Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

On 2006-10-06 17:54:21 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:49:34 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:38:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

That's really unacceptable. Either they should be smaller or further away.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:11:33 UTC, Adrian wrote:

Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

Herne Bay, Kent.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:25:24 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:54:21 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:49:34 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:38:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

That's really unacceptable. Either they should be smaller or further away.

Well, they seem big. 115m high.. 30 of them.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On 2006-10-06 18:48:43 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:25:24 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:54:21 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:49:34 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-06 17:38:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:58:36 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right HERE.
It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

That's really unacceptable. Either they should be smaller or further away.

Well, they seem big. 115m high.. 30 of them.

115m !!!!! You're joking.... (No you're not).

Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

Herne Bay, Kent.

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

On 2006-10-06 19:06:00 +0100, Adrian said:

Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

Herne Bay, Kent.

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

I think they're awful and completely ruin the seascape.

At least Dungeness is one small area and that's it. A far better solution.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were
saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

Herne Bay, Kent.

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

:-)

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

Thanks for that url, it's now saved. Very useful ammunition :-)

Mary

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...


Well, they seem big. 115m high.. 30 of them.

There are 30 Kwik-Fit signs???

What on Earth were the planner thinking about? Just the one in the picture
is ugly enough - in my opinion!

Mary

On 2006-10-06 19:31:33 +0100, "Mary Fisher" said:


"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number
of references, should anyone wish to take them up.

I'm not one of those people. There's a wind farm out to sea right
HERE. It's awful.

That's dreadful. I thought that they were supposed to be a long way
off shore to avoid the visual pollution. (e.g. if you're in Kent,
Holland would be good) How far out is it?

About 5 miles. But given the size...and I'm only a mile from the sea!
They dominate the seafront.

Where are you?

Herne Bay, Kent.

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

:-)

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

Thanks for that url, it's now saved. Very useful ammunition :-)

Mary

Ammunition..... The Guns of Navarone springs to mind. I am sure
that they could have dealt with this eyesore.

30 quick bangs and back to how it should look.

Mary Fisher wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Are you saying that all commercial wind companies are only doing it to
make
money for parent companies and/or shareholders?

They are virtually required by law to do so, unless they are something
other than a Ltd./Plc. that is.

And several are.

In that case they're not really "commercial wind companies" are they!?

--
Chris Green

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:06:00 UTC, Adrian wrote:

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

I actually like the look of them. But not 30 of them planted in front of
me!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

I actually like the look of them. But not 30 of them planted in front of
me!

There's a word for that...
Five letters, begins with an "N"...

grin

On 2006-10-06 20:11:22 +0100, Adrian said:

Bob Eager ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

http://www.hbay.co.uk/images/wind04.jpg
considers foreground considers wind farm

http://www.hbay.co.uk/html/windfarmpics.htm
Seriously, I don't see the problem in those at all.
But then, I quite like the things anyway.

I actually like the look of them. But not 30 of them planted in front of
me!

There's a word for that... Five letters, begins with an "N"...

grin

Yes there is.

Anybody advocating these monstrosities should have them installed in
their back yard.

The message
from Matt contains these words:

That Dinorwig can generate pretty close to the latter figure starting
from the units "spinning in air" to full load in around 15 seconds
means it will always play a very important part in ensuring system
stability.

But only for a few minutes.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:11:22 UTC, Adrian wrote:

I actually like the look of them. But not 30 of them planted in front of
me!

There's a word for that...
Five letters, begins with an "N"...

I'd be happy with one. Aesthetically quite nice. 30 are just clutter...!

The substation is way back from the sea. It's been there many years, but
blended in fairly well. The additions to service that lot have made it a
bit of a blot, too...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

I think they're awful and completely ruin the seascape.

I rather like them. But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice
looking car.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 2006-10-06 20:37:46 +0100, Guy King said:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

I think they're awful and completely ruin the seascape.

I rather like them. But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice
looking car.

Wasn't that the one that looked like a hearse?

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

I rather like them. But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice
looking car.

Wasn't that the one that looked like a hearse?

No, that was the Citroën DS estate, possibly the ugliest car ever made.
Which considering how utterly gorgeous the saloon looked was quite a
feat.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :


But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice looking car.

Friend of mine styled the rear end of that...

Andy Hall ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I actually like the look of them. But not 30 of them planted in
front of me!

There's a word for that... Five letters, begins with an "N"...

grin

Yes there is.

Anybody advocating these monstrosities should have them installed in
their back yard.

Gladly. Unfortunately, my back yard is neither big enough nor windy enough.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:53:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Well, they seem big. 115m high.. 30 of them.

115m !!!!! You're joking.... (No you're not).

No he's not. 2MW rated wind turbines are big, *very* big. As a guide take
a Jumbo jet stick an axle through the center point and mount it on the
top of a pole. Most land based wind farms in this country are using
turbines 1/2 to 1/3 this size.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

The message . 170
from Adrian contains these words:

But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice looking car.

Friend of mine styled the rear end of that...

Well tell him from me that I liked it. Jaunty upswept look with clean
lines. If you lost the bumper it wasn't far off current styles.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/brochures/3331_09.jpg

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 2006-10-06 23:09:29 +0100, Guy King said:

The message . 170
from Adrian contains these words:

But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice looking car.

Friend of mine styled the rear end of that...

Well tell him from me that I liked it. Jaunty upswept look with clean
lines. If you lost the bumper it wasn't far off current styles.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/brochures/3331_09.jpg

It *is* the one that looks like a hearse....

On 2006-10-06 22:33:32 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:53:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Well, they seem big. 115m high.. 30 of them.

115m !!!!! You're joking.... (No you're not).

No he's not. 2MW rated wind turbines are big, *very* big. As a guide
take a Jumbo jet stick an axle through the center point and mount it on
the top of a pole. Most land based wind farms in this country are using
turbines 1/2 to 1/3 this size.

Geez.... I hadn't realised that the offshore ones were this enormous.

Considering that one can fit a 600MW generator into a much smaller
space it makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:26:20 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2006-10-06 23:09:29 +0100, Guy King said:

The message . 170
from Adrian contains these words:

But then I thought the Allegro estate was a nice looking car.

Friend of mine styled the rear end of that...

Well tell him from me that I liked it. Jaunty upswept look with clean
lines. If you lost the bumper it wasn't far off current styles.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/brochures/3331_09.jpg

It *is* the one that looks like a hearse....

A hearse for midgets maybe...

:-)
--
Frank Erskine

cupra wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...
Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)

A lot of it is NIMBYism, but that's opinion based - I wouldn't want a wind
farm nearby but I'm happy with Nuclear!


Me2. In fact we have one. Dungeness 'B'. OK its 40 miles way, but whats
40 miles in a reactor meltdown?


Its a tad ugly from Dunwich, but not arf so ugly as te 'sculptures' they
are proposing to drop in the sea offshore.

Mary Fisher wrote:
" cupra" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...
Careful, your paranoia about nuclear power is showing.

There's an awful lot of paranoia about wind power in this thread :-)
A lot of it is NIMBYism, but that's opinion based - I wouldn't want a wind
farm nearby but I'm happy with Nuclear!

I'd be happy with either. I'm not happy with coal fired power stations.
Living on the Yorkshire coalfields I've experienced what coal mining does to
people.


For once I agree. I went down a coal mine once, and reckoned that anyone
working at the face deserved £100k a year. Which made coal completely
uneconomic.

OK if you can open cast it in bloody great buckets, but digging out 2ft
high seams 2 miles underground and 5 miles from the pit head shaft is a
mugs game.
Mary

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:22:32 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Thats the trouble with localised power generation. Its pro rata more
expensive that centralised - in cash and CO2 generation terms both, and
its not necessarily in the best place for efficiency.

It is if one ignores the large losses from a centralised system.

There are no large losses from centralised systems.

There are large losses and cost negatives from small scale ones of course.


However, despite the best attempts of Mr Liar these costs are
unlikely to be forgotten.


Youy cannot remember what isn't a fact...as a fact. Or can you?

David Hansen wrote:
On 06 Oct 2006 14:31:44 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

Weren't we discussing the unsightliness (or otherwise) of wind farms?
Surely nearly everyone has seen one or more of these now so will not
be using hearsay.

A month or so ago I went on a journey by train from the Central Belt
of Scotland to the South Coast of England. Judging by the postings
of the anti-wind lobby I should have seen wind turbines on just
about every peak and hillside.

In fact I saw a number of things on peaks and hillsides. Electricity
pylons and telecommunications masts of various sorts. I only saw two
wind farms though. One can see the top third or so of some of the
blades at Black Law when the train is near Carstairs and most of the
small wind farm near Lancaster. From this I suspect that nearly
everyone has not seen a wind farm.

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.


Well I have seen a wind farm, and the area it took up to the power it
generated was bloody HUGE, and although it wasn't noisy, it was bloody
ugly, and I agree so are pylons and comms towers. I'd like to see then
end of them too.

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On 06 Oct 2006 14:31:44 GMT someone who may be
wrote this:-

Weren't we discussing the unsightliness (or otherwise) of wind farms?
Surely nearly everyone has seen one or more of these now so will not
be using hearsay.
A month or so ago I went on a journey by train from the Central Belt
of Scotland to the South Coast of England. Judging by the postings
of the anti-wind lobby I should have seen wind turbines on just
about every peak and hillside.

In fact I saw a number of things on peaks and hillsides. Electricity
pylons and telecommunications masts of various sorts. I only saw two
wind farms though. One can see the top third or so of some of the
blades at Black Law when the train is near Carstairs and most of the
small wind farm near Lancaster. From this I suspect that nearly
everyone has not seen a wind farm.

The research shows that it is when people do see wind farms and
turbines and in the flesh that most of those who previously had
objections drop them. The SDC report on wind energy has a number of
references, should anyone wish to take them up.

Well having been to Germany recently I have to say that I think they
make a real mess of the landscape. Driving across the North of
Germany my guess would be that you're just about never out of sight of
a wind farm. I was amazed at how many there are there. What
proportion of their electricity is now generated by wind?

About 3% probably.

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:05:30 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

Incorrect, as the UKERC report demonstrates.
*Provided* you have large area diversity. Any given wind turbine is only
available when the wind blows and that is, on average, only 1/3 of the
time at best and is unpredictable beyond a few days.

The UK electricity system operates with a one hour gate closure. As
the reports I have referred to illustrate, wind power can be
forecast accurately over this timescale. Over a few days wind
forecasts are less accurate, but accurate enough to wind up standby
plant if there is likely to be a lull over part of the UK.

Read what I wrote. There is a lot of measurement of "noise" done in
relation to wind turbines but the vast majority of it is only at audible
frequencies. Very little, if any, measurement is done for infrasound and
little is known about the physiological effects low levels of infrasound
has on people.

If you really want to push the infrasound then I will respond with
http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html which contains the
following:

================================================== ===================

In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause
associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise
Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low
Frequency Noise and its Effects, says:

"I can state quite categorically that there is no significant
infrasound from current designs of wind turbines."

================================================== ===================



Of course, one mans insignificant is another mans unlimited nausea.

Our dog goes mad with low frequencies and barks his bloody head off.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:00:59 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

But the fossil fuel plant is still required for back-up and while that
remains the case it is pointless wasting time, effort, energy and
money providing wind generation capacity.
Your opinion.
I'd add a caveat: at the expense of other renewable energy sources.

If The money being spent of unreliable (as in availabilty), unsightly and
noisy (at *all* frequencies not just "audible" ones) wind turbines was
spent on smaller but widespread renewables and energy saving the returns,
in reduced carbon emmissions, could be much greater.

In my opinioin wind turbines are not unsightly. The very large ones are
beautiful. Small ones are no more unsightly than pylons, phone masts, radio
transmitting masts, tv aerials, lorries, houses, people ...


Yeah, and I don't want any of those in MY back yard either.

:-)

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...

Wind farms in Scotland are not the answer to Englands energy problems.

England's energy problems could be greatly reduced if people were less
wasteful of energy. How much are you prepared to sacrifice?

Mary
who has just been treading washing in the bath :-)


I'll be willing to bet you that on a person for person basis the scots
burn twice as much as the english.

Adrian wrote:
Roger ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

"if offshore wind power alone were to provide 10 per cent of England and
Wales's electricity demand, 3,500 megawatts of conventional capacity
could be closed down, but an additional standby generating capacity of
3,135 megawatts would be required, negating most of the benefits."

non-expert mode

Surely it's better to have that power generated renewably whenever possible
and non-renewably as a standby than to stick your hands in the air and go
"Well, the renewables won't work 100% of the time, so let's not bother at
all"...?

Cost benefit is one answer. There are better renewables than wind power

Kidding yourself that inappropriate technology will really make a
difference is another one.


It would be far better to spend the money on reducing traffic congestion
and improving insulation.

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:57:10 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

No I didn't write that.
Check Message-ID: I think
you will find that text is in that message.

Oh the text is in the message alright, but that is not the point. I
quoted it, as I made clear in the message. My point is that you
falsely claimed that I had written it. Glad you seem to accept that
now.

If you include a quote to support your argument

I did.

failing to standby them when queried seriously weakens your case.

Please indicate where I have failed to standby that quote?

I could have edited out bits of it I suppose, rather then quoting
the whole thing, but then people would have whined about something
else.

I have just looked at tariffs for Edinburgh in uswitch.com. Pay on
receipt of bill. The cheapest was Atlantic with 16.40p (and 9.84p
per unit above 900 units per year). The most expensive, ignoring the
green ones was Npower, 21.01p (and 10.45 above 728). While there
have been large increases in prices recently it does show that the
quote was in the right ballpark.


That's roughly what I was seeing when I looked at my bills with a view
to switching. A couple of weeks ago. My overall usage and mix was
unlikely to get down to 10p a unit, and was more likely to be 10-12p.

Wind turbines on top of your house are a load of bull until they become
very cheap and simple to produce. You'd be better off spending your
£1500 on insulating your house properly and putting in energy saving
bulbs, sorting out all your radiator valves, and getting rid of all the
lamp fittings with 3 or 4 bulbs in and replacing them with one bulb. In
fact, it'd be better if everyone STFU ****ing about with them and spent
the money on insulation (ie, upgrades of insulation and energy
efficiency for all houses, say by making the current subsidised
insulation schemes mandatory, minimum insulation for conservatories etc).

In a ****ing nutshell.

I doubt whether a rooftop genny would average more than three electric
light bulbs permanently on.

I can take a 200 quid chainsaw, and plant 20 7.50 willow trees (or take
cuttings off the ones I have), and produce more power than that burning
te ruddy logs fer chrissake. AND the chainsaw will last 20 years.

If everybody burned all their free B & Q junkmail, it would produce more
energy than all the windmills they will ever sell, and better still, if
they burned their junk mail instead of loading it up into blue bins that
take huge trucks to collect and more energy to recycle, we'd save even more.

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:44:08 +0100 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

Wind turbines on top of your house are a load of bull until they become very
cheap and simple to produce. You'd be better off spending your £1500 on
insulating your house properly and putting in energy saving bulbs, sorting
out all your radiator valves, and getting rid of all the lamp fittings with
3 or 4 bulbs in and replacing them with one bulb.

What I do is not in the least important to the discussion.

Were I to be asked about such things I would say that there are
other things to do first, including the things you mention. However,
having done that if someone wanted to install a wind turbine on
their house I would point out the advantages and disadvantages of
such a scheme.

I draw my own conclusions about those who loudly imply that someone
should never install a wind turbine on their house.


Its not 'never', it's just that the cost benefit analysis shows that of
all the 'green' things one can do, this is probably the most expensive
waste of time imaginable.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:15:31 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Remember commercial wind companies are *not* building turbines to save
the planet they are building them to make money for their
multinational parent companies and/or their shareholders.
So someone working in a caring profession is only doing it for money
and doesn't care about those they serve?
No, individual "shop floor" workers have little or no say in the policies
or direction of the company they work for. Only The Board has that power
and they act to protect their own interests and share holding(s) in the
company.

Are you saying that all commercial wind companies are only doing it to make
money for parent companies and/or shareholders?


Of course.

There mnay be the odd loony greenbrained enginner who is convinced that
he has teh recipe for Saving The Palnet, but such peole make relatievly
poor businessmen, and their companies won;t last.

the whole thing is being driven by EEC central policy directives that
'we must have x% renewable by Y timescale' Irrespective of whether it
makes any economic sense or actually does any use at all, faced with
those directives people build stuff to satisfy those targets.

Its like recycling 'we must recycle X% of our waste" even though the
carbon cost and the social cost far exceeds any possible gains in so doing.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Thats the trouble with localised power generation. Its pro rata more
expensive that centralised - in cash and CO2 generation terms both, and
its not necessarily in the best place for efficiency.

It is if one ignores the large losses from a centralised system.

There are no large losses from centralised systems.

Um, just how efficient do you think the national grid is?

cheers,
clive