Wind Turbines or Power Stations?

[Hecktix]

It is Common knowledge that the fossil fuels are running out. We do need to switch to renewable energy. I think one of best ideas for renewable energy is Wind Turbines. However when the Government announce plans to put wind turbines up, people protest saying they are ugly.

I have two questions for you this morning, Are wind turbines or coal power stations more ugly? What would you prefer, a tall windmill shaped structure creating a small humming noise, or a chimney polluting the air with waste.

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/27jan06/images/power1.jpg http://www.cmu.edu/greenpractices/green_initiatives/_images/22.jpg

[Ryan+Joe]

Wind turbines look cool, there's a few near me

[Hecktix]

Yeah i think they look cool.

[-Wolverine]

Wind turbines, who cares if they are ugly, imagine how 'ugly' the earth would look if we kept using fossil fuels, I don't know much on wind turbines, but all I know is that they dont pollute which is good. :)

[manga21]

Lol at the people who think wind Turbines are ugly... my god have they seen power stations .. there ugly come on and create black smoke... I like wind turbines they look cool but wierd..

[lust]

i think they look cool tbh. better than chimneys??

[Hecktix]

Have you ever been up close to a wind turbine?

[Uwe]

Wind turbines are sexy :)
I want some where I live :D

[-Wolverine]

Have you ever been up close to a wind turbine?
Yeah, when I went to Holland. :)

[Hecktix]

How Amazing Are they.

Some people are just so old and out of date, they should have the minds of us teenagers. We Know Whats Right for the World.

[Stitch]

I like wind turbines theres one right near Madejski Stadium :D (Readings football stadium)
I would prefer wind turbines they look cool :D

[::d4nnyt::]

I like the look of both they fascinate me, they were going to build a windfarm at nocton fen about 3 miles from where I live. Apparently they would have been the biggest turbines in the country but the NIMBYs complained even though it was closer to bardney than nocton.

The nicest looking power station is Ironbridge Power Station.

Regards Danny.

[Azza]

wind turbines r like one of the best an safest ways i nvr seen 1 close but its better than plces for coal and oil and cleaner. also say nuclear power is like dangerous and that

I dont care if up-clsoe wind turbines are ugly or good jsut that there a good and easy way for energy well if in widnie areas

[brandon]

Wind Turbines, should be more of them imo save our planet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its not how it looks, Its what is the best, Wind Power is a rubbish Power Producer which need renewing every 10/15 Years whereas Coal and Gas Stations can last YEARS!

Personally I think we Should go Nuclear and use the rest of the Coal and Gas up, I think Global Warming is absolute rubbish.

[Tash.]

I wouldn't mind seeing wind turbines.. they look fine, and tbh even if they didn't they'd prevent alot of fossil fuels being used, so who cares if they're an eye sore.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People say Power Stations look ugly, Well you only need 1 Power station hidden in Trees to power lots of Homes unlike Wind Farms where you needs Hundreads/Thousands.

[::d4nnyt::]

Its not how it looks, Its what is the best, Wind Power is a rubbish Power Producer which need renewing every 10/15 Years whereas Coal and Gas Stations can last YEARS!

Personally I think we Should go Nuclear and use the rest of the Coal and Gas up, I think Global Warming is absolute rubbish.

Wind power is unrealyable but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was a rubish power producer. Nuclear power is rubish, many of the nuclear powerstations in the UK do not produce half the amount of electricity a coal fired powerstation produces.

If anyone has ever heard the term carbon neutral? Apparenly wood is carbon neutral because the carbondioxide the tree absorbes in its life out weighs the carbondioxide it produces when it is burnt. Well coal is made from tree and plants from millions of years ago, so these trees and plants have absorbed carbon dioxide so I think coal is carbon neutral. Although coal isn't really sustainable.

Regards Danny.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wind power is unrealyable but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was a rubish power producer. Nuclear power is rubish, many of the nuclear powerstations in the UK do not produce half the amount of electricity a coal fired powerstation produces.

If anyone has ever heard the term carbon neutral? Apparenly wood is carbon neutral because the carbondioxide the tree absorbes in its life out weighs the carbondioxide it produces when it is burnt. Well coal is made from tree and plants from millions of years ago, so these trees and plants have absorbed carbon dioxide so I think coal is carbon neutral. Although coal isn't really sustainable.

Regards Danny.




The cost of Wind Power to put up and Keep replacing it not worth it, Takes too much time and is unreliable, Nuclear Power is one of the Cleanest and Most Power producing energys around, The UK Hardly has any Nuclear Power Plants and most are being Decommissioned, If we built anthoer generation of Nuclear Power Plants it would benefit our country greatly, Jobs, Cheap Energy, Not having to rely on other Nations, Coal and Gas produce most of the Uk's energy because they are the biggest power producers in the UK.

[::d4nnyt::]

The cost of Wind Power to put up and Keep replacing it not worth it, Takes too much time and is unreliable, Nuclear Power is one of the Cleanest and Most Power producing energys around, The UK Hardly has any Nuclear Power Plants and most are being Decommissioned, If we built anthoer generation of Nuclear Power Plants it would benefit our country greatly, Jobs, Cheap Energy, Not having to rely on other Nations, Coal and Gas produce most of the Uk's energy because they are the biggest power producers in the UK.

Nuclear power is also costly but probably not as costly as wind. Bu when you say it takes to much time, I think building and decommissioning a nuclear power station will take well longer. And the time for the nuclear waste to decay, millions of years. Nuclear power isn't very safe, example chernoblyl (or however you spell it). But saying that if a nuclear power station in france was to leak it would affect much of this country anyway. Nuclear energy can create jobs but what I think is better is to start coal mining again on a large scale. This will provide alot of jobs and coal is said to last 200 years longer than oil and gas at current usage rates. Coal power stations arn't what they used to be and don't pollute much, furthermore if a coal power station was built in a city it could provide heating for many homes, which would be good for the environment because people wouldn't be using fuels to heat their houses. With this there would be little need for cooling towers which lowers the visual impact of a power station.

Regards Danny.

[Azza]

The cost of Wind Power to put up and Keep replacing it not worth it, Takes too much time and is unreliable, Nuclear Power is one of the Cleanest and Most Power producing energys around, The UK Hardly has any Nuclear Power Plants and most are being Decommissioned, If we built anthoer generation of Nuclear Power Plants it would benefit our country greatly, Jobs, Cheap Energy, Not having to rely on other Nations, Coal and Gas produce most of the Uk's energy because they are the biggest power producers in the UK.


nuclear is good and that but there isnt anywhere to put the waste and depending which it is depends of the easyness like some u can hide easy as it is weak but it cud be stronger and be quite hard to hide so it wont do any1 any harm. I wouldnt say its the cleanest due to the waste that is produced.
^^
now you will say soemthing to make wat i said wrong or some1 will ^^

[Muse]

I always see Wind Turbines near Airports.

They're alot better than Power Stations.

[::d4nnyt::]

I always see Wind Turbines near Airports.

One of the reasons the wind turbines proposed near my house were opposed is because of a nearby MOD base saying the turbines would interfer with radar. But that don't make sense cause I have also seen them near Aiports.

Regards Danny.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear power is also costly but probably not as costly as wind. Bu when you say it takes to much time, I think building and decommissioning a nuclear power station will take well longer. And the time for the nuclear waste to decay, millions of years. Nuclear power isn't very safe, example chernoblyl (or however you spell it). But saying that if a nuclear power station in france was to leak it would affect much of this country anyway. Nuclear energy can create jobs but what I think is better is to start coal mining again on a large scale. This will provide alot of jobs and coal is said to last 200 years longer than oil and gas at current usage rates. Coal power stations arn't what they used to be and don't pollute much, furthermore if a coal power station was built in a city it could provide heating for many homes, which would be good for the environment because people wouldn't be using fuels to heat their houses. With this there would be little need for cooling towers which lowers the visual impact of a power station.

Regards Danny.






Nuclear Power is very safe, Chernobyl had 6 USSR Reactors 2 of which were still being built at the time, Reator 4 was the one that went wrong, USSR Reators were different to Western Reactors, USSR Reators were poorly built and designed, Nuclear Power has moved on over the past 20 Years it is Safer and Cleaner than ever before, As to the waste we could either put it in Unused mines OR we could pay Africa to put it in their Deserts and in the future we might be able to use space.

[::d4nnyt::]

Nuclear Power is very safe, Chernobyl had 6 USSR Reactors 2 of which were still being built at the time, Reator 4 was the one that went wrong, USSR Reators were different to Western Reactors, USSR Reators were poorly built and designed, Nuclear Power has moved on over the past 20 Years it is Safer and Cleaner than ever before, As to the waste we could either put it in Unused mines OR we could pay Africa to put it in their Deserts and in the future we might be able to use space.

Maybe they will find a way of speading up the radioactive decay and sell it on as lead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeh bury it in the Desert or Mines then if in the Future when they've found a Cheap way to recycle it then they can take it out of the Mines/Deserts and recycle it.

[::d4nnyt::]

Yeh bury it in the Desert or Mines then if in the Future when they've found a Cheap way to recycle it then they can take it out of the Mines/Deserts and recycle it.

Yeh I spose so, they should put it back in the mines they got the uranium out of.

Has anyone heard about those hippies camping out at drax power station protesting? They say it's the biggest carbon edmitter in the UK or whatever. But acording to drax's site it is the biggest, newest, most efficient and cleanest coalfired power station in britain. Why don't they go protest at the steal works or the car companies factories.

Regards Danny.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I hate the Green Peace group, They say "STOP COAL AND GAS NOW AND FIND A SAFER ALTERNATIVE" Then the Govenment suggest Nuclear and they say "NUCLEAR POWER IS A KILLER".

Only thing ive EVER agreed with this govenment on is that Nuclear Power is the way forward.

PS: Labour still sawks though :)

[JonJonStress]

Hahaha, they're well cool. And power stations.... how can Wind Turbines be ugly compared to them.

[Blue]

just like to add that the "smoke" coming out of the nuclear power station is actually water vapour. There are positives and negatives to both sources of power like you need lots of wind turbines in windy places to provide a decent amount of energy and when you decomission the nuclear power plant the land it was on cannot be used for 50 years due to radiation. Either way there is a good argument for and against nuclear and wind types of energy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hahaha, they're well cool. And power stations.... how can Wind Turbines be ugly compared to them.



MANY more Windmills are needed to macth the power of a Coal/Gas Station, You can't fit 1,500+ Windmills on a piece of ground which would normally fit a Coal/Gas power station on therefore Coal/Gas look the best because you can never see them because their hidden in trees.

Also Ive seen pictures of Old Wind Farms which were built like 8/10 years ago and its not a nice sight seeing pieces of metal laying on the ground.

[Blue]

there are other powers sources to use though instead of wind and fossil fuels like wave, hydro-electric etc. I mean a hydro-electric dam basicaly uses the force of energy to turn the turbines thus creating electricty. In wind power u need constant wind to create power and you also cant fit them all into one tiny space like the orange guy said.

[::d4nnyt::]

Well I say we should all try and be a little more self sufficiant. Maybe some domestic ppower generation? Solar Panels, Small Windturbines, Fuel Cells etc. That's what I reckon :)

I wonder how many of the protesters arived in gas guzzling 4 x 4 or how many took the car from being no to far away. They should be more bothered about the trees that have been cut down to make there protest signs. I doubt they would be pleased if they said you have to use 7% less energy (drax's output percentage of britains electricity).

Regards Danny.

[Blue]

i would just like to say that if you're referring to a mini windfarm on top of our houses it would not be cost effective especialy if you live in a not very windy place. But thats only if your suggesting that

[::d4nnyt::]

MANY more Windmills are needed to macth the power of a Coal/Gas Station, You can't fit 1,500+ Windmills on a piece of ground which would normally fit a Coal/Gas power station on therefore Coal/Gas look the best because you can never see them because their hidden in trees.

Also Ive seen pictures of Old Wind Farms which were built like 8/10 years ago and its not a nice sight seeing pieces of metal laying on the ground.

Eggborough, Drax, Ferrybridge, West burton, Cottam, High Marnham, Staythorpe, Ratcliffe on soar, Willington, Drakelow and Didcot Power stations can all be seen/used to be seen from mile around the only power station I have come across to be quite well hiden and be in the right place is Ironbridge Power Station. Where as from miles away wind turbines are harder to see cause they blend with the sky.


i would just like to say that if you're referring to a mini windfarm on top of our houses it would not be cost effective especialy if you live in a not very windy place. But thats only if your suggesting that

Many domestic turbines are very cost efficent, the governmet can offer grants upto £5000 towards erecting a domestic turbine. Also you can use a special kind of inverter producing mains quality electricity so you can sell the power you don't use back to the national grid.

Regards Danny.

[Sarah.]

Wind turbines, who cares if they are ugly, imagine how 'ugly' the earth would look if we kept using fossil fuels, I don't know much on wind turbines, but all I know is that they dont pollute which is good. :)

i agree. what would people rather have, a few ugly wind turbines or our planet polluted?

i'm in favour of wind turbines, they look cool.

[Mentor]

It is Common knowledge that the fossil fuels are running out. We do need to switch to renewable energy. I think one of best ideas for renewable energy is Wind Turbines. However when the Government announce plans to put wind turbines up, people protest saying they are ugly.

I have two questions for you this morning, Are wind turbines or coal power stations more ugly? What would you prefer, a tall windmill shaped structure creating a small humming noise, or a chimney polluting the air with waste.

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/27jan06/images/power1.jpg http://www.cmu.edu/greenpractices/green_initiatives/_images/22.jpg

Britain mainly uses oil power stations and is moveing towards natural gas. Coal power stations dontr look anything like that pic o.0

Wind power is pretty crap also, its unreliable, Costs huge amounts for very little power output, takes up masses of space, and are hazzardess to any birds that may be flying about "/
Hydroelectric is the only renewable sorce that realy shows much promisis and has worked effectivly before, although britains geography doesnt lend it towards hydro exlectic so well.

[Blue]

we have mountais in wich water runs down creating fast moving water?? so why is the geopgraphy of our fair country stopping us from building hydro- electric dams ey?

[Halting]

However when the Government announce plans to put wind turbines up, people protest saying they are ugly.

The people saying that are the people who will be dead by time global warming comes into effect.

Stick 1000 in my street if you like Mr. Blair.

[::d4nnyt::]

Britain mainly uses oil power stations and is moveing towards natural gas. Coal power stations dontr look anything like that pic o.0

Wind power is pretty crap also, its unreliable, Costs huge amounts for very little power output, takes up masses of space, and are hazzardess to any birds that may be flying about "/
Hydroelectric is the only renewable sorce that realy shows much promisis and has worked effectivly before, although britains geography doesnt lend it towards hydro exlectic so well.

I thought britain was mainly coal fired power stations. Only oil fired power station I could name is Ilse of Grain. The actual energy to power wind turbines is free (obviously), it is the maintainance but the government backs wind turbines so they are profitable.

Where I do think you are wrong is saying "takes up masses of space". On the ground a windturbines base isn't very big at all and most of the last they are build on can be used for grazing, farming etc.

Widn turbines may be hazzardous to birds but the 'nuclear cloud' of chonobyl killed thousands of birds and polluted water kills many birds. I'm sure that alot of bird get killed by Jets aswell.

What about biomas? There is a power station somewhere in the uk which runs on chicken crap. Also many coalfired power stations are co-fueling with organic materials which can also be renewable.

Regards Danny.

[Halting]

They might kill alot of birds but global warming will kill thousands of animals aswell as birds.

[mannequin-like]

i like wind turbines :]

[FlyingJesus]

To be perfectly honest I'm not bothered how we get energy, as long as there's enough. I'll be dead by the time global warming does anything terrible in Britain, so burn dead animals all you like. Wind power is the biggest load of poo to ever be thought up, it's costly, unreliable, noisy, and takes up lots of space (which in case nobody has realised, we don't have a lot of seeing as how we're an island). Nuclear power is clearly the best, and all the waste can just be put in some country we don't like so they can breed Godzilla farms or something. Nah not sure about nuclear waste, but it's not been much of a problem so far and I don't forsee it being a problem while I'm alive. Hydro-electric power seems to work quite well in England, it's our main backup source of power and does the job nicely. If you want an alternative main source though, move to nuclear. We have the space, technology and can probably get a loan off America, so why not?

[beth]

who actually cares what it looks like? as long as it does its job i'm down with it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be perfectly honest I'm not bothered how we get energy, as long as there's enough. I'll be dead by the time global warming does anything terrible in Britain, so burn dead animals all you like. Wind power is the biggest load of poo to ever be thought up, it's costly, unreliable, noisy, and takes up lots of space (which in case nobody has realised, we don't have a lot of seeing as how we're an island). Nuclear power is clearly the best, and all the waste can just be put in some country we don't like so they can breed Godzilla farms or something. Nah not sure about nuclear waste, but it's not been much of a problem so far and I don't forsee it being a problem while I'm alive. Hydro-electric power seems to work quite well in England, it's our main backup source of power and does the job nicely. If you want an alternative main source though, move to nuclear. We have the space, technology and can probably get a loan off America, so why not?






Yep I agree - Nuclear is the way forward.

[DMB-Hosting]

Eyesore but worth it

[Mentor]

I thought britain was mainly coal fired power stations. Only oil fired power station I could name is Ilse of Grain. The actual energy to power wind turbines is free (obviously), it is the maintainance but the government backs wind turbines so they are profitable.
Coal reserves in england aint been around since fatcher. Our offsea oil reservers are the sorce of are power, along with a few necular and coal plants. Are oil is running out hence the reason for all the news covargae a while back of the pipe lines.
Wind turbtines are masivly exspencive and do requre more maintaince than a coal/oil or gas plant, becuse the goverment substaities them, it doesnt make them profitable.



Where I do think you are wrong is saying "takes up masses of space". On the ground a windturbines base isn't very big at all and most of the last they are build on can be used for grazing, farming etc.
Yes, but for the same as a coal power plant, even a small one, about 10 000 wind turbines would be requred... Now that does take up ALOT of space... (clooser to 200 000 for a nucler plant or larger power plant)


Widn turbines may be hazzardous to birds but the 'nuclear cloud' of chonobyl killed thousands of birds and polluted water kills many birds. I'm sure that alot of bird get killed by Jets aswell.
Neculer reactors only do that when theres a major problem, which should never happen if everythings done right. Wind turbines do that even when there working correctly


What about biomas? There is a power station somewhere in the uk which runs on chicken crap. Also many coalfired power stations are co-fueling with organic materials which can also be renewable.
Doesnt do the envierment much good, and farmers would make more money useing manuer on the fields than in genriating biomass power

[DMB-Hosting]

Mentor has an answer for everything -.- lol

[FlyingJesus]

I can't be bothered to look back and see who actually posted


On the ground a windturbines base isn't very big at all and most of the last they are build on can be used for grazing, farming etc.

But it's very very wrong. The noise would scare animals and possibly make them ill (noise pollution, it can happen) and you wouldn't want to risk farming there for the same reasons as you wouldn't with any power station - if something goes wrong with it, your farm's gone too.

[::d4nnyt::]

I can't be bothered to look back and see who actually posted



But it's very very wrong. The noise would scare animals and possibly make them ill (noise pollution, it can happen) and you wouldn't want to risk farming there for the same reasons as you wouldn't with any power station - if something goes wrong with it, your farm's gone too.

I've seen wind turbines in holland in and around fields and highways. Many power stations are in rural area surrounded by farms maybe even villages so I don't think there is much risk in farming near one. Many animals are in fields near motorways motorways are very noisey and the farmers don't seem to care about putting them there.


Doesnt do the envierment much good, and farmers would make more money useing manuer on the fields than in genriating biomass power

Yes but the manure gives off methane gas which is said to be 20 times worse for the environment than Carbon Dioxide. Methane from the manure can be created in a digester tank and used as natural gas. After the gas has been retrieved the manure can be used for farming. So a farmer can make more money with biomas.

Regards Danny.