UKC

Supported by

Full size version is only available to registered users


Please Register as a New User or Login as Existing User to gain full access to all the photos on this site. Registration is quick and completely free.
Unregistered users can only view full size photos that have been added this month.

thumb
The Windmills of Wales....so lovely, so scenic....so inefficient, so subsidised...
© David Dear
Date taken: 2009
Supported by
VOTING: from 1 votes
Login as Existing User
to rate this photo.

User Comments

I think they are scenic. It's in the eye of the beholder innit?
Jamie B - 28/Feb/09
You're right of course, but....
David Dear - 28/Feb/09
What is inefficient about them?
RoyStone - 28/Feb/09
What do you prefer Dave - Trawsfynydd?
Its really hard to get accurate facts and figures regarding the energy efficvieny of them - but to me they are a symbol of hope.
+ I love all the huge windfarms in Liverpool Bay.
David Hooper - 28/Feb/09
At sea they are great. They make no economic sense unless heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, ie. us. They produce vast amounts of CO2 in the concrete used in their construction, they are out of proportion to the small scale landscape, EDF have already been given the contract to build new Nuclear Power stations at Wyfla, so what is gained? But.....
David Dear - 28/Feb/09
A wind turbine that lasts 20 years has an energy ratio of around 80 so pays off its carbon debt in a few months. A fossil fuel power station never pays off its carbon debt. As far as the cost goes wait until fully costed carbon sequestration is fitted to fossil fuel generator and then compare with wind. My guess is wind will be cheaper.
RoyStone - 01/Mar/09
Depends what you mean by efficiency. When the wind is blowing in the optimum range of speeds they have the same levels of efficiency as a coal or nuclear power station (around 35 - 40%)As for cost, at current fuel rates, the cost of fossil fuel or nuclear power station energy is around 2-3p per kWh. Onshore wind is around 5.5p/kWh and offshore 6.7p/kWh so it won't take much change in costs to make wind a lot more attractive.
James Moyle - 01/Mar/09
As far as I understand it, there are three aspects of the debate, which is f*****g important, which often seem to be overlooked. Firstly, the technology is not proven either efficiency-wise, or just as important, safety-wise, there are a catalogue of horrific accidents caused by wind turbines; secondly, there was a strategic policy decision made by 'the Government' that Britain would be a major manufacturer of wind turbines, ie. with maximum profit for the companies involved; thirdly, the landscape of our wild, semi-wild and rural areas is precious, we need to balance the need for profit against what we feel is precious and unique. But.....
David Dear - 01/Mar/09
Dave - can you point me at your information on wind turbine accidents? I believe the last 10 years has seen a good safety record. In my opinion it is the government's job to encourage companies to invest in industries with the potential to create employment and replace fossil fuel imports. In fact they are not doing enough to encourage UK companies.
By the way, the above figures for cost of nuclear do not include decommisioning costs and ignore the fact that almost all nuclear power has been built using government money which is cheaper than private capital. i.e. Nuclear would be more than 3p/kWh if it had been built by private capital.
We all want the wild places Dave, but we also want energy. Energy obtained from fossil fuels will end up destroying those wild places.
RoyStone - 02/Mar/09
Dave - why not cut and paste this to the forums - makes for an interesting debate.
David Hooper - 02/Mar/09
Just goes to show; you can photograph windmills, but not atmospheric CO2 - however in time the landscape pics will contribute to a record of climate change
kevin stephens - 02/Mar/09
Thank you Doctor Stone, your comments are extremely gratifying. There was article in the Guardian news pages about the world wide safety record, basically pointing out that there is no safety record beyond the last few years, ie. it is not proven technology. On your prompting I will try and locate the article, which gave a list of near misses, decapitations (animals so far) etc., the article was published before the recent well publicised damage to a turbine somewhere down south.
Wind turbines should be located on brownfield sites, at sea, or away from areas of precious natural beauty, in my humble opinion.
The government encouraged through massive subsidy of tax breaks this industry, which may be right or wrong. But it is through subsidy that landowners and farmers encouraged to build these things. Surely it would make more sense to spend the same money on conserving energy by making sure everyone's home is properly insulated and energy efficient. Unfortunately, over-riding every other concern of the Government, is that big business and the business of power production makes a vast profit.
PS Dave, you're probably right about the forums, but visually seeing the desecration of a precious landscape is a stimulus. John Clare lost his mind because of the desecration through Enclosures of the landscape he loved.
David Dear - 02/Mar/09
But there is much less wind on brownfield sites and away from areas of natural beauty. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer; the grid connections would be a lot cheaper for a start
kevin stephens - 02/Mar/09
I think the most attractive ones I've seen are at Waterloo, by the Mersey just north of Liverpool, near Anthony Gormley's 'Another Place'.
David Dear - 03/Mar/09
There are two of the biggest wind turbines in Europe near my house in Dundee at the Michelin plant which are quite a sight. i have no problem with thenm being in an urban landscape, but when they intrude to the degree in the country side that they are begining to then thats a problem for me. nobody can seem to agree on how efficient they are, and while global warming is a concern i'm not convinced that we are as responsible for it as is made out(controversial i know). I agree with previous comments that rather then always looking for more and more energy, we should be concentrating on better use of the energy we use at the moment.
ellis1 - 03/Mar/09
Start a thread with a link to the photo - its a good debate that seserves a proper airing.
David Hooper - 03/Mar/09
I'm a bit ignorant on IT stuff, how do I do that Dave? I agree, it's a really important debate. especially as the Welsh Assembly seems convinced that turning nuch of North Wales
David Dear - 03/Mar/09
Sorry about previous, meant to delete something and pressed wrong button! In answer to Doctor Stone' question the link to the Guardian article about accidents is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/04/energy.engineering
David Dear - 03/Mar/09
Now 2 threads up and running on this Dave
David Hooper - 03/Mar/09
I think Dave D did the right thing making this a photo-comment item. If it was in the forum there would be an all out flame war going on now with 99% of the posters ill-informed.
Thanks for the Guardian article Dave. There is not enough death/destruction in there to bother me. And designs are improving all the time.
RoyStone - 03/Mar/09
Dr Stone, you're been a bit disingenuous. The capacity factor of a windfarm is about 30% (generates 30% of it's optimum output over a year). Nuclear is over 90%. £32 billion in subsidies would get a couple of nuclear plants (6000 windmills worth of power?)up and running.
Ridge - 03/Mar/09
Ridge: I don't think I was being disingenuous. Yes, windfarm capacity factor in the UK is around 30% but that is taken into account in James Moyles' cost figures above: a kWh is a kWh. And yes some nuclear reactors achieve greater than 90% capacity factor. But their thermal efficiency is still less than 50% (as JM wrote).
Where is your £32 billion figure from? Is this an Obama figure?
RoyStone - 03/Mar/09
I'm so glad that I've provoked an informed an concerned debate. Because, as we all enjoy and love the mountains, the hills and few wild places left on our islands, we are all concerned. From a personal point of view, I am not in favour of more Nuclear Power, unless it's built somewhere near London! I think the Government, latched on to Wind Power in order to make themselves look good in argument, vis a vis Europe, the Today programme, the Daily Mail etc. etc....The money invested by us, the tax payer, would be far more efficiently spent on energy conservation, wave power, tidal power etc. etc. There's a bloke who has had to go to Portugal to test a full size model of his wave power generator because of the lack of support from this Government.
Check out the pic I put up of 3 windfarms taken on Monday.
Doctor Stone, how much death and destruction and unproven technology do you want?
David Dear - 03/Mar/09
Sorry Doctor Stone, that came out a bit confrontational. Your comments have been really illuminating, just remember I'm not scientist or technologist. Ellis1's comment has been interesting as a he or she lives near some turbines, it would be most interesting to hear comments from anybody else of their experience of living near a Turbine. Everyone, thanks so far......
David Dear - 03/Mar/09
Dave - Lucky for me I work on this stuff and have a science background but I think it can (and should) be explained in everday terms. An excellent free book is Sustainability Without The Hot Air by David Mackay. You can download it here: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf
The message is: get all the renewable energy we can: Solar, Wind, Tidal, Wave, Bio etc; add in some Nuclear; update the electricity grid to handle renewable inputs (which are intermittent in nature); go electric (for all transport, industry and building heating/air con); conserve like mad to reduce energy demand. That way we can get off fossil fuels. Easy, right? ;)
RoyStone - 04/Mar/09
Whilst I agree that what you are saying makes logical sense; in the process implementing the Governments blinkered vision, narrow minded and profit rules only, or lack of vision, which currently determines energy policy and windmill developments, we are losing what we value as precious, irreplaceable and fragile, namely the heartstoppingly beautiful, spiritual and ancient landscapes that we treasure and love. Our ancestors, the people of Neolithic and Bronze age times valued and treasured this land, witness the extraordinary beauty of the places chosen by them for their stone memorials. I have nothing against windmills per se, but I do have strong objection to where many are placed and built
David Dear - 04/Mar/09
Ah ha ha.
Does this mean you won't be ranting about them while were out walking now ;-)
So long suckers : P
BlueCube - 08/May/09
Login as Existing User to add your comments
This picture is copyright. If you want to reproduce or otherwise re-use it, please email the photographer direct via their user profile. Photo added February 28 2009.
Loading Notifications...