmental or aesthetic reasons is absurd, when you compare it to what most of the alternatives do.

I live in Washington State and we have the highest concentrations of large dams anywhere. We also have one of the largest hydro-electric projects in the world. Dams change whole ecosystems. To build a large new hydro-electric project in the US today like the Grand Coulee and the Hoover would be damn near impossible. The environmental hurtles would not be surpassed. With that said the changing weather patterns may have an effect on the water flow down our major river systems where we can build new dams. Also as for the cost and environmental damage the benefit as compared to other energy sources in my opinion is not cost effective.

Geothermal is possible in Cornwall, actually, and we could just about get away with solar in Devon.

I always thought of Geothermal as a cool way to make power. There are all sorts of possibilities in the US for Geothermal. As for solar in Devon? Did Devon move location since I last lived in the UK? I would think you would have to move Devon about a thousand miles south to make it work for solar. ;)

http://www.geo-energy.org/information/plants.asp

Link for Geothermal in the US with active plants and the many proposed projects. Seems after checking this site Geothermal in the US is coming on strong. Currently the US is the world leader in capacity.

Wind farms are a great idea if you want to cope with the following

1. To replace the UK's power generation by wind would take somewhere close to 35 000 to 40 000 wind turbines, dont even bother with so called 'micro turbines' for houses
2. 35% of the time they dont generate any power, which would be fine if that period was midnight-8am every day, but could you imagine a cold december night say about 5pm when everyone is on the underground and the wind drops out :eek:


1 Nobody wants to generate all of the UK's power with wind, but it's an island, and there is almost always wind on the sea or on the coast.
2 That's why you need alternatives or/and a way to store excess power.

Sorry to say that at the moment the only reliable power generation tech we have that does not generate CO2 is nuclear, and the sooner people realise this the better.:headbang:
Oh and before the anti-nuclear people start up, France generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear.........and has the lowest carbon footprint in europe as a result. :cool:


Well, like I said, the UK is an island, so I think wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power)and tidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power) power could also work.
Apparently they're already working on wave power in Cornwall (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=22626).
And Scotland seems perfect for tidal (http://www.rgu.ac.uk/research/innovation/page.cfm?pge=7560).

Also, Did they take into account the CO2 produced when purifying and processing the nuclear fuel?

As for solar in Devon? Did Devon move location since I last lived in the UK? I would think you would have to move Devon about a thousand miles south to make it work for solar. ;)

Nowadays solar powers seems to become more and more popular here. I know quite some people who have or are planning to install solar panels on their roof, the energy they don't use gets delivered to the grid and makes their electricity meter run backwards. If I ever build a house (in the very distant future :p) I plan to have solar panels on it too. And I can't imagine Belgium being more sunny than Devon.

1 Nobody wants to generate all of the UK's power with wind, but it's an island, and there is almost always wind on the sea or on the coast.
2 That's why you need alternatives or/and a way to store excess power.




Well, like I said, the UK is an island, so I think wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power)and tidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power) power could also work.
Apparently they're already working on wave power in Cornwall (http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=22626).
And Scotland seems perfect for tidal (http://www.rgu.ac.uk/research/innovation/page.cfm?pge=7560).

Also, Did they take into account the CO2 produced when purifying and processing the nuclear fuel?



Nowadays solar powers seems to become more and more popular here. I know quite some people who have or are planning to install solar panels on their roof, the energy they don't use gets delivered to the grid and makes their electricity meter run backwards. If I ever build a house (in the very distant future :p) I plan to have solar panels on it too. And I can't imagine Belgium being more sunny than Devon.


Lets work backwards here.
UK mains electricity is 240 volts A/C at 50 hz
If you want to pump power back into the grid it has to conform with that standard AND be sychronised with the 50 hz correctly.
Solar panels are good for generating power during daylight hours, which are about 8am to 4pm in winter when the power is most needed, so you need a way of storing the power for the hours of darkness.
Some nice re-chargable batteries would come in handy, but can you imagine the pollution from the mining and refining the amounts of nickel/lithum/manganese/cadminium needed to make the batteries, nuclear waste may take 1000 yrs to decay , but heavy metal posioning lasts forever.
Which brings me onto storing the results of wind power, well batteries are out, so that leaves pumped storage hydro power, however has the UK got enough sites for this? and finally the windiest areas of the UK are in the far north and west of the country, which are strangely enough the furthest from the major population centers, so you are going to get major transmission losses.

all these re-newable techs look great on paper or on a greenpeace advert , but they all suffer from 1 thing... they are not constant power sources.
Could you imagine being on the London-Glasgow express and you hear ' We are sorry this train has stopped, we will be stuck here until daylight/the wind picks up' :mad:

1 Nobody wants to generate all of the UK's power with wind, but it's an island, and there is almost always wind on the sea or on the coast.
2 That's why you need alternatives or/and a way to store excess power.

That's fine but if you're wanting an appreciable proportion to be generated by wind then you need to be able to make up the missing capacity in a hurry. And that means fossil fuels. Hydroelectric will only work to make up isolated shortfalls. And nuclear power is fine for generating electricity all the time but you can't have plants moth balled for the times when the wind drops and you need to make a lot of power in a hurry.

And with reliance on fossil fuels you have either the problems of Co2 with coal or massive energy security worries over gas.

And storing electricity will probably mean massive wastage and you'll need to really generate far more than you to tide you over in case there's a really windless period (or really windy as wind farms have to be shut down in strong gales). And with global warming mucking up all the ocean currents who knows what the weather's going to do?

In my mind nuclear power is the only way to go to generate the bulk of our energy needs.

Probably the old "eye-sore" argument... Much like people want more cell-phone towers, but not near them, want more prisons, but not near them.... For me, I'd be glad for them to build a wind-farm, a cell tower, and a prison in my back-yard.... I'd always have awsome cellular reception, cheap energy and a low crime-rate....

I'm not going to read through this thread, but i'm sure i'm going to be re-arguing some points, but whatever;

I worked in the power industry for about a year, and studied this exact thing.

Wind has a relativley high fixed cost vs. variable cost structure; the only reason that a kWh of wind costs more than a kWh of natural gas or a kWh of coal is that the inital cost of building the turbine is high, though efficiency increases are driving this down. The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center claims to generate electricity for 4 cents per kilowatt hour, and probably cost around a billion to generate 735 MW (I could not find a total cost-to-build).

A nuclear plant, on the other hand, costs a shitload of money, in the order of billions. The Clinton nuclear power station, for example, cost 4 BILLION DOLLARS to produce 1,017 MW. Without government subsidies, it is not economically viable (read this as "Nuclear power is not economically viable.") The Chinese can afford to build nuclear power stations precisley because of massive government subsidies. Nuclear is not a paneca, don't expect it to be. Wind is, by and large, the most economic choice for renewable energy.

.
Some nice re-chargable batteries would come in handy, but can you imagine the pollution from the mining and refining the amounts of nickel/lithum/manganese/cadminium needed to make the batteries, nuclear waste may take 1000 yrs to decay , but heavy metal posioning lasts forever.
Which brings me onto storing the results of wind power, well batteries are out, so that leaves pumped storage hydro power, however has the UK got enough sites for this? and finally the windiest areas of the UK are in the far north and west of the country, which are strangely enough the furthest from the major population centers, so you are going to get major transmission losses.


My Physical chemistry professor was talking about hydrogen fuel cells having much larger capacity than traditional batteries. And unlike metal-ion batteries, there is no acid-base reaction and more importantly, there is no metal. Of course the cost of integrating and maintaining giant hydrogen fuel cells alongside a vast network of windmills would be astronomical. Its just interesting to consider.

I'm not worried about future energy needs though. Something about necessity being the mother of invention. I can't even begin to imagine what the future holds for us. ;)

Lets work backwards here.
UK mains electricity is 240 volts A/C at 50 hz
If you want to pump power back into the grid it has to conform with that standard AND be sychronised with the 50 hz correctly.
Solar panels are good for generating power during daylight hours, which are about 8am to 4pm in winter when the power is most needed, so you need a way of storing the power for the hours of darkness.
Some nice re-chargable batteries would come in handy, but can you imagine the pollution from the mining and refining the amounts of nickel/lithum/manganese/cadminium needed to make the batteries, nuclear waste may take 1000 yrs to decay , but heavy metal posioning lasts forever.
Which brings me onto storing the results of wind power, well batteries are out, so that leaves pumped storage hydro power, however has the UK got enough sites for this? and finally the windiest areas of the UK are in the far north and west of the country, which are strangely enough the furthest from the major population centers, so you are going to get major transmission losses.

all these re-newable techs look great on paper or on a greenpeace advert , but they all suffer from 1 thing... they are not constant power sources.
Could you imagine being on the London-Glasgow express and you hear ' We are sorry this train has stopped, we will be stuck here until daylight/the wind picks up' :mad:
Consider that these wind farms augment existing power rather the solely provide the power and it's a little more practical. Then you don't need to worry about storage. Just switch it in to the grid when it's producing power.

I would think the UK is a great place for wind turbines. Look at all the coastline. There's almost always a sea breeze or a land breeze, rarely are coastal areas dead calm and a wind turbine can produce about 100 kW on 12 mph winds. I can run my house on that.

Lets work backwards here.
UK mains electricity is 240 volts A/C at 50 hz
If you want to pump power back into the grid it has to conform with that standard AND be sychronised with the 50 hz correctly.
Solar panels are good for generating power during daylight hours, which are about 8am to 4pm in winter when the power is most needed, so you need a way of storing the power for the hours of darkness.

Well, I know people who deliver solar energy to the grid, so I'm pretty sure it's possible. And I'm not really consider this to be a viable option to produce a lot of energy (like it could be in more southern area's) but it seems viable to help 'save' energy and money on a more personal level.

Some nice re-chargable batteries would come in handy, but can you imagine the pollution from the mining and refining the amounts of nickel/lithum/manganese/cadminium needed to make the batteries, nuclear waste may take 1000 yrs to decay , but heavy metal posioning lasts forever.
Which brings me onto storing the results of wind power, well batteries are out, so that leaves pumped storage hydro power, however has the UK got enough sites for this? and finally the windiest areas of the UK are in the far north and west of the country, which are strangely enough the furthest from the major population centers, so you are going to get major transmission losses.
all these re-newable techs look great on paper or on a greenpeace advert , but they all suffer from 1 thing... they are not constant power sources.
Could you imagine being on the London-Glasgow express and you hear ' We are sorry this train has stopped, we will be stuck here until daylight/the wind picks up' :mad:


I don't know the technical specifics, but couldn't it be viable to combine tidal/wave/wind/hydroelectric/geothermal/etc to make an almost constant power supply and store a surplus using pumps or high air pressure or similar device and when it is necessary replenish the energy supply with something like gas made out of biomass?

Nuclear power is a safe, clean, and abundant source of energy; I’d have no problem building hundreds of them to replace fossil fuels, but there are a lot of uninformed people out there who have been misled by the lies and scaremongering of the extreme environmental movement, resulting in opposition to nuclear plants that has no basis in reality.
Well, try on this for size:

Some nuclear waste, such as plutonium-239, has a half life of 100,000 years plus. Could you (or the relevent authorities) guarantee the security and safety of storing radioactive waste for the next one thousand centuries?

Well, try on this for size:

Some nuclear waste, such as plutonium-239, has a half life of 100,000 years plus. Could you (or the relevent authorities) guarantee the security and safety of storing radioactive waste for the next one thousand centuries?

That's why I think nuclear power is bad. The waste is horrible for thousands upon thousands of years. I don't think its a good idea to have barrels and barrels of this nasty stuff over hither and yon.

That's why I think nuclear power is bad. The waste is horrible for thousands upon thousands of years. I don't think its a good idea to have barrels and barrels of this nasty stuff over hither and yon.

So with the above arguments for various types of energy, which one would you say is the best one to be used in the future in Scotland or even the world.

So with the above arguments for various types of energy, which one would you say is the best one to be used in the future in Scotland or even the world.

Honestly, I have no idea. I don't think a single one will work by itself. A combination of the differing technologies seems like it would work best. Maybe even some nuclear power, but I don't think nuclear power should be the primary source, as that would mean a lot more nuclear waste. Also, no hydroelectric power, as dams are terrible for ecosystems. Solar and wind in combination would probably be ideal, with nuclear power as a smaller contributer.

So with the above arguments for various types of energy, which one would you say is the best one to be used in the future in Scotland or even the world.
I don’t think there’s one particular type of energy production that would suit the entire world; a lot depends on the lay of the land.

But in Scotland at least, a combination of wind power, tidal power, hydro-electric schemes (on a small-scale, and not necessarily with dams.) and biofuels certainly seems the way to go.

Heres one the great myths of the anti-nuclear lobby

Plutonium is actually one of the safest radioactive substances created ;)

Why? because its an alpha particle emitter, alpha particles are great big fat lardy things that would fail to get through a wet paper bag
The cheif danger with plutonium is having a body ingest the stuff so that the body's cells are in close contact with it.

One of the myths is that 'high level waste needs to be stored for millions of years' .
What makes high level nuclear waste?
Large amounts of radioactivity emitted
why is emitting large amounts?
because the stuff is decaying faster due to it having a short halflife
So the more radioactive something is, the shorter its halflife.
This is not to say we should treat the stuff with comtempt, but do some basic science type stuff first and take note.... you could take some types of cornish granite into sellafield and the stuff would have to be thrown into the can because its so radioactive it can be classed as low level nuclear waste :eek:

On a personal note I'm a supporter of James Lovelock's position on nuclear power
"Whats worse? 50 000 possible dead from a nuclear plant going up every 50 yrs or 500 million dead from global warming?"

We have the technology in the west to reduce our CO2 output by at least 25% maybe even 30% over the next 10 years withough impact to our life styles.
its seems criminal that we dont use it.

That's why I think nuclear power is bad. The waste is horrible for thousands upon thousands of years. I don't think its a good idea to have barrels and barrels of this nasty stuff over hither and yon.

Thats why we would put in on rockets and shoot it into the sun. ;)

On a personal note I'm a supporter of James Lovelock's position on nuclear power
"Whats worse? 50 000 possible dead from a nuclear plant going up every 50 yrs or 500 million dead from global warming?"


Well, not to go too far off topic, but I don't consider either of those things to be a very realistic threat. I think nuclear power's biggest problem is build-cost. If we can solve that, we don't have any problems.

... that and nuclear power isn't economically viable... but yea, ignore the actual "math" and "reasons" for why a faceless corporaiton like Exelon hasn't built one in about, oh, 12 or 13 years, + or -.

With externalities factored in?
All except CO2, sure.
I'd love for you to show how the NIMBY problem doesn't apply to coal or nuclear power plants.
There's a coal-fired power plant right in the city of Edmonton. High quality coal doesn't produce noticeable stack gas (again, aside from CO2).

Wind farms take up a lot more space than other means of power generation (with the possible exception of hydro power). As such, they can't be in already developed areas.

... that and nuclear power isn't economically viable... but yea, ignore the actual "math" and "reasons" for why a faceless corporaiton like Exelon hasn't built one in about, oh, 12 or 13 years, + or -.
Nuclear power isn't economically viable? The capital costs are high, but the production costs aren't that bad if the uranium is mined locally.

If wind turbines are an eyesore to people what about coal power plants? I have 2 within sight of my house if you move less then a couple miles. They are eyesores cause you can see the smoke rise out of the smoke stacks and you just see it drifting to one side. Sometimes to you sometimes other spots. It gets annoying. I cant see a reason to not build wind farms. YOu can build them almost anywhere such as cow pastures.

If wind turbines are an eyesore to people what about coal power plants? I have 2 within sight of my house if you move less then a couple miles. They are eyesores cause you can see the smoke rise out of the smoke stacks and you just see it drifting to one side. Sometimes to you sometimes other spots. It gets annoying. I cant see a reason to not build wind farms. YOu can build them almost anywhere such as cow pastures.
Where do you live that coal fired plants are allowed to release smoke into the air?

The plants I know release only steam in terms of visible stack gases.

Wind Farms are a source of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm
Also Wind Farm projects help create jobs and help the economy, they are also more environmentally friendly than many other types of power to generate electricity.
Because wind is an unrelaible source of energy as both the frequency and intensity of wind are always easily not predictable, consistant, and optimal wind velocity is rarely persistant for any significant length of time. Because of this many wind farms require a secondary source of power for periods of peak demand or low production. These peaker plants are generally hydrocarbon-based and negate the "environmental friendliness" argument of wind power. Peaker plants are generally gas-turbine engines that burn natural gas, a hydrocarbon fuel, and emmit carbon dioxide as one primary waste gas.

Nuclear power plants also create energy for electricity, and create jobs, however they also produce waste products, some of which are harmful to plant and animal life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Most nuclear waste can be reporcessed and refined back into useable fuel. This isn't done in America because of fears that the Plutonium generated by breeder reactors and as a waste product in current reactors might be used by terrorists to create nuclear explosives or radiological weapons. When transuranic actinides like plutonium and curium are removed radioactive waste loses its radioactivity within an estimated 300 years as opposed to the thousands it would take were those substances left in.

All these types of power plants are present all over the world.
So why does this happen?
Because wind power is unreliable. For reliable power a secondary plant which runs on a conventional fuel is required.

Who are these 5,000 letters from? I wasn't aware of any asylum nearby. This is sad news to me.:(
At least some of them were probably from people like myself who have examined the issue of energy policy and the different methods of electrical generation and come to the conclusion that a few hundred more nuclear plants would be able to provide clean electricity reliably.

Okay economic benefit to a secluded society, sounds reasonable to me.
And when construction is over those people are out of work again.

Visual impact? I like wind farms, they are far more pretty than the other types and far less environmental impact.
Oh no your precious moorland, where would we be without, miles and miles of boggy marsh.:rolleyes:
Some people like that. Some people like to get away from big cities and the like.

Does anyone else think wind farms are a good idea?
There are quite a few people who do. I'm not one of them. I believe that nuclear provides a quicker avenue to clean power and it has been demonstrated to be more reliable and capable of higher outputs. And the radioisotopes are here already and decaying, might as well use them.

Personally I do, but I realise my opinion could be biased.;)
Are there other types of power a small community like the Western Isles of Scotland can use?
They could get their power from a nuclear or clean coal power plant which supplies several communities, large and small, with power. I don't live next to the plant that supplies me with power, they just ran a few extra miles of cable to my house.

There are quite a few people who do. I'm not one of them. I believe that nuclear provides a quicker avenue to clean power and it has been demonstrated to be more reliable and capable of higher outputs. And the radioisotopes are here already and decaying, might as well use them.

I personally see wind power and nuclear as the best options. Get rid of those dirty/expensive fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear and wind; those two will be more than able to meet your power needs, and if we're smart and actually make efforts to use breeder reactors or reprocessing, nuclear waste really isn't a problem.

DISCLAIMER: I like a few miles from a nuclear plant. I love them.

There's a coal-fired power plant right in the city of Edmonton. High quality coal doesn't produce noticeable stack gas (again, aside from CO2).

But not all areas are fortunate enough to have high-quality coal; the cheap stuff that actually makes coal economically competitive is always dirty and produces a ton of smog and waste.

DISCLAIMER: I like a few miles from a nuclear plant. I love them.

I grew up next to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station) (well, near) (http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/Region_4/rancho_seco/index.shtml) a nuclear power plant. Not a fan.

Not to mention it didn't meet that 'reliable' part you all keep going on about. Constant shutdowns, worries over contamination of the nearby environment...it was a mess. It's best day was when it was shutdown. Not particularly happy about them putting a natural gas plant there now, but I had moved away, so no vote for me.

I grew up next to (well, near) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station) a nuclear power plant. Not a fan.

Not to mention it didn't meet that 'reliable' part you all keep going on about. Constant shutdowns, worries over contamination of the nearby environment...it was a mess. It's best day was when it was shutdown. Not particularly happy about them putting a natural gas plant there now, but I had moved away, so no vote for me.

This is my plant(s) (since the grid also likely supplies us from Davis-Besse):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Sounds like a case of mismanagement more than anything, especially with such a low utilization rate. Of course, "mismanagement" tends to mean various disasters, environmental pollution, and power disruption, so it's hardly any less significant than any other problem. However, Perry has been a real boon to this area and I'd like to see the second reactor built and activated some day.

I'd personally prefer the use of non-nuclear power in places like California, due both to the sheer density of population as well as the water requirements which would likely strain local supplies.

This is my plant(s) (since the grid also likely supplies us from Davis-Besse):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Sounds like a case of mismanagement more than anything, especially with such a low utilization rate. Of course, "mismanagement" tends to mean various disasters, environmental pollution, and power disruption, so it's hardly any less significant than any other problem. However, Perry has been a real boon to this area and I'd like to see the second reactor built and activated some day.

I'd personally prefer the use of non-nuclear power in places like California, due both to the sheer density of population as well as the water requirements which would likely strain local supplies.

Not to mention our huge coastline, predictable winds, a big ass desert, natural hot springs...all three of the most viable renewable energy sources we got plenty. We could supply the western states on renewable energy. But alas...

All except CO2, sure.Including the adverse health effects on humans and the increased decay of paintjobs on buildings and cars in the vicinity?

There's a coal-fired power plant right in the city of Edmonton. High quality coal doesn't produce noticeable stack gas (again, aside from CO2).Laughable. Neither does unclean coal whose flue gas is scrubbed properly, and yet the cars around Jänschwalde still start to peel after a short while.

Wind farms take up a lot more space than other means of power generation (with the possible exception of hydro power). As such, they can't be in already developed areas.Largely irrelevant. Would you prefer to live next door to a windfarm, a coal power plant, or a nuclear powerplant?

Largely irrelevant. Would you prefer to live next door to a windfarm, a coal power plant, or a nuclear powerplant?
I'd take wind any day, but I don't think I'm in a majority.

I'd take wind any day, but I don't think I'm in a majority.

Really? I think most people would prefer to live next to a windfarm instead of next to a coal fueled power plant or a nuclear site. No air pollution, no chance of nuclear pollution/explosion, I see no reason to choose coal or nuclear over wind. I suspect people want nothing in their backyard instead of just not wanting wind.
TBH I don't think windfarms look that bad, If they aren't too close, say in an industrial area.

Really? I think most people would prefer to live next to a windfarm instead of next to a coal fueled power plant or a nuclear site. No air pollution, no chance of nuclear pollution/explosion, I see no reason to choose coal or nuclear over wind. I suspect people want nothing in their backyard instead of just not wanting wind.
TBH I don't think windfarms look that bad, If they aren't too close, say in an industrial area.
I know I'm speaking from an anglocentric perspective here, and a South Eastern one at that, but most people here see wind farms as a blight. I live quite close to the (now decommissoned) Bradwell Nuclear Power Station and have been cycling round the area last year. There's huge opposition to a wind farm there, even after it was scaled down. On the other hand, there's general support for a new reactor there.

They aren't out of line with public opinion, I think.

I know I'm speaking from an anglocentric perspective here, and a South Eastern one at that, but most people here see wind farms as a blight. I live quite close to the (now decommissoned) Bradwell Nuclear Power Station and have been cycling round the area last year. There's huge opposition to a wind farm there, even after it was scaled down. On the other hand, there's general support for a new reactor there.

They aren't out of line with public opinion, I think.

Ok, that could be, it does seem quite weird to me though, maybe they think the nuclear power plant will bring more jobs or something; And the look of windfarms doesn't bother me, it has something futuristic imo...

Ok, that could be, it does seem quite weird to me though, maybe they think the nuclear power plant will bring more jobs or something; And the look of windfarms doesn't bother me, it has something futuristic imo...
Well, most Bradwell workers didn't live in Bradwell as far as I know. People simply don't like them. I'll be damned if I know why though. It's not as if a giant grey concrete box (i.e. bradwell) is any less ugly.

Well, most Bradwell workers didn't live in Bradwell as far as I know. People simply don't like them. I'll be damned if I know why though. It's not as if a giant grey concrete box (i.e. bradwell) is any less ugly.

People tend to object to anything "new"... they're right about it at some times, and horribly wrong at others. I remember reading old magazines about architecture in Vienna once, and you wouldn't believe the bile that was pour out over the then new Art Deco buildings. By now, I think few Viennese would want Art Deco to be missing from their city, it's become more or less synonymus.

Now, I'm well aware that wind farms aren't art in the classical sense, but I have to admit that personally, I've rarely seen more beautiful human constructions anywhere. I love the way they look, but I know that this is purely subjective.

I said it before, I'll say it again; nuclear power is not anywhere close to economical, and no market will produce it unless it has heafty government subsidies. Consider the case of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, mentioned above. Perry cost an estimated $6,000,000,000 to achieve a boiler plate rating of 3758 MW. The cost per kWh is $1,597. Maple Ridge Wind Farm in New York has a boiler plate rating of 320 MW, which, using industry numbers (not project numbers), costs $1,000 per kWh. SoCal Edison has plans to build a sterling engine solar field (granted, it is in the desert). Ignoring storage issues, wind power is cheaper. Throw in subsidies on top of this, and it becomes that much more attractive.

Coal. That's about the only source of energy realistically cheaper than wind. Wind is basically the second most cost-effective source of electricity generation in existence.
ROFL

It would be the most cost-effective if not for the fact that coal production is so heavily subsidized.
DOUBLE ROFL.

In a few years, wind will be the cheapest form of power simply because cost of production and operation are so low.
TRIPLE ROFL.

Even small amounts of wind power are enough to send a country's energy prices through the roof - compare Denmark's energy prices to the rest of the world, and ask why they stopped building wind farms. Wind power is not only expensive, it just plain doesnt work. It is not near consistent enough to form more than about a 5% share of a grid, but what's the point in that even when nuclear or clean coal are cheaper and just as green.

Now, I'm well aware that wind farms aren't art in the classical sense, but I have to admit that personally, I've rarely seen more beautiful human constructions anywhere. I love the way they look, but I know that this is purely subjective.

Incidentally I saw a piece of a 'human interest television show' in which people nearly living under a windfarm were talking about how nice they thought it was, one had even cut down some trees to be able to see it. :p In the end an old guy posed next to a windmill with his dog. It was funny, but in a cute way.