Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Ever more wind turbines to be erected..

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Ever more wind turbines to be erected..

Old 9th Feb 2013, 12:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Ever more wind turbines to be erected..

Thousands of wind turbines to go up as subsidies cut - Telegraph

Britain is building more wind turbines this year than ever before with more than 1,200 turbines due to start spinning throughout the countryside and around the coast over the next 12 months.

The “dash for wind” has been prompted by a cut in subsidies due this year and an apparent relaxing of the planning rules.

Some 763 turbines are due to be built onshore in 2013, up 60 per cent from last year.

Already there are 4,366 turbines in operation in the UK providing 8.2GW of power, enough to power 4.5 million homes for a year.

There are a further 7,843 turbines that have been approved but are yet to be built, bringing the total due to go up in the UK to more than 10,000.

In the last year the industry has hit new heights, providing 10 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs – when the wind is blowing.

The increase in wind turbines has been attributed to an apparent relaxing of the planning rules.
Last year the approval rate for wind farms went up by 50 per cent, according to industry group Renewable UK.

Despite fears for the countryside, the number of wind farms approved by councils at a local level went up for the first time in five years.
These smaller wind farms or single turbines are often just as controversial as larger developments. A 50KW turbine collapsed in rural Devon earlier this week. And despite the Government’s apparent cooling on the industry, the number of wind farms approved at a national level went up by a fifth.
Renewable UK claim the increase reflects support for the industry.
“This welcome trend is coupled with continued strong support for wind energy, with two thirds of the population in favour of continued development of wind energy. What is more, this support rises in rural areas.”

However, Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, a UK charity publishing data on the energy sector, said the increase was because subsidies for onshore will be cut by 10 per cent from April 2013.
He said there is a “dash for wind” while the Government continues to pay a subsidy.

“The UK’s wind power deployment on and offshore is way ahead of the learning curve, and needs to slow down to a rational pace to avoid insupportable burdens on the consumer and the risk of major malinvestment the unwinding of which will be painful and embarrassing.”
John Hayes, the Energy Minister, has said that the number of wind farms does not need to go beyond those planned.

The Government has committed to 13GW onshore by 2020, meaning the amount of onshore wind constructed or in planning is nearing the target, and 18GW offshore, meaning thousands more have yet to be built.

stuckgear is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 13:39
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
right now the grid demand is at 45.45GW and wind is providing 0.33GW

U.K. National Grid status


Last edited by stuckgear; 9th Feb 2013 at 13:40.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 17:46
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 77
Posts: 487
wind is providing 0.33GW
As Tesco once said 'Every little helps' (tongue firmly in cheek).
Sunnyjohn is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 08:38
  #4 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,042
Brother in Law is an engineer, says they are grossly inefficient and cost more in maintenance than they produce.
parabellum is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 08:43
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
But that doesn't apply to those who have been sucked into the whole "Green" dogma, efficiency means nothing when "being seen to do something" means everything irrespective of the costs, "science", detriment to local ecology and actual "carbon footprint" of these things when the TRUE costs, both financial and environmental, of these things are taken into account.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 09:19
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
The cost of cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear waste site has reached £67.5bn with no

irrespective of the costs, "science", detriment to local ecology and actual "carbon footprint" of these things when the TRUE costs, both financial and environmental
BBC News - Sizewell C: EDF 'should provide £100m for improvements'


BBC News - Sellafield clean-up costs hit £67.5bn says report

Yeah right.
glad rag is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 09:32
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
Perhaps the long term effects of radiation have been exaggerated, the wild critters around Chernobyl are apparently thriving,perhaps it was just scientific government propaganda like global warming.
As for mutation we dont need radiation to produce them,our town centers pubs are full of them every weekend
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving

Last edited by tony draper; 10th Feb 2013 at 09:35.
tony draper is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 09:41
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,317
I have to say I thought wind farms were a good idea and never thought of them as a blight on the landscape. That was until they started appearing all over the Borders where I live. They are everywhere now. It appears that any opposition to them at Borders Council is overruled by wee Ecks green gestapo. As someone wrote in our local rag this week, put a wind farm on Arthurs Seat and along the Pentland hills and watch the complaints and opposition to wind farms come flooding in.
Dan Gerous is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 10:27
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,628
For those of you who do not follow the debate elsewhere, this report may be interesting:

pulse1 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 11:48
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Yeah right.
And because so you look at the costs of Sellafield the very thing you are ignoring does not exist, the production of these damned things produces tonnes of toxic byproducts which we all know are treated and disposed of properly in China? Or the transportation of these parts across the world is "carbon negative"? Or that the construction of these things actually has no environmental impact at all?

Or how about the small matter of the UK, to meet upcoming EU regulations, will need to have 30% of power generation provided by "renewables", mainly the very wind power that achieved a "low" of 2.43% of theoretical production just a couple of years ago? To get that level, that means you MUST have the backup from coal/oil/gas as well, you build 2 "plants" instead of one, and the total generation capacity has to rise from 76GWh to 120GWh. That, alone, is a cost of £50 Billion, just because of the use of inefficient power generation such as wind MUST be used to satisfy some insane regulation based on badly flawed "science".

So you have the commissioning and decommissioning of the turbines and the ignored environmental costs in the production and decommissioning process. You have the extra costs of the extra "standby" generation capability, it's construction, decommissioning, operation, both financial and environmental. You have the small matter of the turbines never, nationwide, ONCE hitting their "peak" of 30% of rated capacity (yes, that is the "best" average efficiency quoted by the operators that is to be expected. "30% efficiency is "a good thing". Go figure) over a year at any time, and the average per farm can be much, much lower than that, leading to the subsidies necessary to stop them failing as a business. You have all the new roads needed to reach these wind farms, along with all the traffic, etc, needed to maintain them (plus the parts from China, remember). All of that is ignored in the Great Global Warming Scamdal (not a typo), these wind turbines are "a good thing" because they generate energy for "free". Well, they ain't "free", not by a long shot. And the more there are, the higher the cost. We are looking at something that is costing more than your Sellafield "argument", financially and especially environmentally, yet are being seen as "good" by those who do not wish to look at what is actually involved in having them things everywhere. And the costs will keep rising, at the same rate, which is an incredibly steeper rate than Sellafield.

Yet you are comparing the upcoming mess as something that CAN be solved, like the mess that is Sellafield? Tell you this much, if as much money had been spent on research into nuclear waste disposal instead of being pissed away on whining about it, nuclear waste would not be a problem. And now that sort of money, and more, is being pissed away on the few who do make "money for nothing" as the whole scam is based on a fantasy based on the demands of a watermelon minority, and for what? More costs, more environmental damage, more toxic waste than you'll ever see at Sellafield (cunningly hidden behind a Great Wall of Silence), all in the name of faux-green "technology" and a twisted ideal that somehow making sure electricity prices are at "luxury" levels "coz it's eco, innit" is somehow actually "progress".


Last edited by hellsbrink; 10th Feb 2013 at 11:53.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 12:44
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 170
I just got a postcard thru the door from a compant called FCC Environment.

I've never hear of them.

"Changes to Lillyhall Landfill"
...planning application which seeks to change current operations at its Lillyhall landfill site on the outskirts of Distington..."

including: yes, wait for it ....

"" Assessing the site's suitability to safely dispose of low level radioactive waste""

HELLO HELLO HELLO is there anyone intelligent out there HELLOOOOOO

yes - radioactive waste in a landfill site which is sitting on several small streams and ...

ohhhhhh ukit I really have lost the will to live
G&T ice n slice is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 12:58
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
And with a depression over the Irish Sea of 992mB (or hectopascalls or whatever) and a windspeed at Lyneham of 18mph (probably not that untypical), wind is only 3.65 GW. About 8% of demand and how much has the currently installed wind power cost?
radeng is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 13:05
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 76
Posts: 807
Orkney can generate lots of energy but cannot export enough of it
ricardian is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 13:23
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
On 16 October 2008 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced that the Act would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050.

From April 2010..

Climate Change Act has the biggest ever bill - Telegraph

The Energy Minister, Ed Miliband, at the opening of a wind farm Photo: PA

By Christopher Booker

6:32PM BST 03 Apr 2010

One of the best-kept secrets of British politics – although it is there for all to see on a Government website – is the cost of what is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. Every year between now and 2050, acccording to Ed Miliband's Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act is to cost us all up to £18.3 billion – £760 for every household in the country – as we reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent.

Last Thursday – with northern Britain again under piles of global warming – another tranche of regulations came into force, as this measure begins to take effect. New road tax rules mean that to put a larger, more CO2 -emitting car on the road will now cost £950. New "feed-in" subsidies for small-scale "renewables" mean that the installers of solar panels will be paid up to eight times the going rate for their miserable amount of electricity to be fed into the grid, with the overall bill for this scheme estimated eventually to be billions a year.

Not the least bizarre of the Government's strategies, however, is Decc's new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, requiring up to 30,000 of our largest energy users, such as ministries, councils, universities, hospitals, supermarket chains (and even "monasteries and nunneries"), to pay to register with the Environment Agency. Some 5,000 of them, using more than "6,000 megawatt hours" of electricity each year (equivalent to the needs of 1,250 homes), will then have to carry out a cumbersome audit of their carbon footprint, using "three different metrics", in order to pay £12 for each ton of CO2 they emit – at a total initial cost estimated at £1.4 billion a year. This will eventually be contributed by all of us, either through taxes or, for instance, whenever we visit Tesco.

Even the 25,000 remaining non-participants in the scheme will still have to pay, between them, some £9.75 million to register with the Environment Agency, doubtless so they can be brought into the net at a later date. Meanwhile, as indicated by Decc's 100-page Carbon User's Guide, the "carbon efficiency" performance of the 5,000 participants will place them in an annual league table, with the worst performers having to pay cash penalties, to be given as bonuses to those at the top.

In return for the millions paid to the agency in registration and annual "subsistence" fees, it is hiring an army of officials to carry out audits, to ensure that no one is cheating. Anyone who incorrectly records emissions or fails to submit the stacks of necessary documentation in time will be fined £5,000 plus £500 a day, doubled after 40 days, with unlimited fines or up to two years in jail for more serious offences.

Recent studies show that, even though the first stage of this unbelievably complex scheme came into force on April Fools' Day, more than half the enterprises liable to sign up are not yet aware of what is required of them – so the Government could be looking forward to a huge additional income from those fines.

Once the scheme is established, of course, the idea is that, in future, the total amount of CO2 emitted will be capped, pushing the cost of each ton of CO2 even higher. All this and much more, such as the £100 billion the Government wants to see spent on useless wind farms, is designed to reduce Britain's CO2 emissions within 40 years to where they were in the early 19th century.

Since we contribute less than 2 per cent of global emissions, while China continues to build a new coal-fired power station every week, these empty getures will do nothing to reduce the world's overall "carbon footprint". Not that this makes any difference to global warming anyway – but at least it will give the Government billions more pounds of our money, while we still have any of it left.

Last edited by stuckgear; 10th Feb 2013 at 13:24.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 13:48
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Delta of Venus
Posts: 395
At a party a few years ago i was engaged into a conversation with one of the "Green" types (Complete with bushy beard and crumpled off white suit) He was totally ignorant to the fact that the best way to control pollution and the use of finite resources was to limit the population. In order to have a quality of life human beings use energy and create filth, and thats a fact of life. He just did not want to see it, only wind turbines and solar panels etc etc... Population control is THE ONLY ultimate answer.
Private jet is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 17:44
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 77
Posts: 487
Population control is THE ONLY ultimate answer.
I seem to remember that Hitler said something like that. I am wondering if you mean a sustainable population?
Sunnyjohn is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 18:14
  #17 (permalink)  
I'll mak siccar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 282
overruled by wee Ecks green gestapo
Does he have a Green Gestapo?

If so, THERE is a vote changer, if I had a vote; and I could have.
Davaar is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 18:55
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Does he have a Green Gestapo?

If so, THERE is a vote changer, if I had a vote; and I could have.
Well, someone is driving the "Great Green Hope" of 80% of energy generated by "Green" methods, and no nuclear whatsoever. What was the total generated in December 2010 again?

Oh, and you still can, if you think about it......
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 19:03
  #19 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
One really does have to be terribly careful with this sort of thing, especially when mentioning lawyers. So here's just a couple of links to a Spanish international company called Acciona which may, or may not, have any connection with wind farms in Britain.

Miriam Gonzalez Durante does however have more than a passing connection with the British deputy prime minister.

Wind turbines

Acciona Appoints Miriam González Durantez as Director, Gets Financial Backing for Mexico Wind Farm

Information is to the effect that the interest has been declared.

Last edited by cavortingcheetah; 10th Feb 2013 at 19:04.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 19:15
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
Private Jet is basically correct. While so many religions so selfishly and irresponsibly oppose birth control, the situation can only get worse.

As far as I am aware, I have no children.......so overpopulatuion isn't down to me!
radeng is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.