Nuclear Powerplants

[Rave]

Here's some more background about wind noise:

http://www.awea.org/smallwind/toolbox/windzone/

My neighbour's sound system is not that loud; I merely choose to use my own Ass Kickin' Sound System responsibly. I could drown him out whenever I choose to....I choose to sleep through it instead.

Anyway- tomorrow is when I'll find out the noise a 5' turbine makes and slap you down. In the meantime i have drinking to do.

[badass]

The RSPB only oppose wind farms when they think that they are poorly sited. In general, they think that the biggest threat to bird populations is climate change, and are in favour of wind power.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

According to the Wikipedia article I linked above, the average turbine in Britain has one bird strike a year. By comparison, 10m birds are killed by cars every year.

I stand corrected. It appears that bird populations are not as affected as some would have you believe. Oddly enough they have done their research in what seems an unbiased manner on wind turbines and their effect, but obviously not on so called greenhouse gasses effect on climate change.
Of course the biggest risk to birds is climate change. The biggest risk to any species is always climate change.
I notice that in this forum it seems that pretty much everyone believes in global warming, yet I am the only one that has posted any data on it. Data that can be interpreted 2 ways. Either as inconclusive or that the global warming theory is fantasy.

[badass]

Here's some more background about wind noise:

http://www.awea.org/smallwind/toolbox/windzone/

My neighbour's sound system is not that loud; I merely choose to use my own Ass Kickin' Sound System responsibly. I could drown him out whenever I choose to....I choose to sleep through it instead.

Anyway- tomorrow is when I'll find out the noise a 5' turbine makes and slap you down. In the meantime i have drinking to do.

Just skim read that link.

By the third or fourth meeting it became clear that most of what we submitted was never reviewed by any of the Board members. In addition, only one of the seven Board members ever took enough interest in the case to visit a nearby windmill. Within five miles of the Planning Board meeting location is a 20 kW, 30 foot diameter rebuilt Jacobs on a 95 foot free-standing lattice tower. This windmill is four times larger than our proposed windmill (based on power output and swept area). The interested Board member stated that singing birds were louder than the Jacobs windmill. Even with this internal report, noise remained an issue.

And there we have an example of most peoples behaviour when presented with hard evidence that goes against what they've already decided is the case. lgnore it rather than evaluate it and decide in a reasoned manner what it means.
Its funny because a year ago I would have been with the Global warming lobby aswell ignoring the evidence etc just like they do, but the more research done, the more it is exposed as a load of political rubbish.

[iranu]

why are you arguing over a non point? WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

It does not matter how noisy wind turbines are. Even if they had negative noise and reduced the sound of Rave's reggae playing neighbour the are still a gross waste of money.

WIND TURBINES DO NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH ELECTRICITY AT A CONSTANT RATE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER - which produces 20% of our current energy needs.

If you use wind power you will always need back up power stations for when the wind does not blow or when the wind blows too strongly. It is inefficient to fire up and close down power stations every few weeks because the wind turbines have stopped producing electricity. Power turbines are most efficient when left to run 24/7 for months on end, starting and stopping them is a time consuming process - my employer Rolls Royce makes power turbines and we have a power turbine station on site that produces electricity for the site and at night sells the excess electricity to the national grid. It gets shut down once every 18 months for maintainence.

Lets get one thing straight - PEOPLE WHO DISCUSS WIND POWER AS A SERIOUS ALTERNATIVE ARE IDIOTS.

They have no clue as to the amount of energy needed by Britain nor do they understand that wind turbines produce so little so infrequently. They are a sop to the greens and other loonies and dreamers who will not wake up to the hard facts.

[badass]

why are you arguing over a non point? WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

It does not matter how noisy wind turbines are. Even if they had negative noise and reduced the sound of Rave's reggae playing neighbour the are still a gross waste of money.

WIND TURBINES DO NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH ELECTRICITY AT A CONSTANT RATE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER - which produces 20% of our current energy needs.

If you use wind power you will always need back up power stations for when the wind does not blow or when the wind blows too strongly. It is inefficient to fire up and close down power stations every few weeks because the wind turbines have stopped producing electricity. Power turbines are most efficient when left to run 24/7 for months on end, starting and stopping them is a time consuming process - my employer Rolls Royce makes power turbines and we have a power turbine station on site that produces electricity for the site and at night sells the excess electricity to the national grid. It gets shut down once every 18 months for maintainence.

Lets get one thing straight - PEOPLE WHO DISCUSS WIND POWER AS A SERIOUS ALTERNATIVE ARE IDIOTS.

They have no clue as to the amount of energy needed by Britain nor do they understand that wind turbines produce so little so infrequently. They are a sop to the greens and other loonies and dreamers who will not wake up to the hard facts.

Not one person here has suggested wind power on its own is an alternative. It has only been siggested that they could form a PART of energy policy and people are discussing what that part is.
Your post makes you look like the idiot, not the people that discuss wind as a usefull form of power.

[RedPutty]

Biggest wind farm in the uk switched on today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4604760.stm

And no not any single source of energy will supply our needs, but a set of them can. Wind power IS viable even on a small scale, people use turbines at homes/schools but no its not the only thing we'll need just like electricity isnt as good for some energy needs as gas.

[SpawnofSonic]

And no not any single source of energy will supply our needs, but a set of them can.

This is 100% correct, we need various forms of supplys, different supplies for different locations/solutions. Im not against nuclear but im not totally for it either, there must be more alternatives. The river severn could produce power using turbines and would be very effective but environmentally would cause issues. As an entire county we need to think about our energy needs and usage far better. Hopefully oneday we will get the safe clean power sources we all want and need.

[[GSV]Trig]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4633024.stm