If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What do you think of muslim...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
...haha, just kidding. It's about wind turbines. Good or bad thing? Is it sensible to trust our energy to something as unpredictable as British weather? We'll have summers with no wind and so no power, and winters with downed power lines because of the wind, and so no power. As for the coastlines being damaged, has anyone actually seen any of these things? They're like a spec on the horizon. Not that Britain's beaches were ever anything worth shouting about anyway.
0
Comments
Oh and it's also generally more windy by the coast than inland.
I love Wind turbines, I love seeing them, and I cant see any downsides to tapping into our natural resources for a safer energy source (unless youre a birdie flying into one)
Hehe, it's my thread, but I forgot what it was about for a second, and just read the title, and then this.
Same here.
I love wind turbines, think we should have them all over. I dont see why every house shouldn't have one.
Some people say they are unsightly, but I think they are nice. I would rather see 1000 wind turbines than 1 power station. (Anybody who has been to Hartlepool will understand)
They are also good for the environment. :thumb:
And a damn sight cleaner.
We're the windiest country in Europe, or so I hear... Why not harness our wind power? We also have potential for tidal.
I dont think they fuck up the view at all, I think theyre majestic and beautiful actually.
I suppose if you don't like tourists then a building a hideous nuclear power station is a surefire way of making sure no-one wants to come within a country mile :thumb:
I think that coal factories fuck the wildlife and the planet enough by themselves. If you care about the wilderness, you'll support renewables.
Apparently, they kill a lot of birds ...
They also have a consistent < insert whooshing noise here > which is noise pollution in a quiet place.
But other than that, I agree.
Yes, there's plenty of wilderness, but replacing all traditional power plants by alternative ones will require vast spaces, so it won't be that easy to not look at them.
In general I support power plants without emissions. Traditional nuclear plants have almost no emissions, but uranium requres quite some time to diminish. A solution to this could be using power plants based on thorium reactors. Together with some alternate power schemes, such as windmills and so on, the power output should be enough.
I think they look hideous myself. Why do they all have to be the same colour, that dreary shade of white? I think we should let Laurence Llywelyn-Bowen loose on them, it's not as if he's got a lot of TV shows to do at the moment. Seriously though, I think they're a necessary monstrosity.
I worry about where the plants will be built too (most likely near poorer communities, as usual... There's actually a report which came out to say that waste producing factories and polluting plants are mostly built in poor black and ethnic areas) and the health implications for people living close to them.
I also worry about how vulnerable these plants would be to terrorist attack and also about the waste produced.
When it comes to nuclear power I'm a cynic. It's just another government greenwash excuse to actually do something in my view. However, if it has to be either nuclear or fossil fuels, we should go for survival and go nuclear and hope we don't have any accidents.
But then we don't have the choice of nuclear or fossil fuels only... We have the option of completely clean energy which will not produce nuclear waste, will not give the means to make more weapons, will not destroy an entire country in the event of an accident and which we have the capacity to build quite easily.
My only issue that I have with renewable energies as I've said is the impact on biodiversity. For example, fish are incredibly sensitive to changes in water temperature and this can impact their breeding cycle. I also do not know how wind turbines affect bird migration, but saying that the issues are probably there with any form of power generation.
That's before there impact on the natural environment, wildlife etc. OK a nuclear power station isn't pretty, but it covers a limited area. You'd have to concrete over most of Cumbria before you managed to generate the same amount of wind energy as nuclear powerpoint.
Source?
And you're saying that nuclear power stations use less concrete and metal than a set of wind farms? What about uranium mining?
Can't remember where I was - think it was on the drive to Wales and back and there was one right by the road spinning around and around.
If you're not expecting it then it's quite distracting.
I'll try and find it - it was a hard copy several years ago.
And I'm not saying that power station use less concrete and metal - but they use less concrete and metal per watt produced (ie they produce much, much more energy)
Anyway this is potentially a much more powerful design as it will capture the wind higher up.
The length of the wires can be made longer or shorter to catch the wind the most
http://techfreep.com/wind-powered-generator-to-rival-nuclear-plant-output.htm#more-258