not to want 40% of my county covered in windfarms and 150ft pylons????

[ohanotherone]

I thought windfarms were okay until I realised that 40% of upland Powys will be covered in 600- 800 turbines the size of the London Eye and that a spider web of massive electricity pylons some 150ft high will be put through valleys to connect with the national grid in Shropshire.

Then I though, ahh but we need electricity from renewable sources don't we??? But then find out that the windfarms are only 20% efficient and that the entire lot will produce 11% of the output of ONE coal fired power station WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING!!!!

On the coldest days of winter, the wind doesn't blow and so we need to have conventional power stations ANYWAY!!!

They will need thousands of tons of concrete pouring into the hills to site these things and make new roads to the sites which will destroy peat bogs and natural habitats and actually the result will increased flooding.

Not to mention the Red Kites (were rare now increasing in numbers, bats (protected) curlews (protected) and buzzards??

Then our electricity bills will increase because all of this costs more AND we pay subsidy to the wind farm developers aswell because without the subsidy they wouldn't bother doing it????

Has the world gone mad?????? [buangry]

I'm just ranting now.....www.facebook.com/#!/MontgomeryshireAP

SJI - good answers.
Oanotherone - smart grid and smart appliances doesn't mean electricity blackouts shutting off essential equipment, it means non-time sensitive electricity use being able to respond to electricity cost, withou impinging on users.

Niecle - you can't get energy out of splitting water into hydrogen, you have to put energy in. But it does work as an energy carrier. I.e. They could use intermittant wind energy to make hydrogen out of water. Then use this as a fuel for vehicles etc... One interesting idea is that cars could then plug back into the mains, with their hydrogen cells providing back up feed-in power at peak periods (so you need less of the most expensive and high carbon power stations)

... All in the future though.

I don't mind them. All types of energy production come at a cost and affect someone / an area. We have to do something about energy production that is sustainable and it has to be a mixture - some nuclear, some wind, some hydro and some solar. None of them are the answer in isolation.

They are currently looking at the feasibility of putting some turbines up near the village where I grew up and where my parents still live. Even though they won't be visible from the village, the NIMBY's are already out in force.

I've told my dad to stop bitching about it and use it to some advantage.

Like these people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/nottingham/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_9355000/9355049.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/10/windpower-energy

YANBU. Have you been to any of the 'consultations'?

Himlaya - that was it! I knew I would get it wrong (as I said I am not a scientist). I think it was energy for cars now you mention it. However, if you can effectively run cars on water could you not scale it up to use it for other things. Although maybe it was the forward motion of the cars that released the power, that ran the cars.....

But if wind power could release the hydrogen, that would be very green wouldn't it? Unless all that left over oxygen would be dangerous in some way.

But as you say, all a very long way off and probably not something the usual energy suppliers are much interested in. Not a lot of money in it, I am assuming?

Why on earth do politcians continue to pander to the green lobby nonsense?

Wind power costs 3 x what gas fored or coal fired electric costs. It is not viable witout continuous subsidy. If we want to reduce CO2 emisisons we need to replace all our coal fired plant with gas fired plant. Natural gas is ubiquitous and can be brought in from anywhere in the world and far cleaner than coal.

Cheap reliable, eficient and gas turbines can be put in old coal fired power stataions so saving a huge amount of energy in building without thr need to build new electricty pylons and trnsmisison lines.

Wind power during the very cold winter weather we had produced almost no power. It simply cannot be relied upon.

What do people think about carbon capture and storage?

Yabu. I think it is vert short sighted to be put off by the aesthetics of something that could save us from the prison that is oil. None of us will be here forever so its a small price to pay something you don't like the look of for the benefit of future generations

A recent report shows just how useless windpower really is.

Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

Put simply, wind turbines produce output only 25% of the time and less than 5% of the time they are really needed at peak demand periods which is typically early January when high pressure weather systems sit over the UK producing clear sky, very light wind and very low temperatures for several weeks.

If they were actually good for the environment I would support you Noddyholder, but once you get behind the headline spin, they aren't. Pumping 800 olympic size swimming pools of concrete into peat bogs and chopping down swathes of forest negates any carbon saved. As is the buliding processes needed to manufacture and transport the turbines and the additional roadworks needed to bring them here through tiny country lanes on massive lorries. They only last 15-20 years and need rebuilding.

Fact - Onshore wind cost 7 pence per kWh, as opposed to around 4 pence per kWh for the other technologies?coal, gas and nuclear. Offshore wind, biomass, wave and tidal power are even more expensive. And these estimates exclude the additional costs of integrating more renewable generation into Britain's electricity grid.Wind farms make no sense at all.

midwaleswind.co.uk

ohanotherone, the comment I made about wind always blowing somewhere was in the context of interconnection with the rest of Europe. And the wind is always blowing somewhere in Europe. You will not have a still day from the west coast of Ireland through to Eastern Europe. Not possible. Look, I agree that wind energy will not solve all our problems. I'm just highlighting that there are solutions to some of the short falls with wind power (and a lot of this applies to most renewable energy sources which vary considerably throughout the day and throughout the year). I do believe that it will provide part of the energy solution - the scale of the problem we face should not be underestimated.

We'll take your wind turbines and you can have the incinerator they are trying to build.

ThereAreWorseThingsTiggaxx

OP is a NIMBY

Yes, and proud of it. What is wrong with wanting to protect the local economy and environment and health of local children. Living within 600m of a high voltage line (of which there will be 26 miles of one, hardly my back yard) increases the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia by 9-11 fold. So I'm fine with the term nimby.

The Severn is the longest river in the UK. Pouring tons of concrete in the Welsh Hills will increase flooding all along the length of it. Do you live in the flood plain? Better get your sandbags and wellies out.

Chris Hulne may have the final say. Click on his website and he is full of protecting his local economy, environment and conserving local towns and villages but he probably won't give a shit about mine.

And the Danish have had enough aswell.....

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

Nuclear, wind and most other renewable forms of energy need public subsidy and heavy political interference to make them viable.

Most politicians don't live anywhere near nuclear plants or wind turbines and have their pay, expenses and pensions paid by the public purse and all index linked.

Funny that.

Darthniquabi.....you have to have nuclear or other conventional power anyway....wind power needs to be backed up so we can't get rid of them. It's not a case of me thinking hmmm this looks a bit crap. They want to cover large areas of Powys, it will destroy the tourism industry and up to 5000 people may lose their jobs for relatively little power generation. So it only makes sense if you play the carbon stockmarket or own a wind farm company. Everyone else loses. This area isn't popular amongst the richer parts of our society but it does provide a haven for people from the west midlands, many are signing our petitions, many can't really afford more expensive holidays. What about their sense of well being???

They want to stick 800 turbines over some of the most beautiful land (IMP) in the country and basically industrialise the whole of mid wales. You can check out the photos on this facebook page
www.facebook.com/MontgomeryshireAP#!/MontgomeryshireAP?sk=photos

The picture of the pylons are what is to come and their will be many miles of them connecting the 17 wind farms to each other and to the mainline national grid in Shropshire.

Oh, it's tranquil and tourism plays a massive role in the local economy. We think about £500 million pounds worth of the industry will go, leaving less jobs in the area and impact on the local economy so tourism has a lot to do with it. Local pubs, B&B's and caravan parks, all will be affected.

I also think it is incredibly shortsighted to object to wind power on the grounds of aesthetics. FWIW I also think the wind turbines have an elegant grace about them and don't see why they can't be part of the solution alongside hydro and solar. I honestly cannot understand anyone being pro-nuclear. I think if people had any idea of the dangers and the horrendous long term damage that can be done by radiation leaks they would not be as quick to jump on the nuclear bandwagon and the truth is no-one truly knows what the extreme long term effects will be. You only have to look at the after effects of Chernobyl to see how horrendous the effects could be - babies born with horrific birth defects, people developing cancers years and years later, the soil and water supplies, farmland and grazing animals being poisoned. In Japan, even people exposed to realtively low levels of radiation experienced symptoms like nausea, vomiting and gastrointestinal problems, skin problems, headaches, fever and problems with the central nervous system. This was from a leak in a plant that was up to code and suppsoedly "earthquake safe". Terrifying.

The pylons will increase the risk of lukaemia so it's not JUST asthetics, it's about the health effects to people. It's also about effects on biodiversity and the environment.

Nuclear is pretty safe in the scheme of things. Scary but safe and not necessarily less risky than mega power pylons. We've had Trawsfynedd for years without incident.

YANBU

Wind farms are a poor form of energy. A recent ST article about offshore windfarms noted the vast numbers that are being planned (the majority of our coastal views will eventually be spoiled by turbines - the scale planned is utterly vast). The lack of foresight and risk assessment is scary - the impact of the natural environment will be immense. |To take one example, seals are already being wounded and dying in their droves.