Does anyone know if there are any proposed wind farms in Sheffield or near by? What are your opinions on this matter - do you agree that they should be built & why, or do you feel strongly that they may be an eyesore or something?

Views wanted please!

Don't know of any plans for Wind Farms in Sheffield but was in Copenhagen a few weeks ago and they have really gone to town with them. Must be about 50 built just off shore and apparently they supply all of the electricity for Copenhagen. They are not an eyesight, they look really impressive.

I very much doubt there'll be one in sheffield as its so built up -unless you count the single one at heeley city farm?!

There is one not far from sheffield - don't know exactly where though. When walking round langsett resevoir you can see it in the distance. Bit of an eyesore I suppose but better than a load of nuclear waste/global warming etc.

There's so many hills in Sheffield, it would be an ideal place.

As for the aesthetic side of things - I personally think a farm of wind generators look fantastic. Takes me back to my childhood when my Gran had a load of those little plastic windmills in the garden.

Plus its environmentally friendlier than the methods used now. At some point in the future I dont think we'll have much choice in the matter.

Covered in depth before here:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4254

They are proposing to build a windfarm at Hearthill. The Dinnington Guardian (local free paper) had an article about it. Local residents have started a campaign to stop it.

let the people who campaign against them have no electricity then

Ever so slightly off-topic, I've just switched leccy supplier to Good Energy, who supply 100% of their energy from renewable sources.

...And they're no more expensive than Yorkshire or British Gas.

www.good-energy.co.uk

There's more information here: http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/

I'm sure someone in Fulwood will complain if they suggest building a wind farm anywhere in the "posh" part of Sheffield.

I used to live in Penistone, a couple of miles from the 13 turbines up there. I think they're fine and would much rather have a wind farm on my back door rather than a coal/oil/nuclear plant. As long as they are not near houses and keep people awake etc I can't see a problem.

Went to Cornwall this year and there's a fair few wind farms there - looked ok IMHO. All away from villages etc...

i live near the windfarm. it is ok, as its relatively far away.

the problem is when they get too clost to houses etc.

I never fail to be impressed by wind farms. They are a stunning sight, whether on top of hills or, in the case of one I saw recently, out in the Mojave desert. What I can't understand is the way people start moaning about how they wreck a timeless landscape, and how rustic people are again being made to pay for city folks' greedy energy needs. Fact: There really isn't much of the UK's landscape that hasn't been progressively messed around by man over millennia. Probability: If the power companies aren't allowed to plant windmills in rural back yards, Prescott will pretty soon be broadcast sowing housing developments up there. This is a very small nation, and its many occupants have to accept that a population density such as ours demands compromises.

Are you volunteering your back garden then, joyphil?

I would glady have one in my garden. i think they are strangely beautiful.

Originally posted by bonny
I would glady have one in my garden. i think they are strangely beautiful.

Some people may find nucleur power plants "strangely beautiful". Would that be enough to give the go ahead to build one next to where you live??

WE saw some recently in France - they look majestic and walking around near the bottom of one you felt slightly elated - bizarre feeling of well being - sure one of you mystics will know what I mean..

Bring them on....

They do have a downside in the fact that they can be quite noisey. The noise carries a fair way in a rural setting but may well be less intrusive in an urban one.

i personally think they look good, & are much better for the environment - its a better thing to put them out at sea, or on hills, away from houses. I wouldn't want one in my garden - for a start they are huge! they'd tower above the house & if the cat climbed it we'd never get her down!

No, seriously, i'm all for them. When we were on holiday in Cornwall we wondered through a field of them & they were amazing - pretty silent, but so powerful, quite awestruck really.

Originally posted by t020
Some people may find nucleur power plants "strangely beautiful". Would that be enough to give the go ahead to build one next to where you live??

erm, let me think about that, ecological power versus nuclear power????

Hmmmmm let me get back to you.

What a silly little example comparison that was T020, really

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonny
erm, let me think about that, ecological power versus nuclear power????

Hmmmmm let me get back to you.

What a silly little example comparison that was T020, really

:rolleyes:

No, not really. The obvious point (that you seemed to have missed) is that just because you find wind turbines "strangely beautiful" doesn't mean that everyone else wants them imposed on them.

Originally posted by t020
No, not really. The obvious point (that you seemed to have missed) is that just because you find wind turbines "strangely beautiful" doesn't mean that everyone else wants them imposed on them.

exactly who would not favour wind power over nuclear power??? I ask you. I have never heard of anyone thinking that nuclear power is beautiful. Have you?

Strange friends you have if you do know people like that.

It's a little bit like saying that because I find VSO a good idea I am making a ridiculous statement because some people think it is a ludicrous thing to do. WHO WOULD?????

Originally posted by bonny
exactly who would not favour wind power over nuclear power??? I ask you. I have never heard of anyone thinking that nuclear power is beautiful. Have you?

Strange friends you have if you do know people like that.


THAT'S THE POINT. Jesus, this is hard work. What is beautiful to some is not beautiful to others. I think you're in the minority with your love for wind turbines, so what makes you think that you're opinion is so much more important that everybody else should have them imposed on them?

Originally posted by t020
THAT'S THE POINT. Jesus, this is hard work. What is beautiful to some is not beautiful to others. I think you're in the minority with your love for wind turbines, so what makes you think that you're opinion is so much more important that everybody else should have them imposed on them?

So you prefer nuclear power and so do the majority??

:thumbsup:

YOU made a very silly comparison, admit it

Originally posted by bonny
So you prefer nuclear power and so do the majority??

:thumbsup:

YOU made a very silly comparison, admit it

No I personally don't prefer nuclear power, but your neighbour might. Does that mean that they should have their way and build a plant next to your house?

Originally posted by t020
No I personally don't prefer nuclear power, but your neighbour might. Does that mean that they should have their way and build a plant next to your house?

Just being plain silly now.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
I think you're in the minority with your love for wind turbines,

Not on this forum, or at least according to a poll conducted:

Poll on wind turbines (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4259)

Originally posted by max
Not on this forum, or at least according to a poll conducted:

Poll on wind turbines (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4259)


What about the poll in The Star a few weeks ago? Also, the poll is hardly conclusive and many would've opted for the "tactical" vote - i.e. against me.

A proper poll question, more relevant to this debate, would be "do you find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing enough to live within sight of them?". Perhaps you could add said poll to this thread?

PS. I make that 3 separate wind turbine threads now.... And yes, I did use the report post facility first.

Originally posted by bonny
Just being plain silly now.
:rolleyes:

Not at all, but you are avoiding the question.

Originally posted by t020
Some people may find nucleur power plants "strangely beautiful". Would that be enough to give the go ahead to build one next to where you live??

well it doesn't really warrant a reply does it?

Originally posted by bonny
well it doesn't really warrant a reply does it?


I'll try again anyway though. What makes you think your opinion is so important that you have the right to enforce something on everyone else within sight? Like it or not, most people won't want wind farms near their house, so the fact that you find them "strangely beautiful" is entirely irrelevant.

when the energy has run out and we`re all sat sittin in the dark freezin to death and can`t cook any warm food or make a cuppa would you like the wind farms then? would you like one on your doorstep or just down the road?? I`ve not had close up experience of one but i think i know what my answer would be! wonder if they`re liveable inable?

Originally posted by t020
What about the poll in The Star a few weeks ago? Also, the poll is hardly conclusive and many would've opted for the "tactical" vote - i.e. against me.

A proper poll question, more relevant to this debate, would be "do you find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing enough to live within sight of them?". Perhaps you could add said poll to this thread?

PS. I make that 3 separate wind turbine threads now.... And yes, I did use the report post facility first.

Well the difference between polls in the Star and those here are that the Star polls require a great deal of effort by ringing up a number, and so tend to attract views from people who feel strongly about it - like you. By nature, in this matter they would be negative. The SF poll requires only a click from anyone who reads a thread, and I reckon that they are very representative. For the record, out of 51 votes, 82% are in favour. Please feel free to continue voting.

Like it or not, we have to lose our reliance on fossil fuels. I personally have no problem with nuclear power. Our techniques for recycling fuels have improved, and would improved further with the investment that would come with an expansion of its use.

However, because it's a vote loser, we're hard on the horns of the dilemma. :(

Originally posted by t020
I'll try again anyway though. What makes you think your opinion is so important that you have the right to enforce something on everyone else within sight? Like it or not, most people won't want wind farms near their house, so the fact that you find them "strangely beautiful" is entirely irrelevant.

How does me saying that I would gladly have one in my garden constitute "forcing something on everyone else within sight"?

You have never seen my garden for one thing. Unless you have inside information on the dimensions of my garden.

It would be very difficult for anyone to see one in my garden given that it is surrounded by huge oak, sycamore and beech trees.

:loopy:

Thanks for the offer Bonny, but of course the problem with that is that the turbine wouldn't work very well :)

.. which is the whole point. Whether t020 likes them or not, they do seem to be efficient and they do need to go in prominent locations. That means hill, moor and coastal locations.

NIMBYism is not helpful.

Besides, while I don't think I would object to a wind turbine in my back yard, I don't think it would fit. Have lived next to train lines in London before and managed to sleep at night. Maybe t020 has a larger than average house. And I ain't sure a nuclear reactor would either. In fact, there's a clause in the deeds preventing me from making bricks on the property even.

NIMBYism is, unfortunately, the prerogative of those who hate lefty do-gooders. Perhaps the council should, instead of sullying our reactionary friend's locale with power generation equipment, build an estate there. The low-life soon to be chucked out of Park Hill will have to be put somewhere (don't anyone rise against the term, I'm well aware that not everybody up there is a negative kinda human being and I don't mean the whole population of the place), and at least they'll have lively neighbours.

That could be strangely beautiful, don't you think? In a divine justice sort of way, naturally...

I would be happy to have a wind turbine at the end of my garden, I bet most people would if they offered you free electricity for having it.

Originally posted by Tony

NIMBYism is not helpful.

No it isn't.... damn my mobile reception has dropped again. ;)


RE: the poll - it's hardly conclusive because the question is rigged. A more accurate and relevant question, as previously said, would be "do you find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing enough to live within sight of them?". May you be so kind as to add such a poll to this thread?

Originally posted by t020
No it isn't.... damn my mobile reception has dropped again. ;) Hehe, go and check my most recent(ish) post in the thread for a revelation ;)

Originally posted by t020
RE: the poll - it's hardly conclusive because the question is rigged. A more accurate and relevant question, as previously said, would be "do you find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing enough to live within sight of them?". May you be so kind as to add such a poll to this thread?
I sort of agree with you, but trying to get a definitive poll would be impossible. I also don't think that it would really be valid as posed by you simply because its not a cut and dried as that.

What you DO have in the Forum are lots of opinions (a vast majority I would guess) that people actually like them and suport their use - even if they can be seen.

There is, interestingly, a unit close to commercial release that actually generates electricity on a domestic basis using a tiny wind turbine in a casing. You pop it on your roof, plug it in and Bob's yer uncle, you're producing power. I believe the quoted figure was about 45% of general domestic requirements. And you get to be a net contributor if you use less than it produces, netting you a rebate.

Now one downside is that it costs 700 quid, and will take 5 years to pay for itself. Another is that you have yet another modern excrescence hanging off your home, to go with the satellite dish and telly antenna.

But if even a limited proportion of households could have such devices attached, then maybe we wouldn't be staring down the barrels of CO2 emissions-led meltdown and/or nuclear powerstations mushrooming (sorry) across the land. In fact, all of Prezza's new houses could have natty little bell towers atop their pantiled rooves, in which the offending turbines could be concealed.

Oh, and the noise problem has been licked too, apparently. I'll certainly be getting one as soon as they are available,given the recent rises in domestic energy charges.

Ah yes. T020, have you thought about getting a little mobile mast erected in your back yard? Could solve that connectivity problem of yours They can be made to look like trees and such nowadays, although you might fancy dressing yours up as a watchtower from which you can shoot any lefties that might dare encroach... ;)

If wind turbines are effective, surely they have to be the way forward.
I always believed however, that it would take a windfarm the size of Los Angeles to provide power for a city the size of Sheffield...have I misunderstood?

The problem with wind power in general is that it can never replace other sources, only supplement them. Whatever amount of wind generation capacity you build has to be matched by the same capacity in other, more controllable power sources (e.g. gas fired or nuclear power stations) that can kick in at a moment's notice when the wind decides not to blow, otherwise people will be left in the dark.

Originally posted by IanR
The problem with wind power in general is that it can never replace other sources, only supplement them. Whatever amount of wind generation capacity you build has to be matched by the same capacity in other, more controllable power sources (e.g. gas fired or nuclear power stations) that can kick in at a moment's notice when the wind decides not to blow, otherwise people will be left in the dark.

We could have hydro-electric for that ?

Originally posted by t020
What about the poll in The Star a few weeks ago? Also, the poll is hardly conclusive and many would've opted for the "tactical" vote - i.e. against me.

Sorry to disappoint you but the world and it's opinions DO NOT revolve around you and yours. :loopy: :loopy:
Or should we vote on it?? :P :P

Originally posted by nick2
I would be happy to have a wind turbine at the end of my garden, I bet most people would if they offered you free electricity for having it.

And a solar panel or few on the roof too. Should be able to create enough to easily run the house, unless you use vast amounts of leccy.

It seems this isn't far from possible in a real-world way. Of course, solar panels have been around forever, but they're getting to a point where photo-voltaics are now affordable and quite efficient. They're also available in more adaptable films now, rather than the clunky old panels you used to see.

In fact, and this isn't terribly cheap yet but will be, you can now get photo-voltaic tiles for when you re-do your roof. They all plug in and create electricity. They also look pretty normal, which is nice too. Of course, there's only sun some of the time, but thankfuly human ingenuity has come up with... the battery.

The whole deal about power is that, like many things, if you produce some of it locally and use it locally you simply don't have to import so much from elsewhere. We can bang on until the cows come home about wind power being flawed but it's one of a range of sources that together make a better solution than burning more gas and chucking more low-grade uranium on whatever poor country can be persuaded to take it.

Of course, subscribers to the Economist mantra of free trade and globalisation think this is a nonsense and that we should just carry on burning all the fossil fuels until either there's none left or we don't need to heat our homes any more. Personally I think wind farms, solar and other human-scale energy production methods rock. It's true that wind farms would look better if they were in somewhere poor and foreign rather than the Peaks, but at some point the developed world might want to take just a smidgin of responsibility for its own needs.

But then if it did that the reptile Bush might be compelled to stick the letter X on the Kyoto Agreement, if he could take a minute off from, ooh, maintaining his hegemonic control of all the fossil fuels on the planet.

Originally posted by fuzzy
And a solar panel or few on the roof too. Should be able to create enough to easily run the house, unless you use vast amounts of leccy.

Assuming 4 hours of good strong sunlight per day (very optimistic really) and a typcial household consumption of 10,000kWh electricity per year (figure found on web somewhere) and a solar cell performance of 100W per square metre (also quite optimistic), you would need about 70 square metres of solar panels on your roof to satisfy a households demands.

That is quite a lot! (but probably just about possible)

Unfortunately, based on solar cell prices at Maplins (product BZ51F), this would cost about £50,000.

Originally posted by Tony


I personally have no problem with nuclear power. Our techniques for recycling fuels have improved, and would improved further with the investment that would come with an expansion of its use.

However, because it's a vote loser, we're hard on the horns of the dilemma. :(


There seems to be some concern about the problem of nuclear waste we've already accumulated, I can understand the politician's unwillingness to even think about creating more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1293974,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1294408,00.html

The use of photo-voltaic cells really is the biggest con.

The energy consumed in shipping them halfway around the world from Korea negates any possible global benefit.

Much as I don't like to say it, I just cant see much alternative from nuclear fuel powering a national grid if we want to have power availability like we do today.

Unfortunately solar panels are not an energy efficeint solution.

The amount of enrgy taken to refine the materials to make a solar panel is far greater than the amount of energy that the panel will capture in its lifetime. Having a solar panel mounted on your house has a net-detrimental effect on the environment.

Until a cheaper way of making solar panels is discovered, they will be nothing more than an energy displacement device.

Wind power, wave power and hydro-electric power are the forms of renewable energy that we should be looking at to implement now and in the near future.

The other approach is energy efficiency. We can redesign our homes so that we need less energy to run them. This can range from simple things like insulating your loft and using energy effiecient light bulb to more radical changes like installing a heat exchanger on the roof so that the power of the sun on hot days can be used to heat water.

Originally posted by ptigga
Unfortunately solar panels are not an energy efficeint solution.

The amount of enrgy taken to refine the materials to make a solar panel is far greater than the amount of energy that the panel will capture in its lifetime. Having a solar panel mounted on your house has a net-detrimental effect on the environment.
You are thinking of solar cells (photovoltaic cells).

Solar panels can be made from old radiators painted matt black.

Anyway even it was true (it's not, although it might have been true 25 years ago when PV cell production was much more energy intensive.), that only takes into account current sub 5% efficiency levels.

It also presumes that no advances in technology will occur, when organic PV cells (i.e do not rely on difficult to deposit thin semiconductor layers) are experimentally available at the moment.

Grid connected PV arrays are springing up all over the world as genuine power production solutions. Efficiency can only increase, prices will only decrease.

Although in my opinion, using the lo-tech approach to solar power (i.e converting electromagnetic radiation into high energy molecular bonds for release on demand by pyrolisis) is the way to go.

Although in my opinion, using the lo-tech approach to solar power (i.e converting electromagnetic radiation into high energy molecular bonds for release on demand by pyrolisis) is the way to go.

I'm mystified. Clarification please? :)

Yeah, me too! Sounds interesting, in an obfuscatory sort of fashion!

Covered in depth before here:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4254

there are some really insight discussion on the wind turbine and those wind turbines are already installed on site in sheffield, would be nice to check with some ppl living in the area.

I can't be bothered to read both threads on this subject but my opinion is they are ugly bloody things.
If they start ruining the views in the Peak district with them i'll go elsewhere to do my walking and camping.
I'd rather see 20 of them built in the city somewhere than a single one put up in the Peak.
The view from Outer edge has already been spoilt with these monstrosities, no more i say.

Why do people think there is a choice for clean, renewable energy sources? Its madness.

Ooh lets see. Windmills or chimneys? Clean air being used again and again to give us electricity - oh yeah and to breath. Or fossil fuels producing lots of CO2 ultimately resulting in the North Atlantic drift switching off and being plunged into an ice age.

Nuclear is not the answer either - there is a waste issue and its complicated, less cost effective.

All new homes should be built with solar panels. Wind farms should be standard practice.

So many people still think they won't be around when we are in environmental crisis.

The problem with renewable energy sources like wind and solar is that it is so simple it cuts out so many 'middle men'. Its too cheap - the bankers won't like it.

Wind turns turbine, turbine turns magnet inside coil of wire, electricity comes out. So simple you could make your own!

Lets do it. Lets all make our own power source and stick 2 fingers up and the oil robbing warmongers!

Ooh I feel better now.

Ask yourself this - if solar panels are not efficient why does the highways agency use them to power lights for signs and cameras? Why do they use them to heat the water on nearly every house in Greece?

Assuming 4 hours of good strong sunlight per day (very optimistic really) and a typcial household consumption of 10,000kWh electricity per year (figure found on web somewhere) and a solar cell performance of 100W per square metre (also quite optimistic), you would need about 70 square metres of solar panels on your roof to satisfy a households demands.A typical kettle uses about 2500w these days - you would need in the region of 300 panels just to turn that on - assuming you had full sunlight of course.

Ask yourself this - if solar panels are not efficient why does the highways agency use them to power lights for signs and cameras? Why do they use them to heat the water on nearly every house in Greece?
Easy,
1. The panels on highway signs charge a battery which powers the sign - which itself is a VERY low wattage.
2. A different type of panel to the highway sign but Greece has far more sun than UK and is much hotter.

Ask yourself this - if solar panels are not efficient why does the highways agency use them to power lights for signs and cameras? Why do they use them to heat the water on nearly every house in Greece?

The reason the highways agency use them is that there isn't always mains electricity alongside roads, thus using a PV cell is cheaper. In general PV panels are useful for off-grid locations (aka 'the middle of nowhere') but not where you can plug in to the national grid.

Due to the fairly unpleasant and difficult to purify materials used in their manufacture (this goes for the organic ones as well) putting a PV panel on the roof of your house is likely to do more harm than good to the environment.

The hot water solar panels are a really good simple idea.

I would have a wind turbine on top of my house if it reduced my bills.

I would have a wind turbine on top of my house if it reduced my bills.

It definitely would but you would have to factor in the up front cost of having the thing installed.

Does any one know who owns the two (third doesn't seem to spin too often) wind turbines on the Parkway? And their likely generating capacity (guessing from size).