Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Give up on Wind Farms they are useless Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are better ways to produce electricity.

    The only thing wind farm production does is profit industrialists and engineers who make and design the steel parts.

    Consider -
    Wind farms produce very little electricity
    Wind farms use up electricity from the grid to heat themselves when its cold
    Wind farms cannot be operated in high winds
    Wind farm electricity cannot be stored for later use
    Wind farm subsidies make electricity more expensive for everyone else.
    Wind farms are a blot on the landscape
    Wind farms kill birds including rare Eagles

    Surely it's time to admit wind farms are totally useless and we should stop building more and subsidising existing ones?

    Does anyone know of a politician who is going to stand up and demand this?

    This is the season for quizzes. So *fingers on buzzers, here’s your starter for ten. In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind *turbines supply to the *National Grid?

    Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

    Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

    Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind
    turbines has been precisely nothing.

    It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

    Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

    At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.

    To make matters worse, there is no way of storing the electricity generated on the rare occasions when they are working.

    Yet the Government is ploughing ahead with plans to erect 12,500 of these War Of The Worlds windmills in the sea and across our green and pleasant. Some of them will be up to three times the size of the present structures.

    Every time I drive up to North Norfolk, another crop of turbines has sprouted from the soil, disfiguring the scenery for miles around.

    Swaffham, the picturesque location of Stephen Fry’s TV series Kingdom, is virtually surrounded. None of them ever seems to be turning. They just stand there, ominously, like invaders from outer space laying siege to the town.

    Billions of pounds are being wasted on these worse-than-useless blots on the landscape. We’d be *better off spending the money on snow ploughs.

    While we’re on the subject of snow, Britain’s most tenacious ‘climate change denier’ Christopher Booker, occasionally of this parish, has just revealed the real reason why this country was so ill-prepared for the Arctic weather.

    Airports, rail operators and local authorities all subscribe to the Met Office’s long-term forecasts. And over the past few years, the Met Office has become evangelical about ‘man-made global warming’.

    Every weather forecast is now extruded through the prism of so-called climate change, even when all evidence points to the fact that the Earth is actually getting colder.

    The Met Office’s predictions are based on a computer model which assumes ever-rising temperatures — so much so that it forecast that this winter would be significantly milder than the past two years.

    Even though the winters of 2008 and 2009 were ferociously cold, they were dismissed as ‘random events’. The Met Office put the odds on a third harsh winter no higher than 20-1.

    Those responsible for keeping our transport network running were stupid enough to swallow this bogus, optimistic forecast, and consequently failed to make proper provision for the blizzards which duly followed.

    This, of course, was the same Met Office which predicted a ‘barbecue summer’ shortly before Britain was hit by gales and widespread flooding.

    For this wildly inaccurate and deliberately skewed service, the British taxpayer is
    charged a staggering £200million a year.

    Needless to say, the head of the Met Office is not even a weatherman. He’s a leading ‘climate change activist’ who buys into the propaganda pumped out by the fanatics at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — exposed for blatantly suppressing evidence which contradicts their messianic belief in *‘global warming’.

    Back in 2000, the CRU’s Dr David Viner told The Independent that winter snowfalls would soon be a thing of the past.

    ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he predicted confidently.
    Even when they are proved wrong, the warmists will never admit it. They simply move the goalposts — which is how global warming morphed into ‘climate change’.

    You can’t argue with them. That’s because ‘climate change’ isn’t a *science, it’s a religion. Sceptics are trashed as heretics.

    The climate change lobby is a curious mix of cultists and cynical opportunists. As I write, Sky News is spotlighting a project on Humberside aimed at brainwashing *children into believing that wind is the fuel of the future.

    Call Me Dave bangs on about all the jobs which will be created by the ‘green economy’ — ignoring the fact that almost all Britain’s wind turbines are built and installed by foreign firms.

    The defining characteristic of all fanatics is that they have no sense of the ridiculous.
    According to the BBC, Town Halls across the country have been appealing to owners of 4x4s to offer lifts to ‘essential staff’ during the cold snap.

    These would be the same 4x4s which these very same councils want to ban, because they cause global warming and kill polar bears.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    Let them slip and slither their way into work. I shall be saddling up the SUV and tilting at windmills.
    Source.


    Please don't post to this thread saying it doesn't matter, every little bit helps in the fight against global warming, if you don't pay your own electricity bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Geothermal Plants seem the best free energy, weakness is they aint cheap to setup
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I will start worrying about 'global warming' when the government stop trying to push a stanstead expansion, and when UEA professors stop manipulating data.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't feed the troll.

    Littlejohn is an ignorant ****. If you actually believe a word he ****ing says, you are a moron. End of.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Lad)
    Don't feed the troll.

    Littlejohn is an ignorant ****. If you actually believe a word he ****ing says, you are a moron. End of.
    I pressed your button. Let's do it again!

    Primary school forced to turn off wind turbine after bird deaths
    A primary school has been forced to switch off a £20,000 wind turbine because it keeps killing passing seabirds.

    9:45AM BST 04 Jul 2010

    The rotary blades on the 30ft (9m) structure have struck at least 14 birds in the past six months.

    The turbine, at Southwell Community Primary School, Portland, was installed 18 months ago thanks to a grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

    It provided six kilowatts of power an hour, but its performance was overshadowed by the number of birds killed - far higher than the one fatality per year predicted by the manufacturer.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by mathperson)
      I will start worrying about 'global warming' when the government stop trying to push a stanstead expansion, and when UEA professors stop manipulating data.
      This. It's just political propaganda.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaVyIYotTdI
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw

      They aren't the best
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Green propaganda

      * Kills thousands of rare birds

      * Kills pensioners by raising electricity prices and dropping more in fuel poverty

      * Kills rainforests to make space for Carbon-lite biofuel crops

      * Kills third world hungry by raising food prices because food crops have been turned over to biofuel production

      * Enriches bankers who now can call themselves "Carbon Traders" on the EU carbon emissions stock exchange

      * Enriches large industrialists who engineer the white elephants of the "green economy"

      Green propaganda is the hobby of Prince Charles.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by twl)
      There are better ways to produce electricity.

      The only thing wind farm production does is profit industrialists and engineers who make and design the steel parts.

      Consider -
      Wind farms produce very little electricity
      Wind farms use up electricity from the grid to heat themselves when its cold
      Wind farms cannot be operated in high winds
      Wind farm electricity cannot be stored for later use
      Wind farm subsidies make electricity more expensive for everyone else.
      Wind farms are a blot on the landscape
      Wind farms kill birds including rare Eagles
      Please give me a credible source on the production of electricity from wind turbines

      Again, please give me a credible source that shows that wind farms use electricity from the grid, and also please cite something which shows that electricity usage from the grid in this situation is worse than if the wind turbine had not existed. Is it beneficial?

      Why can't they be operated in high winds? Forgive me, but if that were a problem, it would be easy to correct this problem.

      There are a few solutions to the lack of storing ability in the pipeline.

      Prove that wind farms increase general electricity bills. And if so, does that not encourage people to change over to renewable energy?

      skyscrapers, houses, shops, the ominous yellow glow from street lamps, cars, smoke etc are all a blot on the landscape. Only difference being, wind turbines are probably LESS dangerous than ANY of them!!!

      I'm sure we can protect birds from being caught up in the turbine by installing mesh casings. That might also control the amount of wind which gets through. But overall, birds will learn to adapt. And they face much harsher manmade problems which destroy their habitats
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      There was a time when the car was deemed utterly useless and a waste of time and money.

      I think that since proved a decent invention.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      wind farms are the future.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      Hey, you know what else kills birds?

      Oil spills and deforestation! :awesome:
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      I agree with this, there are way better forms of renewable energy we should be exploiting, but arnt. For example there is over 10000 miles of coastline in this country, so wave and tidal power is what we should really be investing in. Totally clean and renewable, far cheaper, more efficient and predictable than wind power, and it doesnt ruin the scenery either.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      There is a genuine issue that windfarms provide a very variable output that cannot be controlled. However while they are developing tech i dont think we should give up on them yet. No other type of elec can be stored any better than wind and there are methods, including large stores of compressed air which is then expelled, with a small amount of liquid fuel, through a turbine which is looking like a fav. Pumped water storage also exists.


      Daniel
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#SummaryPage

      Look at the "Generation By Fuel Type (graph)" chart. Wind is utterly useless.

      Wind Farms are a way for the government to subsidise large land owners and the Crown Estate.
      Wind Farms are a scam that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor who cannot afford the rocketing heating bills.
      Wind Farms are only supported by one other group: spoiled children who've never looked at an electricity bill in their lives.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by twl)
      http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#SummaryPage

      Look at the "Generation By Fuel Type (graph)" chart. Wind is utterly useless.

      Wind Farms are a way for the government to subsidise large land owners and the Crown Estate.
      Wind Farms are a scam that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor who cannot afford the rocketing heating bills.
      Wind Farms are only supported by one other group: spoiled children who've never looked at an electricity bill in their lives.
      I'm sure we could generate a lot of power by putting a wind farm in front of your mouth.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by twl)
      There are better ways to produce electricity.
      I'm a physics undergrad and I did my junior honors project on wind power technology, so I know a little bit about it.

      What better ways are there to generate electricity?
      1.6% isn't that small of a proportion, and 3150 wind turbines is a relatively small number.

      Importantly, that 1.6% is the fraction of power supplied to national grid. A lot of wind turbine power goes directly to being used, and so never sees the grid, so they have a lot more effect than this 1.6% makes it sound. Other power sources (eg coal) always go all through the grid, whereas lots of wind power doesn't go through the grid, so looking at 'percentage of power supplied to grid' is misleading.


      (Original post by Greenlaner)
      I agree with this, there are way better forms of renewable energy we should be exploiting, but arnt. For example there is over 10000 miles of coastline in this country, so wave and tidal power is what we should really be investing in. Totally clean and renewable, far cheaper, more efficient and predictable than wind power, and it doesnt ruin the scenery either.
      Tidal power isn't "totally clean". You have to mine the metal to make it out of, use carbon to transport the turbines around, use carbon to plant them in the ground, to maintain them, etc. No energy source is "totally clean" or "totally free" like I see some people saying in this thread.
      The big disadvantage is it stops shipping in that area, and it is difficult and expensive to install and maintain them, since they are out at sea. I do think that the sea and wind (you can put wind turbines off-shore as well, remember!) are probably the best truly natural resource Britain has, and we should use them more.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by mathperson)
      I will start worrying about 'global warming' when the government stop trying to push a stanstead expansion, and when UEA professors stop manipulating data.
      If you were actually in the know you would realise the "trick" that caused the media sensation was ironically (given your name) a mathematical trick (read: mathematical method) used to replicate environmental conditions accurately, i.e. if they wanted to get any data vaguely correct then you have to use these methods. The UEA data was fine, the method in which it was presented to the public, wasn't. Look up the Method of images, it's also a mathematical "trick" that's perfectly valid and commonly used.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by M_E_X)
      I'm a physics undergrad and I did my junior honors project on wind power technology, so I know a little bit about it.

      What better ways are there to generate electricity?
      1.6% isn't that small of a proportion, and 3150 wind turbines is a relatively small number.

      Importantly, that 1.6% is the fraction of power supplied to national grid. A lot of wind turbine power goes directly to being used, and so never sees the grid, so they have a lot more effect than this 1.6% makes it sound. Other power sources (eg coal) always go all through the grid, whereas lots of wind power doesn't go through the grid, so looking at 'percentage of power supplied to grid' is misleading.
      My objection is not to the one or two turbines dotted about - stick a rotar on your own house if you want (as long as I don't have to pay for it) - but to the industrial scale electricity bill payer subsidised Wind Farms which go to the grid. As the link showed you Wind Farms are useless. Individual turbines may be suitable for particular circumstances but these do not include mass generation for factories, towns and cities.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by twl)
      My objection is not to the one or two turbines dotted about - stick a rotar on your own house if you want (as long as I don't have to pay for it) - but to the industrial scale electricity bill payer subsidised Wind Farms which go to the grid. As the link showed you Wind Farms are useless. Individual turbines may be suitable for particular circumstances but these do not include mass generation for factories, towns and cities.
      Why are wind farms useless? The stat you provided about 1.6% to the grid is meaningless, because lots of power generated by wind never sees the grid.

      Soon the coal, gas and oil will run out and we need to find new ways to generate electricity. Wind is a sustainable way to do this. What other ways do you propose?

      I believe that large scale wind power farms are a significant part of our energy solution over the next 50 years.

      e: to clarify, coal, oil and gas are very cheap ways to produce electricity. That is why energy companies choose to use them, they are cheap. Soon they will run out, and we will have to move to other (more expensive!) methods, including wind power, tidal, more nuclear, etc. I don't see why wind power is so 'bad'. When you talk about it being inefficient, what do you mean?
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.