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...

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.

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

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.

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

Edit: Ooh, my 1300th post!

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.

Congrats Deborah!

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.

I think they look really cool!!

Personally, I see nothing offensive with the look of them. What really does annoy me lots , 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.

no way - nuclear power is well kool! ok its a bit dangerous, but interesting

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!!

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?

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.

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

(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 )

Hulk

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 .

That's either extreme attention to detail or very very odd? Should aeroplane be spelt æroplane then YAP?

To be honest, I don't know; but I've never used a capital æ ligature before .

So it was just for the fun then. That's reassuring...

No i dont think they are ugly. I think they look modern and cool.

I said no but I'm quite neutral, I mean they're not exactly pretty but not ugly. But they're more attractive then a sea full of mercury, black air and bare land. People complain about them but they don't realise the consequences of not using them.

I don't think they're ugly, but if there were as many as would be needed for them to be a viable alternative to other sources of electricity then it would just look ridiculous.

Nuclear does has risks, which are often exaggerated, but is quite a clean method of energy production despite the problems with waste disposal. I remember hearing something about hydrogen and electrolysis though, which would be interesting as hydrogen is apparently the most abundant gas. Anyone else know anything about this?

Hydrogen is fairly abundant, not as much as Nitrogen or Oxygen, but it is dead difficult to get it straight out of the air ... they are trialling H powered cars in Germany with H refuelling stations, but there is very little H in a useable form. The cars are working really well, I'm told.

Nuclear, in theory, is totally safe. I have to emphasise the "in theory" bit so much though, because I don't think much of it is done by computers, so it is all down to human error. The thing that happened at Chernobyl is that a bit of whatever was in there started to get just a little too hot, and then there's naff all you can do about it, because the little bit of heat and energy produced fuels the reaction to go further, and so these guys at the plant knew that they were watching it build up to explosion and couldn't do anything to stop it, cos it's not like you can walk in and pour cold water on it!! There is a fine margin for error, which is the annoying thing.

When I was in Holland, there were loads of wind turbines, and to see these huuge slender white poles stretch across the land all turning in the same direction at the same rate is not ugly, it is beautiful, it really takes your breath away. People complain about the noise in Britain ... what do they know? We stopped in a layby right next to one to see if there was any noise, and it was the same sort of swishing noise as a pile of autumn leaves getting blown around, there was nothing at all to bother you.

About oil, did anyone hear about that crash in a long road tunnel in Europe somewhere? The traffic was held up, and since it was probably -15/20 celsius, people left their engines on for the heaters, so all that carbon monoxide was pumped out because the cars were at standstill, nowhere near as much is produced when a car is doing 50mph because the engine is warmer so the reaction is better. They all got CO poisoning and about 200 people died. Opens your eyes a bit, doesn't it?!

Right, rant over.

Surely you jest...

Hydrogen is obtained from water. It's very easy. The technology allowing cars to run on hydrogen has been around since the 1930s. There are two ways of using it:

1. You use it as you would use petrol. ie it 'explodes' inside the cylinder. This is the original method and is perfectly feasible.
2. You use it to produce electricity which then drives the motor. This is the current method being used. The hydrogen enters a fuel cell where it combines with oxygen to form water and electricity. This is okay, but the question is, how to store the hydrogen. The BMW cars using hydrogen store it as liquid in strong tanks. However, another way would be to produce it from water as and when you need it.

You can actually buy science kits where you make your own hydrogen car. You pour water into a container and a solar panel produces the electricity required for splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen passes into the fuel cell and produces electricity for driving the car.


The reasons why alternative forms of energy have been so long in coming is really strange, but I think it's also to do with the power of the oil companies. If people used a lot less oil/petrol/gas, the world economies would be in chaos.

I don't know if you realise this, but the diesel engine was never designed to use 'diesel' as we know it. Frederick Diesel designed his engine to run on vegetable oil, a renewable source. He actually used peanut oil. More and more people are using it in their cars. The french have even banned farmers from doing it, they're so worried about losing the duty paid on fuel.
Do a Google search for biodiesel/cars. You'll be amazed!

Steve

Has anyone been to the Centre for Alternative Technology at Macnynlleth? We went there a few years ago, and there was plenty to think about. Some of the ideas seemed a bit cranky, not very practical for fine suburban living, but there were alot of good ideas there too.

YAP - agree about tax on aviation fuel. Just crazy!

I am not pro Nuclear energy but the impact of wind farms is big. They have dicovered that coastal wind farms have a BIG impact on migration patterns, breeding patterns of sea life. In particular Whale, dolphins, fish etc. On land they can produce shock waves and low levels of radiation. They are a significant danger to wild life in particular birds. Please be opened mind about the impact of so called clean energy. There is no such thing and the impact isn't always obvious. In terms of so call renewable energy Britain could get less than 20% of it energy from these sources, the reality of this is that a energy mix is needed.

The only real problem of Nuclear energy is disposal in terms of environmental impact it is very low and far cleaner than many of the renewables people are so keen on even friends of the earth have reviewed it usage which is a reflection on how bad things have got. (Just a note here they still do NOT support its usage). I spent many years marching against nuclear power in this country after Windscale and other events but have over the last couple of year come to the conclusion that we will have little choice in the future in my opinion its not if but when we start using it.

Research programs such have JET have come a long way in the last 30 years but they are still away of developing working power stations and when they do the British government havnt even said they would use it.(JET = Joint European Torus basically fusion research. It is based in Oxfordshire and is the largest experiment of its type in the world, I wounder how many people know of it?)

Oil companies, succesive governments and demand for cheap energy have put us in our current position and are we learning from out mistakes:

a) We can produce hydrogen power cars. Most patents are held by oil companies who wount release them until they have squeezed has much out of oil first.

Methane power cars can be produced. (See above).

c) Coal power stations can burn clean with filters. These are expensive and the government will not bear the cost, the generator wouldnt bear the cost because this would significantly increase he cost to consumers. Besides which since the Iron Lady destroyed the coal industry we would have to import coal form open cast sites in Europe/Africa/Canada and Australia.

d) We dont design, place our houses properly in this country. Legislation on solar panel etc is needed there is no reason every new house couldnt prove its own energy for lighting, battery storage these days is such that this can be done reliably.

So no we are not learning and we are far more advance than many countries.

Sorry I know its all waffle but I could go on for hours on this subject it close to my heart I and many others are biting our tounges and resisting the we told you so statement.

I believe there is an answer but if it needs human input there will always be issues which will stop the solution becoming freely available. Government will tax, energy companies will patent/charge, consumer will insist on paying rock bottom prices.....

Sits crys and worries for his children but knows that in the long run the planet earth will recover, the cost of this recovery will probably be the extinction of human kind!

I'm not into the scientific side but when driving through the Cambrian Mountains and the surrounding area, and you spot a group on a hill,they really are a noble sight.