Jump to content

Windfarms - majestic necessities or inefficient monstrosities?


banana

Windfarms - majestic necessities or inefficient monstrosities?  

81 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Travelling around the nation these days it's impossible not to notice the increasing propensity of windfarms dotted across our green, pleasant, and hilly land.

Do you support the spread of windfarms as a necessary and majestic totems of progress in a polluting world?

Decry them as unnecessary impostors against the nation's natural aesthetic beauty that has helped shape our culture and identity?

Would you be willing to cut your personal energy usage to a level currently sustainable by your preferred energy source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
50 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

I think they look shite.
Put them at sea out the way.

Don't they kill a lot of birds?
That Ivanpah solar farm thing kills thousands of birds.

Stupid birds.

Travelling through the beautiful kingdom of Fife is now quite depressing on this note, a good example of the dangers of a cult of progress over everything.

Unexpected/counter-ideology outcomes is always darkly hilarious when it comes to fanatic do-gooders, in this case dead wildlife for environmentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clean and renewable energy is always a good thing. They may be ugly things and I would rather have them than having big nuclear power plants pumping god-knows-what into the environment. Oh, and we don't need to look too far back into the past to see how much damage a nuclear reactor meltdown can cause.

If nothing else, at least you can tell your children that tellytubbies live in wind farms which is a bit more reassuring than pointing to a nuclear power plant and saying "that's where Homer Simpson works".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Edmond Dantès said:

Clean and renewable energy is always a good thing. They may be ugly things and I would rather have them than having big nuclear power plants pumping god-knows-what into the environment. Oh, and we don't need to look too far back into the past to see how much damage a nuclear reactor meltdown can cause.

If nothing else, at least you can tell your children that tellytubbies live in wind farms which is a bit more reassuring than pointing to a nuclear power plant and saying "that's where Homer Simpson works".

Nuclear power plants pump steam into the environment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like them, largely for the utter seethe they cause in torn-faced brexiters. 

There was one guy in a community Facebook page claiming that if the blades come loose the wind can blow them up to three miles from their original site. He then pointed out that there were two schools within this 3 mile radius so by erecting the wind farm, school children were essentially going to get crushed to death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK currently emits 36% less CO2 than it did when it singed up to the Kyoto Protocol. 

carbon.png

 

We are at the same emissinos level as in the 1890s. Because we have been deploying at scale, we have been building a large number of windfarms, this has allowed us to reduce the costs per unit you get from mass production and it is likely it will be cheaper to build more renewables that continue to burn fossil fuels by the end of the next decade. 

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-new-uk-renewables-could-be-cheaper-than-existing-gas-plants-by-2030

 

Lithium storage is beginning to become cheaper than "peaker plants" that is small gas plants that only run at peak times. 

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608273/grid-batteries-are-poised-to-become-cheaper-than-natural-gas-plants-in-minnesota/

 

So the question boils down to "do you accept the major science academies assessments that human sourced CO2 is the primary driver of current climate change and if so should we continue to cut our emissions". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WeAreElgin said:
30 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:


That’ll explain the ghost town of Pripyat.

They seem to work quite well when they're regulated and some c**t doesn't have the ability to blow them up.

“Some c**t” including seismic activity in the complete anarchy of Japan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bold Rover said:

They should position all the windfarms in places which I don't visit.

Quite.

A fair bit of virtue-signalling so far, but noone yet answered whether they are willing to cap their power usage to windfarm output, nor have them lining their street or their favourite beauty spots / holiday destinations.

windraeder-rotorsteppen.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fucking love them, I do a fair bit of work on them all over the world and get payed well for doing it.

i  also dont give a f**k if they are blots on the landscape and are inefficient monstrosities.

oh, and the birds can go f**k themselves as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, banana said:

Quite.

A fair bit of virtue-signalling so far, but noone yet answered whether they are willing to cap their power usage to windfarm output, nor have them lining their street or their favourite beauty spots / holiday destinations.

windraeder-rotorsteppen.jpg

WTF is virtue-signalling? 

I believe that picture is German. And take away the wind farms, it's not a place anyone would want to visit anyway.  We've got a lot more room, mountains ... and most importantly, wind. 

Why not paint them brown and green and make them look like pretty trees? This could be my Dragon's Den moment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...