wind farms etc

[99]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/wind_intermittency_study/

most of you long term friends know my feelings on green energy, am all for it as long as it works. I still think the best option is reactors, not obviously green in some minds.
the above report goes into the problem of wind farms.
Mostly it's about the need to have baseline generators for when the wind is not blowing. nobody is going to want to run that amount of stations thats will only be used occasionally. you can't just turn them on and off thats not the way they work.
we do have two places in wales that pump water to the top of hills in off peak and use it for surges in demand

[dreamer]

I have always been for the wind turbines, I think they are a great idea if used correctly,and as we have had more and more errected near us, I have patiently waited to see the reduction in our electricity bills, to no avail may I add.
Obviously if peoples bills came down I think more people would be agreeable to them.
But now the government say yes we want to be green BUT it is going to cost each bill payer an extra £92.oo per year !!!!
And there was me thinking wind turbines were going to make electricity cheaper ha.
I am a silly billy arnt I . so now I am anti green and will remain so until my bills come down.

[99]

bills won't come down they will go up massively. as you still have to have the base equipment to support when the wind is not blowing. and that might not be used all the time so is a massive investment not being used half the time.

if you have ever looked into wind or solar energy for your home it just does not work. by the time you have spent the money on the equipment and servicing. you will be lucky to see any money back ever. Sorry if anything comes along that's worthwhile i will be 1st on the list.
saving the planet option is OK if you can come up with an option for stopping volcanoes etc.

[Gerry]

I had a Solar water heater installed in 1982 and my heating costs for water came down by 95%.  I never needed to have the unit serviced until it went on the blink in 2007 and then I had to have it replaced.  The savings I've had has paid for the unit several times over but the replacement cost was more than double the original installation even though no plumbing or electrical work needed doing for the replacement and that equates to GREED

When I was a kid, we went to the Co-op and everything was weighed individually and the bill was added up manually, (no computers or calculators in those days) and prices were reasonable.  Yet today, almost everything is pre-packaged and price scanned, there's less need for staff, so in theory, groceries should be a lot less than they are today, but because of GREED they're not

Whatever technological advancements that are made, it will not reflect in the pricing, simply because of GREED

There are more Multi Millionaires and Billionaires today simply because of GREED 

[99]

in a place like Australia solar works well. The UK has nowhere near enough sunlight, or wind for that matter. If we could do rain powered we would be laughing. lol

[dreamer]

if you need wind come here to the east of england, we never get one sunny day without the dreaded wind being around
, thats probarbly why they decided to put a wind farm at yarmouth/.,

[kevinbythesea]

Seems the people want the wind farms but not in their neighbourhood.

Interesting to note that the firm that was given the OK had recently filed for credit protection. Now that they have approval it can be safely assumed that they will go after a substantial government grant - which will be given.


Digby wind project approved
Province OKs 17 of 20 proposed turbines

Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau has approved a wind turbine project for Digby Neck, saying he’s confident any problems can be overcome.

Scotian WindFields Inc., a Dartmouth company, and its partner, SkyPower Corp. of Toronto, will build and operate the Digby Wind Park.

"I am convinced that any adverse effects or significant environmental effects of the undertaking can be adequately mitigated through compliance with the attached terms and conditions," Mr. Belliveau said in a one-page letter to Charmaine Thompson, SkyPower’s vice-president of project management.

The letter of approval, dated Monday, was sent to SkyPower’s headquarters in Ontario.

The accompanying terms and conditions deal with items including noise monitoring and regular inspections of the turbines and the sites they occupy.

The proponents must also develop a complaint resolution plan, according to a three-page document outlining terms and conditions.

Nova Scotia Power will buy all the electricity from the facility. The provincial power utility gave the wind producers a 20-year contract last year.

The 1,100-hectare wind park will be located on leased, private land, and is designed to produce enough clean energy to power about 10,000 homes annually.

The Digby Wind Park will install new General Electric wind turbines and be running in less than a year, said Scotian WindFields president Barry Zwicker.

Each machine will produce 1.5 megawatts and be installed in the Rossway-Gullivers Cove area of Digby Neck, about 12 kilometres west of Digby.

Government is allowing 17 of the 20 proposed turbines to be built. Three units were not allowed in their proposed locations, presumably because of their proximity to houses. Relocating those turbines will require more government consultation.

"We’re looking at a plan to relocate those," Mr. Zwicker said Tuesday.

The company will soon resubmit a bid to place those three turbines elsewhere. He said the three turbines that must be repositioned were within 600 to 700 metres of homes. The next closest turbine will be about 750 metres from a dwelling, Mr. Zwicker said.

When the project was announced last year, SkyPower president Kerry Adler said the Digby Neck wind park would be worth about $80 million in construction and related costs.

Earlier this month, SkyPower announced it was filing for protection from its creditors to allow it to restructure under the Companies" Creditors Arrangement Act.

Mr. Zwicker said the Digby project is definitely going ahead and, with government approval, financing the project will now be easier to conclude.

Road development may begin soon, he said.

"We just couldn’t do anything on the site until we received this approval," said Mr. Zwicker.

Waterford resident Nora Peach said at least one of the turbines will be as close as 750 metres to a home, and some are within 1,000 metres.

"Down at the end of Gullivers Cove Road, some of those houses would be 800 or . . . 975"" metres from a turbine, she said.

"They don’t have room really . . . on such a narrow strip of land to go back any further."

Some residents had asked that the turbines be kept at least two kilometres away.

Ms. Peach said the new provincial government has joined the proponent in ignoring concerns about possible effects on property values, ecotourism and migratory birds.

"It’s quite a wall of turbines,"" she said. ""It’s probably not good for birds."

The company must monitor and report all bird deaths resulting from collisions with turbine blades or towers for a period of two years.

[Gerry]

There was bit on TV the other week about Wind Turbines (I think it was in the UK) and it was effecting the health of many people.  They said the noise was unbearable and they were getting constant headaches and other ailments.  I know I wouldn't want one near me and a lot more study has to go into pros and cons of having them

[kevinbythesea]

I agree Gerry, trouble is the 'Green' people are pushing them as a clean source of energy and the governments want to look as if they are reducing their carbon footprint so they seem all for it. The people that live near the "Farms" are the ones that ultimately suffer.
What really gets me is that there is so much open land here that  I can see no reason why they need to be built within miles of any homes.

[raddison]

I support the construction of wind farms.

But like you KBTS I don't know why they seem to be put in close proximity to homes.
Off shore are OK but the extra cost to maintain them is a bit higher what with the shipping and that required to service them. and the loss of energy from being so far from the *grid*

[Gerry]

That's all very well Rad but would you like one close to where you live? I doubt it

[raddison]

How close is close? I have sat under the largest in this country while it was turning and there was not that much noise!

there is more noise from the main road but NO ONE moans about that because they can see themself's using it but a wind turbine ?mmm just where does the electric go???????

[99]

it's more about the fact you still have to have all the other power generation around to take up the base load. as have posted. they cost money to run even when not used. and you can't just turn them on and off.
solar is fine for people like Gerry who have lots of sunlight. Wind is fine for people who have lots of wind. Even Greenpeace have recognised that nuclear power is the cleanest option for the UK. yes nasty atom stuff people don't understand and are therefore scared off.

we have people here scared of mobile phones as the radiate emf, and people who are ill from wifi despite not being able to tell if it's on or off.
and have not realised we have had this stuff since birth, the sun radiates, and since radio and TV so do we.

had a chap tell me phones caused him a problem, despite the fact at the time phones used a frequency close to our local TV transmitter. it runs 100kw and phones run about a 1 watt, and base stains 100w.

sorry went of track

[raddison]

I know 99 most people are ill informed as to what is or is not good/safe
Take the radio waves they have been here since the sun started to shine, is that not so.
Radar Oh very dangerous? duh so they go and get a boat with a dome radar and sun bathe in line with it? "well its a dome not a rotating thingy" yes I have had that said to me. the scanner is the same but it has a round cover so that 'you' don't damage it by getting hit as it goes round.
TV crt radiate more than your mobile but hey sit your child in front of it for hours on end to keep them quiet.
Micro waves hey set the test equipment up then cook your dinner! Mmm (I don't like nuked food anyway)

so much with so little knowledge I am not worried about being fried by my mobile or even the 12 foot X band or 8 foot Y band radar's when my time is up its up and I'll be a long time dead.

Yes we all should do what is economically viable to help prolong the human existence on this planet, but I think all (or some) of the hype "global warming" from Gov'mts is just hype. the polar caps have been melting since the thaw of the ice age and as the world is moving on its axis then there will be change and no matter what we do we are not able to alter the worlds direction. IMHO

[99]

had an argument about phone masts inverse square law and all that. phone masts were on the top of the building, i said thats the best place as they radiate out. for a laugh knowing the answer i suggested to the chap checking the strengths for the phone companies that he test the microwave ovens, his responce was if he did that he would have to ban them all.
yeah high power microwave like radar is dangerous if you stand in front of it close. TV transmitters are dangerous if you are close to them, my local one put out 100kw and when the above tests were done was about 1000 times stronger than the phone mast on top of the building. it was 3 miles away, but the worry was the mobile phones.

[raddison]

TV dangerous NEVER 

dumb down the dumb

Sorry njust had a bad day

[dreamer]

if we want tostop the carbon footprint then you will have to stop all bombing around the world first, im sure chemical bombs have got to cause more destruction of the ozone than, us having no carrier bags, or green energy etc. you really do get fed up of hearing we should do this or that, and everytime something does come up . then some group , :halo:that like their 15 mins of fame start hollering that its not right. as kevin said we have loads of flat land and wind turbines do not need to be near homes, but then you have the groups that say oh no you cant do that it is an eyesore you just cant win.

[kevinbythesea]

This was 'officially' announced in Jan 2008 but they have been talking about it for more than 10 years now.
Al they have to do is make it work and convince the fishermen that it will not deplete the stocks.
*********************

Fundy tidal power demonstration approved

The Fundy tidal power demonstration project in the Minas Basin, near Parrsboro, was given the green light Tuesday by Nova Scotia's Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau.

The project, first announced in January 2008, would set up $10-million research facility to test underwater turbines to convert tidal energy into electricity, subject to passing a strategic environmental assessment.

The Environment Department said the project has passed the assessment and will be subject to strict conditions to protect the environment.

Among the conditions are that Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy is responsible for developing a comprehensive environmental effects monitoring program and establishing an environmental effects advisory committee.

The marine demonstration site will consist of three underwater berths for turbines located in the Minas Passage, home of the highest tides in the world.

Belliveau said he sees tidal power as a way of helping Nova Scotia meet 25 per cent of its energy requirements from renewable sources.

But he's also a longtime commercial fisherman who knows the lobstermen in the Bay of Fundy are worried the turbines may change fish migration patterns.

"These questions are not going to be addressed unless you have a demonstration project. I think you can basically cannot sit in a conference room and get the answer to that," Belliveau said.

"You have to go out in the real world. There's going to be further environmental studies that will have to be done if the project is going to go to the next stage, to the commercial. This information will be a valuable tool in making recommendations at that given time."

Belliveau said fishermen must be included on an advisory committee, and the companies must monitor the impact of tidal turbines on birds and fish.

If there are any adverse consequences, Belliveau said he wouldn't hesitate to quash the project.

"The minister of environment has the authority to stop it any time, and I would not hesitate if the science and adverse effects were there," he said.

Mark Taylor, who fishes for lobster in the bay, has concerns about the technology, but he said he is willing to accept the environment minister's assurances.

"I think we'd be agreeable to that as long as he holds to his word that he will pull them out if there's any effects. I mean we're losing fishing ground as it is and we should be compensated for that, if nothing else," he said.

The objectives of the demonstration facility project as proposed by the proponent are to:

    * Build and operate a tidal energy demonstration facility to test the commercial potential of in-stream tidal-energy devices designed to convert tidal kinetic energy to electrical energy.
    * Acquire information necessary to assess the performance of tidal energy devices including their effect on the environment and the effect of the environment on the devices.
    * Develop monitoring techniques and methodologies for these devices in the tidal environment.

The three companies chosen for the project are:

    * Minas Basin Pulp and Power.
    * Nova Scotia Power.
    * B.C.-based Clean Current.

Nova Scotia Power is working toward putting a commercial size turbine in the bay by October, while Minas Basin Pulp and Power is aiming for next spring.

[99]

we need more nuclear power really, it's the most sensible option. Volcanoes are a big problem, producing vastly moere than we do

[PaigntonPearl]

I was reading in the paper today that the cost of recycling nuclear waste is so prohibitively expensive that most countries just pile up their spent fuel and store it instead of recycling what they can.

[99]

the waste is a downside of it, but on the whole it's still the cleanest form of energy

[PaigntonPearl]

Aren't wind turbines, solar panels and hydro-electric power as clean as nuclear.  And there's no waste to deal with.

[99]

wind turbines are expensive don't last long in the scheme of things require wind, and require the baseload to be taken up by something when the wind is not blowing. at large cost as no company wants to run a power station that's used occasionally, you can't just switch them on and off, we have stations that pump water up hill overnight and can be used to cope with sudden power demands in seconds. both use extinct volcanoes. http://www.fhc.co.uk/ffestiniog.htm http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm.
hydro requires flooding of large areas of land. solar requires sunlight not great in the UK, and solar panels are very expensive and inefficient and use toxic processes.
nuclear is the best option at the moment. But seen some really good tech that maybe available in about 15 years. uses an antenna to pic up infrared can get energy from IR from the sun even through cloud and overnight and from the earth. looks promising American tech