FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

I'm pretty sure old Jack the Ripper wasn't polite about anything.........

How old is Jack the Ripper now? I didn't know he was still around kicking it.

[bud]

Deforested hills are ugly, wind farms look fine.

[LewEngBridewell]

I'm pretty sure old Jack the Ripper wasn't polite about anything.........

How old is Jack the Ripper now? I didn't know he was still around kicking it.

If he's still alive, he'll most likely be in a bad way. I mean 150 years old at least!

[LewEngBridewell]

Deforested hills are ugly, wind farms look fine.

Thank you bud, for bringing the thread back on track. While you say deforested hills, this isn't necessarily true with regards to all moorland. See this quote from Wikipedia;

There is uncertainty about how many moors were created by human activity. Rackham writes that pollen analysis shows that some moorland, such as in the islands and extreme north of Scotland, are clearly natural, never having had trees; whereas much of the Pennine moorland area was forested in Mesolithic times. How much the destruction of this forest was caused by climatic changes and how much by human activity is uncertain.[1]

Whatever the situation, there is much more to moorland than ugly hills. They are, IMO, a natural beauty in their own right. I love them.

[FRAFPDD]

The moors are actually beautiful if you ever go and see them, it doesnt have to be a sun splashed blue-lagoon cove for somehwere to have natural beauty, the moors are most beautiful on misty, foggy days, and awful eerie, if i was there by myself i think id crap myself.

although i can see where buds coming from, all you get is ripcurls and pounding sunshine all year round down under.

[LewEngBridewell]

The moors are actually beautiful if you ever go and see them, it doesnt have to be a sun splashed blue-lagoon cove for somehwere to have natural beauty, the moors are most beautiful on misty, foggy days, and awful eerie, if i was there by myself i think id crap myself.

although i can see where buds coming from, all you get is ripcurls and pounding sunshine all year round down under.

I go there by myself or with others often, but you're right, it is desolate and eerie, but still beautiful. It's great. Wind turbines would probably enhance that eerie feeling, especially if shrouded in mist..........

[bud]

The moors are actually beautiful if you ever go and see them, it doesnt have to be a sun splashed blue-lagoon cove for somehwere to have natural beauty, the moors are most beautiful on misty, foggy days, and awful eerie, if i was there by myself i think id crap myself.

although i can see where buds coming from, all you get is ripcurls and pounding sunshine all year round down under.

Ive been to the UK, my mother is from Scotland It is pretty, but baron grassy hills dont do it for me. I like trees, loved Belgium for that reason.

Sunshine all year round? maybe up in the north near the tropics but im from the south, we have seasons here...we are in the middle of winter.

[FRAFPDD]

The moors are actually beautiful if you ever go and see them, it doesnt have to be a sun splashed blue-lagoon cove for somehwere to have natural beauty, the moors are most beautiful on misty, foggy days, and awful eerie, if i was there by myself i think id crap myself.

although i can see where buds coming from, all you get is ripcurls and pounding sunshine all year round down under.

Ive been to the UK, my mother is from Scotland It is pretty, but baron grassy hills dont do it for me. I like trees, loved Belgium for that reason.

Sunshine all year round? maybe up in the north near the tropics but im from the south, we have seasons here...we are in the middle of winter.

Dont act hard done by bud, summer lasts about 10 days here, and theres no such thing as spring and autumn, its just winter.


Mind you its blistering (relatively) outside today, and ive wasted 3 hours watching the crappest race ever.

[madbrad]

I don't mind the appearance and I'm not knowledgeable on how it may or may not adversely affect the local ecosystem, migrating patterns, food chain etc, although that may indeed be a problem.

What I do disagree with is the statement that it(along with solar) is renewable energy or that it is "green" power. Once you factor in the environmental impact of the manufacture, installation, erection, maintenance, and eventual disposal of the materials, the tiny amount of energy they generate doesn't come close to offsetting that carbon footprint. It's the stuff the blind proponents of it conveniently ignore.

But that's not the worst of it.

In Ontario, large companies put up these farms and collect(from the government) up to 80 cents per KW.h, which is ten times what the customer pays on his or her utility bill. So who is paying for this? The taxpayer though his taxes and the ratepayer who sees the upward pressure it puts on is bill. The people who build and operate these places are opportunists who see only dollar signs and know full well it isn't green.
And whenever a solo citizen, after being pitched by the government on its income generating properties, puts up a small solar or wind set, at his own expense(usually running into the 6 figures), he's given the run around through miles of red tape and bureaucracy and excuses from that same government trying to get paid anything for the power(It's for his own consumption but the excess is supposed to by law be sold to the utility). They spend a few years on this struggle then give up. They don't even let him hook it up for his own consumption. Clearly, this is merely another tool to make the rich richer. And so is corn fuel, don't get me effing started.

[vaptin]

I don't mind the appearance and I'm not knowledgeable on how it may or may not adversely affect the local ecosystem, migrating patterns, food chain etc, although that may indeed be a problem.

What I do disagree with is the statement that it(along with solar) is renewable energy or that it is "green" power. Once you factor in the environmental impact of the manufacture, installation, erection, maintenance, and eventual disposal of the materials, the tiny amount of energy they generate doesn't come close to offsetting that carbon footprint. It's the stuff the blind proponents of it conveniently ignore.

But that's not the worst of it.

In Ontario, large companies put up these farms and collect(from the government) up to 80 cents per KW.h, which is ten times what the customer pays on his or her utility bill. So who is paying for this? The taxpayer though his taxes and the ratepayer who sees the upward pressure it puts on is bill. The people who build and operate these places are opportunists who see only dollar signs and know full well it isn't green.
And whenever a solo citizen, after being pitched by the government on its income generating properties, puts up a small solar or wind set, at his own expense(usually running into the 6 figures), he's given the run around through miles of red tape and bureaucracy and excuses from that same government trying to get paid anything for the power(It's for his own consumption but the excess is supposed to by law be sold to the utility). They spend a few years on this struggle then give up. They don't even let him hook it up for his own consumption. Clearly, this is merely another tool to make the rich richer. And so is corn fuel, don't get me effing started.

Where did you read that?


Generally speaking the wind power industry has correctly observed that a wind turbine pays back the energy consumption of its construction and the accompanying CO2 emission within a few months (DWTMO 1997).

The cash cost of a wind turbine is a very different matter and arguably without enormous subsidy a wind turbine cannot pay back its financial cost in a reasonable time-frame. This is because a large proportion of the cost derives from value additive operations such as the complex engineering of the drive train and generator and the specialist fabrication of blades which are expensive but do not consume much energy – which is largely absorbed in the smelting of iron and its conversion to steel and to a lesser extent, manufacture of other metals..

In the case of wind ‘farms’ on deep peat, especially if site operations such as road construction cause drying of previously waterlogged peat, there may be substantial CO2 emission from its oxidation. This has been specifically observed by the Environmental Management Committee at Cefn Croes which wrote: - “… oxidation of exposed peat was leading to a huge loss of carbon to the atmosphere, and mitigating the impacts of the Wind Farm from a Global Warming perspective.” Despite this, even if serious peat oxidation occurs, the displacement of fossil fuel electricity by wind turbines will outweigh the construction energy and carbon emission within a year or two.

http://www.countryguardian.net/Case%20Calculating.htm,

Your second point is about government regulation, not the fault of Wind Turbines themselves.

[madbrad]

I work in the power industry. Pay back the footprint in a few months? Seriously flawed math. Provided by the people who want to get rich off it.
Ontario as an example currently needs a peak of about 25000 MW. If all that power were generated by windmills, I can't imagine the amount of land that would need. It's takes 400 of them to equal one reactor at Bruce Power. They need 40 times the land to make the same power as a CANDU unit. What if it were a geographically smaller jurisdiction than Ontario that has the same 25000 MW demand? With 12000 windmills, would there be any room for people to consume it? What happens if there's no wind? Should we get 25000 MW worth of batteries? Oh that sounds real green. And safe.
The greenest power in the long run is the most efficient power. By efficient I mean ratio of MW output to money and environmental impact in. To get that you need the most concentrated heat you can muster. Fission is currently the most concentrated heat. And it has no emmisions.
This may become a flame war so I shall bow out to avoid the ire of the mods and admins. To me this is just a friendly discussion despite the inflammatory appearance of some of my verbiage. I hope everyone in this thread uses the same attitude.

[darwin dali]

Fission is currently the most concentrated heat. And it has no emmisions.

[myownalias]

I'd be happy if they put wind farms in Kansas; it'd break up the monotony of miles and miles of flat prairie land; there is literally nothing for miles to see once you leave the confines of the city!

[darwin dali]

I'd be happy if they put wind farms in Kansas; it'd break up the monotony of miles and miles of flat prairie land; there is literally nothing for miles to see once you leave the confines of the city!

Corn and elevators

[What's Burning?]

What I do disagree with is the statement that it(along with solar) is renewable energy or that it is "green" power. Once you factor in the environmental impact of the manufacture, installation, erection, maintenance, and eventual disposal of the materials, the tiny amount of energy they generate doesn't come close to offsetting that carbon footprint. It's the stuff the blind proponents of it conveniently ignore.

So what you're saying here is there is no factoring in of manufacturing, installation, erection ( I'm sorry) maintenance and eventual disposal of materials for coal, fossil fuel or nuclear power plants?

There is absolutely nothing lost by true forms of clean energy, and to argue against it is inexplicable unless you're the owner of oil fields in Texas or live in a town solely supported by coal mining.