Renton 18051 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Excellent. Now we just need to use them to slice the heads off every anti-wind farm NIMBY in the country, and bingo. Until we get a still day. Or it's too windy. Then our freezer's defrost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Excellent. Now we just need to use them to slice the heads off every anti-wind farm NIMBY in the country, and bingo. There's just no need though, vast amounts of the offshore sea around the UK is between 5 and 25m deep, there's no great technical problem or cost building in that depth. Yes they will be more expensive than onshore ones, but the cost can easily be recouped by the sheer scale of the possible offshore developments (although 1000's won't help if there is no wind ). Plus of course the reason so many onshore wind turbines are being built is not because they are great or we need them, but rather that the government grants are so massive for building them at the moment a company can make more profit building a turbine than it can from running it for 10+ year. Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Excellent. Now we just need to use them to slice the heads off every anti-wind farm NIMBY in the country, and bingo. There's just no need though, vast amounts of the offshore sea around the UK is between 5 and 25m deep, there's no great technical problem or cost building in that depth. Yes they will be more expensive than onshore ones, but the cost can easily be recouped by the sheer scale of the possible offshore developments (although 1000's won't help if there is no wind ). Plus of course the reason so many onshore wind turbines are being built is not because they are great or we need them, but rather that the government grants are so massive for building them at the moment a company can make more profit building a turbine than it can from running it for 10+ year. Madness. hmmmm....really? what is the net profit for building a wind turbine with government money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14136 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I was talking about offshore, like the article was. NIMBY seems to equate to Not In The Sea Near Where I Live for these people. I've never really understood it. Obviously the "lack of wind" point is a valid one. They should build a couple next to the Toontastic server for a constant flow of hot air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 One good reason to plant em in the sea; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Excellent. Now we just need to use them to slice the heads off every anti-wind farm NIMBY in the country, and bingo. There's just no need though, vast amounts of the offshore sea around the UK is between 5 and 25m deep, there's no great technical problem or cost building in that depth. Yes they will be more expensive than onshore ones, but the cost can easily be recouped by the sheer scale of the possible offshore developments (although 1000's won't help if there is no wind ). Plus of course the reason so many onshore wind turbines are being built is not because they are great or we need them, but rather that the government grants are so massive for building them at the moment a company can make more profit building a turbine than it can from running it for 10+ year. Madness. hmmmm....really? what is the net profit for building a wind turbine with government money? Hard to say because you can get development money and then running money, as currently wind farms aren't profitable in a conventional sense (no one would build them without the multiple subsidies), but smaller developments can get £100,000's in the black very quickly, and of course still provide subsidised income as well as continuing use from the land in some cases. Interestingly they are considering allowing a "bribe" to councils which would see them gain from them in a similar way to which they used to gain from speed cameras, hoping that much like speed cameras naked self-interest would mean many more would be built and local concerns ignored. I was talking about offshore, like the article was. NIMBY seems to equate to Not In The Sea Near Where I Live for these people. I've never really understood it. Obviously the "lack of wind" point is a valid one. They should build a couple next to the Toontastic server for a constant flow of hot air. Ah... well again much of that sea that is that shallow is beyond visual sight from the coast, and has an added benefit to marine life (with the possible exception of sea birds). It's still a bit iffy though as you could cover the whole of the Irish Sea in them and you'd still need power stations for basic generation never mind wind free days. It's strange that tidal power isn't getting more interest, although again the reasons are commercial, it's utterly reliable, but much more expensive to develop and run than wind power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 One good reason to plant em in the sea; That's why they did so little quash that "UFO destroys wind" turbine story, it's much more palatable than "wind turbine explodes" truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's strange that tidal power isn't getting more interest, although again the reasons are commercial, it's utterly reliable, but much more expensive to develop and run than wind power. I've always wondered why, as an Island , we've not developed this more? Surely once the initial cost is paid, it's an abundant source ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14136 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 The tides might dry up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Because the current government would incur the political and economical costs and the future governments would reap the benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 The tides might dry up. The opposite in the next 100 years or so, if you believe the Global Warming MediaFuelled Conspiracy Cover Up......... ........(Help me out here Fop). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Because the current government would incur the political and economical costs and the future governments would reap the benefits? Not something Gordy needs to worry about , the way he's going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 86 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Because the current government would incur the political and economical costs and the future governments would reap the benefits? nail head hit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Because the current government would incur the political and economical costs and the future governments would reap the benefits? Not something Gordy needs to worry about , the way he's going Aye but he's completely toothless right now, he couldn't get Labour MPs to back it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Excellent. Now we just need to use them to slice the heads off every anti-wind farm NIMBY in the country, and bingo. There's just no need though, vast amounts of the offshore sea around the UK is between 5 and 25m deep, there's no great technical problem or cost building in that depth. Yes they will be more expensive than onshore ones, but the cost can easily be recouped by the sheer scale of the possible offshore developments (although 1000's won't help if there is no wind ). Plus of course the reason so many onshore wind turbines are being built is not because they are great or we need them, but rather that the government grants are so massive for building them at the moment a company can make more profit building a turbine than it can from running it for 10+ year. Madness. People who want to stick a B+Q turbine in their back garden get grants. But wind farm developers do not get grants for building large scale turbines. There is a scheme called the Renewable Obligation which is essentially a carrot and stick for utilities to produce more power from renewable technology. Providers of renewable energy are given Renewable Energy Certificates for every unit of electricity they produce. They can either trade or use these to meet set targets, those not meeting the target are fined. But no or low generation and no carrot. The extra cost associated with this is paid for by the consumer not government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's strange that tidal power isn't getting more interest, although again the reasons are commercial, it's utterly reliable, but much more expensive to develop and run than wind power. I've always wondered why, as an Island , we've not developed this more? Surely once the initial cost is paid, it's an abundant source ? There are literally hundreds of different designs for wave and tidal devices - the industry still hasn't settled on one. I think there is actually only one commercial size wave farm in the world, compare with over 250 wind farms in the UK alone and it gives you an idea of how far away technologically and commercially it is. The ROC 'subsidy' mentioned above will soon be doubled for wave and tidal, which should make it more attractive to developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 If the energy of the tides is harvested won't the Moon crash into the Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14136 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 The tides might dry up. The opposite in the next 100 years or so, if you believe the Global Warming MediaFuelled Conspiracy Cover Up......... ........(Help me out here Fop). In that case there's no point in spending millions on the infrastructure if it's only going to get swamped as we turn into a Scottish Highlands-sized island anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 If the energy of the tides is harvested won't the Moon crash into the Earth? Won't it melt entering the atmosphere, being cheese and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Maybe we'll be lucky and it'll skoot under the earth and miss the pillars that support us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Maybe we'll be lucky and it'll skoot under the earth and miss the pillars that support us? Elephants man, Elephants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Maybe we'll be lucky and it'll skoot under the earth and miss the pillars that support us? Elephants man, Elephants! Turtles ffs. You'd have thought the Fish would have known this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 One Turtle, Jackass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39184 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Maybe we'll be lucky and it'll skoot under the earth and miss the pillars that support us? Elephants man, Elephants! Turtles ffs. You'd have thought the Fish would have known this. Aye, with 4 elephants on its back. You never peeped over the Rim like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You never peeped over the Rim like? That depends on whether its a euphemism or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now