We’re kicking off the energy debate in the Stroud District by pushing for 50% of our energy needs to come from clean, green energy from wind turbines right here in Stroud. We need your help!
It’s an issue we’ve felt passionately about since we were founded here back in 1995. We’ve already proven the viability of the wind energy with one local turbine, so why not more?
Imagine if half of the district’s electricity was completely renewable, actively contributing to the area and supported by local residents…
It was gorgeous, not quite what I expected, guess I should have taken the time to go and look at it properly before huh? having more of them around would be a good thing. They're beautiful.
And I'll take more turbines in Glos over a nuclear power station anyday.
But how about a nice nuclear power station in your yard instead?
The soft purring of their velvet arms stroking the heavens is soothing to say the least. Awe inspiring pieces of technology.
It's time the Nympsfield turbine had some younger brothers.
little or no noise and look pretty good to boot.
I'm pretty sure nobody likes the way pylons or motorways look, but those are near people's houses due to necessity. Same with turbines, the only difference is some people like the look of turbines
(Correct me if I've misunderstood you TR!)
1/ dont forget electric is a luxury good
2/ other metods of making elecric which are also green and of course non green
How would you like that?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/08August/Pages/Arewindfarmsahealthrisk.aspx
I think they look great by the way.
Still, if it helps poeple in Stroud feel better and allows the investors a handsome subsidised and guaranteed return then I guess we just have to let capitalism and the free market do it's worst!
Personally, i think demand managemnt, coupled with relaible sources such as hydro, tidal and solar are a much better bet than these polluting monsters. Unfortunately, ecotricty only have a financial interest in wind, and so we won't see anything about alternatives on here.
Capacity factor is a function of available wind resource and is not a 'fault' with the technology as some claim it to be.
If you look at the measure of total electricity production per turbine you can see a huge increase as the turbines get larger.
As an example you could build 2 turbines the same size, one with a 2MW generator and one with a 1MW generator. The turbine with the 1MW generator would have a much higher capacity factor (~50%) than the 2MW machine (~30%) but would deliver far less electricity (about 30% less) if you went further and sized the generator at 500kW you would get an even higher capacity factor (~62%) but you would generate less than half the amount of electricity as the original 2MW turbine.
As you say yourself will be using a combination of renewable energy sources together In a 100% renewable virtual power plant described here wind delivers 61% of the final electricity demand.
The UK has the best wind resource in Europe and the wind imports itself.
Two things...
You seem to refer to turbines as "polluting monsters". As I don't think I've ever heard of turbines called 'pollutants' is there any chance this comment could be explained/proved??
Dale Vince has repeatedly said he is interesting in persuing other sources of renewable energy. But, as Ecotricity's expertise lies in windpower and as the UK's potential for wind power hasn't been reached it's logical that focus is needed for the moment. Especially when considering that Ecotricity are still a growing company and so would suffer if it was found to be spreading it's resources too thin.
If only I had the money...
The problem is that if you're not getting your elec from a green supplier your money is going towards "traditional" methods of generating electricity (or to be more precise it's going into the pockets of the heads of the companies which favour the "traditional" methods).
And as for noise I'd suggest you visit a turbine rather than watching a video... something which Ecotricity have made possible. I think you'd be suprised!
It's a win win situation, art and re-newable power all in one. Bring it on.
Great idea by Scooba having kids design them... Maybe there could be one winning design from each of the local schools?
Either way I think this is a brilliant idea. I really hope that people gt behind this. Stroud prides itself on being green... It's about time it proved it!
This is a mature (if a bit heated) discussion, and I'm pretty sure nobody needs to be told to "grow up"
Paul
How does your conscience square the idea of blighting people's lives by building an inefficient form of renewable energy, to make one man richer?
call themselves 'environmentally friendly'.
2nd Other cheaper ways of making electricity allready exsist
The only thing we "need" motorways in the UK for is transporting produce... generally things that would be impossible to make (or make in such large quantities) or keep fresh. Without electricity we'd struggle to even make use of motorways.
Yes there are other ways of making electricity but providing you follow the belief that Climate Change will cause (possibly irreparable) damage to the world then you morally have to rule out things like Coal & Natural Gas power... and in my opinion there's no point allowing ourselves to simply replace our CO2 problems with nuclear waste problems so that would rule out Nuclear power. The majority of other possible solutions are the ones we should be looking into... that includes, but does not solely comprise of, Wind power.
What we need to do is use alternative routes with electricity as well, and then we won't have to live without it.
I, like TR, would much rather trial a week, month, whatever, without motorways rather than electricity.
I think you would answer 'yes'..
So, clearly you are one of these stubborn types who is never happy, nor can anybody please.
Why are the turbines such a bad idea?
I look forward to your argument.
....oh and the name 'Stroudy' - clearly not a true Stroudy... you're not as eco-aware as real Stroudy's by the sounds of things...
And by the way, to be green and living in or near Stroud is not the only criterion for claiming the name Stroudy!
I dont think wind turbines are the whole answer to our electricity supply but they are part of it - and thats why I m thinking this is 50:50 not 100:100!
Also please see article relating to how much energy was produced by wind turbines in Spain: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcb2e3dc-09c4-11de-add8-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Also might be worth reading this article by the National Grid, i think it is quite self explanatory:
"National Grid has today released a major new report debunking the myth that the variability of wind energy means that planned increases in renewables capacity will require a similar increase in fossil fuel-based backup capacity."
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2244492/national-grid-takes-wind-energy
have fun!
Enjoy looking at that. :)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/uk-blackouts-2016.php
yes maybe im being a little melodramatic, but people need power and the way forward is wind. The nympsfield turbine does give me a little joy everytime i see it which is often as i live near by. More more more!! :-)
what is on the land at the moment? nothing, im sure. so why dont we all make better use of it? do you have any other suggestions for the land?
BN
I do think that this is an initial "foray" into whether the people of Stroud would like 50% of it's energy from renewables... but if Nick means that they haven't done much research into the Berkeley Vale site then that's not correct. You only have to look at the planning application on the council website to see they've done loads of research. And check out Ecotricity's website... every site they have seems to have been thoroughly researched and investigated before constructing anything
i would rather my children grow up around wind turbines than a nuclear power station.
i think this wind turbine syndrome is a bit far fetched - sounds like hypocondriacs to me :)
A good idea...have ecotricity thought about this?
also a turbine, like the ones proposed at Berkeley Vale, take 3 months to pay back CO2 emitted during all the processes you name.
anyway here is some more info about wind efficiency and capacity:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file17821.pdf
what would be an acceptable efficiency to you?
do you have a car? that is 5% efficient and i would say the majority of the country are happy with that (that is taking into account the main purpose of a car is to move your body from a to b)
EON figures are that for eery 10MW of wind, 9MW of reliable capacity (coal, gas, oil, nuclear, tidal, hydro) is needed.
We wanted to jump in at this juncture to answer a few questions and give our thoughts on some of the issues raised thus far.
- Our Stinchcombe proposal is still at an early stage. When we have more details we’ll hold a series of consultation events in the area. It has been mentioned in this thread that the turbines would be 300m from housing. Proposed turbine locations have yet to be finalised but they will be more than 400m from housing. @Sarah and @Sue (or anyone else whose interested) – we have a mailing list of people who we’re keeping in contact with as things progress which we can add you to if you want to drop a line to berkeley-vale@ecotricity.co.uk.
- Wind Turbine Syndrome [WTS] is an alleged condition proposed by pediatrician Dr Nina Pierpoint. Her study is presented as medical research but falls well short of scientific rigour, it’s infact ‘bad science’ which only serves to scaremonger – it’s self published (she’s never had anything published in a peer reviewed medical journal) and has been widely discredited by both the medical establishment and noise specialists.
This is research based on the symptoms of 38 unspecified people in a small number of unspecified locations. A recent, more extensive study by acousticians at Salford University has concluded that there were no health risks arising from the noise from wind turbines ...
Check out what the NHS has had to say on the WTS ‘research’...
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/08August/Pages/Arewindfarmsahealthrisk.aspx
- @izbee. Not sure where you were told that – that there are no more areas in Stroud District suitable for turbines. We’re sure there’s other sites out there ... Our Berkley Vale site near Stinchcombe is just the best site we’ve found so far.
- @Scooba @TR. Nice idea ... But sadly the planning laws are pretty strict on these kinda things ;0(
- @Dave We’ve got three turbines on the Severn at Avonmouth Docks which we built a few years back. There’s been huge debate around harnessing the power of the Severn to generate electricity. The potential there is not disputed – it’s just how to ‘get it’ with the least impact to local ecology. Interesting article...
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/09/02/severn-estuary-could-solve-uk-s-looming-energy-shortage-91466-24586086/
woohoo!!
do you think enough people will stop this happening?
WTS research is at an early stage, and in the same way that drug and tobacco companies were in denial about product problems ( remember thalidomide?), much more independant research is neededbefore it can be proved that wind farms do not casue WTS and other health problems.
The Salford University research confirmed that amplitude modulation is present at four sites and possibly at eight more intermittently. In addition, rather that the 400 metres that you propose, a number of noise specialists are recommending set back of 2000 metres to avoid the potential for WTS and other effects such as shadow and flicker. This might not fit Ecotricity's business model and planned rate of return on a huge financial deal, but surely it is time we put pople and health before making money?
But these things aren't noisy... I've had the pleasure of visiting one, and stood right underneath it. Couldn't hear a thing, I actually thought it was stopped, until I looked up and saw it spinning away above me!
You're lucky enough to be able visit - i will have no choice at all about suffering 24 hours a day right nect to these monsters...
I know it will be great for the rest of stroud, who can pretend that "something is being done" and even greater for the *** ****** of Wind, Dale, who will no doubt see a few extra million added to his already obscenely large £85 million fortune. But those of us who live here will suffer at the hands of these developers becasue have no choice about visiting - the developers have chosen to visit us! The worst thing is that we even have to subsidise it through our taxes!
I wish I could move to la-la land next door to Xena...
Of course, if they won't proviude such an indemnity against any ill health or other dtrimnetal consquences, then people are free to draw there own conclusions when they say that nothing bad will happen, but aren't prepared to back it.
Who else remembers pharmacutical companies in the 60s and 70s who defended their products until the bitter end...
For what it's worth - I don't think you do yourself or your cause any favours by resorting to such methods of debate. You have tried to associate Ecotricity with thalidamide a couple of times in your comments now. Nasty!
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), while recognised as a method of influencing public opinion, may not be the best strategy in this case.
You have also tried to point out that because Ecotricity has a financial value of £85m (and that therefore Mr Vince as sole director must be 'rich') you go on to propose that because Dale is rich, then anything/everything he (or his company) says must be false. I notice further down the thread you also resort to calling him names.
That, is a classic 'Ad Hom' attack, and indicates that you are unable to provide convincing argument based on fact.
This coupled with your FUD techniques and also referencing statistics and research without providing sources, would all imply that you are clutching at straws or indeed making most of this stuff up as you go along.
Perhaps a less confrontational position might convince others to support your position? It's a shame, as you do actually make some good points elsewhere.
Incidentally - if the wind farm was being proposed by another multi-national energy company like E.ON, or British Gas, rather than the local company Ecotricity - would that be OK by you and the other concerned residents?
These companies are absolutely 100% about profit, have no 'mission' other than to increase shareholder value.
And - if Ecotricity were to pay off the local residents with some kind of subsidy - would that make 'WTS' and other perceived negative impacts go away?
One last thing - if 2000m was the min distance from any residence - I suspect that would rule out most if not all new sites in the UK....
Please stop comparing this to Thalidamide. It's incorrect and totally unfounded, and really isn't helping your argument. May I suggest that you read this before you post further
http://blog.stroud5050.org/2009/10/19/thanks-for-all-the-comments-one-thing-though/
Also, of course no-one is going to complain about turbines located 2000m away from their house... you could barely see them from that distance. And it's rarely possible to put turbines that distance away... with the UK being a relatively densely populated country, it wouldn't leave much free land to put turbines on.
It's hard to prove a negative, and these things often take many years to become apparent, and rather than just dismissing evidience about WTS as "bad science", it might be better if Ecotricity invested some money into independant research. In the meantime, adopting a bigger safety buffer would ensure that health was safeguarded - surely the health of children not too much to ask?
We need to do something!!!! If the NIMBY attitude continues we’re gonna be in trouble!
Eco-pioneer calls for more support for green energy generation
Before I made my mind up as to how I felt however I looked at all facts and it seems completely clear to me that they are just not environmental!
If we actually want to get to protect and save our world we need a two-way strategy:
1) We need to all use much less energy (turbines won't cover us all at this rate if we put them in every space on the planet!)
2) We need to begin trying out new forms of renewable energy RESPONSIBLY!
Although it is difficult to find solid facts it looks increasingly likely that turbines will lead to long-term health damage for those living near them. We should have strict limits about how close they are to housing and try them in appropriate areas. As research becomes more detailed and conclusive, and as the design of turbines becomes less and less intrusive and more and more efficient, then we can consider the future of them.
It's foolish and short sighted to proclaim them as the future before we actually know the facts. That’s got to be common sense?
As it stands I therefore strongly hope that the turbines will not come anywhere near Stinchcombe, if they do I won't be hanging around that's for sure - and I planned to spend the rest of my life here.
Who on Earth gave such a very small amount of people the power to destroy so many lives when those few men have an incredible incentive to ignore the residents - money, and lots of it!
Would be good to clarify a couple of your points - particularly regarding the long term health damage - I would be interested in reading where you have found this information - could you provide a reference? You also say they are not environmental - could you go into anymore detail on this?
I do fully appreciate your comments on not going into something before it has been fully investigated - maybe you should mention this to the nuclear industry (where will they put their waste?) and the coal/ carbon capture (CCS) and storage industry (what is the actual lifecycle of CCS and how big will a CCS plant be?)
Also what further research regarding wind turbines would you be interested in seeing?
I m not sure wind turbines will actually destroy your lives either - lets not make this too Hollywood!!!
The question of alleged health damage has been dealt with in response to a previous answer, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, will you?
And can we assume that "appropriate areas" is equivalent to "not where I live"?
Sadly, most "concerned & green" types won't understand the facts and just point to a wind farm safely far enough away from them and feel that all is well.
What is needed is a concerted energy startegy based on technology that works. Hydro, PV, geo-thermal and nuclear are all renewable sources that are proven and reliable. We need them now, and we need them soon. They are low in enevironmental footprint and close to zero carbon, so I don't understand why so many people here don't have the capacity to grasp the simple facts involved. I can only imagine it must be a fashion thing.
Maybe it's difficult to find the solid facts because there aren't any. Unless of course you really believe the old chaos theory example :)
I do agree with you on one point though... we do seem to give incredible power to a small amount of people who are often swayed by money and greed... that's probably why the big companies in every field get preferencial treatment, and why Wind Turbines (and Renewable Energy as a whole) have taken so long to immerge as a viable source of energy.
I admit to a degree of bias having worked for Ecotricity for the last few years, but I think that we would be in a much better state if such power was shared amongst people and companies with the commitment and drive, and business ethos of Dale and Ecotricity... rather than the fat cats at British Gas, EdF and their links and contacts in the government.
You work for Ecotricity and so you have a massive vested inetrst in trampling on people who get in your way so that Ecotricity can increase their revenue and hence improve their EBITDA, net margins and ROCE. These are vital to get the business to the next level and ready for a capital injection.
I have a vested interest in protecting my children and my home.
You will no doubt be a safe distance from any development as you will have a good deal of prior warning about whwre these developments are - I don't have that same information so I'm stuck trying to save my family from suffering at the hands of developers.
I understand why you have to come on this site - I guess we all need our jobs - but trying to pretend that someone worth £85 million is not a fat cat is just not going to work.
If Ecotricty was owned by the community and listened to poeple then it might have some credibility. Until then, it's just another business owned by one man who wants to extract maximum value from a particular industy sector - once it's ready for sale, the investment bankers will be in and he'll push this to the best vehcle to derive maximum benefit - IPO or maybe a trade sale. But one thing's for sure, money will be made, and it won't by by the people of Stroud.
I, like most people, have worked for a few companies whose business I was completely apathetic towards, and I certainly wouldn't spend time I get away from my work on something 'work related' if it didn't have some personal resonance... I'm not quite that sad :)
I can also pretty much guarantee that I don't share all of Dale's views.. in fact I've commented, disagreeing with some of the blogs on the ZeroCarbonista website.
That said, I’m not really surprised that you locked onto this to try to discredit my opinions and views. As noted by several people, your posts have more than hinted at a cynicism & jealousy towards Ecotricity and Dale respectively... which is a shame, because this site has a great potential for the people of the Stroud District to discuss what could be a decent step forward in the development of renewable energy. Preferably without such exaggerated and hyperbolic statements about suffering and hardship while neglecting to provide any source or link to explain.
As for the aesthetics, personally i like the way they look, but if people don't they are just going to have to get used to them. If they want to keep using electricity at current rates then some sustainable sources are a must.
I accept you have a right to your opinion, but would you be as keen on my opinion if I thought that your family should be harmed and your home should be blighted by an imndustrial development just becasue I thought it was right?
Possibly not, but maybe you would be happy to take that risk. However, why should I be happy to take that risk just becasue someone wants to make money?
I'm not seeing the logic let alone the emotional argumnet here.
I lose & Dale Vince adds to his £85 million fortune. I sure that even you wouldn't agree that was an equal equation.
Luckily, quite a few are half way thgrough their life so will be dispatched to the scrap heap in 10 years or so, although at least one should be preserved as a reminder of the folly and arogance of man.
But ‘chrismeasures’ I have to object strongly to your argument. To say 'they live next to a motorway so won't mind more noise' is plain wrong. There's not a single resident who would want the area to be more noisy, that's common sense! It's an argument Ecotricity have used however and personally I (and I know others do as well) find it offensive - don't try to tell residents what they think.
The motorway has already ruined the area a lot so we need to hold onto anything we've got here. I made a choice with the motorway, and I can see that it is an obvious essential thing to have both socially and for the economy (tried and tested, unlike turbines. There are other ways to stop using fossil fuels that could work better, the motorways are the best possible way to get from A to B), but I have no choice here and no compensation.
And Erik99, I know a number of Cornish people who strongly dislike the turbines but were not aware of the impact they would have before they went up. A lack of knowledge is probably the reason there wasn’t as much opposition, the situation is so different now. And as to the flickering shadow – can you imagine how ghastly that will be? (If not see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg&feature=player_embedded). It will be absolutely awful, especially for those residents who suffer from Epilepsy. Save Berkeley Vale is not anti-green, they’re actually searching for a better environment than Ecotricity because they know there are better ways to stop using fossil fuels and don’t want to see the destruction of the landscape for no reason.
But I did have to smile at Dale's words in the Gazette today - he accused Save Berkeley Vale as 'scaremongering' before saying that wind energy was 'the only way to keep the lights on.' How could he keep a straight face saying that? If the turbines come here the area suffers greatly. That's a fact. To say the turbines are needed here to keep the lights on is not a fact, it's a lie. There are plenty of other spots that are much more windy and could do much more good. Why aren't Ecotricity going to them? Because they won't make as much profit. I just hope others can see that as well.
To paraphrase - if a remote site (away from settlement) is selected - it is often 'tranquil' and therefore deemed unacceptable to 'destroy' the landscape.
If it is close to people - well, that would 'destroy' their lives by impinging on the views.
That's the joke, everywhere is someone's back yard, and where it isn't - it is 'natural' and needs preserving.
Do you think the Berkeley Vale proposal is 'a bad thing' because it is too close to people - or too close to nature? Or a bit of both?
Also - wind turbines are often dismissed as being old school, too similar to old fashioned windmills and no-where near as super sexy as futuristic hi-tech Nuclear Fusion (which actually doesn't produce any more energy than is put in currently) and Nuclear Fission can *actually* destroy lives and landscapes, as can coal.
I wouldn't go as far to say that wind energy is untried and untested though - we (the human race) have been dabbling with wind power for over 1500 years.
I am interested in hearing more about the other 'better' solutions to stopping the use of fossil fuels, ones that are acceptable to the majority of the earth dwellers - especially people like William Kamkwamba.
P
this is supposed to be a discussion on the merits of powering Stroud district with 50% green power.
You do yourself a disservice when you attack Dale Vince and the motives of Ecotricity, it weakens your whole argument.
"I just hope others can see that as well." Without any evidence hope is all you appear to have.
I understand that you could be worried about the possibility of a sudden change, especially if you live close to the site but I find it hard to see a reason against the turbines other than the way they look, and that's personal preference which not everybody shares.
The general message I got from chrismeasure's comment was that any slight noise the turbine would make would be unnoticeable under any noise from the nearby motorway. But as mentioned previously, I've had the pleasure of visiting two of Ecotricity's turbines and found them to be virtually silent so I can't see noise being an issue anyway.
I've checked out the video of the turbine in the Netherlands and I agree that it would be unacceptable if that were to happen locally. But as far as I'm aware, the possibility of shadow flicker is looked into in great detail before any turbine is built and there are always measures that can be put it place to avoid it if needed so that needn't be an issue either.
You commented that the motorway is considered essential and therefore tolerated. Personally, I would argue that it is more essential for us to develop sources of renewable energy. We NEED to greatly increase the amount of renewable energy we produce for both the environment's sake and to have any hope of keeping with our current dependence on electricity. and wind turbines are currently the best way to do that... they're certainly not the only way to do it but they will have to play a massive part.
How would the economy fare if we suffered intermittent blackouts, or if the weather became more extreme? (parts of the country practically shut down earlier this year due to a bit of snow) If we stay on our current path this is what we can expect.
I also don’t agree with the comments about profit. Other locations ARE being looked into. Ecotricity’s website shows the turbines throughout England and Northern Ireland that are currently in planning.
Also, how would building wind turbines in the Stroud District have a significant profit difference to building them in Dorset or Dover?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these matters.
TR
BUT debates like the one above leave me cold. Dismissing peoples anxieties about proposed developments like the one in Berkeley Vale is downright offensive and rude. OF COURSE those who live nearby will be concerned. Of course they will be worried while there's so much contradictory evidene out there. The pro-wind of us out there need to engage with people who are concerned and use FACTS based arguments about the real issues - about shadow flicker, about noise, about health impacts. There is oodles of research out there as well as the real life evidence of thousands of operatign wind farms that have caused people no problems at all.
So presently my vote is no.
and the next 50% from the potential Hydro Electricity from the Stroud Five Valleys?
this is only the first step!
what are your pricing structures and how comparable are they to other sources?
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/about/OurFuelMix/
The website also has details on the tariff prices.
...but the Stroud5050 campaign isn't about switching people over to Ecotricity, it's about seeing whether people in the Stroud District want to play a part in increasing the renewable energy that this country is able to generate.
Obviously as Ecotricity are looking to build turbines throughout the country it's important to see if green communities are really as green as they pride themselves on being.
1. Put in a nuclear power station, power needs for stroud are met through a 'green' way but you may find that you all get health problems and evantually the world will shoot itself to pieces.
2. Do nothing. The planet will slowly get worse, sea levels will rise by 3m, the whole of Linconshire will disapeer into the sea and London will need a new barrier. Residents around the United Kingdom will suffer from flooods like those of June 2007 much more often, there will be drouts much worse than that of 2003. The UK will become much more over-crowded with people from unlivable countries like those near the equator and then oil and coal will run out forcing us to go the renewable or nuclear option.
Very sad when people who claim to be green risk health, ruin beautiful landscapes and ignore those people affected to make money.
Put the wind farms offshore, or at the very least on industrial sites - the old power station site at Berkely should ahve been the first site considered, and I'm sure there are sites along the Severn that have unbloked access to the wind straight off the sea - such as at Avonmouth, where it would be simple to put ut up another 8 or 10 turbines in an already industrialised area.
No word from ecotricity on why that isn't being done.
I had a look @ Ecotricity's website recently. It appears that they do have some turbines on industrial sites. There's a few on Avonmouth Docks, one at Ford in Dagenham, and quite a few others. I'm sure more are in the pipeline, but they have to be sited where they will be most efficient first.
The problem with offshore windfarms is that they are so much more expensive to construct - which wouldn't leave Ecotricity with much of a profit to build more.
What is really sad is that people assume that Ecotricity are only doing all this to make money. Please try to put cynicism aside for a while and look at the full story. It's not always about individuals trying to get rich.
Offshore might be more expensive, but if we follow that logic then any developer could simply say doing things with consideration for the environment, health and saftey is "too expensive" and we would end up with buildings and structures similar to or worse than those built in the worst excesses of the 60s and 70s when concrete ruled and local concerns were ignored by a soviet style centralised view of planning - look at where that got us and how dreadful many of our cities became before planning controls were more strictly enforced. Ecotricty are extremely keen for this type of centralised planning as it will enable them to build whereever they like with no concern for neighbours - although they are serial users of the planning appeal system, just keeping on appealing until they get the answe they want, irrespective of local concerns.
As for Ecotricity only doing this make money, I just had a look at the profile of Dale Vince on his own Ecotricity web site and his wealth is estimated at £85 million - so it's hard to come to the conclusion that he is motivated by concern for the community. I also see that Ecotricity state on this site that they don't operate a community ownership business model, and with those kind of returns I can understand why.
I absolutley agree that it is not always about indviduals getting incredibly rich, but I'll let you look at the £85 million figure and draw your own conclusions in this particular case.
I am pretty confident after reading about Dale's background (living in an old truck etc) that money is not at the top of his priorities!
I guess if you are the sole owner of a somthing worth £85 you need much in a bank account. If Dale is not motivated by money, I'm sure that he'll be passing beneficial ownership of the company to some kind of trust so that there can no doubt over his motives. Or perhaps not...
http://zerocarbonista.com/2009/04/29/woke-up-sunday-morning-with-a-price-on-my-head/
As for offshore being more expensive, if Ecotricity were to build offshore they wouldn't be able to afford to build as many turbines, which would defeat the point of the company as I understand it. They are wanting to increase the renewable generation in the UK but building as many new turbines as possible.
His latest comments about Stroud district Council in the Gazette make him sound like a classic developer who bullies people to get his own way. It seems very sad, because because based on his publicity machine, it sounds as if he was a tolerant and caring person before the money arrived, but I guess huge wealth will always affect people - especially those who are fanatical about something.
I think the wind farms and a good thing, nothing really wrogn with them, but here is the upsetting part for you all now.
Climate change is the rebranding of global warming (which didnt really happen) and golbal cooling (which also didnt happen)
Earth climate is changing and no matter how much tax you pay and how green you get it wont make any difference.
If you ask a biologiest, they will tell you that as CO2 rised the plant rate of growth also increases as the CO2 is what makes them grow (in part) and with out CO2 we all die!
I have been into science for many years and worked on global projects, one of my more recnt ones was for a electical generator system that you can have in your home and business. It generates 'green' energy and have a low running cost. Sadly this too good to be true effect has failed to secure the offer to purchase my new old technologies. but sometimes going backards is a step forwards.
Hydro power, is so simple and easy, I cant see why more places arent using it, and when will we see a drop in the cost of power? Wind farms are expensive and the cost of maintenance high which inturn is passed to the consumer.
I dont find wind farms that ugly. and there are plenty of places they could be placed and then fed into the national grid. it would keep people more happy. maybe looking at some of tesla's working would really help is solving some of the issue.
When will we be moving to electric cars?
here are some good faqs for you tho
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/faqs/#faq
Future generations will laugh their socks off at a culture that can put a man on the moon but resurrects windmills in an attempt to light our homes.
Ecotricity are conning us into believing that they will prvide 50% of our energy needs in Stroud (as long as the wind blows) and the only penalty is to destroy a huge chunk of Cotswold landscape. This megalomaniac scheme is all about huge government handouts and profits and a government coverup for failing to provide for our ageing an failing power requirements 12 years ago.
Ecotricity are careful to hide the facts about these inefficient monstrosities.
Firstly the pitiful dribble of electricity they produce is twice as expensive as conventional power stations.
Secondly the billions of £s already spent on them produce just 1% of our energy needs.
Thirdly they are an environmental disaster far more damaging than waste incinerators that cost next to nothing to operate but are rubbished by Ecotricity and those with an axe to grind such as David Drew who, have you noticed, like to blame US for the present energy crisis and make us pay dearly for their mad brained schemes.
Basil Coates
All efficiency info has been provided and referenced above - please comment on this info rather than vague statements.
i dont understand how wind turbines are worse than a waste incinerator - any chance of further explaination on this - with adequate info?
"And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."
And of course the wind is intermittent in any one place, back up generation could come from a different wind farm down the road where the wind is blowing (hypothetically) just as much as Coal/Gas. But perhaps that's why stroud 5050 is about 50% energy, it's ambitious but attainable.
Electricity supply is not as simple as you make it out to be, everything has to be relative because you cant actually track electrons on their journey from generator to home. so when Ecotricity claims 50% of Stroud's power from 16 turbines they are referring to the equivalent consumption.
As i said before, if you're not convinced that Turbines work then you're right, all the other arguments fall down.
I should think it's got something to do with how few windmills exist (and any other renewable generator for that matter) that nothing has been replaced. Not to mention our consumption habits (as a nation) and the infrastructure that is in place to cope with it. But that is a whole different ball game...
Load factors:
CCGT: 63%
Coal: 62%
Nuclear 60%
Other Thermal: 45%
Hydro: 36%
Pumped Storage: 16%
The load factor on the grid is about 66% you don't need any extra back up for wind power, its already there.
Also there is no reason that the back up can't be other renewables. Take a look at The Combined Power Plant consists of three wind parks (12,6 MW), 20 solar power plants (5,5 MW), 4 biogas systems (4,0 MW) and the pump storage Goldisthal (Output: 1.060 MW; Storage: 80 hours, i.e. 8480 MWh)
By combining lots of renewable technologies you get a consistent output with biogas and pumped storage able to compensate for the variable output from the wind and sun.
That's before you start using heat pumps, electric vehicles, HVDC, grid energy storage or smart appliances to shift demand.
By 2020 we will be importing 80% of our energy, the view of wind turbines will be the least of our worries!
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3130
In terms of how expensive the electricity produced is, turbines take 10-15 years to pay back their financial cost then all the energy produced is actually free. As far as I'm aware the Nuclear sector is still being bailed out by the government... (I dont mention coal because it's fuel is far from free)
Which then brings us to your other [incorrect] comment. There is no government hand out for renewables. There is market stimulation (ROCs) but any money comes only from competing energy companies that don't reach certain targets. The invested billions you refer to are but a drop in the ocean in comparison to other fuel types.
you haven't specified exactly how turbines damage the environment at all. they go up for about 30 years, once taken down all that is left is a small concrete foundation (which can be removed if reqd).
Of course all of these points and counter-points rely on 1 thing, that Turbines actually do produce significant amounts of electricity. If you can't accept that then everything else is meaningless.
for someone who accuses Ecotricity of misleading behaviour you sure have left out a lot of factual information, however emotive your words may be.
They kill thousands of birds every year some of them endangered. With the serious decline in our bird population and many one time common species considered rare one more loss by turbines is unacceptable.
And what of our beautiful unique Cotswold landscape blighted and despoiled by these monstrosities? Mr Brown will of course bend planning rules and local objections by permittng their construction simply because he has no interest in the countryside and he has a political axe to grind.
Mr Dale Vine has a sauce coming to our county and telling us how best to destroy our landscape. If he is so clever he should find less damaging ways of harnessing energy.
Perhaps using the hot air from parliament buildings.
In regards to the Land damage, there isnt actually that much, a foundation underneath the ground...which you cant see / use anyway so why is that such a big problem?
I don't want to comment on your comment (as it were) but merely request that you read through this article
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php
Local people do matter and I think companies who's installations change their local environment as much as these would should be prepared to recognise that in a compensatory way. Its only fair!
The internet is also awash with outdated, incomplete and inaccurate information.
It’s obviously not acceptable for anybody to have lived in some of the situations you find on the internet but wind turbine technology is improving year on year. The cons that "extremely adversely affect" people have now been dealt with through developments in technology, by regulations imposed on the possible locations of turbines and by companies like Ecotricity working alongside the likes of the RSPB.
If locals in any are buy into a wind or other power scheme on a community ownership basis they will have to pay to be in it and so gain part ownership, and then profit from it. By them investing this way a developer like Ecotricity would not need to raise so much capital from banks and so might be able to bring forward other generator projects elsewhere than otherwise would be possible. Its a win/win.
So let's have regulations imposed so that turbines close to houses, businesses and busy road junctions such as the site in question at Berkeley Vale, do not materialise.
The construction and removal of the enormous concrete base of each of the 400 foot high industrial structures will genrate massive amounts of carbon and sned hundreds of tons of waste to landfill - how green is that?
Off shore wind and tidal generation are far more efficient, and should be the aim of any company that claims to be green.
Stop wasting time and resources persuing a failed strategy with inefficient and polluting technology.
regarding your "how green is that?" comment.....
very green is the answer... The "massive amounts of carbon" building turbines generates is lower than you get from building an entire Power station. Also, turbines very quickly repay their 'footprint' back.
Let's face facts and accept that on-shore wind is made up of large industrial complexes in rural areas that cause visual pollution across a huge area. It's a dead end that makes some peopel feel good and some people (not those affected) very rich.
The answer in the UK is in hydro (reliable), tidal (reliable) on both a community and microgeneration scale. For security we need nuclear and coal, and these are safe and with FGD and carbon capture, clean.
Let's invest in technologies that reliably produce power, rather than are a forest visually polluting white elephant that makes some people feel good and other people very wealthy at the expense of the whole community.
Try this:
"thermal plant breakdowns generally pose more of a threat to the stability of electricity networks than the relatively benign variations in the output of wind plant." - http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/managing__variability_report.pdf
"Electricity generated from wind will displace the use of scarce fossil fuels, reducing carbon emissions in the process. It is important to remember that the wind is blowing somewhere across Great Britain most of the time." - http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Operating+in+2020
"The criticism that extra spinning reserve is neccesary to take into account the intermittent nature of wind is not valid. Spinning reserve will always be needed to cater for unexpected unavailability of the largest single power source, and not just to cater for the currently low levels of electricity generated from the wind." - http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html
I would like to see lots more micro/medium scale hydro (and probably a couple more large scale ones like Dinorweg) in additional to lots more large wind turbines and well sited micro wind. I would prefer not to see many more huge concrete power stations, processions of coal trucks coal, slag islands and piles of nuclear waste buried out of sight - or sunk offshore by the mafia ;-)
This winter the UK will import half of its gas “On the current trajectory we will have to import three quarters of our gas by 2015,” he said. Britain was still a net exporter of gas as recently as 2003
In coming years gas will become increasingly expensive, in our current energy mix roughly
43% of our electricity comes from gas. We can use wind to displace a large proportion of this.
It's good to know that all other forms of electricity generation have no visual impact and they are run by the big 6 as charitable ventures with no profit being made.
When you build a wind turbine the cost of the electricity is fixed over the life of the turbine. When you build a fossil fuel power plant you are taking a risk on the future cost (and supply) of the fuel. For nuclear you have to allow a huge capital cost, 10 years construction time, 10 years to pay off the capital, and decommisioning costs which are likely to be more than the initial construction costs. (I am in favour of more nuclear power but am realistic that it is not the saviour some proponents claim) I realise being a supporter of both wind and nuclear puts me in a very small group, but energy security and reliance on polluting, depleting fossil fuels will be a serious problem for this
country and globally.
example
sailboat or nuclear sub
i dont believe in global warming, as volcanos/magma/core of the earth etc
Nuclear power seems reasonable over population is the real problem
Deforestation far more serious to the air and wildlife and enviroment we should spend money on preventing that
well hope people can respect my views
I understand that you are perfectly entitled to have an opinion, but could you possibly expand a little on why you think wind energy is unreliable and non-matured, and possibly provide some evidence to show what makes you believe that?
Also, could you perhaps do the same for your comment about not believing in global warming? Unfortunatly, there is a massive amount of evidence to show that global warming is a real problem.
It is convenient to blame the ordinary man in the street and make him pay in real cash and accept a bunch of windmills on his one time beautiful hillside.
It is not politically convenient to blame the Chinese and American industry nor the polluting airlines if indeed curbing them would have any effect on climate change.
We also do not dispute that our present energy sources will dry up either naturally or politically (Russian gas) so we need a sensible alternative. Incinerating household rubbish make sense because it is free and can relieve the pressure on landfill sites.
Modern filtration methods can reduce dangerous emissions from the flue.
I dislike nuclear power generators but that is inevitable until Ecotricity who are supposed to be clever, harness some other source like waves or hydroelectricity.
I wouldn't say a short, two paragraph comment could be considered a lecture, and obviously not everyone is aware of global warming as Xena was replying to someone who disputed it.
I'm not quite sure what Politics have to do with this particular wind turbine ‘debate’. Yes, USA and China are major contributors to global pollution and they're yet to show any real commitment to doing anything about it, but what are Ecotricity and/or Dale Vince supposed to do about that? ...Same thing with the Airlines.
Those situations are something the government need to deal with. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ is probably a better site for trying to get something done about that.
It seems to me that people are under the impression that this is something organised by Stroud District Council and that they are going to be spending our taxes on building these turbines... It is Ecotricity, not any sector of the government (who've generally been quite unhelpful to the “renewable energy sector”) that have organised this debate and it is Ecotricity that will be paying for the turbines. The money used is generated from Ecotricity’s customers who are all aware, and proud of the company’s ethos.
Waste incineration still produces extremely harmful chemicals and modern filtration methods don’t come close to solving that problem. So, along with Nuclear Power, it is a ‘solution’ that would simply replace our problems with new (possibly worse) ones... a sort of “Old woman who swallowed a fly” scenario.
How can Ecotricity be criticised for being primarily focused on wind power? Dale has mentioned on several occasions that he is willing to look into other green sources of electricity, but Ecotricity will obviously focus on wind power for the moment as that’s where their expertise is.
Personally, I feel that wind power will have to play an important part in the increase of renewable energy sources this country so desperately needs. We haven’t reached the number of turbines we’ll need (even if we vastly improve the amount of electricity provided by other green sources) so why would Ecotricity focus on other areas when the job at hand still isn’t done.
TR
Please give up 20 minutes of your time by watching this video. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
I am aware of what is fact and what is disputed.
Climate change may or not be caused by humans, who knows, and I imagine that debate will continue for a long time yet.
But one fact (which you have stated of course) is that we are rapidly running out of oil and coal, and need to start building as many alternatives as possible!
Fifi - I'm not sure I like your tone if I'm honest. I HAVE read (and continue to read) plenty of material, both for and against wind energy and I have formed opinion of my own, as have you.
I asked Paul to provide something to back up his claims as I have done in some of my previous posts.
If you would like other people to be open to your views, please be open to others views as well, it's only fair after all.
Non-matured, Analogy
"Why buy a dvd player i'd rather wait for blu ray players to become cheaper ?"
(Deforestation and over population), people have known this for years but new scare words have been invented such as global warming and carbon footprint etc
Wind power net capacity additions over the last ten years (1998-2007) have showed a mean growth rate of
30.4 percent per year, corresponding to a doubling of net additions every 2½ years.
In 2007, net capacity additions reached 19553 Megawatts, a level that most energy pundits failed to
anticipate. Net additions, in 2007, were 417 percent bigger than the mean estimate published by the
IEA in its World Energy Outlook 1995-2004 editions.
In 2007 wind power was 40% of all new capacity added in both Europe and The US.
The grid provides back up power for every type of plant, and spinning reserve is typically matched to the size of the largest single plant on the grid which can trip with the loss of several hundred Mega Watts at a time. An event like this happened in May 2008.
The transmission network blamed the blackouts on a sudden loss of frequency caused by the near-simultaneous failure of the Sizewell B nuclear power station and the Longannet 1 coal-powered fire station in Fife, both of which "tripped" within a couple of minutes of each other at around 11.30am.
Since its possible to predict what the wind is going to do over the next week / day / hour with increasing accuracy, the power from wind turbines can be treated as 'negative load' on the system and as such drives the spot price of electricity downwards during windy times.
See making the case for wind
While wind is still only a small part of our supply,
variations in output are small in comparison to the day to day swings in supply which are forecast and catered for every day
Wind doesn't need to replace the power stations it just has to cut the fuel usage, if you want to be sceptical about the environmental benefits of wind power you could argue that wind will only really displace gas as it is likely that gas prices will increase as the North Sea continues to decline and we become more reliant on imports. The wider problem is how the human race copes with a peak and decline of fossil fuel energy globally, we don't just have to move to renewable electricity because of environmental reasons. We have to aim to power the planet with a mix of renewable and nuclear electricity (I say electricity as we can use heat pumps and battery electric vehicles to provide heating and transport)
It’s not just the North Sea that is in decline, Russia & Mexico are major producers who are losing production. Even during the oil price spike last year Saudi Arabia failed to increase its own output. (Half of its production comes from one field Ghawar which has been producing since the 1950’s!)
Half the oil produced globally is used within the countries that produce it, high oil prices provide huge transfer of wealth to producing countries which in turn increases their own demand. A combined decline in production and an increase in domestic consumption can cut oil exports.
In 2008 Mexico's oil exports fell by 19%
In 2008 Norways's oil exports fell by 3.8%
In 2008 UK oil IMPORTS grew by 170%
By 2020 the global oil export market could be half the size it is today putting huge upwards pressure on prices.
The natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent, the International Energy Agency says in its annual report, the World Energy Outlook, the Financial Times reported.
As for wind being 'twice as expensive' as conventional electricity, it might well be twice expensive as electricity coming from a power station built in the 70's which has paid off its capital and using today's fuel prices, but when you compare the cost of a new build power plant with future (uncertain) fuel costs,
wind starts to look very competitive.
We are never going to get all our power from wind, but that doesn't mean wind can't provide 20% of our electricity needs in the near future and 50% with a European wide HVDC grid, electric vehicles, heat pumps & pumped storage.
As for inefficient how about using coal to power incandescent light bulbs or using crude oil to move a person in a car, each of these is about 1% efficient.
First of all... Global Warming IS happening, it isn't hear-say, speculation or hype. The debate amongst the respected scientists about whether it's happening died out long ago and now the debate is on whether it is being caused by humans, and whether we can do anything to stop it.
Personally I think that we have to have had a negative effect on the planet, considering both the pollution which is being pumped out to satiate our dependence on electricity/gas/shiny things, and the harm we're doing to both animal and plant life across the world.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the "as volcanos/magma/core of the earth etc" comment. They might be hot but they have nothing to do with global warming.
I agree that we should be doing something to prevent deforestation but that isn't what this is about. This is about whether people in the Stroud district would like the equivalent of 50% of their usage to be provided by wind energy... something which, given the chance, Ecotricity would pay for.... This isn’t something that’s going to come out of our taxes, this is a company trying to see whether it’s worthwhile pursuing sites for turbines in a community which prides itself on being green.
I do really agree with your sailboat analogy though... probably for different reasons
I would choose the sailboat all day long. You can circumnavigate the earth should you wish, they’re much more aesthetically pleasing and it’s not like nuclear submarines are immune from accidents are they?
Hope to hear your thoughts
TR
The assumption programmed into the climate models used by those who believe in global warming is that small increases in CO2 cause disproportionate and sustained increase in average temperature, which feeds into reduced ice cover at the poles. If this assumption (and let us all remember that it is just that, an assumption) is not correct, or the effect is not so well correlated to the assumed cause, then the dire warnings might well be as accurate as those scientists in the 1970s who predicted the onset of an ice age within 30 years.
People must remember that this is real science where people are conducting research and testing theories, rather than media science where every pronouncement of a white coated scientist (usually in spectacles) is treated as an absolute fact that will never change. Since I first studied physics at university there have been new particles discovered and new theories advanced and old ones discarded. The reality is that this happens over time, and there will always be a number of reasons why people become fixated on particular theories - access to research funding not the least!
The situation has reached the ridiculous stage where even politely questioning the theory of climate change renders one liable to be branded a "denier". Perhaps "Climate Change Heretic" would be more apt as this about disagreement with another person's belief, rather than disputing facts.
I would say that I probably am a climate change heretic, because those who believe have to make a leap of faith, and whilst that works when choosing which deity to believe in, for matters of science, I prefer facts, and there are too many assumptions and interpretations and too many observations that don't stack up. The recent trip to measure the thinning ice caused by the warmer arctic summers had to be abandoned - due to colder weather than was expected... Satellite measurements have shown that the ice is actually thicker than usual.
And there are many more real observations that don’t fit the theory and the computer model..
The reality is that we should slow our rate of oil use for power generation because it's the most efficient store of energy currently available for use in vehicles based on available kJ/kg, and we should reduce the amount of wood used in the third world as it is being used faster than it is being regrown. Nuclear represents an option that guarantees security of supply from imports (if you store enough fuel- only a few 100kg for the life of a plant) but does have some issues in terms of long term storage of waste. Hydro has a fantastic opportunity to provide power, and there are a number of reservoirs in the UK that could have provided huge amounts of power, but they were built only to store water, and retro-fitting is difficult and expensive. Off-shore wind gives access to significantly more reliable and hence efficient wind, and coupled with tidal represents a great opportunity.
Micro generation is being tried by the Germans, and has the huge benefit of being distributed, putting the power literally in the hands of the people - it's not proven popular with energy companies or the government as it moves control out of the centre, but with a change of government policy, it could be the solution - a massive distributed mix of micro PV, hydro, wind and heat pumps could reduce the UK's reliance on fossil so much that zero carbon nuclear could provide the base load and the people could generate their own energy - completely cutting out the middle man and denying energy companies and developers the justification for huge new schemes that destroy the environment.
Distributed solutions owned and operated by local communities are that way to solve many of the world’s problems, be they related to energy, transport, trade, or food production.
By it's very nature, waiting until you know something will happen means you will be acting to late to change it.
I'm usually a sceptic when it comes to theoretical science and 'belief systems' but when it comes down to changing the way we live our lives I don't think it should be looked at as whether you think that climate change is what the scientists say it is... I believe you just have to look at what we are doing to this planet and see whether or not you think we could be 'harming' the planet.
50/50 "50%" when the wind is weak the 50% Nuclear power will not be able to power 100% what then ?
http://www.bwea.com/ref/stop.html
I honestly don't believe that wind power will ever be able to support the country's full energy needs. But that isn't what this is about. This is about making steps towards replacing the current CO2 emitting/radioactive waste creating power generation methods that the world currently depends so desperately on... and not only do I believe that that is needed, I believe that wind power will play a part in the whole renewable package that we need to develop.
Regarding your comments below... Again, the comment on deforestation is kind of beside the point. I would love it if we could put a stop to it as I do believe that it is harming the Earth, but that isn't what Ecotricity does. If you would like to put a stop to Deforestation then you should join a campaign to stop it, or better yet start a company which is based around getting it stopped. Either way the fact that deforestation is a bad thing doesn’t detract from the fact that renewable energy is needed.
Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever you want to call it is happening.. you’d be hard pressed to find a truly respected scientist that says otherwise. As I’ve said, the cause of it and the extent it’s effect are still in dispute. Personally, I believe that whether it’s people that are causing it, it doesn’t excuse the way we treat this planet and we should be doing what we can to change.
As far as I’m aware there aren’t many goods that are transported by Nuclear sub either :).. but that wasn’t really my point. My point was more that when something that doesn’t harm the enviroment can do a job, then why use something that does harm the enviroment? One day (hopefully relatively soon) the technology will come to replace the large tankers & cargo ships with something ‘greener.
Nobody doubts the effiency of these ships, just like nobody is questioning the effiency of current methods of generating electricity, but surely as the technology to replace those current methods becomes increasingly available we should eager to implement it and reduce our impact on the world.
I’m still not really clear on the “volcanos/magma/core of the earth” comment but I’m guessing that it’s to do with CO2 emissions from volcanoes. That would seem a valid point, after a quick googling I found that globally, volcanoes release a total of approx’ 200 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Obviously that seems like a massive amount, but it’s dwarfed by the approx’ 28 BILLION tonnes produced annually due to humans.
...sorry, this definitely wasn’t supposed to be such a long post :)
"transported by Nuclear sub" nuclear sub out of context from my previous post, "combat effectiveness, continuity of timing"
"I changed my standard light bulbs for energy efficient ones that is a more accurate analogy"
from my understanding that is a different analogy relating to wind power is more Efficient then Nuclear power, my point was if its not broken why try to fix it you could also use
"I changed my standard light bulbs for energy efficient ones" to say builing more efficient nuclear power stations its a good idea
"volcanoes release a total of approx’ 200 million tonnes of CO2 per year."
you have looked for a few seconds at volcanos which is just 1 factor out of 100,000 billion from volcanos/magma/core of the earth
the hole idea is co2 gets stuck in the atmosphere and cant escape right ?
so going from your figures i've not checked
volcanos have been around slightly longer then us without checking i'd say the birth of the planet and have gradually become way less active meaning less co2
times the current way less, less active 200 million by number of years since birth of planet
why are we not allready dead from volcanos?
I'm still not quite understanding the volcanoes/core of the earth thing... Perhaps some facts & statistics may help to clarify because I'm not that aware of how much CO2 is caused by magma and/or the core of the earth that isn't vented through volcanoes. My point was that, like most of the bad things in life CO2 is actually necessary in certain quantities... These quantities are extremely large and yes, the human emissions are relatively small (though not compared to volcanic CO2 emissions) however for every natural source of CO2 there's something that takes it away, we're shifting that balance and as the amount of CO2 we generate increases the more that balance will shift.
My nuclear sub was in context with your original sailboat/nuclear sub comment, as your neither your first or second comments mentioned combat effectiveness and/or continuity of timing I didn't comment on it. But even so my point still stands. For everything that a sailboat can do, I'd rather have a sailboat and for everything that renewable energy can do I'd rather have that.
I'd rather work with nature than against it
Global Warming IS happening, it is disputed
Maybe if the earth is getting hotter its not from co2 but natually ice caps melting could be to do with ocean pH levels or the end of an ice age england was partially covered in ice during the ice age
maybe if it is c02 its from cutting down to many trees more then burning oil and coal
what is "the planet" ? volcanos/magma/core of the earth look at the history of co2 etc
why dont people use sail boats much anymore to transport goods = Practical reasons which is why 50/50 and wind energy not very practical apart from to subsidize Nuclear power
So I’m going to try and be a little different, and stick to a simple fact. Recently Ecotricity posted a leaflet through my door – I assume through most doors in the area – which was very clearly designed to engineer response in its favour.
The leaflet’s message is quite simple – either we allow Ecotricity to do as it pleases, or we’re doomed. So everybody must sign Yes, we should make 50% of Stroud’s electricity from local wind energy. Hey, who knows – maybe we should. But this leaflet is designed to produce an emotional response, while being very careful to completely ignore any mention of costs or consequences.
It’s a bit like Ferrari putting a leaflet through my door, saying “Let’s face it – you're not getting any younger. It’s your last chance. Do you want to drive a Ferrari in your retirement, or a 20-year-old Citroen diesel? Vote Now for a Ferrari!”
Guess which box I’d tick? Though I do realise that being in Stroud, I might be in a minority. But if the leaflet – unlike Ecotricity’s – were remotely honest, it would say “Would you like to mortgage your house, bankrupt yourself with fuel and servicing costs, and drive around in a beautiful red Ferrari?” I would, albeit reluctantly, tick “No”.
This scurrilous leaflet is cleverly designed to attract a massive “Yes” vote, which Mr Vince can wave at the government or whoever, and say look, everybody supports me – with, as I say, cynical avoidance of any of the real issues involved.
Whatever the arguments for and against wind power, in my old(ish) age I've learned one thing – judge people by the principles they adhere to. If they attempt to influence you by lying to you or deliberately misleading you, oppose them at all costs.
In that context, I’ll resist the temptation to include any mention of local politicians with the nickname of Chocolate Teapot.
And I'm also certain it will be done fairly and no one will be "stuffing" the ballot boxes
Your faith in the intentions of a commercial organisation like Ecotricity is touching.
When the tooth fairy comes, could you point her in my direction...
PS did you ever wonder why Ecotricty might pay for a poll that directly supports their commercial aims and would enable them to increase their revenue streams? Perhaps in la-la land everyone is nice and concerned only for the greater good. Unfortunately, you moved to England, where commercial development on this brings fabulous return on investment for Ecotricity and its sole owner, the *** ****** of Wind.
Your cynicism and manners are appalling and I have no illusions about your concern for the greater good. I presume this post is directed at you?
BTW "Unfortunately, you moved to England" - erm WTF?!
You might be in a minority in Stroud town, but Stroud District is a different thing! Keep reporting in-people like you are what democracy is all about.
I haven't had one through my door yet but that doesn't mean that Ecotricity are intentionally trying to disregard the opinions of the people where I live.
Oh, and Stroudy, you're forgiven :) ...it's a sceptical world out there. People, even when their intentions are pure, are often judged to be "out to make a profit" etc. It's a real shame, and one of the major barriers that prevents people making the improvements that this world really needs.
Still, if Ecotricty don't get the result they need, then I imagine they will just do what the EU did in Ireland and keep asking until they get the yes vote they want - although with careful vote managment by preselcting Yes, no doubt "encouraging" all employees and their families to vote Yes and cajoling people who will never be affected by the development to vote Yes, they really shouldn't have much trouble!
I'm not really sure I understand the comparison between the Stroud 5050 leaflet and the fictional Ferrari leafet... I don't think there will be any cause for mortgaging your house or bankrupting yourself (or the like) for having some turbines around here
But anyway... early on in your post you say that you are going to be different, and stick to a simple fact.... then you go on to give your opinion, which not everyone is going to agree with. Some perhaps will, but I don't and I'm sure there will be others.
I don't think the leaflet is designed to lie or to mislead in any way... it's simply stating facts and asking people for an opinion on whether they would like Stroud to be powered 50/50
But you're entitled to your opinion of course.... I've already submitted mine :)
I do get your point. I've taken the opposing side in arguments, despite my opinions on the matter, when I've been unhappy with the actions of a particular side... but that's a whole different subject altogether and I'm going to *try* to stay on track.
I think your analogy is slightly wide of the mark. You say you wouldn't choose the Ferrari if it would cost you money... but the turbines won’t cost you anything so it doesn’t really work.
The question is simply: "Would you be happy for turbines to be built nearby?". There's no catch, no hidden cost. It's Ecotricity wanting to know if it's worthwhile them pursuing sites in and around Stroud for wind turbines... considering Stroud is Ecotricity's base and an apparent 'green' community it seems logical that Ecotricity would want to build turbines around here.
As you’ve said the arguments for and against turbines have been going for years and it’s unlikely that people’s opinions on them are going to be changed overnight, no matter which side they’re on. So there’s little point (and little possibility) of squeezing the whole discussion on one little leaflet. People would either be happy for more local wind turbines... or not.
But seeing as though it’s usually a small number of people who make the biggest noise, it’s a good idea to get other people’s views too. In my opinion, it’s just democracy in action.
Well, what I was trying to point out is that you can’t make a “simple” decision if you don’t know the implications! Sorry, I thought that was simple, but that’s what I meant.
>>But anyway... early on in your post you say that you are going to be different, and stick to a simple fact.... then you go on to give your opinion, which not everyone is going to agree with. Some perhaps will, but I don't and I'm sure there will be others.
I meant the simple fact that the leaflet asked people to make a choice without mentioning the implications.
I didn’t really mean specifically money – I meant that there was more to saying “I want a Ferrari” than the simple desire to own one, and there is more to “I want wind turbines” too.
>>The question is simply: "Would you be happy for turbines to be built nearby?".
With respect, no, that’s not the question. I have the card in front of me, and the question is “Should we make 50% of Stroud’s energy from local wind energy?” which is completely different.
>>There's no catch, no hidden cost.
You may be correct, but I don’t know if you are or not, because I don’t know enough about it. And perhaps neither do most of the others who’ll receive the leaflets.
Presented in the simplistic way it is, I imagine most people will think oh, yes, lovely, let’s all have nice clean wind energy instead do nasty radioactive stuff – a position I do have some sympathy with. But people should be given the essential facts along with the question, rather than being asked to make an emotional decision.
Unfortunately, as with all technologies, there is no such thing as a guarantee. This is why huge numbers of safety precautions taken, and careful consideration about where to put them.
This sort of thing is so rare though. Think of the thousands of turbines that are around the UK and around the world, and you don't hear many stories about anything going wrong with them. To say they never go wrong would be like saying "planes never fall out of the sky" - but I bet you still fly!
My point is that faults are extremely rare, but turbines are sited very carefully just in case.
As BrandNew mentioned those figures include have been boosted to include small domestic turbines, traffic accidents, suicide, people accidentally flying small planes into them and even a parachutist!
Un-researched and/or obviously biased "facts" like those on that website have a terrible habit of creating tension between two sides of any debate.
Personally, I automatically wouldn’t trust figures that includes things like a car hitting a truck carrying turbine components. As one of the more balanced websites (that I managed to find after a very quick search) put it, it’s like a car hitting a turnip truck and the authorities blaming it on the turnips.
Obviously the number of accidents will increase with the number of turbines, that’s basic logic. When the number of something increases the likelihood of something going wrong with one of them increases. That doesn’t mean they’re dangerous, and it definitely doesn’t mean that we should stop building them. It just means that we should respect their power and be thankful that there are companies with the attention to detail and commitment to professionalism that Ecotricity has, so that problems can be kept to a minimum.
As for the recent, untimely death of the engineer. I’ve not been able to find the actual cause of death as the inquiries into it are still ongoing, so I don’t quite know why you’re trying to include this in any anti-turbine comments. Just because someone died in, or around a turbine doesn’t mean it’s definitely because of the turbine.
I'd be interested to see how that fatality table would look if only deaths actually caused by turbines were included. I'm not actually aware of one... but either way, as Xena has stated, turbine accidents are very rare.
TR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining
So i think wind turbines are a little safer
After a quick google I've found that the number of coal mining related fatalities in the USA alone, over the past 15 years is 443.
That's over 680% higher than the worldwide wind turbine fatalies... especially remarkable considering those wind turbine fatality figures are not only boosted by those with even the slightest link to wind turbines, they're also world-wide and cover the space of around 40 years.
I used to live in sheffield and visit there regually because my parents live there.
Where was this turbine because the only Morrisons in sheffield are Sercret morrisions down the parkway and Hillsborough Morrisons. Neither of which are next to the university infact they are several miles from te university and the nearest turbine of any decent size is at least a mile away from secret morrisons.
Thought I had read somewhere that it was near a Morrisons. Apologies if it's the wrong shop but it hardly affects the substantive point - which is somewhat concerning, especially as it's the second incident there?
Nah, Sorry... I'm not buying it.
But you are entitled to your own opinion of course.
Who owns this turbine in Sheffield? Could be that it's not sited very well if it's actually the wind that's making it break. Sounds like something is causing the wind to be too choppy and it's making the blade shake too much.
Also, you're absolutely correct to identify ownership as a vital apsect - if only the *** ****** of Wind - Dale Vince - owned it, then we would be safe from problems. We, the people of Stroud District must shine the *** ****** of Wind sign into the sky so *** ****** Vince can speed down with his £85 million fortune and save Sheffied from badly owned industrial developments by providing an unlimited source of hot air to power his very own wind farms.
At last I can sleep safe knowing that Xena is watching out for badly owned industrial debvelopments everywhere and the *** ******, Dale, will solve all our energy problems. Hurrah for Dale and his trusty fortune!
Thank you Xena, but thnaks most of all to Dale and his precious hot air.
- The Telegraph is not the only source for this story.
- All three turbines were shut down leading to an apparent improvement in TV reception
- Your definition of "extremely rare" is totally flawed when there have been two serious incidents (one fatality) in UK in just three and a half weeks - and others, perhaps, we don't know about. Also I refer you to the link above detailing 674 serious incidents - probably more now.
- Your excuse that the blade broke because it was too windy speaks volumes.
No, I wouldn't say that black is white. I'm open to all views, but I believe the facts speak for themselves, and BrandNew obviously agrees with me as do many others.
Secondly, I didn't say the blade broke because it was too windy! I suggested that the wind was too choppy... if there is a wake coming from something else that causes the wind to be choppy (whether it be a slight breeze or a gale, makes no difference) then it changes things. I suggested that the placement of the turbine could have been researched further before construction.
Thirdly... please read carefully and understand thoroughly what other people are saying before you ridicule it or dismiss it.
Air is very fluid, kinda like water. So any obstruction to the wind creates turbulance, which is hard on a wind turbine.
So what I'm saying is that it could be the location thats the issue, not the manufacturing or the construction.
So this one is nothing to do with Ecotricity :)
There are even some single bladed prototype turbines but the most sensible design is blades as it better balanced
What things go wrong with power stations?
And other then not emitting co2 which might be or might not be bad for the enviroment what is better about a wind turbine?
Firstly... there's been some aspersions cast on the legitimacy of this campaign... That's put nicely! There's been some downright offensive inferences made that we'd rig the vote. Stroudy – you seem to have this impression (or intend to give others the impression) that we're a bunch of evil money grabbing monsters who don't give a... damn... about people or the planet. That we have no morals whatsoever... If that's what you really believe we're sure nothing we can say will change your mind on that... So we're going to rise above the 'stuffing' remarks and address some of the other more salient points...
There seems to be a number of themes emerging...
What are we going to USE the votes for?
We want to know what the people of Stroud District really think about wind energy. Simple as that. Every opinion poll ever taken comes back with roughly the same results – 80% of people in favour of wind energy. We want to see if the people in Stroud District feel the same way. If there is the groundswell of positive opinion towards wind we think there is we need to show the Council it's there...
Is there anything that can be done to reassure residents local to Stinchcombe like Sarah?
We are pulling together our planning application for our Berkeley Vale Wind Park right now. It's totally understandable that people will be concerned when an wind park application is made in their area. We assess everything – from noise to landscape impact - as part of our application and all this information will be made available when submitted to the Council. We always seek to reassure people with the facts, backed up by the scientific studies we've undertaken. Keep an eye in the local press or on the Berkeley Vale page on our website for updates on the progress of the application and details of public consultation events in and around the village of Stinchcombe...
What about involving the community in the 'ownership'?
Ecotricity does not follow a 'community ownership' model... We own operate and maintain all our wind parks up and down the country. We have built over 50Mws of wind, funded by the retail side of our business – we turn our customers electricity bills into windmills. All the electricity we generate is dedicated to our customers, the money we make from selling electricity goes directly into building more wind parks. So our model is based on a Not-for-Profit one... We have no shareholders to please or dividends to pay. Ecotricity is driven by people and ideas rather than the pursuit of money.
How will this power the local district - doesn't electricity go onto the national grid?
There are different 'levels' of the grid ... Wind turbines feed directly into local grids – known as regional distribution networks – which feed into nearby homes and businesses ... whereas big power stations feed in the larger, higher voltage 'national' grid. This PDF from the Energy Networks Association has a useful diagram and explanation.
Isn't there any better locations in Stroud District?
We examined the entire District of Stroud before coming to the conclusion that the Berkley Vale site is the most suitable for wind energy. The factors we use in such assessments are numerous but include - distance to nearest houses (minimum separation to prevent nuisance), proximity to a grid connection, good wind resource, access for large deliveries (during construction), proximity to airfields, radar and TV signals, potential for disturbance of wildlife and ecology - and finally and perhaps most importantly - potential landscape impact.
Once you apply all of the potential constraints for a wind park site, to an area like Stroud District, you find very few places where wind energy can work well and be sure to do so without adverse impact on it's neighbours.
More info on how we select sites to follow soon...
Why are Ecotricity not interested in Hydro?
Ecotricity aren't NOT interested in hydro... We believe the future of energy lies in a diverse mix of renewable generation. What we're saying with Stroud 5050 is that the electricity usage of half of the homes in the District could easily be generated from wind power. That's a huge contribution. Hydro is not our area of expertise, but we would be interested in hearing from anyone in the District with ideas/proposals - we could even end up with 100% renewables in the district if we all work together on it. I am sure you agree that would be truly awesome.
Why didn't I get a leaflet?
We sent leaflets out to approximately 60,000 households in Stroud District (ie the postcodes which are managed by Stroud District Council). We used a specialist company to do what's known as a 'solus' delivery. Every house in the distribution area SHOULD have received a leaflet... We can only apologise if you didn't. Stroud Life has published a freepost voting coupon in the paper yesterday and, of course, there's the opportunity to vote here online.
The statement by Ecotricity above that "an area like Stroud District, you find very few places where wind energy can work well" says it all.
I think a vote that asks if we all want to work 2 days a week and have 5 days off is as valid as this one about getting 50% of strouds energy from wind farms in the Stroud district - some poeple might think it would be great, but it just isn't possible. Although I suppose that if someone choose to live in a old truck and claim benefits then they could live that particular dream. But just like wind farms, that solution relys on someone else paying the huge and endless price for that person's "right to choose", and usually with no right of appeal...
But I guess there has to be a default something... always it with polls. And of course it's better to be a positive!
I suspect that having seen how well it's worked here Gordon Brown will try and use it at the general election - it's the only way he might cling on to power...
Rotator, i find your 'blind person' comment very offensive. i feel that everyone has now exhausted their arguments and are now 'clutching at straws' with the old 'Yes is defaulted' comments...
...please dont be petty about this,and there is no need to bring those with a disability in as an example to your lack of argument.
Well done to Dale for growing his business so fast - not many people can generate £85 million from a standing start, but I think that we should all recognise that he is a buisnessman and this is purely about business rather than some kind of planet saving nonsense.
The lights won't go off in Stroud if his wind farm doesn't get built, it will just mean that his wealth won't grow quite so fast.
You have to admire the way he has spun this into a crusade, and I wish I had thought of first - well done, but I think you've been rumbled!
Are you suggesting that the people who live in the Stroud District are to stupid to figure out they can select the 'No' option, too lazy to be bothered to change the option or so impressionable that simply having a preselected option is enough to sway opinion?
And Nick... no the lights won't go off in Stroud (yet) but as for the "planet saving nonsense"... unfortunately it is a scientific fact that global warming, or climate change whatever you want to call it, is going to destroy this planet one day unless we take action to slow it down dramatically. Nature wasn't built to accommodate the ways of modern society, but we're used to our ways and to revert back to anything less would be too difficult (after all, most things that we have these days are built for our comfort and entertainment)
This is the alternative - doing our bit to save the planet, and keep our lifestyle similar to what we're used to.
I understand that it's hard Nick, no-one ever said it would be otherwise, but there are few options.
Concept = Genius
using wind to subsidise power seems a good idea
Design
Myself i think these things look awfull small amounts are okay "interesting", but imagine these everyware "Oppressive" like santa music all year round why not just build off shore, or make them look like windmills or somthing
"Factors" not only but including co2 factors
Trees converting co2 to wood ?
"but when given more ecological options we should embrace them"
so we sould all drive round in sincliar c5's
sounds abit like a religion "the religion of global warming"
Sinclair c5's aren't really comparable to cars, however electric cars obviously are so I believe that we should embrace them as the technology improves and they become more and more available.. Obviously such a change would mean a commitment to renewable energy sources too
Despite promotion involving former formula one racing driver Stirling Moss, the reaction upon its release was that the C5 was impractical in the British climate and possibly dangerous on busy roads.
The Sinclair c5 was designed as a vehicle of the future and maybe is now perceived like todays wind turbines could be in the future, allthough the idea is a very nobel one. hydrogen or other fuels might hopefully surpass the need for wind turbnes which seem impractical
...though, not sure what it was for. I'd already responded to the c5 comment, it was the others that I was requesting clarification on. I think everyone already knows the reasons c5s failed to take off.
There was one interesting point you made though. C5s weren't suitable due to the British climate... that's one of the reasons windturbines should play an important part in the much needed overhaul of the energy generation here in the UK. They're perfect for our climate. One of the things we've got in abundance, here in the UK, is wind [Enter cheap joke here].