Gas deposit

[Banker]

The Orkney sea turbine project is on one show BBC1 now, fairly small turbine about size of an easyJet can power 2000 homes, can be scaled up if successful. Costs weren’t mentioned & a sea cable is required to connect to

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

A few years ago there was a proposal to site a wind farm in the South Barrule area. It was vehemently opposed, oddly enough, by the environmentalists who claimed, amongst other things, that there were squadrons of hen-harriers in the locality that would commit hari-kari against the blades of the turbines. I wonder if the same attitude of opposition would exist now?

I can't find any evidence of this at all and on the whole environmentalists tend to be very much in favour of wind-farms though they may disagree with particular sites being used if for example they are on a major migratory route.  They might also be interested in looking at measures that encourage birds to avoid the sites.  The only sort of 'environmentalists' who object tend to be the ones who concern for the environment is limited to the view from their from windows.

In any case it's too late to object to wind turbines on South Barrule as there was already one there in the 1950s.  It was a very successful prototype of the type that was later developed as the foundation for the industry by the Danes.  So naturally nothing more was done.

[finlo]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I can't find any evidence of this at all and on the whole environmentalists tend to be very much in favour of wind-farms though they may disagree with particular sites being used if for example they are on a major migratory route.  They might also be interested in looking at measures that encourage birds to avoid the sites.  The only sort of 'environmentalists' who object tend to be the ones who concern for the environment is limited to the view from their from windows.

In any case it's too late to object to wind turbines on South Barrule as there was already one there in the 1950s.  It was a very successful prototype of the type that was later developed as the foundation for the industry by the Danes.  So naturally nothing more was done.

I recall something being trialed there about twenty years ago whether it was an actual turbine or other test equipment I'm not sure.

[A fool and his money.....]

If they'd have built an onshore windfarm for the cost of Pully power station when they built Pully power station it probably would have paid for itself in exported energy by now. 

[Non-Believer]

22 minutes ago, finlo said:

I recall something being trialed there about twenty years ago whether it was an actual turbine or other test equipment I'm not sure.

There was definitely a proposal (of whatever sincerity) to put a windfarm in the South Barrule area, it might have been as long ago as that but I think it was a bit less. It was reported in the local news and the objections were immediate, from the wildlife impact to the visual intrusion. It would be interesting to see if attitudes have changed since then with new thinking and problems on energy.

[finlo]

45 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

There was definitely a proposal (of whatever sincerity) to put a windfarm in the South Barrule area, it might have been as long ago as that but I think it was a bit less. It was reported in the local news and the objections were immediate, from the wildlife impact to the visual intrusion. It would be interesting to see if attitudes have changed since then with new thinking and problems on energy.

Maybe it was less than twenty years ago?  I was traveling that road daily at the time and it was supposedly the place with the most consistent wind.

[0bserver]

There should be no wind turbines going in down south. It will have all kinds of unintended consequences for the airport and radar. 

The recommendation seems to be that substantial turbines should be no closer than 7 nautical miles to an active airport. 

[finlo]

8 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

There should be no wind turbines going in down south. It will have all kinds of unintended consequences for the airport and radar. 

The recommendation seems to be that substantial turbines should be no closer than 7 nautical miles to an active airport. 

Spoil your view?

[0bserver]

3 minutes ago, finlo said:

Spoil your view?

Nice try but no actually. Not a Southern Softy. 

[Stu Peters]

3 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

If they'd have built an onshore windfarm for the cost of Pully power station when they built Pully power station it probably would have paid for itself in exported energy by now. 

But they'd still need Pully power station for when the wind didn't blow. I'm not being obtuse, even the green lobby admit that electricity storage on a big scale has a way to go, even now.

[Max Power]

12 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

If they'd have built an onshore windfarm for the cost of Pully power station when they built Pully power station it probably would have paid for itself in exported energy by now. 

It's been calculated that we would need 15 to 20 wind generators to supply our needs, when the wind blows. I don't think we'd have any excess to sell and we'd be looking for a reliable backup!

[A fool and his money.....]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

But they'd still need Pully power station for when the wind didn't blow. I'm not being obtuse, even the green lobby admit that electricity storage on a big scale has a way to go, even now.

It does, but isn't that why we have the interconnector, that and to sell on our surplus. Plus if you coupled wind with solar we'd be pretty much self sufficient anyway.

What's the difference between 100 percent of gas being piped into the island and a small percentage of electricity being brought in, if done right, more then paid for my the more usual case of export?

What you've got to remember Stu is that Pully power station cost considerably more than a similar output offshore wind far at the time. On shore wind is much cheaper. So apart from the extra build cost we've had 20 years of paying for a raw material cost that would have been free. 

[doc.fixit]

Oh, lets just go back to candles and oil lamps coupled with a cooking range............Oh, can't do that,it's polluting.

However, I'm still here after at least 15 years of that scenario in my formative years.

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

It does, but isn't that why we have the interconnector, that and to sell on our surplus. Plus if you coupled wind with solar we'd be pretty much self sufficient anyway.

What's the difference between 100 percent of gas being piped into the island and a small percentage of electricity being brought in, if done right, more then paid for my the more usual case of export?

What you've got to remember Stu is that Pully power station cost considerably more than a similar output offshore wind far at the time. On shore wind is much cheaper. So apart from the extra build cost we've had 20 years of paying for a raw material cost that would have been free. 

Using the interconnector only works if you can guarantee your imported electricity is renewable

If it aint windy here, it probably aint windy in Englandshire either

[A fool and his money.....]

38 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Using the interconnector only works if you can guarantee your imported electricity is renewable

If it aint windy here, it probably aint windy in Englandshire either

That's nonsense. The interconnector works regardless of how the electricity is generated.

Considering the very few times there is no wind here, supplementing it with imported energy however it is generated ( wind is not the only renewable in common use across anyway) would still be infinitely preferable than what we have at the moment.