loco61
Well-known member
8 miles out, can we see them without binoculars?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Sussex coast windfarm a step closer
- Thread starter easynow
- Start date
symyjym
Banned
My brother is a Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology and Member of the Energy Policy Panel and he has all these letters after his name BSc MSc DIC MBA CEng FIET.
He says that we have to substantially decarbonise electricity by 2030 to be on target for the 2050 carbon reduction requirement.
A combination of renewable and nuclear energy, along with the way we use it has to be taken very seriously.
I believe him, so if we have the technology, which is more affordable now, it would be a milestone in our history leaving the carbon based industrial revolution behind us.
We cannot, not have wind farms.
He says that we have to substantially decarbonise electricity by 2030 to be on target for the 2050 carbon reduction requirement.
A combination of renewable and nuclear energy, along with the way we use it has to be taken very seriously.
I believe him, so if we have the technology, which is more affordable now, it would be a milestone in our history leaving the carbon based industrial revolution behind us.
We cannot, not have wind farms.
Why are you looking forward to it?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
we dont "have" to, someone has set an arbitary target and we like good bloody citizens of the world are doing our bit while many others arent. to get anywhere near the target we do indeed need to increase both nuclear and renewables, but no one want nuclear or renewables next door and they cost far more. but we dont want to pay for increase in electricity costs (which is majority of the increase in the past 10 years). or we could de-carbonise coal plants or use more efficient gas, but not allowed to build coal plants and no one wants fracking.
one day, in the mid 2020's when we have rolling blackouts, we'll wonder how the fvck we managed to balls up our energy.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,894
Indeed this .
symyjym
Banned
We all have to, it is no good just saying we won't because we don't think anyone else will, it is not FFP.
That said China are up to point on it and leading the way with a thorium nuclear program, a safe alternative to uranium
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/
Of course no one wants to live next door to a uranium driven nuclear power station, but I wouldn't have a problem with a thorium one, and I don't have a problem living next to a wind turbine.
Global warming is happening and if we cannot control it the whole ecology of the planet will turn on its head before we reach the 22nd Century.
Just because our species is here today doesn't mean that we will be here tomorrow, because we are at that tipping point.
Hope another one knocks them all over like skittles. Skegness has some offshore and they ruin the view.
Windfarms are an eyesore and are inefficient and a bloody waste of public money. Rant over
I think they look rather good. Especially the one just off Rye. I also spend a lot of time in France and theirs look brilliant.
If the question is, would I rather see the South Downs covered in them, to lower the cost. I think it is worthy of consideration. I really don't think they are that ugly or disruptive. There are 175 planned off the coast, which is not that many across the 100 plus miles length of the South Downs. I guess a second or third offshore development nearby of a similar scale, would swing the argument for me back to offshore.
Everyone to their own I suppose. Cant stand the sight of them myself.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
Living with two wind farms just offshore I can agree that they are an eyesore and can be inefficient (conspicuously 'static' during periods of peak demand). However I would rather see them offshore than installed across the landscape. IMO they can only be one element of a broader integrated energy strategy.
Yes there is also some potential for errant shipping to cause a collision with subsequent risk of pollution to the coastline - but at least offshore wind farms are a fairly inert form of power generation. On balance I would be more concerned at the environmental risk from accessing shale gas or from the line of nuclear power stations along the north French coast. Sussex is nicely downwind should there be any sort of 'safety event'. While a marine pollution event arising from a shipping / wind farm collision could be disastrous, I suggest it would be more manageable and likely to be cleaned up more readily. Whereas it would be more challenging to mitigate the impact of a nuclear incident. We need an integrated strategy and all forms of generation managed responsibly.
Yes there is also some potential for errant shipping to cause a collision with subsequent risk of pollution to the coastline - but at least offshore wind farms are a fairly inert form of power generation. On balance I would be more concerned at the environmental risk from accessing shale gas or from the line of nuclear power stations along the north French coast. Sussex is nicely downwind should there be any sort of 'safety event'. While a marine pollution event arising from a shipping / wind farm collision could be disastrous, I suggest it would be more manageable and likely to be cleaned up more readily. Whereas it would be more challenging to mitigate the impact of a nuclear incident. We need an integrated strategy and all forms of generation managed responsibly.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
I'm really surprised that people think they're an eyesore. I think they look lovely! On and offshore.