Ossy Moor wind farm

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

On the contrary, they should be charged for having all that state property they haven't paid for.

We really will have to start saving for a rainy day if that's the case
If Cameron had his way we'd be charge on the off chance it might rain.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

You know as well I as do it's all about money at the end of the day.
How long before being self sufficient is made illegal?
I believe in the states water from the sky is deemed state property,anyone know if it's the same here?
If it is have those effected by floods got a claim against the state?

So their concerns about energy and being green are all lies?
Well, I never!

[Karateman]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I know here are some who think they are beautiful and majestic, but I hate them!
They are inefficient and stop us looking at other ways of producing energy....they make money only for those who make them, and those whose land they stand on...for the consumer they haven't reduced the price of energy......and really that is what the customer wants.
We have used less gas and electricty overall and yet my bill has gone up. How does that work for me...the answer is it doesn't...pay more get less. it is a joke...except I'm not laughing!

Here! Here!

I cant understand how using less energy is cheaper, like someone said, if we use less energy the bills would go down so the profits are less.....so they put the prices up to keep the profits up.....obvious really

[Karateman]

Our bills will never go down no matter what the politicians say. There is too much money to be made from what ever energy is used. Be it in grants from the Government to land owners, to companies producing solar power or fracking or whatever, the money made from the energy, is never more than the cost to produce it and the difference always comes from the tax payer and if there is money over after the energy has been sold it goes into the fat cats pockets or shareholders

Fracking for gas seems to be the new kid on the block which will be cheaper to produce and which should give us lower bills, but after the adding in the grants to companies producing it and the large rents charged by the land owners for allowing it on their land, not to mention all the money given to local authorities for letting them frack in their area we are back to large bills to pay for it all.
We will never ever win

and to quote a lovely lady on here....it is a joke...except I'm not laughing either!

[maxthecollie]

Originally Posted by Karateman

Our bills will never go down no matter what the politicians say. There is too much money to be made from what ever energy is used. Be it in grants from the Government to land owners, to companies producing solar power or fracking or whatever, the money made from the energy, is never more than the cost to produce it and the difference always comes from the tax payer and if there is money over after the energy has been sold it goes into the fat cats pockets or shareholders

Fracking for gas seems to be the new kid on the block which will be cheaper to produce and which should give us lower bills, but after the adding in the grants to companies producing it and the large rents charged by the land owners for allowing it on their land, not to mention all the money given to local authorities for letting them frack in their area we are back to large bills to pay for it all.
We will never ever win

and to quote a lovely lady on here....it is a joke...except I'm not laughing either!

And the voids were the gas come from will fill with water and we will have more sink holes

[Neil]

Originally Posted by maxthecollie

And the voids were the gas come from will fill with water and we will have more sink holes

Or will we have better drainage so less flooding?

[DAV007]

Is there anyone with half a brain (so i wont bother including the far left green party in the debate) who think wind farms make any sense?

[westendlass]

Teletubbies?

[Guinness]

Me!

[Guinness]

They make sense because they are better than using radioactive elements with a half life of a thousand years, god alone knows what legacy we are handing down with all the crap we are burying or dumping in the sea.

The 'blot on the landscape argument doesn't hold water either..many who have posted on this thread with that argument have also posted on the flood plain thread arguing that 'people should just move'

It's sustainable and it's free at the point of contact.......just because energy companies continually rip us off doesn't take away from the fact that it is a relatively cheap and clean form of power.

I'd rather see a bank of turbines on a hill than a nuclear power plant any day of the week

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Guinness

It's sustainable and it's free at the point of contact.......just because energy companies continually rip us off doesn't take away from the fact that it is a relatively cheap and clean form of power.

I'd rather see a bank of turbines on a hill than a nuclear power plant any day of the week

The energy companies get big subsidies to build them, that is not their fault, it is this and previous governments who stitched us up with energy and CO2 reduction policies that forced them to bribe companies to build them quickly.

The reason they often stand still is also not there fault but due to the way gas and coal fired power stations work. You can't just turn off a gas or coal fired (not sure about nuclear without googling). They guess what the power demand will be during the day and ramp up and down the gas/coal power stations as they guessed. If demand is lower than expected they still pay for the wind power as they are contracted to do but they don't actually need it so they stop the turbines. It does sound a little odd but thats the way the power generation works unfortunately.

[Margaret Pilkington]

No, these monstrosities are very inefficient at providing energy. The wind doesn't always blow...and when it does it may be either too strong or too weak for the turbines to be active
They make money(they are much more efficient at doing that than they are at producing energy)...but only for those on whose land they stand and those who make the blasted things.

There are other options for green energy if the government really wanted us to be producing green energy.

Every house could be fitted with solar panals...the ones which produce energy from light....any level of light.
If the government wanted to make it easy they could give grants...or maybe even loans to be offset by the money levied from any extra energy that was produced by each home...and that went to the national grid.

We are an island with a very long coastline....tides are regular and powerful.
Energy could be produced from wave power.
I am of the opinion that those who are currently producing and selling us our power are in some sort of cahoots so that other forms of eco energy are not invested in(I know another conspiracy thing - but it would make perfect sense)or researched and resourced.

All this talk about global warming is unconvincing. Many of the edicts about how we produce energy to use come from the EU.
Isn't it a bit odd how some of our energy producers are from Europe? Wouldn't they lose out if we decided that we would not follow EU edicts about producing our own energy?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

No, these monstrosities are very inefficient at providing energy. The wind doesn't always blow...and when it does it may be either too strong or too weak for the turbines to be active......

How are you defining and calculating efficiency? If you are talking in the same way as gas/coal fired it would be energy put in compared to energy coming out of the power station. We only care about the efficiency because the fuel costs money and the exhaust waste is polluting to the atmosphere. Don't forget about how the fuel is transported to the power station - train, truck, pipeline etc all of which use energy to transport.
With wind turbines the fuel is wind and is free, clean and non polluting. Does there efficiency matter however it's calculated?
Yes they don't run all the time but when they do they are preventing coal/gas being burnt so that must be good or do you not agree that burning less fossil fuel is a good thing?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Of course their efficiency matters.
Would you operate a car that had appalling fuel efficiency?
How are energy costs ever going to come down without having efficient ways of producing energy?

When these things were going to be erected...and there were representatives in the town centre trying to justify their being put into place. I had done a lot of research into the efficiency. I had it all written down on paper, because of this I didn't commit the figure to memory. I have just had a look for it and cannot find it. I reckon I threw it out in one of my 'flinging sessions'......or I may have thrown it in disgust when these turbines were put up. They were there, and all my research was not required anymore.
My figures certainly weren't going to get them dismantled....so Neil, I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I do remember thinking that they were not worth the effort(in terms of efficiency, that is).

I really don't care how our energy is produced, so long as it is efficient and costs can be brought down.
Remember energy costs affect everything that we buy.

Do you think China(one of the biggest polluters in the world) is concerned about green energy or global warming.
The UK produes less than 2% of global carbon emissions and we seem to be trying to compensate for those in the world who produce carbon gases willy nilly.

[Margaret Pilkington]

This report is from the Telegraph and dates from last August.

The wind farms that generate enough power to make a few cups of tea - Telegraph

I had at least an A4 size page of references as to how inefficient wind turbines are....so the stuff is out there for anyone who wants to find it.