"Over half of Northern Ireland people (51%) disagreed with the statement that wind farms are ugly or a blot on the Northern Ireland landscape,"

32%
Must be the owners of those bungalows stuck on the side of a hill, complaining of THEIR view being blotted.

We should face reality and invest in nuclear generation, it has it's dangers, but to talk of windfarms as a solution to global warming is silly.

I to some extent agree tiny we should definitely be seriously investigating nuclear power but also wind farms could play a nice percentage of supply to the national grid

queens_unionist, The french have invested heavily in nuclear power for years without problems, when the oil starts to run out the futilty of depending on renewable energy will be obvious.

"The french have invested heavily in nuclear power for years without problems"
Would you work in a nuclear power station?
I would'nt.
Would you live next door to one?
I would'nt.
Nuclear power is a relatively new technology, Its a bit like watching a chimp with a bazooka.
It would also be of interest to find out exactly what the French do with their waste uranium, porbably flog it to the brits.
The two islands have got a great chance to harness not only wind power (waiting for someone to enter some bad politician gag), but also hydro-electric power, And rumour has it that there is opportunity for geo-thermal to.
Off the subject, advances automotive engine technology (reap seed/ manure (make your own fuel lol) and a few other i cant be bothered to remember, The I/C engine will probably conk out halfway through this century.
Copyright of new slogan.
"Put a Pig in your tank"

Sol
(found something to be optimistic about)

The money they will use to build these blots on the landscape to create 20% of our energy needs would buy every household 4 'energy saving bulbs' that would save more energy than the wind farms will make. Unless there are other renewable resources wind alone will not be enough. Give us all 4 of the bulbs Tony!

The monopoly for energy usuage doesnt lie with the householder.
4 light bulbs per house will not equal 20% of the energy saved, what size of lights do you have in your house?

I havent researched the above statement, but I could find out in a matter of minutes... if i could be bothered and if it wasnt so late.
Sol

""Over half of Northern Ireland people (51%) disagreed with the statement that wind farms are ugly or a blot on the Northern Ireland landscape,""

They are an eye sore, if there's enough of them, I passed about 100 of the feckers today.

The good thing, as someone said to me , is that "developers" (euphemism) will be less likely to pollute the environment with their ghastly developments if there's a wind farm near ! Ditto bungalow blight. The only thing I was wondering - do they kill a lot of birds ?

Rather have a power station pumping out toxic fumes then?
But at least the fumes dont affect our wee country (that much)let them other feckers deal with it, we'll just drag our heels behind the rest of civilization and hope noone catches on... this psychology is counter-productive.

I fear in the coming years we may not have a choice over what is an eyesore and what is not.
Also, as oil and coal is IMPORTED (on the most part) it would keep money in the country.

"The only thing I was wondering - do they kill a lot of birds ?"

Developers or bumgalows?

LOl maca - I was thinking of the migratory flights of geese - they pass through areas that would be likely sites for wind farms - e.g. along the Tay and round Strangford.

Davros
Under the assumption that the rotation speed of the propellors (in terms of frequency) is not equal to the frequency of the optic nerve of our feathered friends (see strobe effect).
No birds will get harmed, through thinking it isnt turning.
I am aware that pigeons see things in "slow motion", so I cannot be certain, but I doubt that it is dangerous.
Is their a vet in the audience?

Sol

"I was thinking of the migratory flights of geese - they pass through areas that would be likely sites for wind farms "

Don't worry, if the propellors miss them i'll be waiting with the shotgun. ;)

the developers or the geese???

"the developers or the geese???"

Hmmm. Well you can eat geese, but developers might be more fun because I could chase them for a bit...

The lightbulbs would save energy.

More energy than the number of windturbines it is proposed to build (to create 20% of our energy needs - what the govt. propose to do by 2020) would create.

The energy we would save if we all had 4 of these bulbs for the next 15 years would be greater than what the windturbines would make. You need to factor in the costs as well.

I don't know why we need streetlights on all night either. They used to turn them off during the 70s oil crisis. Multiply the energy savings on that one up for me Sol.

If you dont like the wind turbines you could always opt for hydro electric.
From my ancient university lectures I recall it works thus:
Series of bouys float on water, bobs up n down, linear energy converted into AC current.
Heavily summarised due to time of night.

I think hydro might be more reliable than wind, due to the nature of the sea.

Sol

I heard a discussion on the radio about the feasibility and problems of hydro and Strangford Lough a few weeks/months ago.

Direct to the evidence that suggests.

"The money they will use to build these blots on the landscape to create 20% of our energy needs would buy every household 4 'energy saving bulbs' that would save more energy than the wind farms will make. Unless there are other renewable resources wind alone will not be enough."

Further
"Multiply the energy savings on that one up for me Sol."
No need to be confrontational, why cant you work it out?
NO way is 4 lightbulbs per house, going to equal 20%.

Davros
What was the outcome?

Feasibilty study in progress as I recall and more research needed on effect on the Lough itself Sol.

thanks

Why not have wind generators in were we use electricity? The Antrim Hospital generator looks superb. You could locate them in industrial estates.

We need to reduce energy consumption and amend the building regulations to ensure this happens and we should incorporate energy production into new developments. Lots of small fixes add up and they empower people. Producing your own energy reduces your dependence on others.

The Planning Service also has a role and needs to adopt sustainability criteria and why oh why are we still investing so heavily in, and relying on road transport. We need to plan to encourage energy efficient transport.

What is wrong with Hydro and using rivers again it doesn’t have to be large scale. The rivers around Belfast powered the early mills.

Then there is also biomass, heat pumps etc.

The problem with renewables is a lack of a coherent government strategy. All that is needed is initial support to increase volume and reduce unit production cost. This is an industry that we in NI should encourage as we could be a net exporter of energy if we become organised.

As for nuclear, even if we started the planning process now it would be at least a decade before the first nuclear power station would be producing energy. Nuclear is not cheap and if something goes wrong the down side is terrible. Within the last few weeks we have had yet more problems at Sellafield.

Normal 100W bulb:
10000 Hrs @ 0.1units/hr = 1000 units

CFL 20W (100W equivalent)
10000 Hrs @ 0.02 units/hr = 200 units.

In the illustration above over 10000 hours of use a typical CFL bulb uses 200 units of electricity as opposed to the normal bulbs 1000, a saving of 20% - the governments proposed 2020 target. (By the way this would save you about £54 over the 10000 hours)

Sol, If you thought I was being confrontational - sorry. But you did offer earlier to research my claim. I'm goin' to bed!

Would you work in a nuclear power station?

Yes.

Would you live next door to one?

Yes.

Nuclear power is a relatively new technology,

As compared to what? The wheel?

Its a bit like watching a chimp with a bazooka.

I might not agree with you on nuclear power, but I think I do on drugs. I take it mescaline is your poison? Ever tried listening to Wagner on mescaline?

It would also be of interest to find out exactly what the French do with their waste uranium, porbably flog it to the brits.

The Yanks stick it down a big mine shaft. For once they're right.

Whatabot, you're calculation is rubbish. For a start, you demonstrate an 80% saving, not 20%. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that each house only has four light bulbs. No fridge, no TV, no computer, no washing machine, no iron, no electric hob, no electric water heater etc.

Back to the drawing board.

To do the calculation correctly, find ot the typical energy usage of a house, calculate out percentage of the total the energy saving of your four bulbs will be.

Do you want to factor in the increased energy costs involved in the production of these bulbs?

I'm sorry, but you sound like you've been visiting one of David Belamy's websites.

Personally don't see the problem with both inshore and off shore windfarms.. in fact the off shore ones would have the additional benefit of creating 'marinbe preservation' areas at see, as the trawlers etc wouldn't be able to work between them. As for the In shore turbines.. could you not just paint them? I'm sure kids at school etc would love coming up for designs etc.

Hydro power, imo is definately something we should be looking at, given our vast coastline and position on the Atlantic, but as well as that, how about Solar power? If every house had solar panels on their roof, that would contribute to personal power usage, and therefore save energy. Granted there isn't too much sunshine at the best of times here, but I am pretty sure there is enough to justify doing it.

What is needed, as someone said before, is cohesive Government leadership on this issue, until then nothing will happen.

The problem with renewables that no one is mentioned is what happens when it's not sunny or windy? Would everyone accept having powercuts due to the weather? Cloud cuckoo land terirtory.

You need a relaible supply on demand, not whenever the weather's right. And you cant just switch on a coal/gas/nuclear station whenever the weather conditions aren't right. They've got to be constantly exporting to the grid.

There is no getting past Nuclear, as for old technology, maybe in the UK but other conuntries such as France and Finland have had a much more successfull nuclear program. When appraising the Nuclear industry in Britain you have to appreciate the context of it's origin's before condeming it off hand.

clean, emmission free, on demand, there's only one.

BTW you get more dose living in areas like Cornwall and Aberdeen than you get working in a nuclear station.

While energy efficency in the home and work is obviously benefical there's only so much it will contribute. Many industrial process require vast amounts of energy.

Jocky

When does the tide or ocean currents stop? What about biomass?

We need to invest in hydrogen cell technology, it is the energy sector of the future.

Many people doubt nuclear on economic grounds as well s the obvious problem. Why not invest in renewables and build that industry?

It was late!

AW,

Ocean tides or currents don't stop, but at present, coreect me if I'm wrong, there isn't an operational tidal power station about. They launched an experimental one of scotland a couple years bank and it almost sunk. How do you harness tidal power? One of the main problems being you need so many it makes larges stretches of your coast line off limits to shipping.

Biomass? really.

Agree, The car manufactures are investing heavily in fuel cell technologies. Which is funny when Greenpeace protest against them when they're the only people working towards a solution. Not like greenpeace to shoot themselves in the foot though.

The economic question is always a hard one but it's never clear cut either way. But nuclear is the only proven reliable technology where the price doesn't rely on the vagries of international politics.

You agrue why not invest in renewables? You are writing a blanque cheque, hoping to find a solution where one might not exist. Nuclear is proven. Better of spending the money improving and refining nuclear where there is a wealth of knowledge and experience.

I'm not writing renewables of, they should be part of the solution but they're far from the catch all magic solution that a lot of people think they are. People who don't have the responsibility to ensure the energy supply.

More like 9 out of 10 people haven't got a clue about the energy industry bar vague notions about nuclear BAD, wind GOOD.

Were storing up problems for ourselves, all because the government didn't have the guts to make the hard choices before the election. Short term politics at it's worst.

1. Would you work in a nuclear power station?
Yes.
That’s your choice, I would’nt.
2. Would you live next door to one?
Yes
Answer as per item 1.
3.Nuclear power is a relatively new technology,
As compared to what? The wheel?
Nope, realistically harnessing atomic power is about 60 years old, nearer 100 if you want to go back to Rotegen and the Curies, Were as wind power has been used since the dawn of history. Boats have sails not wheels.
4. Its a bit like watching a chimp with a bazooka.
I might not agree with you on nuclear power, but I think I do on drugs. I take it mescaline is your poison? Ever tried listening to Wagner on mescaline?
Nope, don’t take them. Every time I listen to Wagner I get the urge to invade Poland(1).,
5. It would also be of interest to find out exactly what the French do with their waste uranium, probably flog it to the brits.
The Yanks stick it down a big mine shaft. For once they're right.
Yeah, So and what?
1 W.Allen

Normal 100W bulb:
10000 Hrs @ 0.1units/hr = 1000 units

CFL 20W (100W equivalent)
10000 Hrs @ 0.02 units/hr = 200 units.

In the illustration above over 10000 hours of use a typical CFL bulb uses 200 units of electricity as opposed to the normal bulbs 1000, a saving of 20% - the governments proposed 2020 target. (By the way this would save you about £54 over the 10000 hours)

Sol, If you thought I was being confrontational - sorry. But you did offer earlier to research my claim. I'm goin' to bed!

Dont worry about it, I cant be bothered to work it out either, Fraggle did hit the nail on the head regarding the calc. But I would have not put it so bluntly.
Sol

I'm with the Fogey on this one. I'd have no problem working in or near a modern nuclear power plant. I'd have a serious problem working within twenty miles of a corrupt secretive scandal-ridden incompetent hellhole like Sellafield (not a power plant), but that's another matter.

It is very difficult for accidents on the scale of Chernobyl to happen with the relatively modern nuclear reactors that are now available. Pebble-bed nuclear reactors offer a design which is almost completely safe, just as safe as a regular power station.

The waste element is the most serious problem which needs to be considered, and to be honest considering that some of the by-products have half-lives running into tens of thousands of years or more you need to be responsible about it - you can't be sure that in that time frame people will always be speaking the same languages they are now. Modern measures include a process which encases the contaminant materials into glass.

Regarding wind power, I'd be happy to have one of those in the neighbourhood. I think the modern wind turbines are quite aesthetially pleasing. Further, it's cool to be able to look up and actually see the power you're using being generated.

As others have said, the solution to our problems lies in conservation and efficiency as much as it lies in rational thinking about our options going into the future.