Renewable Energy Sources, Wind in particular Options

[Oddball]

What are your opinions on Renewable energy sources and their effects on the environment?? Do you think wind farms are ugly?

Science got me thinking today...makes a change I suppose...

[elmo]

Not ugly. Better than looking at sellafield, and a lot safer!

Where I live, if sellafield went up, that would be us lot gone! Don't pollute as much. There's some on Caldbeck fells and I think they look quite majestic. Give your eye something to focus on while looking at the scenery.

[Oddball]

I don't think they're ugly either. I was just seeing how many people do think they're an eyesore, and their opinions.

[JohnS]

Surely ugliness or not should be low down on our lists. If people used a lot less energy by recycling, cycling, walking, using public transport, turning the thermostat down two degrees, flushing the toilet less, switching off electrical appliances when they're not being used, banning 4 wheel drives in towns and other energy guzzling cars, had compost heaps, etc etc, then we'd be getting sorted.

Shall I send these policies to Tony Blair?

I voted no btw, I think they look majestic too.

[Deborah]

They're not exactly pretty to look at, but then again, most power stations aren't either!

Edit: Ooh, my 1300th post!

This post has been edited by Deborah: Jan 9 2006, 09:50 PM

[Choddy]

I agree with John. I think if they're helping to reduce carbon emissions etc, then people shouldn't worry about how they look, but how efficient they are in doing their job. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Congrats Deborah! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[elmo]

Paris have a good way of doing it. They monitor pollution levels, and then on days that it's high, say that only people with even ending number plates (or odd) can drive, unless they have a special car which reduces emissions.

[hellokitty]

I think they look really cool!!

[Trebor]

Personally, I see nothing offensive with the look of them. What really does annoy me lots (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) , is when you see these people complaining and trying to stop them being put up, just because they don't look nice. I don't know if it's a result of the pro-environmental education these days, but I really really really think some of these people don't have a clue about this stuff.

Howeeever, they are a very inefficient way of collecting energy; better ones need to be developed.

[sl123451]

Not ugly. Better than looking at sellafield, and a lot safer!

Where I live, if sellafield went up, that would be us lot gone! Don't pollute as much. There's some on Caldbeck fells and I think they look quite majestic. Give your eye something to focus on while looking at the scenery.

no way - nuclear power is well kool! ok its a bit dangerous, but interesting (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[Oddball]

Interesting yes, but extremely dangerous - the word Chernobyl will always be attached to the word Nuclear, in my mind.

It was a great idea, but human error led to that accident. I've never liked the idea of it.

Much prefer Geothermal - that is wicked!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[sl123451]

lol yeah chernobyl! but come on, what is going to provide more power, some little wings providing a light breeze, or a huge fully generate nuclear reactor?

[SirPrancealot]

i have a bit of a worry about windfarms nothing to do with how pretty they look.

everytime the wind exchanges energy with a turbine its power must be reduced by that amount of energy. enough windmills will weaken winds, the effect of which may be to effect climate change - no matter how small. it'll take its toll in subtle ways. i do hope that if they point east they might cut down these siberian winds we've been having in the uk recently - thats something!

we got to reduce the amount of energy we use in our daily lives...good news for acoustic instruments.

[Hulk]

I'm all for renewable energy sources, but what we all like/prefer is sort of irrelevant.

All the fossil fuels are finite resources, running out alarmingly fast, in the not so distant future they'll be no more coal or oil, no more oil means no more petrol/diesel, no more petrol/diesel means goodbye motor cars until they can run on a different type of energy.

It takes thousands/millions of years for oil/coal/natural gas to form, so hopefully (fingers crossed) in quite a few hundred millenia, the people of that age (if we haven't wiped ourselves off the face of the planet) will restore the common motor car to it's former glory.

Pessimist.....me? Never (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

(p.s. No I'm honestly not a pessimist, I'm like this because my chemistry teacher has very strong views about this topic, which I do agree with (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Hulk

[YetAnotherPianist]

Personally, I find air travel to be grossly under-priced for the amount of oil it uses. Æroplane fuel, as it stands, is untaxed; if it was taxed at the same rate as petrol for cars, it would be a lot more expensive to fly.

Using oil is bad, full stop, whether it's to run a car, train or plane. All that is needed is a flat tax per litre, and the more fuel efficient modes of transport will be cheaper (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif).