| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to Have Your Say !!!! | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 73
Page : 1 2 3
<< next page next page >>
Author |
Topic : Blots on the landscape |
|
| Peter |
Tomorrow - Thursday 18 June STC will be asked to consider another planning application for a wind turbine (in the Cringles area). www.planning4bradford.com/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=48C80D3F68D833BD5C6618BFF0F0F8C6?action=firstPage 15/02265/FUL | Installation of one endurance e-4660 wind turbine | Cragg House Farm Fishbeck Lane Silsden West Yorkshire BD20 0NP The turbine is one of the smaller versions but will still reach a height of 36m and generate 85kW on a good day. Details of the planning meeting: www.silsden.net/town_council/docs_15/15_planning/STC_Gp_&_Planning_agenda_jun2015.pdf |
|
| andytee853 |
Sounds like a good plan to me. It has my support. Plenty of wind in these parts... The more renewable energy the better! |
|
| dogcatcher |
same here i think they look graceful better than pylons and using free wind,the more the merrier  |
|
| Candy |
And a good earner for the owner. |
|
| HurricaneHector |
I also can't see a problem with these turbines. Better than burning fossil fuels. |
|
| Dodzi |
It got to be the way forwards. Whole provinces in Austria are powered by the things |
|
| skinnytinribs |
It gets my full support. The more renewable energy we have the better💨 |
|
| victor |
To me they are so ugly and should only be put were they can't be easily seen, I have seen green ones which are far better but still ugly. |
|
| bobber |
there'll always be the 'nimbys', (not in my back yard). but I think they're graceful objects, as long as the long term goal is to benefit everyone. |
|
| GAMEKEEPER |
I would rather see a solar farm than a field full of new houses. The former is sustainable, the latter most certainly isn't. |
|
| HB |
I'm all in favour and I think they are much better looking than houses or CO2 spewing powerstations |
|
| old_miner |
quoteI would rather see a solar farm than a field full of new houses. The former is sustainable, the latter most certainly isn't. Actually the answer is to have both. Build houses each with its own windmill, solar panels, bio waste generator and batteries. |
|
| andytee853 |
I posted this a while back and some of you non-nay-sayers here may be curious about solar panels.... The offer still stands! "I'd like to offer free impartial advice for any Silsdeners that have an interest in installing solar (photovoltaic) panels. We've had them for over two years now and the numbers look good in terms of returns. (9% return on investment along with total payback of 11 years). With the cost of solar panels coming down rapidly, the numbers should now look even better. I'm not selling anything and don't work for the industry but have a keen interest in clean renewable energy technology and want to see more people benefit. You're also welcome to come and see our setup and have a cup of tea. (email andytaylor76@gmail.com or call 07812481635 to arrange)" The European Commission in their wisdom has recently ruled that the current UK 5% VAT rate on energy efficiency products including solar panel equipment is illegal. The Government may have to put the rate up to 20% soon and this means that installations will go up by over a grand. Crazy. |
|
| Peter |
BUT Onshore wind farms currently receive about £90 per MWHr via a combination of an indirect subsidy using ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) and the wholesale price. Onshore wind used to get 1 ROC per MWHr but this was reduced to 0.9 last year. It sounds like a 10% reduction but occurred at the time the tax on carbon was increased. The result was that wind farms received a similar total payment. AND In the winter when a high pressure area sits over the country, it's cold and frosty and there is no wind (the time when there is a very high demand for electricity)? What keeps your house warm, food cooked and most importantly boils the kettle? It all relies on having a reliable electricity supply, your gas central heating will not work without electricity! So we have to have a backup supply for when the turbines STOP, we are paying for our electrictity twice. Wind power generation only exists because of subsidies, farmers see it as a income generation product, turbines are a blot on the landscape. More reading www.togetheragainstwind.com/reduce-wind-farm-subsidies-now/ |
|
| Dodzi |
Sorry Peter but i don't agree. They look great. |
|
| Peter |
quoteSorry Peter but i don't agree. They look great. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. |
|
| andytee853 |
You have to look at the bigger picture, Peter. The future of energy provision is a mix of renewables of all forms, energy storage (heat, batteries and hydrogen will greatly lessen the intermittency issue) combined with backups of small amounts of fossil fuels and nuclear. As a country, we are committed to reducing CO2 emissions year on year (the climate change act) and so like it or not, renewables and onshore wind are here to stay. The fact that this government is actually listening to the anti-onshore-wind brigade at the moment is a blip in this trend in my opinion. And by the way, when the wind doesn't blow during winter "highs" the sun usually shines! To get a more balanced viewpoint on the perceived issues around onshore wind than the biased NIMBY opinion of a lobby group it might be better to read this: www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PB-onshore-wind-energy-UK.pdf In terms of the increased cost through renewables subsidies to consumers' bills (which is sensationalist nonsense by the way), consider a recent study instead by the IMF which talks about the real cost of fossil fuels to our economies as a form of subsidy itself. Treatment of health conditions caused by fossil fuel burning costs a LOT. You pay for that through your taxes. In short, we simply cannot afford not to embrace renewables because in the long term, they are economically the best option. You could argue that they are the ONLY option if we are to maintain a livable planet. Ignoring the fusion pipe dream... www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf |
|
| Peter |
Why do you have to make this so personal? Did I mention YOU by name? Did I say I objected to renewables? Did I say I objected to off-shore wind turbines? Onshore - these things really have no place close to where people live. Solar makes more sense than wind but I will believe in solar power when industry start putting panels on industrial sheds, then I will know it's a viable source of power. Industrial sheds are ideal locations for solar panels but I guess there is no subsidy available so it's not really viable to generate renewable energy without a subsidy. |
|
| midway |
Is there any data on how much Government subsidy is paid towards the instillation of wind turbines? ( please ). |
|
| blob |
This might change things - New onshore wind farms will be excluded from a subsidy scheme from 1 April 2016, a year earlier than expected. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33177025 Seriously though it's one turbine. I wouldn't call that a blot on the landscape! |
|
| andytee853 |
I was merely referring to the points expressed in your post Peter! It wasn't intended as a personal attack on you. I'm trying to inform the debate!! Feel free to mention me by name in your future posts. I won't take it personally. By the way, the reason commercial properties don't have more solar on them is that they are mostly rented and landlords are not interested in investing on behalf of their tenants. There is talk of making it easier for tenants to invest and have transferable feed in tariffs. Not sure where we're up to on that. |
|
| Peter |
quoteThis might change things - New onshore wind farms will be excluded from a subsidy scheme from 1 April 2016, a year earlier than expected. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33177025 Seriously though it's one turbine. I wouldn't call that a blot on the landscape! This is only the latest application, I know of at least 3 other applications in the same area which have had their planning applications rejected. So one blot may become several once one gets approval. |
|
| old_miner |
Technically the real solution is the micro-nuclear power station. This would reduce the impact of the original countryside eyesore, the pylon. |
|
| victor |
Yes Peter I have just driven from Cowling on the back road to Laycock and they are everywhere, it will have started as one and now there like rabbits. By the way how many of you calling me a nimby have solar panels, because I do and I have just been paid £654 from EDF for the last three months supply. So what are you doing to stop global warming bobber. |
|
| victor |
Last year my solar panels generated 3567 kwh which is 400 kwh more than I was using before they were installed, so again I ask what are you doing to stop global warming bobber?. When I said they should not be easily seen it was for everyone's benefit, I wont be able to see it from my home but some Silsden people will. |
|
| andytee853 |
Yes, our panels generated a similar amount. They are very consistent from year to year too. Just to round off the wind debate with some comment from someone who works in the power generation industry: www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/news-archive/2015/government-double-standards-dishonesty-with-onshore-wind Puts what you read in the news into perspective! So what was the town council meeting outcome? |
|
| grandad |
Sorry Peter not totally on topic, but what about hydrogen as a fuel? It doesn't produce any harmful emission when burnt. |
|
| midway |
The question from andytee853 is a reasonable request, ( So what was the town council meeting outcome?). So why no reply? |
|
| old_miner |
quoteYes, our panels generated a similar amount. They are very consistent from year to year too. Just to round off the wind debate with some comment from someone who works in the power generation industry: www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/news-archive/2015/government-double-standards-dishonesty-with-onshore-wind Puts what you read in the news into perspective! So what was the town council meeting outcome? This a standard piece of work from a biased party. 1: Wind farms can be noisy eye sores. 2: Wind farms are not viable 24/7 3: Nuclear energy is green and 24/7 4: Techno Savy 'greens' such as Lovelife the Gaia man are pro nuclear. 5: Fracking is extensively practiced in the USA and despite the best efforts of the conspiracy theories the world has not come to an end. The future will undoubtedly be a nuclear/hydrogen society. Bulk nuclear energy producing hydrogen from water which is then used by portable machines via fuel cells and ic. Other bulk and portable systems will also operate, but none can provide all our needs in the way nuclear energy can. |
|
| Peter |
I didn't attend the meeting but I believe the application for the blot was rejected. An update of a previous post - this was the 5th application for a blot to be sited in this area. |
|
| midway |
Thank you Peter for your reply re' the blot. |
|
| victor |
Thank you Peter |
|
| bobber |
flippin 'eck, I'm being attacked by victor. all I said was that I didn't mind wind farms. |
|
| HB |
Shame it was rejected, Wind farms/ turbines are not viable 24/7 however they are viable if mixed with other sources, like the excess from people's solar, hydroelectric....... Plenty of viable renewable mix as aposed to the non- renewables ie nuclear & fossil fuels ( oh and cheaper as there are fewer subsidies) |
|
| old_miner |
quoteShame it was rejected, Wind farms/ turbines are not viable 24/7 however they are viable if mixed with other sources, like the excess from people's solar, hydroelectric....... Plenty of viable renewable mix as aposed to the non- renewables ie nuclear & fossil fuels ( oh and cheaper as there are fewer subsidies) This would require sufficient wind farms to cover all power needs during those periods with no sun. Then sufficient solar panels for windless sunny days. Then of course plenty of tidal barriers to cover the windless nights! This is why the technically ignorant green argument does not add up. Only nuclear energy can guarantee the lights stay on with no carbon dioxide filling the atmosphere. |
|
| victor |
bobber just because I said turbines were ugly you called me a nimby, so I told you some of what I was doing to help stop global warming. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 73
|
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > Blots on the landscape |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
16/06/2015 : 12:36:51 
18/06/2015 : 09:59:12