[BBC News] Calls to harness natural energy

[Chinahand]

The recent review of renewable energy options for the Island found that the best place wasn't the sound, but in the channel north west of the Point of Ayre. It hits all the ecological, nimby, wave energy, wind energy and tidal energy buttons while the sound would have the tree huggers and not-in-my-back-yarders up in arms.

 

As it has waves, wind and tide it might be worth a £200 pop at a combined plant, but to say it would be speculative would be putting it mildly. Hands up who's willing to go and raise the money? Sadly its basically pie in the sky, but boy would it be fun!

 

Edited to add - on shore wind was found to be totally impossible well before the money allocated for it disappeared into a Gas Turbine. The birders and planners have zoned it out of existance - personally I think that is a shame, but those saving our birds disagree and have the planners ear.

[Sebrof]

The recent review of renewable energy options for the Island found that the best place wasn't the sound, but in the channel north west of the Point of Ayre. It hits all the ecological, nimby, wave energy, wind energy and tidal energy buttons while the sound would have the tree huggers and not-in-my-back-yarders up in arms.

 

As it has waves, wind and tide it might be worth a £200 pop at a combined plant, but to say it would be speculative would be putting it mildly. Hands up who's willing to go and raise the money? Sadly its basically pie in the sky, but boy would it be fun!

 

Edited to add - on shore wind was found to be totally impossible well before the money allocated for it disappeared into a Gas Turbine. The birders and planners have zoned it out of existance - personally I think that is a shame, but those saving our birds disagree and have the planners ear.

 

Sadly, they didn't consider hydro or on-shore wind, and just concentrated on "renewable energy production from the seas around the Isle of Man".

 

I don't know if that was their original brief, or whether they influenced the scope of the brief to fit their areas of expertise. Whichever it was, it was crazy not to consider all the alternatives. Onshore energy sources might well be cheaper to build, and will certainly be cheaper to keep running. Fancy maintaining an offshore wind-farm in January?

 

As for the eco-warriors, windmills at sea will kill plenty of birds too, and large-scale seabed engineering will have a major effect on local marine life.

 

We have a crisis here, and need to resolve it. It's a big omelette, and some eggs are going to have to be broken.

 

S

[jimbms]

The recent review of renewable energy options for the Island found that the best place wasn't the sound, but in the channel north west of the Point of Ayre. It hits all the ecological, nimby, wave energy, wind energy and tidal energy buttons while the sound would have the tree huggers and not-in-my-back-yarders up in arms.

I think it is about time that these people got told where to go. One minute they are moaning about use of fossil fuels and atomic energy the next the moan about natural power because they dont like the look of it, they can't have it both ways so fuck em if an efficient method is found then we use it, birds and animals etc will always adapt, if they dont like the looks of the solution then all I can say is our famed local phrase "There's a boat in the morning"

[Sebrof]

By the way, I don't think the Sound was rejected for technical reasons. As I read the report, the Sound was ruled out for a host of environmental reasons.

 

Which is a pity, because a tidal generator needn't be very visible.

 

S

[Bombay Bad Boy]

Did it ever occur to the NIMBYs/government, that visitors from more forward thinking nations, come to the Island expecting to see wind turbines, and wondering where they all are?

[P.K.]

I would have thought the obvious place for a windfarm was on the sw corner of the Calf. While generating if it minces up a load of shitehawks on the way then surely that's a win / win...

[Tempus Fugit]

I read reported elsewhere

It was announced today plans have been approved for a new 139 turbine windfarm off the Duddon Estuary near Walney Island

 

I also remember being told that some years ago Denmark needed to build another power station but in stead gave away energy saving light bulbs and the reduced demand meant they didn't have to build the power station at that time

[Frances]

I would have thought the obvious place for a windfarm was on the sw corner of the Calf. While generating if it minces up a load of shitehawks on the way then surely that's a win / win...

I guess you are upto date with the twitchers request to red-list the herring gull (ie it becomes a significant criminal offence to molest them) - apparently it is in short supply except in inland UK towns where it is a costly pest.

[asitis]

It is heartwarming to read all the posts by the very educated and reasoned authors on here with ideas worthy of consideration. Why aren't you in the government ?

 

May have answered my own question

[ponderer]

The recent review of renewable energy options for the Island found that the best place wasn't the sound, but in the channel north west of the Point of Ayre. It hits all the ecological, nimby, wave energy, wind energy and tidal energy buttons while the sound would have the tree huggers and not-in-my-back-yarders up in arms.

 

As it has waves, wind and tide it might be worth a £200 pop at a combined plant, but to say it would be speculative would be putting it mildly. Hands up who's willing to go and raise the money? Sadly its basically pie in the sky, but boy would it be fun!

 

Edited to add - on shore wind was found to be totally impossible well before the money allocated for it disappeared into a Gas Turbine. The birders and planners have zoned it out of existance - personally I think that is a shame, but those saving our birds disagree and have the planners ear.

 

The exclusion of onshore wind is ridiculous.

 

Accusations about the impact of wind turbines on birds are notoriously exaggerated. Planners should be warned strongly against listening to the bird lobby with regard to wind turbines and instead scrutinise the evidence base on onshore wind which is now substantial.

 

This exclusion sadly discredits the entire report. The issues relating to energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources (whether onshore or offshore) need to be looked at in a holistic way.

[Sebrof]

The exclusion of onshore wind is ridiculous.

 

Accusations about the impact of wind turbines on birds are notoriously exaggerated. Planners should be warned strongly against listening to the bird lobby with regard to wind turbines and instead scrutinise the evidence base on onshore wind which is now substantial.

 

This exclusion sadly discredits the entire report. The issues relating to energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources (whether onshore or offshore) need to be looked at in a holistic way.

 

In fairness to those who commissioned the report, the cost of oil was much lower two years ago, and there was not the same urgency as there is today to find alternative sources of energy. It was believed then that the eco-activists would be able to block anything that impinged either on birds' nesting grounds or people's views.

 

The situation is now quite different. When Tynwald announces how much the real cost of electricity is now (bear in mind that recent discussions have centered on the year ended March 2007), I suspect that the large majority of the population will be prepared to sacrifice a few nests, and grow to love large propellors on distant hills.

 

But it does mean that we need a new report to fill in the gaps in the existing one.

 

S

[ponderer]

The exclusion of onshore wind is ridiculous.

 

Accusations about the impact of wind turbines on birds are notoriously exaggerated. Planners should be warned strongly against listening to the bird lobby with regard to wind turbines and instead scrutinise the evidence base on onshore wind which is now substantial.

 

This exclusion sadly discredits the entire report. The issues relating to energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources (whether onshore or offshore) need to be looked at in a holistic way.

 

In fairness to those who commissioned the report, the cost of oil was much lower two years ago, and there was not the same urgency as there is today to find alternative sources of energy. It was believed then that the eco-activists would be able to block anything that impinged either on birds' nesting grounds or people's views.

 

The situation is now quite different. When Tynwald announces how much the real cost of electricity is now (bear in mind that recent discussions have centered on the year ended March 2007), I suspect that the large majority of the population will be prepared to sacrifice a few nests, and grow to love large propellors on distant hills.

 

But it does mean that we need a new report to fill in the gaps in the existing one.

 

S

 

I agree. There have been a number of other new innovations as well to reinforce your call for a new report..

[jimbms]

It is heartwarming to read all the posts by the very educated and reasoned authors on here with ideas worthy of consideration. Why aren't you in the government ?

 

May have answered my own question

You only assume we are not

[Moghrey Mie]

Proffitt is a genius. The main problem with renewable energy is affordability, and he has made conventional electricity so expensive with his MEA antics that renewable energy now looks relatively cheap. What an environmental pioneer he is!

 

 

 

I see Mike Proffitt's company Renewable Energy Holdings based in the IOM has just announced profits of 1.1 million pounds.

How ironic is that?

[Mutley]

There's a full page advert in this month's PC Plus for this company - http://nohotwaterbills.co.uk/default.asp

 

In the advert they're advertising a discount for readers. Price is only £1,499.

 

That seems pretty affordable. Can't work out from their site if it can be used in conjunction with an existing oil boiler. Might give them a call to find out.