Public Inquiry

[father_and_son]

I think you would, when you found out how much noise they can make, close up.

I'm another who LIKES the view of them though, and am all for them, both offshore, and in uninhabited inland sites.

THIS. Close by they can be extremely noisy (and the droning is actually quite unpleasant) so offshore for me every time.

Like some posters on here I think, as a city, we should be among the first to embrace these thing. Why not go the whole way and string tidal barrages between the turbines and double up on the energy input!

 

[Superphil]

Unfortunately if we rely on windfarms for our future energy supply then we will all have our electricity restricted intermittently, with power cuts of undetermined lengths every other day. Then our grandchildren will ask us "When can we have some electricity - I have to go to virtual school today" or whatever. Wind is not the answer, it is a political gesture to keep the green lobby quiet.

As has been researched by scientists, and mentioned elswhere here, there is sufficient guaranteed wind available around the British Isles to ensure a consistent supply for this part of the UKs energy production, at no point has anyone ever said all power should come from wind, but we are (all) missing a trick by not festooning every bit of available coastline with turbines. .

If you are looking for renewables out to sea then look no further than waves and tides, far more reliable and consistent. What we need is a long term energy strategy for this country agreed by all parties, not knee jerk reactions by short-term politicians.

Trouble with wave generation is that the technology struggles to produce, the Rance site in France took over 40 years to return a profit, and had a long term (permanent) negative effect on the local wildlife, silting up the estury and driving out a number of (food) fish speicies. I agree though, it is 100% guaranteed to generate, if only they can improve the technology.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

I'm guessing there's not much to say apart from "they're ugly" or "the view of the ocean is impeded" or some such argument.

Offshore wind farms are one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.

Technology is moving quickly, and in ten years it's possible the winds farms built today will be highly inefficient compared to what could be built. Maybe we should wait 5 years and build the most recent (and most efficient) design. It's hard to know when to 'bite the bullet' to maximise efficiency, but people against windfarms will argue we should wait a bit longer.

 

[Superphil]

Offshore wind farms are one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.

But what are the cheap ways? Nuclear, when you take into account the commisioning, and decommisioning must be ferouciously expensive, gas and coal cost far more in long term damage to the planet than the sum of their parts, tidal seems to be more of a challenge, with costs not really known due to the difficulties getting it to work. Land based wind turbines may be cheaper, but wind is less dependable on land than at sea. Would PV be pound for pound the cheapest method?

 

[Superphil]

With all the current talk about energy generation, why are all new homes built not obliged to have PV, solar water heating and rainwater recovery fitted?

PV could add no more than £5K to a new build, solar hot water systems retail for less than £5K fitted, and the components for rainwater recovery systems cost less that £1000. All in all, when taking into account quantities of scale, every single new house built could have all three fitted for well under £10K, making a minimal impact on the cost of the house to the buyer. Gas, electricity and water bills would be smaller, immediately, and the utility firms would have less demand on their supplies, thus reducing some of the need for new power plants, water pumping stations etc.

 

[Hotchilidog]

With all the current talk about energy generation, why are all new homes built not obliged to have PV, solar water heating and rainwater recovery fitted?

PV could add no more than £5K to a new build, solar hot water systems retail for less than £5K fitted, and the components for rainwater recovery systems cost less that £1000. All in all, when taking into account quantities of scale, every single new house built could have all three fitted for well under £10K, making a minimal impact on the cost of the house to the buyer. Gas, electricity and water bills would be smaller, immediately, and the utility firms would have less demand on their supplies, thus reducing some of the need for new power plants, water pumping stations etc.

Totally agree. With new builds this stuff should be absolutely standard.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

With all the current talk about energy generation, why are all new homes built not obliged to have PV, solar water heating and rainwater recovery fitted?

PV could add no more than £5K to a new build, solar hot water systems retail for less than £5K fitted, and the components for rainwater recovery systems cost less that £1000. All in all, when taking into account quantities of scale, every single new house built could have all three fitted for well under £10K, making a minimal impact on the cost of the house to the buyer. Gas, electricity and water bills would be smaller, immediately, and the utility firms would have less demand on their supplies, thus reducing some of the need for new power plants, water pumping stations etc.

You've got my vote on this!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

While renewable energy is great, nuclear fusion is the future of energy - so we probably shouldn't invest TOO heavily in technologies that will become obsolete in a matter of decades.

There is going to be NO WIND in the future!?

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

With all the current talk about energy generation, why are all new homes built not obliged to have PV, solar water heating and rainwater recovery fitted?

PV could add no more than £5K to a new build, solar hot water systems retail for less than £5K fitted, and the components for rainwater recovery systems cost less that £1000. All in all, when taking into account quantities of scale, every single new house built could have all three fitted for well under £10K, making a minimal impact on the cost of the house to the buyer. Gas, electricity and water bills would be smaller, immediately, and the utility firms would have less demand on their supplies, thus reducing some of the need for new power plants, water pumping stations etc.

Most new housing is required to meet Code 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes however this is dictated at a District Council level for private developments, Brighton are requiring that all new housing meets Code 6 (zero carbon) by 2016. The issue is the old housing stock.

I do agree that the Government should but in place a national level requirement but they would get lambasted by developers for stifling house building.

 

[beorhthelm]

But what are the cheap ways? Nuclear, when you take into account the commisioning, and decommisioning must be ferouciously expensive, gas and coal cost far more in long term damage to the planet than the sum of their parts,

Nuclear is not so bad when you account for the full life cycle. the costs are over budgeted because of decommissioning that is unnecessarily expensive. one school of thought is you shut them down, encase them in concreate until another era when theres technology to cope with it. yes, pass it on to the next generation, everyone throws their hands in the air, but the current method is to bury it with unknown consequences and the sites arent reused anyway. now, there is an alternative that we really should explore and thats Thorium reactors. safer (so alot cheaper to build) and the waste is recycled back into the reactor. can even "burn" up all the current nuclear prgramme waste. what would be great is if we put a few billion into researching this and become a world leader in the tech (like we did in first generation of nuclear...)

on coal/gas, the main issue is efficiency, and there are apparently great stides forward in this area. but EU has deemed you cant even build coal anymore (or impose taxes to make it uneconomical) and the last one we tried to build here was binned by a certin labour minister now leader.

With all the current talk about energy generation, why are all new homes built not obliged to have PV, solar water heating and rainwater recovery fitted?

agree, mind boggling that this wasnt taken up when they introduced FIT and other policies or why its not done now.

 

[Superphil]

I do agree that the Government should but in place a national level requirement but they would get lambasted by developers for stifling house building.

That was my point though, it wouldn't stiffle anything, the extra cost, in the scheme of things, is minimal, and it would even create jobs, and increase the profitability for the developers. It would be a positive thing for EVERYONE except the Electricity and Gas suppliers*

*Ah, there's the rub.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

No, my garden isn't 8 (eight) miles offshore.

My neighbour 10 doors down has one & neither is he

 

[ropey9]

Waste of money, massive carbon footprint and not a single power station will have a reduction in capacity no matter how many of these monstrosities are erected.

It takes approx. 9 years to recover the carbon footprint of manufacture and installation of land based wind turbines, God knows how much more this is for offshore. When the typical lifespan is 20 years, then its not making very much sense.

Germany one of the world leaders of wind energy with in excess of 23K wind turbines have for the past decade been building new conventional power stations.

Rated output vs reality is approx 25% and due to frequent mechanical failure and poor operational tolerances this is often lower.

Energy companies, government, wind energy proponents will skew the numbers to make it all look marvelous. As far as I can tell the only benefit of wind turbines is that it employs people, I would suggest that these cause more environmental issues then they resolve.

 

[The Large One]

Waste of money, massive carbon footprint and not a single power station will have a reduction in capacity no matter how many of these monstrosities are erected.

It takes approx. 9 years to recover the carbon footprint of manufacture and installation of land based wind turbines, God knows how much more this is for offshore. When the typical lifespan is 20 years, then its not making very much sense.

Germany one of the world leaders of wind energy with in excess of 23K wind turbines have for the past decade been building new conventional power stations.

Rated output vs reality is approx 25% and due to frequent mechanical failure and poor operational tolerances this is often lower.

Energy companies, government, wind energy proponents will skew the numbers to make it all look marvelous. As far as I can tell the only benefit of wind turbines is that it employs people, I would suggest that these cause more environmental issues then they resolve.

Thanks for the balanced view. We'll put you down as undecided.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Waste of money, massive carbon footprint and not a single power station will have a reduction in capacity no matter how many of these monstrosities are erected.

It takes approx. 9 years to recover the carbon footprint of manufacture and installation of land based wind turbines, God knows how much more this is for offshore. When the typical lifespan is 20 years, then its not making very much sense.

Germany one of the world leaders of wind energy with in excess of 23K wind turbines have for the past decade been building new conventional power stations.

Rated output vs reality is approx 25% and due to frequent mechanical failure and poor operational tolerances this is often lower.

Energy companies, government, wind energy proponents will skew the numbers to make it all look marvelous. As far as I can tell the only benefit of wind turbines is that it employs people, I would suggest that these cause more environmental issues then they resolve.

Thanks for the balanced view. We'll put you down as undecided.

This was rather my point about not being able to form an opinion because I can't seem to get the facts. Rather than being facetious (and remember facetious can be funny - R. Brand) perhaps you'd be good enough Alan to critique Mr. Ropey9's post and point out its inaccuracies.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I quite like them.

 

[TSB]

While renewable energy is great, nuclear fusion is the future of energy - so we probably shouldn't invest TOO heavily in technologies that will become obsolete in a matter of decades.

If it ever works...