Town's first Wind Turbine

[Jerry]

In their 2007 film ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, I understand there are glimpses of wind turbines in or on the Mersey, so I was surprised to see the video report by Indiana James (?) about Warrington's first.

 

All the talk in the video was about global warming -- but wind energy should be preferable even if we had global cooling. It's much more sensible in my HO.

[Steve the Original]

Jerry

I think you find the the UK is pretty sow on the uptake of wind turbines, but they will get there eventualy

 

 

Steve

[Paul Kennedy]

Ah but it is all a question of numbers, you need very large numbers of the largest wind turbines to match the generating capacity of a conventional power station. My guess is that nuclear will become the dominant method of large scale electricity generation, in much the same way it is in France. Here in the Warrington area, we have much expertise in the subject and could become the centre of excellence providing many high tech well paid jobs.

[Steve the Original]

And then when the China syndrome happens Warrington ceases to exist...

 

although i do agree with you Paul that Nuclear power plants are most like the best bet for the future,i still feel that the Plants could be a major danger for everyone..

 

 

Steve

[Gary]

In their 2007 film ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, I understand there are glimpses of wind turbines in or on the Mersey, so I was surprised to see the video report by Indiana James (?) about Warrington's first.

 

All the talk in the video was about global warming -- but wind energy should be preferable even if we had global cooling. It's much more sensible in my HO.

 

Jerry, it is refreshing to see that our forum readers take an active interest in the news going on in the tow, especially our readers from across the pond.

[Paul Kennedy]

You are undoubtedly right Steve and I have great concerns regarding the legacy we will leave future generations, but that is the risk we will have to take to satisfy the demand for electricity, which has become the most important need of our everyday lives.

 

PS A need that I expect will become even greater if we have more electric powered transport.

 

PS Good film by the way, just a pity the turbine wasn't spinning

[asperity]

Wind turbines are a great money spinner - for the manufacturers and builders. Unfortunately they are a waste of money for the rest of us. They require conventional power stations to be running for when the wind is too light or too strong so the actual saving is a myth. A better investment would be tidal. there is a tidal turbine that has just been installed at the entrance to Carlingford lock where there is a strong tidal stream. OK the tide turns 4 times a day, but it turns at a different time at different places around the coast and there are many places where the stream is very strong. The difference between tide and wind is that the tide is reliable and has known limits of strength, and the turbines are under water and not creating a blot on the landscape. There has been talk of a barrage accross the Bristol Channel, but that isn't necessary, just a series of turbines on the sea bottom to harness the energy.

And of course we need nuclear power. Gordon Brown is going around stating the obvious like the idea has just occurred to Our Great Leader. We all know he's spent the last 11 years refusing the funding, so thats 11 years wasted and already the lights are starting to go out. The government has painted itself into a corner by allowing the EU to dictate energy policy and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[observer]

Agree on the tidal and hydro; should have been done years ago. However, Nuclear is a known financial and enviromental disaster scenario; the estimated decommissioning costs for our existing reactors has just shot up from ?53billion to ?75billion; and they havn't a clue what to do with the radio-active waste (with a half life of 100s of years). Whilst I understand that N/Sea oil and gas are running out, and we don't wish to become dependent on Russia; some form of energy self sufficiency is required. Well, we still have coal, lots and lots of it; and with new carbon capture technologies to appease the green brigade, we could become self sufficient without the high costs of building and decommissioning nuke stations. As to the future, it might help, if Government were to invest more in research into "Fusion Energy" which creates no waste.

[asperity]

I agree that British coal is becoming economical again, but the question is will our masters in Mrussels allow us to take advantage of it? They are the ones holding us back. As for nuclear power, there is no getting away from the fact that we alrady rely to agreat extent on importing electricity from French nuclear power stations.

[AlisonF]

Wind turbines definitely have a place in the energy provision for this country. Modern wind turbines are very efficient and not the kind of money making scam that somebody infers in one of the earlier posts. Small scale ones have the advantage of ensuring that production is much more local and is therefore not at risk of global variations. Yes, sometimes the wind doesn't blow but we live on a fairly windy island and if a country like Germany can get a significant percentage of it's energy from wind (when their average wind speed is lower) then it would seem prudent to harness this natural resource. Yes, we can't rely soley on wind, but then again, nobody is advocating that we do. A more logic approach would be to become more efficient with the energy we need to use (don't waste the stuff!) and rely on a number of increasingly decentralised sources.

[Jerry]

Wow! Tidal turbines and out of sight! I thought I was making that up when I suggested to my engineer son that 'how come we haven't done this?' We have a lot of coastline in California.

[Shelley]

We just need to invite Hillary over if/when she concedes the nomination.

 

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

[asperity]

Why would we need that gurning clown over here? We've got enough clowns of our own in Westminster. And wind turbines are not the answer. They are ahighly expensive and very inefficient means of creating energy apart from being an eyesore. And don't forget that when they reach the end of their useful lives they can't be just left there, they have to be taken down and disposed of. Madness.

[Bill]

What worries me about wind power is we run the risk of becoming too wind dependant as private companies jump on the bandwagon eager to capitalize on a cheap source of free energy. And because it's the flavor of the month, objections on the grounds of visual impact on the environment will simply be overruled leading to a rash of the things in places not exactly ideal for the job.

 

Left to the free market, we could end up with lots of business or communities that don't need the national grid or its infrastructure (providing the wind blows)

 

The way I see it, it's a bit like having a wind powered car that only needs petrol when there's no wind so what effect would this have on the price of petrol? assuming that is you could find a petrol station that hasn't gone bust.

 

I'm certainly with Asperity on this one in so much that we need a source of renewable energy that we can depend on and tidal seems to be the only one that makes sense.

 

Bill

[asperity]

There are plans to install another 5000 wind turbines at 11 sites around the UK with an actual capacity (when the wind blows) of 10GW. these will cost between ?60 and ?80 Billion. The equivalent capacity would require 5 nuclear power stations at a cost of ?14 Billion, but of course the nuclear stations wouldn't need another 10GW of capacity from conventional power stations on standby for when the wind fails. Who is running this mad house? the lunatics have certainly taken over.

[McBain]

Photovoltaic cells should be mandatory as part of the roof design for all new buildings, with the number / size to be provided being a function of the overall roof area. This at least would mean that some developments could run a low-energy bulb or three from the free sunshine that we get. I know that Photovoltaics wont solve the problem, but they would ease the burden. As for increased build-costs, that's already happening anyway as a consequence of fuel price increases and a very shaky mortgage market

[Gary]

There are plans to install another 5000 wind turbines at 11 sites around the UK with an actual capacity (when the wind blows) of 10GW. these will cost between ?60 and ?80 Billion. The equivalent capacity would require 5 nuclear power stations at a cost of ?14 Billion, but of course the nuclear stations wouldn't need another 10GW of capacity from conventional power stations on standby for when the wind fails. Who is running this mad house? the lunatics have certainly taken over.

 

They will need plenty of wind - unlike when we did our filming - couldn't believe it!

[Gary]

Photovoltaic cells should be mandatory as part of the roof design for all new buildings, with the number / size to be provided being a function of the overall roof area. This at least would mean that some developments could run a low-energy bulb or three from the free sunshine that we get. I know that Photovoltaics wont solve the problem, but they would ease the burden. As for increased build-costs, that's already happening anyway as a consequence of fuel price increases and a very shaky mortgage market

 

Congratulations on your 800th post McBain - even if it is a little on the technical side - I presume this relate to my question about solar panels which they DO NOT have on the roof of the building.

[P J]

Sorry to sound cynical but a windmill is high visibility and attracts attention unlike solar panels. The windmill is ideal to get as much attention as possible whilst only paying lip service to environmental issues.