According to the Star (click here) (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=685647) , Sheffield council is planning on setting up wind turbines on the Sheffield/ Peak District border, possibly near Hathersage. I think that this is absolutely outrageous. One of the benefits of Sheffield is that it is on the edge of unspoiled countryside, making it a nice area for walks and a nice view that most cities the size of Sheffield don't have right in their own back gardens. Putting up large, unsightly windmills will spoil this countryside. The argument for choosing this location is that it is one of the windiest in the country. There must however be other places to put these things, where the land and scenery has already been ruined. I'm all for renewable energy, but it shouldn't be located in the beautiful, unspoiled countryside on the south west and western outskirts of Sheffield.

Your 'argument' will never be heard because all the council can hear is 'kerching kerching kerching'.

Same sort of thing is going on in Lancashire on the border with Cumbria. But Lancashire want to site many offshore.

Maybe i'm odd but i quite like the turbines.

Something about them just makes me smile.

They're better than having a nuclear power plant or a huge place sending nasty pollutants out into the sky.

Why is everyone so negative to having clean enegy that will help this area prosper?

Whats so bad about them? are they really that ugly?

Wilf

Sorry but i agree with Brain Thrust i like them.
I have stayed in many places in the country,Cornwall and Wales, where there are wind turbines and i don't have a problem with them. They are not noisy, unsightly or pour out pollution. This has to be the way forward. There are some in the sea in the Humber and they look good.

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
Sorry but i agree with Brain Thrust i like them.
I have stayed in many places in the country,Cornwall and Wales, where there are wind turbines and i don't have a problem with them. They are not noisy, unsightly or pour out pollution. This has to be the way forward. There are some in the sea in the Humber and they look good.

They aren't unsightly?! Oh no, they're picturesque aren't they! I can imagine longing to go walking in the unspoiled countryside moors near Hathersage and looking at the beautiful scenery........ and 100ft high white masts with windmills on top.

I've been reasonably close to these things, the sound they make is minimal and actually quite soothing, too.

Wilf

Originally posted by BrainThrust
I've been reasonably close to these things, the sound they make is minimal and actually quite soothing, too.

Wilf

Elegant, near silent, majestic power generators. Maybe t020 thinks we should build more cooling towers along the Don.

As for unspoilt landscape - anyone who thinks there is any in the UK is labouring under an illusion. The landscape already has the deep footprint of modern man on it, clear to the eye.

These so called 'natural landscapes' us townies fetish in some sort of picture postcard way are industrial landscapes as much as anywhere else.

With 60 million people living on this tiny island off the north coast of europe, we'd be stupid to not have wind power, as it is a pretty much constant resource. Especially as our lifestyles grow ever more power hungry...

Britain is the windiest place in Europe and it makes sense to place them here.
Where though is another matter.
I,m all for them as i to pass the turbines at Thurlstone quite often and they are almost silent.
Regarding the plans for wind turbines at hathersage the windiest place in the peaks is where the gliding field is above Abney so its likely that they will put them there.
There is very little residential activity there so it would not affect the locals.

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
Sorry but i agree with Brain Thrust i like them.
I have stayed in many places in the country,Cornwall and Wales, where there are wind turbines and i don't have a problem with them. They are not noisy, unsightly or pour out pollution. This has to be the way forward. There are some in the sea in the Humber and they look good.

Why are you sorry to agree with me?

Is there some kind of stigma attached to me that i don't know and now you are 'tarred with the same brush' so to speak.

No wonder im ignored on the street. :(

heh

Wilf

Originally posted by t020
According to the Star, Sheffield council is planning on setting up wind turbines on the Sheffield/ Peak District border, possibly near Hathersage. I think that this is absolutely outrageous...<snip>...There must however be other places to put these things, where the land and scenery has already been ruined. I'm all for renewable energy, but it shouldn't be located in the beautiful, unspoiled countryside on the south west and western outskirts of Sheffield.

I agree with t020. Build the wind turbines somewhere else, and then move the Bernard Road incinerator to Ecclesall. Then t020 can enjoy a mortality rate 25% higher than average

http://www2.sheffield.gov.uk/services/del/incinerator/summary.htm

I'm sure most people would prefer a wind farm instead of an unsightly rubbish burner spewing out toxins for miles around. But maybe I'm just being picky

Originally posted by BrainThrust
Maybe i'm odd but i quite like the turbines.

Something about them just makes me smile.

They're better than having a nuclear power plant or a huge place sending nasty pollutants out into the sky.

Why is everyone so negative to having clean enegy that will help this area prosper?

Whats so bad about them? are they really that ugly?

Wilf

Totally agree.

I think that they are beautiful structures and I get a warm glow inside knowing that they are producing renewable, clean electricity.

Pity the poor folks who have to look at that monstrous building in Cumbria spewing out its pollution into the Irish Sea. Now that building looks as sinister as it is.

I would gladly open my curtains each morning to see those majestic turbines.

:thumbsup:

What a ridiculous idea from the council. You can't build anything on that side of Sheffield, unless it's a big posh house. Just keep the crap to the other side of of the city, where it belongs.

What is the world coming to.


;)

Originally posted by t020
They aren't unsightly?! Oh no, they're picturesque aren't they! I can imagine longing to go walking in the unspoiled countryside moors near Hathersage and looking at the beautiful scenery........ and 100ft high white masts with windmills on top.

I spend a lot of my time in mountains - Snowdonia, the Lakes, Scotland, and as someone who loves the outdoors, I certainly don't think that they're unsightly. Sitting on the summit of Skafell, or any other peak in that area, you can clearly see Sellafield - now that is unsightly, and ruins an otherwise amazing view.

I certainly wouldn't think the same if it was a wind farm. In fact, I find wind turbines quite relaxing.

This (http://www.fbac.co.uk/shell_flat_offshore_wind_farm.htm) gives details of the ones just off the West coast near Blackpool.

They're definitely not ugly and I'd be proud that Sheffield has started to build some. All this NIMBYism is quite selfish.

Anyway, if they painted them green they wouldn't stick half as much.

Originally posted by Jim
They're definitely not ugly and I'd be proud that Sheffield has started to build some. All this NIMBYism is quite selfish.

Anyway, if they painted them green they wouldn't stick half as much.

Unless you were stood at the base of one looking up to the sky!

There is a couple of large flocks of these on the hills between Barnsley and Holmfirth, you see them coming into Sheffield on the Woodhead near the Flouch roundabout.

Dam! I was reading this and thinking this is an excellent opportunity for me to use the NIMBY word for the first time. And somebody beat me to it!

Oh well. I think they are amazing. Incredible to watch, so graceful and as somebody said majestic.

I am not convinced of their long term viability to be honest. They do not produce much electricity. I think the hydro electric wave generators make much more sense. They are just as clean, create much more electricity and cannot be seen. But you can put one in my back yard any day.

My Dad is working on these things, dont ask me, it is all over my head, but he has worked on the research with a guy who banged up some of the ones in Cornwall

I love them, I would be quite happy for one to be build in my yard

I agree that they shouldnt build any in the west of Sheffield though, heaven forfend, what would the neighbours say?

Originally posted by back2basics
I think the hydro electric wave generators make much more sense.
Not in the Peaks they don't ;)

Originally posted by back2basics
But you can put one in my back yard any day.
You've got an ocean in your back yard?? :shocked:

Wind turbines are objects of sheer majestic beauty. They soar skywards to remind that man can still achieve something of real worth that respects his fellow man and his place on the planet.

Have a look at this, from today's Sheffield Star

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=685647

The proposal attracted anger from green groups. "This would be an outrageous and blatant disregard of the Government's statutory responsibilities to protect these areas on behalf of the nation," said Ruth Chambers,of the Council for National Parks.

Stupid greens, what do they want? Green energy? It seems not. And to think I wasted my votes on these losers?

Acch tuff (a grock and spit, by the way)

Originally posted by Abby
Have a look at this, from today's Sheffield Star

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=685647



Stupid greens, what do they want? Green energy? It seems not. And to think I wasted my votes on these losers?

Acch tuff (a grock and spit, by the way)

Actually that article is from yesterdays Star and I infact posted the link to it on my original post, if you cared to read it. The poll in tonights Star shows 55% against this idea, which matches exactly the countryside articles poll that someone posted on this thread earlier on. I can't believe so many on here are in favour of them and can only presume it is because I stated my opinion and no one wants to be in agreement with me. Maybe I should've started the thread impartially. I can't honestly believe that so many people find big metal white poles attractive and even complementary to our wonderful countryside that we have on our doorstep. I fear for the future of this city. First the council eat away at the heritage of the South Western suburbs, and now they want to go further out and ruin the countryside. Disgraceful.

Originally posted by t020
Actually that article is from yesterdays Star and I infact posted the link to it on my original post, if you cared to read it. The poll in tonights Star shows 55% against this idea, which matches exactly the countryside articles poll that someone posted on this thread earlier on. I can't believe so many on here are in favour of them and can only presume it is because I stated my opinion and no one wants to be in agreement with me. Maybe I should've started the thread impartially. I can't honestly believe that so many people find big metal white poles attractive and even complementary to our wonderful countryside that we have on our doorstep. I fear for the future of this city. First the council eat away at the heritage of the South Western suburbs, and now they want to go further out and ruin the countryside. Disgraceful.

Maybe the people on here are more enlightened than Star readers? Most on here hate the Star for one reason or another anyway.

t020, are you saying that people who are opposed to this are simply doing so to [edited] you off?

Why not go the next step and assume evryone is thinking about you all the time, and their opinion isn't valid because it is tarred by their blatant hate fo you.

Everyone has their reasons to want this, pretty much all of them DON'T involve you.

Just be realistic, if people really wanted to make a dig at you there are better ways than just to disagree with you for the sake of it, be realistic.

Wilf

t020, where would you like us to get energy from in future?

Coal? But mines are ugly.
Nuclear? But is it really safe?
Oil? But what about when that runs out?

Originally posted by t020
I can't believe so many on here are in favour of them and can only presume it is because I stated my opinion and no one wants to be in agreement with me.

I can't believe that you presume so much!

Originally posted by t020
I fear for the future of this city. First the council eat away at the heritage of the South Western suburbs, and now they want to go further out and ruin the countryside. Disgraceful.

Which heritage is that then?

Originally posted by Tony


Which heritage is that then?


Various victorian mansions that the council have given planning permission to private companies to rip them down and build 'luxury apartments' on.

Originally posted by Andy
t020, where would you like us to get energy from in future?

Coal? But mines are ugly.
Nuclear? But is it really safe?
Oil? But what about when that runs out?

Wind energy by all means. But for Gods sake, put them in an already ugly area, don't spoil a nice area of countryside.

Well there's the free market for you eh! Supply fulfilling demand, making a profit on the way.

BTW... I think that you will find that wind turbines need to be on hills - its for the wind you know.

I agree with you! If they try and build wind turbines there I for one will be sat on the site refusing to move. I would much rather they did put one in my back yard rather than there.

I'd be happy for them to go alongside the Woodhead pass which is much higher and windier, because its pretty bleak, but not in the countryside around Hathersage.

Dave

Originally posted by Tony
Well there's the free market for you eh! Supply fulfilling demand, making a profit on the way.

BTW... I think that you will find that wind turbines need to be on hills - its for the wind you know.

No [edited]! However, there are plenty of less picturesque countryside areas, also on hills with lots of wind.

PS. Thanks Dave_M. At last someone with some sense. I really thought I would have more support than 1 person, but its a start. When I read the article I thought I'd come on here to find people already making posts against the plans. I honestly thought that, as a lot of the forum users are countryside walkers and highlight the fact of Sheffield being on the edge of picturesque countryside as a reason for living here, that there would be several objections to these plans. How shocked I am to see so many claiming that these turbines are 'majestic' and will improve the landscape. Well, everything is a matter of taste. I pity people living in Hathersage though. I really hope these plans don't go ahead and will protest against them as much as I can.

I think that you will find that Woodhead is a darn sight more unspoiled than ANYWHERE around Hathersage or the West of the city.

Originally posted by Tony
I think that you will find that Woodhead is a darn sight more unspoiled than ANYWHERE around Hathersage or the West of the city.

How can anywhere be less spoiled than natural moorlands leading to a picturesque village?

I take it you haven't noticed the huge trunk road and constant stream of lorries then!!!

Originally posted by Dave_M
I take it you haven't noticed the huge trunk road and constant stream of lorries then!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Precisely. Lorries are much nicer to look at than natural moorlands you know! Almost....... majestic....

Where exactly are they talking about - presumably they can't be in the Peak district and all the high bits of Sheffield are. They must be talking about the narrow strip between the edge of the built up area and the edge of the peak district - the moors above hathersage are well into the peaks.

Dave

I think that you both just demonstrated that you don't know what unpoilt really is. (at least within the confines of our tiny island).

However Dave, I think that you are right about the location. The Council owns lots of land between Stannington and Barlow. Anything past Redmires is in the National Park, so that's out for the time being. I reckon that the favourite will be between Ecclesall / Dore and Fox House around the Roman road.

Originally posted by Tony
I think that you both just demonstrated that you don't know what unpoilt really is. (at least within the confines of our tiny island).

However Dave, I think that you are right about the location. The Council owns lots of land between Stannington and Barlow. Anything past Redmires is in the National Park, so that's out for the time being. I reckon that the favourite will be between Ecclesall / Dore and Fox House around the Roman road.

No chance. They won't get away with it. A Labour council knows that they get barely any votes from this end of town, so don't mind upsetting us and trying to please the rest of Sheffield for votes. They will never get away with this.

Unspoilt - if by that you mean untouched by humans, there is no such place in the UK. Kinder Scout should be covered in woodland as should everything else for that matter.

Nice, scenic, something like that will do ......

I think we have to have our fair share within the city limits, but extra tall ones to the east would be preferable. I'm guessing an extra 10 - 15 m on the height of a wind turbine to the east of the city would produce as much power. Height above sea level isn't really the issue its the lack of buildings upstream which high land tends to have.

Originally posted by t020
No chance. They won't get away with it. A Labour council knows that they get barely any votes from this end of town, so don't mind upsetting us and trying to please the rest of Sheffield for votes. They will never get away with this.
You don't explain why they won't get away with it. As you rightly say, if they don't get many votes anyway, why do you think that the LA will they care what anyone thinks?

The LA live this side of town ;)

Originally posted by Tony
You don't explain why they won't get away with it. As you rightly say, if they don't get many votes anyway, why do you think that the LA will they care what anyone thinks?


Because people will kick up too much of a fuss. Its all political. There are plenty of places, as Dave_M mentions, east of the city, in open countryside. However these areas are already covered in Pylons with major roads running through. Any scenery in these areas is already lost. Why not put future wind farms there rather than spoiling this area too?

Originally posted by Dave_M
Unspoilt - if by that you mean untouched by humans, there is no such place in the UK. Kinder Scout should be covered in woodland as should everything else for that matter.

Nice, scenic, something like that will do ......

I think we have to have our fair share within the city limits, but extra tall ones to the east would be preferable. I'm guessing an extra 10 - 15 m on the height of a wind turbine to the east of the city would produce as much power. Height above sea level isn't really the issue its the lack of buildings upstream which high land tends to have.
I will stand corected, but dense forest and woodland doesnt occur at those heights. The coarse scrub is the natural fauna. This is best seen around Woodhead where there are few man made features to be seen for 20 miles apart from the single narrow road. By contrast, the Hope Valley is a seething mass of people, roads, railways, towns, villages, houses, supermarkets, hotels, country estates and townie tourists in red anaraks.

The predominantly westerly Atlantic winds are definately strongest in the West of Sheffield. By the time they get to the East End they have dissipated massively after passing over the rising heat sink of the conurbation.

Anyway, where on earth would you put them in the densley populated east of town?

Basically this comes down to cost - wind power comes cheaper on high land, but I rather pay 50% more for electricity to keep the turbines out of national parks.

Originally posted by t020
Because people will kick up too much of a fuss. Its all political.
You STILL haven't explained why.

Originally posted by Tony
You STILL haven't explained why.


Why they will kick up a fuss or why the council would listen to them?

I totally understand why they will kick up a fuss, but why will the council listen to them?

Originally posted by t020
No chance. They won't get away with it. A Labour council knows that they get barely any votes from this end of town, so don't mind upsetting us and trying to please the rest of Sheffield for votes.

Not true.

Bernard Road incinerator in NW of city - 1200 letters of protest, the council proceed with it, despite the health risks. 'Not everyone can afford to live in Dore' says Dr Rosie McNaught, Sheffield public health 'champion'.

King Edward Schools' plans to install floodlights on its playing field in SE of city - the council turn the application down, as residents are upset over 'intrusion of privacy'.

I think it's clear who the council don't mind upsetting.

You must be very good letter writers to have such influence over council policy.

Originally posted by Andy
t020, where would you like us to get energy from in future?

Coal? But mines are ugly.
Nuclear? But is it really safe?
Oil? But what about when that runs out?
Of course we need to be be moving away from eneregy production through the burning of fossil fuels and nuclear power. No one is saying otherwise. But does this mean it is necessary to litter our national parks with huge wind turbines? I say no... not yet at least.

Let's have more off-shore wind farms (18 have already been annouced and will provide power for 1 million homes), let's have more wave power stations (the world's first commercial one was recently commissioned on the Isle of Islay in Scotland), let's have more land fill gas plants (99 sites already in UK producing power for a third of a million homes), let's have more hydro electric production etc., etc.

IMHO the placing of huge wind turbines in our national parks should be the last resort not the first.

Originally posted by Tony
I will stand corected, but dense forest and woodland doesnt occur at those heights. The coarse scrub is the natural fauna. This is best seen around Woodhead where there are few man made features to be seen for 20 miles apart from the single narrow road. By contrast, the Hope Valley is a seething mass of people, roads, railways, towns, villages, houses, supermarkets, hotels, country estates and townie tourists in red anaraks.

The predominantly westerly Atlantic winds are definately strongest in the West of Sheffield. By the time they get to the East End they have dissipated massively after passing over the rising heat sink of the conurbation.

Anyway, where on earth would you put them in the densley populated east of town?

There's lots of open land near Treeton, Ulley, Harthill and so on, but the wind is so much weaker. I'm not an expert of weather systems but I am under the impression the most wind comes south down the pennines.

T020's only objection to these is that they want to build them near his house or near Hathersage where as a student he is hoping to buy a house, and he thinks it will affect the value of it. He seems perfectly happy for them to be put elsewhere.
So it all comes down to money for him not the clean power factor.
You are moaning on again same as you do everytime people don't agree with you. Why you think everyone is replying and disagreeing is to have a go at you - which planet do you live on.
:loopy: Lala land

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
T020's only objection to these is that they want to build them near his house or near Hathersage where as a student he is hoping to buy a house, and he thinks it will affect the value of it. He seems perfectly happy for them to be put elsewhere.
So it all comes down to money for him not the clean power factor.
You are moaning on again same as you do everytime people don't agree with you. Why you think everyone is replying and disagreeing is to have a go at you - which planet do you live on.
:loopy: Lala land

If you read my arguments you'd note that I stated they should not be built on unspoiled land. This includes all unspoiled land, not just that to the South West of Sheffield. However, there are also plenty of places with open land and wind, surrounded by pylons and busy roads, where surely these unsightly windmills would not cause as much distress as the land is already ruined.

Originally posted by Abby
Not true.

Bernard Road incinerator in NW of city - 1200 letters of protest, the council proceed with it, despite the health risks. 'Not everyone can afford to live in Dore' says Dr Rosie McNaught, Sheffield public health 'champion'.

King Edward Schools' plans to install floodlights on its playing field in SE of city - the council turn the application down, as residents are upset over 'intrusion of privacy'.

I think it's clear who the council don't mind upsetting.

You must be very good letter writers to have such influence over council policy.


If you are referring to King Edwards near the Hallamshire Hospital, I think you will find its actually west of the city centre, not south-east.

PS. I will eat my hat when I read a post by you that does not include the words 'Bernard Road' or 'Incinerator'.

Why near Hathersage?

Lot's of places to the west or north - west of Sheffield that are probably as windy - might be better - and less intrusive?

Around Langsett Reservoir.

Hunshelf Bank opposite Stocksbridge.

Whitwell Moor above Stocksbridge.

Wadsley Common.

Bradfield area.

How about out of town going out past the ski - village - land's too steep for anything else (and better use than the tip).

Loxley valley round near Dyson Refactories.

Middle of Ecclesall Road (only joking).

Let's use some imagination people.

......and if any of the above come off I claim my 10%!:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Longcol
Why near Hathersage?

Lot's of places to the west or north - west of Sheffield that are probably as windy - might be better - and less intrusive?
...

How about out of town going out past the ski - village - land's too steep for anything else (and better use than the tip).

Loxley valley round near Dyson Refactories.

Middle of Ecclesall Road (only joking).

Let's use some imagination people.

......and if any of the above come off I claim my 10%!:thumbsup:

Some of the areas you mentioned already have them. Not full farms, but there are quite a few single turbines and small groups.

Alternatively we could build one of these (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833?open) over Worksop.

Originally posted by t020
If you are referring to King Edwards near the Hallamshire Hospital, I think you will find its actually west of the city centre, not south-east.

Well spotted, I got my Es and Ws mixed up. So let my rephrase my original point.

Bernard Road incinerator in NE of city. The people don't want it, but the council proceed.

School floodlights in W of city - The people don't want it, the council turn down the application.

Once again, it is clear who the council don't mind upsetting.

Originally posted by t020
PS. I will eat my hat when I read a post by you that does not include the words 'Bernard Road' or 'Incinerator'.

Yes, I suppose I should divert my energies to something more beneficial to the local community - such as arguing whether Ecclesall Road really is in Ecclesall or not.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Alternatively we could build one of these (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833?open) over Worksop.

Errr...is there enough sunlight up there to make solar power viable?

Originally posted by Abby
Errr...is there enough sunlight up there to make solar power viable?
The large 'apron' is just an add-on. The tower would generate power on it's own anyway, simply by using the temperature differential.

I for one would love to see a 1km tall structure. The big solar apron that would completely cover Worksop is just a bonus.

These powerstations run 24/7 unlike wind and solar.

But they will be somewhat more controversial than a few tiny little wind turbines.
[edit]
Found an interesting article on these things here:
from http://www.visionengineer.com (http://www.visionengineer.com/env/solar_flue.shtml)
A single Solar Tower power plant with a collector area of 7000m in diameter built and operated in an area with an annual global solar radiation of 2.3 MWh/m2 will generate between 700 and 800 GWh per year. Thus a small number of Solar Tower power plants can even replace a large nuclear power station.

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
T020's only objection to these is that they want to build them near his house or near Hathersage where as a student he is hoping to buy a house, and he thinks it will affect the value of it. He seems perfectly happy for them to be put elsewhere.
So it all comes down to money for him not the clean power factor.
You are moaning on again same as you do everytime people don't agree with you. Why you think everyone is replying and disagreeing is to have a go at you - which planet do you live on.
:loopy: Lala land
T020 is not the only one against this.

The Peak District is a place of outstanding natural beauty, which, so far, is pretty much unspoilt. That is why it, and just 11 other sites in the UK, has been granted the status of National Park with legislation and authorities in place to conserve, protect, enhance and promote it. This is not about rich people (or wannabe rich people) seeking to protect their investments, it is about protecting our national parks, which belong to us all.

T020, like me and many others, are not against producing energy using wind turbines - far from it. But national park land makes up just 10% of this country, so we say let's look to place wind farms in the other 90% first, let's look for sites off-shore and let's accelerate other programmes and projects that develop energy in a green way.

Can someone explain why they object to this approach?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Elegant, near silent, majestic power generators ...As for unspoilt landscape - anyone who thinks there is any in the UK is labouring under an illusion. The landscape already has the deep footprint of modern man on it, clear to the eye. ...

Elegant!!! A 'blot' on the landscape - with apologies to Tom Sharpe.

And, regarding: 'As for unspoilt landscape - anyone who thinks there is any in the UK is labouring under an illusion. The landscape already has the deep footprint of modern man on it, clear to the eye.' You, obviously, do not know Derbyshire and the Peak District, or parts of North Wales and the Lake District, very well.

There is a difference between lanes and pathways, and the odd 'local' stone barn, that 'follow' the contours of the land, and the blatant eyesore of modern technological implants. As one example, just go walking on the moors above Ladybower and Whinstone Lee Tor.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
the blatent eyesore of modern technological implants
I bet they said that about the fort above Fox House at one time. What's it called? Oh yes, Carl Wark.

Originally posted by max
I bet they said that about the fort above Fox House at one time. What's it called? Oh yes, Carl Wark.

Your attempt M, and I emphasize ‘attempt’, at humour is appreciated. And, being as it is (most likely) an Iron Age ‘fort’, then, it being ‘modern’ at that time, ‘they’ possibly did.

However, I think that they would have described it as ‘a block on the landscape’, with the mining above, on Higger Tor, being the ‘blot’.

Guess we should ‘iron’ this out…

Originally posted by max
I bet they said that about the fort above Fox House at one time. What's it called? Oh yes, Carl Wark.
Indeed, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Max, no one wants to deprive you of the peaceful, warm feeling you will get by gazing upon these majestic beasts. All that is being suggested is that you gaze upon them somewhere other than the most beautiful, unspoilt 10% of this country - i.e. it's national parks.

Why does your warm feeling have to be at the expense of mine?

Put the wind farms elsewhere and you can still visit them, smile and enjoy an inner glow as can I by visiting the peak district, as it is, unspoilt!

Just a little thing but you ought to know that the Council will not have proposed any sites for wind turbines

Not a one

The proposed sites would have been put forward by an energy company

The council planning committee would then presumably have to say yeah or nay. That committee is not allowed to be party political, it is even against the law as far as I know for them to be party political, they arent allowed to get together in advance and decide how to vote either

Of course that doesnt mean that some members of some planning committees sometimes in some authorities might not be party political on occasion when arriving at making decisions.

By all means object to the proposed siting of a wind turbine but dont try and pretend that a Labour Council fancies putting one up in Hathersage just to upset T020 and his neighbours because they dont vote Labour.

The Labour Council is not in the business of energy production so wont have been deciding spitefully where to put one of these things

I've just re-read the original article which t020 refers to in his thread starter and no-where does it mention Hathersage. This doesn't really suprise me as Hathersage is in Derbyshire and, as I far as I'm aware, Sheffield is in South Yorkshire. The only geographic reference was to the west of the city on the boundary of the peak district. The hysteria this has engendered is quite amusing really.

Originally posted by max
The only geographic reference was to the west of the city on the boundary of the peak district. The hysteria this has engendered is quite amusing really.

Ecclesall???:rolleyes:

Originally posted by max
I've just re-read the original article which t020 refers to in his thread starter and no-where does it mention Hathersage. This doesn't really suprise me as Hathersage is in Derbyshire and, as I far as I'm aware, Sheffield is in South Yorkshire. The only geographic reference was to the west of the city on the boundary of the peak district. The hysteria this has engendered is quite amusing really.
Max, I hope you are right and they don't try to encroach on the peak district.

Mentioning the peak district and wind turbines together is probably just another one of those Labour tactics you are always telling us about. You know, where they leak an outrageous idea just to see if the public will wear it. We'd better keep up the hysteria then in case they think it's OK!

Originally posted by Belle
Just a little thing but you ought to know that the Council will not have proposed any sites for wind turbines

Not a one

The proposed sites would have been put forward by an energy company

The council planning committee would then presumably have to say yeah or nay. That committee is not allowed to be party political, it is even against the law as far as I know for them to be party political, they arent allowed to get together in advance and decide how to vote either

Of course that doesnt mean that some members of some planning committees sometimes in some authorities might not be party political on occasion when arriving at making decisions.

By all means object to the proposed siting of a wind turbine but dont try and pretend that a Labour Council fancies putting one up in Hathersage just to upset T020 and his neighbours because they dont vote Labour.

The Labour Council is not in the business of energy production so wont have been deciding spitefully where to put one of these things
I unfortunately don't share you faith in the ability of council planning committees to vote independently or impartially.

The government has just issued councils with "guidance" re planning permission for wind farms because it's worried it will not meet its target of 10% of power being generated by green methods by 2010. Basically, councils are being encouraged to grant planning permission more often.

The worry is that if power companies apply for planning permission for wind farms within the peak district, and the perfect spot just happens to be on council land, then the council will not only have pressure from government to resist but good old fashion greed!

Originally posted by Zamo
Max, I hope you are right and they don't try to encroach on the peak district.

Mentioning the peak district and wind turbines together is probably just another one of those Labour tactics you are always telling us about. You know, where they leak an outrageous idea just to see if the public will wear it. We'd better keep up the hysteria then in case they think it's OK!
If you look at the poll I posed about wind turbines you'll see that your view is in the minority. People want wind turbines more than they want pretty scenery.

In all honesty I agree with those who want to keep national parks free from wind turbines. What has raised my ire is the nimbyism which wants the turbines to be put somewhere else and preferably in those areas already spoiled by technology. IMO we should be campaigning to pretty up those areas by burying electricity cables and putting roads in tunnels.

PS I did ask t020 if he wanted to merge the threads so they would be in one place but he hasn't deigned to reply.

Originally posted by Zamo
I unfortunately don't share you faith in the ability of council planning committees to vote independently or impartially.

.. then the council will not only have pressure from government to resist but good old fashion greed!

I didnt say I had faith, I was just explaining

and what do you mean about the greed? I didnt follow that part

Max, I'm not sure it's strictly a case of nibyism. I don't think any of us arguing against wind turbines in the peak district actually live there.

Maybe according to your poll we are in the minority but not according to more extensive national polls taken e.g. the Country File one (and I doubt many of their viewers are Star readers!).

I agree we should be prettying up less attractive/more spoilt areas but the fact that it isn't happening is still no reason to spoil the un-spoilt to try and even things up!

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Elegant!!! A 'blot' on the landscape - with apologies to Tom Sharpe.
So, a matter of taste. That's that settled at least.

And, regarding: 'As for unspoilt landscape - anyone who thinks there is any in the UK is labouring under an illusion. The landscape already has the deep footprint of modern man on it, clear to the eye.' You, obviously, do not know Derbyshire and the Peak District, or parts of North Wales and the Lake District, very well.

There is a difference between lanes and pathways, and the odd 'local' stone barn, that 'follow' the contours of the land, and the blatant eyesore of modern technological implants. As one example, just go walking on the moors above Ladybower and Whinstone Lee Tor.

I'm not simply talking about barns and roads (and cement factories)

Without hundreds of years sheep farming, deforestation, arboculture, huntin' shootin' and fishin', tourism, traffic and agriculture, Derbyshire and the Peak District, or parts of North Wales and the Lake District would look a whole lot different. This is the deep footprint of modern man I am talking about.

It's easy to get fixated on visual features because they are the most obvious, but real damgage to these landscapes is often caused by the unseen and occult. When you consider the environmental impact of powerstations in general, then Wind farms probably have the lowest environmental impact of all - and we need more power, whether you like it or not.

It boils down to a difference in aesthetic sensitivities.

I love cooling towers, wind turbines, the humber bridge, the millenium dome etc., because they are architectural expressions of humanity that have all ornamentation stripped away to reveal the singular beauty of the mathematics of their function that defines their form.

Originally posted by Belle
I didnt say I had faith, I was just explaining

and what do you mean about the greed? I didnt follow that part
The council could earn millions from the sale of land to a power company if planning permission is granted... sweet FA if it isn't!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It boils down to a difference in aesthetic sensitivities.

I love cooling towers, wind turbines, the humber bridge, the millenium dome etc., because they are architectural expressions of humanity that have all ornamentation stripped away to reveal the singular beauty of the mathematics of their function that defines their form.
Agreed, but in order for us all to enjoy what we enjoy then we must leave some areas (e.g. national parks) "untouched".

Fair's, fair!

Originally posted by Zamo
Max, I'm not sure it's strictly a case of nibyism. I don't think any of us arguing against wind turbines in the peak district actually live there.

Maybe according to your poll we are in the minority but not according to more extensive national polls taken e.g. the Country File one (and I doubt many of their viewers are Star readers!).

I agree we should be prettying up less attractive/more spoilt areas but the fact that it isn't happening is still no reason to spoil the un-spoilt to try and even things up!
Zamo, I agree that we shouldn't be spoiling that that is unspoilt but we should be celebrating the fact that anybody wants to extend wind power anywhere. I wasn't suggesting that we should even things up either, I was saying we shouldn't make those areas worse that they already are.

So to bring this debate back online, what do people think of Sheffield being in the forefront of wind power?

I thought that windmills, conceptually, were something that people liked

We had little ones on sticks, that we could blow, when I was a child.

We have Constable featuring them in his landscapes

We have Windy Miller on children's TV

The wind turbines I pass every day on my way to Sheffield and back, on two sites, make me feel that same buzz that kids get.

And that is only what they look like; when I consider that they are an alternative source of energy to places like Sellafield then suddenly they are yet even more attractive.

I live in a National Park, more or less, and I dont think you can get planning permission to build a greenhouse, never mind a wind turbine.

I assume the land in question is either council land or private land - does the council own tracts of unused land as a rule does anyone know?

Pylons, now THERE is something I would have been campaigning against, nasty dangerous things

Originally posted by Zamo
Agreed, but in order for us all to enjoy what we enjoy then we must leave some areas (e.g. national parks) "untouched".

Fair's, fair!

Hmm. I find farms to be an eyesore as well as nitrate polluters - can we get rid of these too in an effort to help reverse the 'industrialisation' of these areas?

Originally posted by Belle
The council planning committee would then presumably have to say yeah or nay. That committee is not allowed to be party political, it is even against the law as far as I know for them to be party political, they arent allowed to get together in advance and decide how to vote either
Which of course is EXACTLY how a Planning Committee behaves - totally on Party Political lines. Unfortunately, you might be right in theory, but you should see a committee in action. Anything controversial and its Labour -v- LibDems. I was in the Committee for the recent Peace Gardens offices debacle, and it was predictably 6 Labour votes to 5 LibDem votes with the leaders of both parties sat on the sidelines to make sure that happened. It's a shame that politics gets in the way of progress. (BTW, I am pleased that the offices will happen)

Tony, you may well be right

which is why I then went on to say

"Of course that doesnt mean that some members of some planning committees sometimes in some authorities might not be party political on occasion when arriving at making decisions."

perhaps I forgot to put the wink in

Of course on councils where there are no LibDems or where there are no Labour councillors, the battle can just as easily involve the Tories or the Greens or whoever....

I think you will find that the national parks are not untouched, but are managed to keep them as they are now. And as was said in the article they want to put them on the edge.

They are already putting them in the sea and they look great there too but i think you will find that the maintenance costs for these ones are huge and the life span cut.

Sorry but I think the turbines are an excellent way to make power, and yes they do need to get up to the 10% green power agreement and a lot more IMO.

Originally posted by max
I've just re-read the original article which t020 refers to in his thread starter and no-where does it mention Hathersage. This doesn't really suprise me as Hathersage is in Derbyshire and, as I far as I'm aware, Sheffield is in South Yorkshire. The only geographic reference was to the west of the city on the boundary of the peak district. The hysteria this has engendered is quite amusing really.

If you saw the photo accompanying the article in the actual copy of the Star, it shows 'a road to Fox House near Hathersage'. I didn't simply make it up.

So it doesn't say that there are plans for Wind Turbines in Hathersage then? It says road to Fox House near Hathersage".

There is a lot of land on the way TO Fox House, NEAR Hathersage FROM Sheffield.

ISTR that this is rather like a previous thread. Again, you are hoisted by your own petard T020. :thumbsup: :loopy: :D to is not in .

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
I think you will find that the national parks are not untouched, but are managed to keep them as they are now. And as was said in the article they want to put them on the edge.
Nobody said national parks were untouched. The word we used was unspoilt.

There can be two sides to an "edge". In this case one of them will be inside the peak district.

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
They are already putting them in the sea and they look great there too but i think you will find that the maintenance costs for these ones are huge and the life span cut. [/B]
Whether they look great is a matter of opinion. As it happens, I also think they look good out at sea but don't agree they would look good in national parks. Completely different landscapes.

Yes, the cost of wind turbine is more if you put them out at sea. So what? IMHO the cheapest option is not always the right one.

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
Sorry but I think the turbines are an excellent way to make power, and yes they do need to get up to the 10% green power agreement and a lot more IMO. [/B]
Nobody disagrees with you!

The fact is national parks make up just 10% of land in this country, we have tens of thousands of square miles of coastal waters and therefore don't need to put wind turbines in national parks. Not even if we eventually want ALL electricity generated using green methods.

Originally posted by Tony
So it doesn't say that there are plans for Wind Turbines in Hathersage then? It says road to Fox House near Hathersage".

There is a lot of land on the way TO Fox House, NEAR Hathersage FROM Sheffield.

ISTR that this is rather like a previous thread. Again, you are hoisted by your own petard T020. :thumbsup: :loopy: :D to is not in .
Yes, and all that land on the way to Fox House, near Hathersage, is within the boundaries of the peak district national park.

I am afraid that it isn't in the Peak Park. There is a gap of about 3km between the built up area of Sheffield and the Peak Park. Bits that are outside the PP include; Lodge Moor, Ringinglow, Dore Moor, Totley Bents.

There is an area of "High Landscape Value" within that. Bits that are not of "High Landscape Value" include the land between Ecclesall and Whitely Wood Ln / Coil Ln. I think that you will find that this bit is on a high ridge, and belongs to the Council. Looks like a good bet for a wind farm.

Originally posted by Zamo
The fact is national parks make up just 10% of land in this country, we have tens of thousands of square miles of coastal waters and therefore don't need to put wind turbines in national parks. Not even if we eventually want ALL electricity generated using green methods.

But this is a country surrounded by water yet still has hopepipe bans, and has sewage polluted seas. Where would it go if we were land-locked like Switzerland?

Originally posted by Tony
I am afraid that it isn't in the Peak Park. There is a gap of about 3km between the built up area of Sheffield and the Peak Park. Bits that are outside the PP include; Lodge Moor, Ringinglow, Dore Moor, Totley Bents.

There is an area of "High Landscape Value" within that. Bits that are not of "High Landscape Value" include the land between Ecclesall and Whitely Wood Ln / Coil Ln. I think that you will find that this bit is on a high ridge, and belongs to the Council. Looks like a good bet for a wind farm.
It is true that the areas you are talking about are not in the Peak District National Park but the article did say the road to Fox House near Hathersage. It is more like 6km from Fox House to Dore, which is the nearest built up area of Sheffield. The last 3km or so (the Hathersage end) goes through Houndkirk/Burbage Moor, both of which (I am pretty certain) are part of the Peak District National Park.

Still, not much point in arguing about it until we know where the proposed site will be! :)

Yep! I won't argue either. I was just pointing out the boundries n such from the UDP, and a likely site based on SCC's land ownership in that neck of the woods. The only other area is just to the west of Dore, but thats on the wrong side of the hill and I don't think that SCC owns anything around there (I will stand corrected) but the land to the west of Ecclesall and Parkhead is nice n high before you get to Ringinglow village where the Peak Park starts.

I can't see it being further north, cos (mainly) Lodge Moor belongs to Yorshire Water and Ackroyd n Abbot, Loxley Valley to Dysons & Hepworths. The valley bottoms are all special landscapes, and obviously lacking in wind!

So unless the Peak Park decides that it will allow wind farms (unlike uPVC windows) a proposal looks likely to be between Ecclesall and Ringinglow.

Poor old T020 will be feeling everyone is out to get him!

There's quite a lot of interest in wind turbines along the Lincolnshire coast. Permission has been given for a wind farm three miles off the Skegness coastline with another windfarm likely to go ahead at Bicker Fen, about ten miles or so west of Boston. Skegness people are worried about the visual impact this offshore farm would have, but as the turbines are going to be three miles off on the horizon, they'll be mere specks.

I don't mind one bit about either of these; I'd much rather suffer a bit of turbine noise than fall victim to pollution-linked medical disorders like asthma and some forms of cancer. They can put one up in my back garden any time they like! I'd have somewhere spacious to peg my washing on - the blades!

Its not going to happen, so who cares? Previously, 'buffer zones' between national parks and built up areas were also protected. They still should be. In any case though, the location the council and yourselves are talking about is still an area of natural, unspoiled beauty, and to erect huge turbines on this area is criminal.

Originally posted by Kitty_Boston
There's quite a lot of interest in wind turbines along the Lincolnshire coast. Permission has been given for a wind farm three miles off the Skegness coastline with another windfarm likely to go ahead at Bicker Fen, about ten miles or so west of Boston. Skegness people are worried about the visual impact this offshore farm would have, but as the turbines are going to be three miles off on the horizon, they'll be mere specks.

From the beach the horizon is approximately nine miles away. The ones on the west coast are supposed to look as tall as Blackpool Tower when out to sea.

There are gas and oil platforms dotted all around the country which are visible from the beach, so I can't see what hassle a few turbines is going to cause.

Any news of that plan to site a battleship off Ingoldmells?

Originally posted by alchresearch

Any news of that plan to site a battleship off Ingoldmells?
Erm, not lately, no. News has sort-of dried up on that matter...

All this talk of "unspoilt" and "natural beauty" and no-one has mentioned that the sea is really the only bit left! If you sail to Gothenberg you will see a huge wind farm on the very northern tip of Denmark with a windfarm powering an industrial plant on the equivilent of John o' Groats. We British really are useless at getting our priorities right.

The "Star" article suggests that 15 turbines will supply the whole of Sheffield's electricity needs and generate a surplus to be sold back to the National Grid. Yet the largest on-shore scheme given govt. approval, - the £35m Cefn Croes development near Aberystwyth, will generate enough power for just 40,000 homes using 39 turbines. Has somebody got their sums wrong ??

I imagine the number of homes in Sheffield is rather more than 40,000 and the power requirements of indusry, commerce and hospitals etc on top of purely domestic consumption makes the figure of 15 turbines seem a little inadequate.

The main argument against wind power is that is is not reliable and today is the kind of day when those turbines will be sitting there doing nothing at all. I live at nearly at 1300 feet above sea level overlooking High Bradfield and there is only the barest whisper of a breeze...looks like it's sandwiches again for Sunday lunch.

ß

Originally posted by Greybeard
The "Star" article suggests that 15 turbines will supply the whole of Sheffield's electricity needs and generate a surplus to be sold back to the National Grid. Yet the largest on-shore scheme given govt. approval, - the £35m Cefn Croes development near Aberystwyth, will generate enough power for just 40,000 homes using 39 turbines. Has somebody got their sums wrong ??


You're right - misleading figures such as these don't help the issue. It's obvious that they're wrong and they'll just have people questioning what the council's plans to make up the shortfall will be.

I think on balance I agree with Zamo's PoV on this issue. I'd like to see more alternative energy sources (goes without saying really) but would like at the very least to see all options regarding other parts of our city and it's surroundings explored before wind turbines are built in the Peak District or on any similarly treasured landscape. The Peak District is recognised as something special - one of the country's best assets. And there is legislation set up to protect that. Break that code and you're setting up a dangerous precedent - one that wouldn't necessarily stop at building wind turbines.

From my limited reading on the subject the most reliable renewable energy resources are wave powered generators and tidal schemes.But both require huge investment in development and construction so it's not surprising that power companies go for the relatively cheap option of land based wind farms.

On the subject of wind farms this Guardian article is worth reading

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1056155,00.html

The only reason the fox house road was mentioned was because of one letter from someone living on that road so the turbines were superimposed by a local rag for effect, as for the unspoilt countryside of the peak district what about the amount of traffic that uses the peak district, is this not spoiling anything? what about all the paths that are becoming vastly eroded and widening all the time, then what do the peak park do for this, they use bright yellow/white limestone to line the paths with, from a distance these look like like great scars across the hills and dales of the peak.........very unspoilt indeed, when the foot & mouth outbreak virtually closed the peak district many of the businesses very nearly went under because there was no trade to carry on the village life they have become to know, what about all the quarrying and the expanding quarries.....the peak board have no power to stop them and they are a blot on the landscape. Everyone wants/needs these services but are not prepared to accept them on their doorstep and if you actually monitor the amount of heavy road freight using the peak you would be outraged/or not depending on how near it was to your neck of the woods.

Good points playman. People also seem to forget why the moors are like they are. It's so f***wits in Barbour coats can go and shoot birds which are bred to fly low so they can easily be shot. If it wasn't for the grouse the moors would be completely different, maybe with more native trees, and probably a lot more interesting.

Perhaps with wind turbines there the f***wits would go away.:)

Originally posted by playman
The only reason the fox house road was mentioned was because of one letter from someone living on that road so the turbines were superimposed by a local rag for effect, as for the unspoilt countryside of the peak district what about the amount of traffic that uses the peak district, is this not spoiling anything? what about all the paths that are becoming vastly eroded and widening all the time, then what do the peak park do for this, they use bright yellow/white limestone to line the paths with, from a distance these look like like great scars across the hills and dales of the peak.........very unspoilt indeed, when the foot & mouth outbreak virtually closed the peak district many of the businesses very nearly went under because there was no trade to carry on the village life they have become to know, what about all the quarrying and the expanding quarries.....the peak board have no power to stop them and they are a blot on the landscape. Everyone wants/needs these services but are not prepared to accept them on their doorstep and if you actually monitor the amount of heavy road freight using the peak you would be outraged/or not depending on how near it was to your neck of the woods.
Playman, I don't understand. Are you say that unless something is completely untouched and "perfect" it isn't worth protecting? In that case nothing in this world is worth protecting.

You argument is effectively to spoil everywhere to the same extent in order to bring about some sort of perverse form of equality. You'll be arguing next that we need to send task forces in to areas of low crime in order to bring them up to national averages and brushing aside any complaints as no more than nimbyism.

Originally posted by playman
The only reason the fox house road was mentioned was because of one letter from someone living on that road so the turbines were superimposed by a local rag for effect, as for the unspoilt countryside of the peak district what about the amount of traffic that uses the peak district, is this not spoiling anything? what about all the paths that are becoming vastly eroded and widening all the time, then what do the peak park do for this, they use bright yellow/white limestone to line the paths with, from a distance these look like like great scars across the hills and dales of the peak.........very unspoilt indeed, when the foot & mouth outbreak virtually closed the peak district many of the businesses very nearly went under because there was no trade to carry on the village life they have become to know, what about all the quarrying and the expanding quarries.....the peak board have no power to stop them and they are a blot on the landscape. Everyone wants/needs these services but are not prepared to accept them on their doorstep and if you actually monitor the amount of heavy road freight using the peak you would be outraged/or not depending on how near it was to your neck of the woods.
Playman, I don't understand. Are you say that unless something is completely untouched and "perfect" it isn't worth protecting? In that case nothing in this world is worth protecting.

You argument is effectively to spoil everywhere to the same extent in order to bring about some sort of perverse form of equality. You'll be arguing next that we need to send task forces in to areas of low crime in order to bring them up to national averages and brushing aside any complaints as no more than nimbyism.

For many years the power of Sheffield's several rivers was harnessed in the production of iron & steel. You only have to walk down Rivelin valley to see the plentiful eveidence of this.
I wonder if anyone has given serious consideration to exploiting this optiion for power generation.

Nomme

Originally posted by nommedenet
For many years the power of Sheffield's several rivers was harnessed in the production of iron & steel. You only have to walk down Rivelin valley to see the plentiful eveidence of this.
I wonder if anyone has given serious consideration to exploiting this optiion for power generation.

Nomme

Nah! The shopping trollies get caught up in the turbine blades ;)

Originally posted by nommedenet
For many years the power of Sheffield's several rivers was harnessed in the production of iron & steel. You only have to walk down Rivelin valley to see the plentiful eveidence of this.
I wonder if anyone has given serious consideration to exploiting this optiion for power generation.

Nomme
I think that because of the reservoirs, the flow has been reduced to a trickle.

The dams could be, perhaps, converted to HEPs but there wouldn't be much kilowattage available, cos everytime you flushed the loo, the HEP would lose a small amount of working head.

Much better to build a 1km tall chimney over Ecclesall to utilise the 10 deg c temperature difference between surface and 1km up. We could expect extra output from such a venture in Ecclesall due to all the extra hot air.

Even a small 200 meter tower can generate 50kW; more than enough for the surrounding residential areas. One could hardly claim Ecclesall as unspoilt countryside after all!

Maybe if a 'mill race and dam' system was used it would equalise the throughput - perhaps we could use some of the existing 'historic' dams up and down the valleys?

As regards Ecclesall, maybe a horizontal pipe between Ecclesall and Hallam Uni would work if it were reversible depending on the time of day?

Originally posted by Tony

As regards Ecclesall, maybe a horizontal pipe between Ecclesall and Hallam Uni would work if it were reversible depending on the time of day?
What, like an effluent pipe?

I was thinking more in terms of a series of millponds and waterwheels as in the past, the same water providing power as it moves down the valley.

I guess waterwheels just aren't effecient enough, otherwise we'd have them on lots of rivers.
Nomme

I would like to see, by the roadside, somewhere on the way to the hallowed turf of fair Hathersage, t020's head revolving on a pole.

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
I would like to see, by the roadside, somewhere on the way to the hallowed turf of fair Hathersage, t020's head revolving on a pole.
no more Mr Nice Guy eh?

t020 actually starts plenty of threads that really get people going, like this one for example, and that (s)he (you never can be sure until you meet them) is one of the great agitators on SF.

Having said all that, perhaps you could hook his head up to a generator, and everyone passing by could whack it with a stick to illuminate a big Blackpool style "Welcome to Ecclesall" for a few seconds while his noggin spins.

Hmm come to think of it, there's quite a demand for illuminated signs with spinning heads to power them....maybe we're really on to something here.

If ego could power turbine, t020 would solve any of sheffield's electric problems.

:D

but yeah, he does create more discussion than he gets credit for, we may not agree but at least he comments and isn't worried to say what he thinks.

Wilf

T020 alone could power whole of Sheffield with the amount of hot air he spouts.
Energy crisis solved. :thumbsup:

that's enough bashing for now
-ed

I don't really want to see your head on a pole t020. Not really . I'm sure you're lovely in real life. And probably a Marxist agitator.

:mad: :confused: :( :( :(

Originally posted by t020
:mad: :confused: :( :( :(
<hangs head in shame>
sorry t020, got carried away with a stupid idea there.
a thousand apologies.

How come Phan is apologising for something that MichaelTravis said

and how come I happen to know they both have the same first name

Funny how you never see them in the room together - or do I mean the opposite, this being the net and all that?

:thumbsup:

Well, I feel bad for egging things on, my imagination got the better of me... but I still quite like the idea of <insert bête noir here>'s head on a pole, and people hitting it with sticks to spin it round on a arm, generating electricity to light up a sign that is especially apt.

I was sort of imagining it in a Mad Max setting, lit by burning torches out in the desert in some mad automotive troglodyte society.

anyway. it wasn't meant to be as personal as it might have sounded.

Could try hiking dem poles up higher so zey in zer cloudy wowdies.

Try paddle blades whopper copter style instead wouldn't see them so much.

Or use AirShips with turbines on and cable down to land. move where it blows most innit.

a tiny bit from the grid can power stacks of efficient microwave ovens which boil water and feed gennies via turbines ...

Why we still use tired old steam i dont know. While we have it why not send a probe skywards bringing a lump of current bun the 93 million miles back here and hey eternal heat source for power station turbines.

In the meanwhile, paint the windmills in invisible (or light deflecting) paint !! i mean disect a chameleon and see how that works and nick zee enzymes whatever and get dulux to mass produce it.

Do wish people would think even if far fetched rather than using this space to argue.

god do i have to do all the thinking round here !

Anyone interested in protecting our countryside should visit http://www.cprepeakandsyorks.org.uk .

And as for them Cistercian monks that founded Fountains Abbey. HOW DARE THEY! They mined lead and other minerals scarring our sacred countryside. Not content with digging and probing they constructed monstrous walls to split and divide the land. They abolished ancient rights of way. They dug channels to divert the natural course of rivers. They infested the grasslands with sheep upsetting the natural and delicate ecology of the land. All this, and more, they did with no regard to those people already living in the lands they seized.


The building of a few wind turbines overlooking a posh Sheffield suburb pales into insignificance. Our maybe the people complaining about this emminently sensible plan would rather renewable energy be provided from a place that wouldn't spoil their view.

Do we actually know how many turbines we'd need to provide power for Sheffield? Surely we can't have an informed debate until we know just how many of the damn things would need to be constructed. I think they're a good thing, but I'd hate to see half the peak district swallowed up by them.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Do we actually know how many turbines we'd need to provide power for Sheffield? Surely we can't have an informed debate until we know just how many of the damn things would need to be constructed. I think they're a good thing, but I'd hate to see half the peak district swallowed up by them.

The Stars prediction of 15 is widely recognised to be grossly underestimated. I read somewhere that a town somewhere of 40,000 needed 60 turbines...... Sheffield has 510,000 people, so do the maths. If you got the Star today you'd see a letter calling for people to stand up against these plans. I for one back them all the way and will be signing any future petitions should these ridiculous plans go any further.

Which according to my maths is 765 wind turbines.

Well we'd have to demolish Dore to build them..............seems like a fair exchange to me..........

Originally posted by Longcol
Which according to my maths is 765 wind turbines.

Well we'd have to demolish Dore to build them..............seems like a fair exchange to me..........

Why would that be? So all those with money that, presumably you're jealous of, can move to another city and take their money with them, and hence out of Sheffields local economy? That would be good for the City wouldn't it?

It'd be a bigger loss to Bakewell's economy!

Dore people seem to me usually to use "Dore near Sheffield" as their address.

Where were all you nimbies when we were protesting against the incinerator?

Lets face it, in two weeks time it will be old news, just like the cable cars, and we'll be arguing about something else.

that's the spirit!
:cool:

solar cells are fine for calculators.

realistically now, power stations could tap into the earths molten core to heat their water instead of fossil fuel or pathetic wind mills.

firstly not all sheffield power has to be generated on site. thanks to the national grid we dont need to do this, so those windfarms of skegness are sending us power although we're miles away.

the current most powerful wind turbines im aware of are 3.2 megawatts each. they are 45m tall, so the star saying they are hundreds of feat tall is wrong. so we could expect a maximum of 41.6mw to be generated although this assumes they would work at 100% capacity. this is enough to power 27,000 homes. thats a yearly co2 reduction of 92,000 tonnes.

the horns rev farm in denmark has been mentioned and that generates 160mw in total which is over a quarter of what the uk generates through wind, and thats in a single wind farm. the obvious place to build them like the danes have is offshore, but they should be complimented by onshore ones too.

btw, over a 20 year period wind power is a quarter of the price of nuclear power.

I heard that we actually buy some of our energy from France.

Originally posted by gothicform
the current most powerful wind turbines im aware of are 3.2 megawatts each. they are 45m tall, so the star saying they are hundreds of feat tall is wrong.
They're getting bigger! They are now building ones that are over 150m (500ft). There is also already one in Norfolk that is 85m high (nearly 300ft).

Originally posted by alchresearch
I heard that we actually buy some of our energy from France.
The French sell a lot of electricity, especially to Italy who are not self-sufficient in terms of power prodution. I think we get some power from the French but not much as there is only one ancient cross channel "link", which doesn't carry much more than an extension lead.

however the swafham wind turbine isnt rated at 3.2 megawatts. its been built for symbolic reasons.

Not keen on them, but they are far better than a nuclear power station or the fossil fuel burning ones we get most of our power from.. Personally I thnk we should make a lot more use of wind and solar power. Be interested to know if that would have an effect on the environment though; surely taking energy out of the system would have some effect? Possibly only if there is enough removed..

Originally posted by Zamo
They're getting bigger! They are now building ones that are over 150m (500ft). There is also already one in Norfolk that is 85m high (nearly 300ft).
Excellent. Build bigger ones in Sheffield and we can add to the 'Sheffield Superlatives' thread!!
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by TeeVee
realistically now, power stations could tap into the earths molten core to heat their water instead of fossil fuel or pathetic wind mills.


There was talk of that in the 1960s...there are some places around Sheffield where there is a lot of heat quite cose to the surface. I remember my Dad telling me of coal workings considered unsafe to work because of the heat...around Treeton/Swallownest area I think.

All you need is a closed loop of piped water with a turbine inserted in it - convection is free.

ß

A poll today revealed that from a study, wind farms were voted the worst eyesore of the countryside.

Source: Country Life (http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countrysideconcerns/news/eyesore_results.php)

Judging by the remainder of the top 10 it would appear country life readers spend a hell of a lot of their lives near the some of the dodgier parts of cities or driving on motorways. Not people I would really trust as opinion formers.................

Originally posted by t020
A poll today revealed that from a study, wind farms were voted the worst eyesore of the countryside.

Source: Country Life (http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countrysideconcerns/news/eyesore_results.php)

Which is exactly what they are. It's interesting to read all this cack by people who haven't got a clue what they are on about. How can you spout about the pros and cons of wind farms without having actually lived near them? Try moving down to Cornwall where there are hundreds of the f***cking things everywhere. Luckily, Cornwall is not particularly dense in population and they don't encroach on communities as much as they would in other places.

I lived in Cornwall for a while, and here are the facts:-

Grockels (tourists to you lot) love the things, everybody else hates them. Now can we change the subject, it's almost as boring as the Ecclesall thread!

Originally posted by Houdi
Grockels (tourists to you lot) love the things, everybody else hates them. Now can we change the subject, it's almost as boring as the Ecclesall thread!


Considering they will be on the doorstep of these locals who love them, what's the problem?

Originally posted by alchresearch
Considering they will be on the doorstep of these locals who love them, what's the problem?

None. They can have mine as well

Originally posted by Houdi
Grockels (tourists to you lot) love the things, everybody else hates them.
All the more reason to have them in Cornwall then, as the cornish economy depends on 'Grockles'.

Tim Smit, founder of the Eden Project, which brings thousands of Grockles to cornwall every year, is very enthusiastic about wind power.

Originally posted by Houdi
Which is exactly what they are. It's interesting to read all this cack by people who haven't got a clue what they are on about. How can you spout about the pros and cons of wind farms without having actually lived near them? Try moving down to Cornwall where there are hundreds of the f***cking things everywhere. Luckily, Cornwall is not particularly dense in population and they don't encroach on communities as much as they would in other places.

I lived in Cornwall for a while, and here are the facts:-

Grockels (tourists to you lot) love the things, everybody else hates them. Now can we change the subject, it's almost as boring as the Ecclesall thread!

It "grockels" considered a term of enderement or abuse?

Originally posted by Tony
It "grockels" considered a term of enderement or abuse?
affectionate abuse I think. more of a devon somerset thing though. In Cornwall I thought it was Emmets. - Emmet being the Cornish word for ant.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
affectionate abuse I think. more of a devon somerset thing though. In Cornwall I thought it was Emmets. - Emmet being the Cornish word for ant.

Nethertheless it all sounds like racism to me!

So much for changing the subject. Still, I tried.

Now, do any of you really interesting people know if Ecclesall Road comes under Ecclesall???????????????????????????

Originally posted by Houdi
So much for changing the subject. Still, I tried.

Now, do any of you really interesting people know if Ecclesall Road comes under Ecclesall???????????????????????????

I do as it happens......
Ecclesall Rd LEADS TO Ecclesall, but is not WITHIN the residential area of Ecclesall. :D

Sod it, I'm off down the pub.

Pity you can't do likewise, but then that involves opening the front door and actually venturing outside!

Bye!!

Am I right in thinking that Cornwall has its own flag? Why?

I've got an even better question:-

t020, Why?

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Am I right in thinking that Cornwall has its own flag? Why?

Isn't it something to do with that it was once a seperate country or Kingdom?

Originally posted by alchresearch
Isn't it something to do with that it was once a seperate country or Kingdom?

It is the St. Piran's Cross and takes the form of a white cross on a black background.

According to legend, St Piran (patron saint of Cornwall) was preparing his dinner and the black hearth rocks became so hot, he noticed shiny white metal in the shape of a cross appear in the rocks. Thus was born the smelting process for tin and also the flag of Cornwall.

Well said, Councillor Dawson (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle.aspx?ArticleID=730304&SectionID=58&Search=wind%20turbines&Searchtype=all&SearchSection=58&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=012004&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx) .

I actually quite like Kate Dawson, but in this instance she was either stitched dup or she didnt handle it too well.

Either way... it still doesn't change the fact that there isn't much wind down in the valleys - unlike Ecclesall.

the ones at Penistone make quite a nice skyline feature,when coming into sheffield from over the woodhead,mind you thats the north side of the city so i expect t020 agrees with them being there

Originally posted by t020
Well said, Councillor Dawson (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle.aspx?ArticleID=730304&SectionID=58&Search=wind%20turbines&Searchtype=all&SearchSection=58&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=012004&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx) .

WORKING class communities in South Yorkshire ought to put up with unsightly wind farms rather than letting them spoil the posh south west areas of Sheffield, a councillor suggested.

Ecclesall Lib Dem councillor Kate Dawson said people living in old industrial areas were more used to living among eyesores than others

What a bitch this Kate Dawson is, eh boys and girls?

We've already had to put up with the Bernard Road incinerator (soon to be replaced with a super incinerator), the Parkwood Landfill site, as well as all the factories on the east side, and now she wants to dump this on us!

Edit: Come to think of it, I would like the wind turbines built over this side. They'd look good on Wincobank Hill :cool:

I know the council did try to push through a housing application up there, but it was refused because Wincobank Hill is a site of national historic importance (the Brigantes strutted their stuff 1000 years before Ecgbert ever did anything on t'other side).

What I don't like is being patronised by Kate Dawson, especially when you seek our support in keeping Ringinglow Fire Station open.

t020, I know you are desperate to start yet another class war, so I'll leave it there for now.

Originally posted by t020
Wind energy by all means. But for Gods sake, put them in an already ugly area, don't spoil a nice area of countryside.

That just about sums it up,they can bang them up anywhere just as long as its not in your back yard.

Originally posted by tango2
That just about sums it up,they can bang them up anywhere just as long as its not in your back yard.


Analogy time: if my backyard was full of junk and litter, one more empty crisp packet would not make much difference. However, if my backyard was tidy, neat with greenery, one empty crisp packet would make ALL the difference.

Comprendé?

Id still love to see Turbines in the south of sheffield, they look great in cornwall (there is even an energy museum on the largest wind farm) I dont think they'd be too good in the national park area (peak) but there is plenty of places where they'd be ideal to be placed in the south of sheffield

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Am I right in thinking that Cornwall has its own flag? Why?

Yes, for reasons above, but also the fact it was its own country a long time ago, and the majority of cornish people want its status returned. IIRC they have the oldest parliament in the UK but it was taken away from them.

Originally posted by t020
No chance. They won't get away with it. A Labour council knows that they get barely any votes from this end of town, so don't mind upsetting us and trying to please the rest of Sheffield for votes. They will never get away with this.


Im not having a dig,,but I bet they do.

They have been getting away with S*** for years,so this will just be another example of it.

The windiest place on the planet as everybody knows is The Norfolk Park area, shall we therefore place all the turbines up there as the great unwashed all live in council and housing association property. So probably aren't posh enough to upset. After all they won't mind, they've been living with ugly tower blocks for years so this would be an improvement!
Does this keep all the lib dem contributors from the south side of the city happy?

Kate Dawson would have been better keeping her mouth shut.

Like all politicians they make far more sense when they don't speak.

Originally posted by Tony
Kate Dawson would have been better keeping her mouth shut.

Like all politicians they make far more sense when they don't speak.

I beg to differ. She makes a good point - one that I made many months ago. Why ruin attractive surburban fringes that form the entrance to the Peak District when there are so many already ruined areas to put them in instead?

I made a good point ages ago too - which "ruined area" in ?Sheffield will you find the wind for a turbine?

I agree with your general principle, but the actual truth is that in Shefffield, all the wind (and a lot of hot air) is on the top of the hill where the "nice suburbs" are.

How are you gonna change that?

And... Kate Dawson still made a gaffe, regardless of how the press reported what she actually said.

Originally posted by Tony
I made a good point ages ago too - which "ruined area" in ?Sheffield will you find the wind for a turbine?

I agree with your general principle, but the actual truth is that in Shefffield, all the wind (and a lot of hot air) is on the top of the hill where the "nice suburbs" are.

How are you gonna change that?

And... Kate Dawson still made a gaffe, regardless of how the press reported what she actually said.


Other places still get lots of wind. Theres plenty of space to the east of Sheffield. OK, there may not be as much wind, but just put down a few more turbines to compensate.

Kate Dawson made a gaffe IN YOUR OPINION. In my opinion she made a good point, which the Star chose to blow out of proportion and turn into a class war.

t020 keeps saying they should put the turbines on the east side, but if he/she lives on the east side he wouldnt say such things, am i right? :/

personally, i quite like seeing turbines on the landscape (i never been near one but on the way to manchester u can see a few at the top of the hill thing) and i'm surprised so many ppl on this forum agrees they are not bad at all, cuz i thought i was the wierd one! lol! to me, they give me a mysterious feeling and i'm happy that we are a step further into a clean future!

a few ppl mentioned off shore turbines and wave power?? but we are no where near the ocean! plus it wouldnt be very "green" if power were made to travel all the way from the coast to sheffield!

Originally posted by Bluelunar
t020 keeps saying they should put the turbines on the east side, but if he/she lives on the east side he wouldnt say such things, am i right? :/


No, you're wrong. Maybe you should have read my analogy in a previous post. Here it is, in terms that surely even you can understand:

Analogy time: if my backyard was full of junk and litter, one more empty crisp packet would not make much difference. However, if my backyard was tidy, neat with greenery, one empty crisp packet would make ALL the difference.

Comprendé?

Nice to see just how many people appreciate wind turbines. I for one, wish I had a couple of dozen of them surrounding my house. It would make a wonderful viewpoint for my family and also visiting relatives and friends. Much better than an ornamental lake and a few choice conifers.

Nothing wrong with em I say, millions of em in Holland they look good,sound great and free electricity. What more could you ask



Geeeeronimo

Couldn't agree more. I imagine the low-pitched whine they emit is very therapeutic.

I also emit this sound sometimes, usually running round in circles in the garden with the other people on therapy



geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Originally posted by t020
No, you're wrong. Maybe you should have read my analogy in a previous post. Here it is, in terms that surely even you can understand:

Analogy time: if my backyard was full of junk and litter, one more empty crisp packet would not make much difference. However, if my backyard was tidy, neat with greenery, one empty crisp packet would make ALL the difference.

Comprendé?

actually i did read ur post. to be honest with u, i dont know the sheffield area very well, but it doesnt seem to be fair that u call the east side "ruined land". so u think its alright to ruin a piece of "ruined land" somemore? (dont get me wrong tho, i dont agree with u that the turbines ruins the land) i dont think placing turbines on the east side just bcuz the land is "ruined" is a good enough reason for them to go there. they can only be placed at certain places for them to be efficient.

so the west side arent "ruined" by cars and ppl? at least turbines dont produce litter or harms the environment.

Originally posted by Bluelunar
actually i did read ur post. to be honest with u, i dont know the sheffield area very well, but it doesnt seem to be fair that u call the east side "ruined land". so u think its alright to ruin a piece of "ruined land" somemore? (dont get me wrong tho, i dont agree with u that the turbines ruins the land) i dont think placing turbines on the east side just bcuz the land is "ruined" is a good enough reason for them to go there. they can only be placed at certain places for them to be efficient.

so the west side arent "ruined" by cars and ppl? at least turbines dont produce litter or harms the environment.


It's more alright to further spoil already ruined land then it is to spoil otherwise unspoiled land. There will no doubt be petitions to stop the erection of these turbines, and once the council is reminded about the source of the bulk of its tax revenue, it may be forced to rethink its plans.

Originally posted by t020
and once the council is reminded about the source of the bulk of its tax revenue, it may be forced to rethink its plans.

How do you come by that assertion? I'd have thought the higher density of properties in other parts of the city would have generated more council tax. This is my opinion, btw, not a fact.

Originally posted by max
How do you come by that assertion? I'd have thought the higher density of properties in other parts of the city would have generated more council tax. This is my opinion, btw, not a fact.


Higher council tax bands.

Also, they'd realise that the same people spend a lot of money in the area and benefit the local economy in general.

I think that you will find that the density of dwellings in poorer areas makes for far more Council Tax income than the "posh" areas.

tell ya what, we will have all the wind turbines over here on the cross and surrounding areas,they can have all the mobile phone masts on the other side of town which are far more harmful

Originally posted by Tony
I think that you will find that the density of dwellings in poorer areas makes for far more Council Tax income than the "posh" areas.


Maybe... but remember these houses will be in lower council tax bands. A significant chunk of the council's revenue comes from council tax payers in the South West, and the council will do well to remember that in future, instead of making comments about how they aim to even up the balance by cutting all funding in the South West and using it elsewhere, how they plan to close our firestation, and how they want to build wind turbines in our back garden.

Anyone would think the council have got it in for you personally t020.

Then again, maybe they have.

Originally posted by t020
and how they want to build wind turbines in our back garden.

and having put up a fair to moderate argument for your cause,you finally reveal your true motives NIMBYsm

furthermore,whereas i agree there are some lovely properties over your way that im sure attract ridiculous council tax bills,there are properties over here that are the same,they may not have the same market value as such ,but still fall into the same banding,so dont run away with the idea that its the south west of the city that is funding sheffield.

Originally posted by gizmo
furthermore,whereas i agree there are some lovely properties over your way that im sure attract ridiculous council tax bills,there are properties over here that are the same,they may not have the same market value as such ,but still fall into the same banding,so dont run away with the idea that its the south west of the city that is funding sheffield.


I didn't say it was, but council tax payers in the South West still contribute to the tax revenue, and quite a fair portion of it too, so with this in mind it seems like the council forget this when they:

- propose to close our only fire station
- propose to cut any spending in the area and concentrate purely on other areas of the city to "even up the balance" (even though it won't because, as always, any spending in certain parts will instantly be null and void through vandalism)
- propose to put wind turbines right on our doorstep, and ruin unspoiled natural beauty (also affecting one of Sheffields main attractions as a whole).

If every one took the mentality of NIMBYismn,where would be be?
I love the peak district and i cycle thro it almost every day,we need to think about the future,oil wont last for ever,nor will coal.What then,back to the dark ages?the only real arguement is where to put them,and i dont just mean in the peak,but in other parts of the country as well.

jt

Originally posted by t020
- propose to put wind turbines right on our doorstep, and ruin unspoiled natural beauty (also affecting one of Sheffields main attractions as a whole).

Will you stop banging on about "unspoiled natural beauty"? Such a thing does not exist in Ecclesall.

The footprint of man is everywhere on the landscape.

I have a plan.
With the amount of council tax t020 pays (zilch being a student) he could pay the firemen from Ringinlow to guard all the wind turbines built in the garden of his mansion in Ecclesal. This will prevent them being set fire to. Oh yeah and all the rubbish in the garden could be protected from fire too. Cure all problems at once.
Just don't tell t020 he will complain but he will be happy about the firemen though:thumbsup:
How long will they stay before saying they don't mind being shut down, after putting up with his whining.

Originally posted by t020
I didn't say it was, but council tax payers in the South West still contribute to the tax revenue, and quite a fair portion of it too, so with this in mind it seems like the council forget this when they:

- propose to close our only fire station
- propose to cut any spending in the area and concentrate purely on other areas of the city to "even up the balance" (even though it won't because, as always, any spending in certain parts will instantly be null and void through vandalism)
- propose to put wind turbines right on our doorstep, and ruin unspoiled natural beauty (also affecting one of Sheffields main attractions as a whole).

If you feel so hard done by Sheffield Council, may I ask you one question? Why the heck do you still live here? Why dont you take all your whinging and moaning class related dribble somewhere else and do us all a favour. Thankyou.

Originally posted by fuzzy
I have a plan.
With the amount of council tax t020 pays (zilch being a student) he could pay the firemen from Ringinlow to guard all the wind turbines built in the garden of his mansion in Ecclesal. This will prevent them being set fire to. Oh yeah and all the rubbish in the garden could be protected from fire too. Cure all problems at once.
Just don't tell t020 he will complain but he will be happy about the firemen though:thumbsup:


More like the firemen from Trumpton.... Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grubb ! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by mega_monty
If you feel so hard done by Sheffield Council, may I ask you one question? Why the heck do you still live here? Why dont you take all your whinging and moaning class related dribble somewhere else and do us all a favour. Thankyou.

Excellently put. Loud applause from this part of Sheffield.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Zamo
Of course we need to be be moving away from eneregy production through the burning of fossil fuels and nuclear power. No one is saying otherwise. But does this mean it is necessary to litter our national parks with huge wind turbines? I say no... not yet at least.

Let's have more off-shore wind farms .... let's have more wave power stations ....let's have more land fill gas plants .... let's have more hydro electric production etc., etc.

IMHO the placing of huge wind turbines in our national parks should be the last resort not the first.

Absolutely agree that the off shore wind farms rather than these are the way to go, and that they are preferable to putting them in the National Parks by a long way. Of course by the very nature of it being a LA, they aren't goin to think past Sheffield and the surroundign area, and therefore won't be looking towards the great farawayness of the sea :s.

I'm not offended by them, has anyone seen the ones on the way towards Holmfirth? I don't think they're that bad at all, and without renewable energy, in 40 years (certainly well within my lifetime, don't know about you lot), the world will a VERY different place, due to global warming, and the government and i suppose, the LA, feels an obligation to do something, and since when have they ever done the most logical thing?

woah, long message, lol :D

Does Windy Miller live in Trumpton? Or elsewhere? :confused:

The Peak District is not there for the exclusive use of the people living in the SW of the city, it is a national treasure and should be treated as such. I have absolutely no doubt that wind turbines would detract from the landscape and should therefore not be built. This is not a political arguement. To make it so, reduces it to the trivial and petty.

Originally posted by fuzzy
Does Windy Miller live in Trumpton? Or elsewhere? :confused:

Windy Miller lived in Camberwick Green..... At least these new wind turbines are much quieter than windy millers windmill :D

Does windy Miller pay his council tax ?

Originally posted by Jess
The Peak District is not there for the exclusive use of the people living in the SW of the city, it is a national treasure and should be treated as such. I have absolutely no doubt that wind turbines would detract from the landscape and should therefore not be built. This is not a political arguement. To make it so, reduces it to the trivial and petty.


Hence why I stated it affects Sheffield as a whole. The wind farm should not be built there, its that simple. Find some wasteland next to the M1 somewhere, already filled with pylons. Don't ruin the scenic borders of the Peak District.

Originally posted by t020
Hence why I stated it affects Sheffield as a whole. The wind farm should not be built there, its that simple. Find some wasteland next to the M1 somewhere, already filled with pylons. Don't ruin the scenic borders of the Peak District.

I think most of the waste land next to the M1 has already been redeveloped or scheduled for redevelopment, so theres not much space. Only place I can think of is stick them on top of the cooling towers next to the viaduct

Originally posted by t020
Hence why I stated it affects Sheffield as a whole. The wind farm should not be built there, its that simple. Find some wasteland next to the M1 somewhere, already filled with pylons. Don't ruin the scenic borders of the Peak District.

Jeez.. when will you get it through your thick head?

THE REASON THEY GO ON EXPOSED HILLS IS BECAUSE THEY NEED WIND!!!!!! :loopy: :loopy:

You could power a couple of dozen all by yourself. :P

No Tony, you are thinking of bull**** turbines. They have much heavier blades to cope with the torrent of crap.

Originally posted by tango2
Does windy Miller pay his council tax ?

yes he does but the council tax payers in trumpton pay more which is why windys had to erect his windmill in camberwick green

Originally posted by Tony
Jeez.. when will you get it through your thick head?

THE REASON THEY GO ON EXPOSED HILLS IS BECAUSE THEY NEED WIND!!!!!! :loopy: :loopy:

You could power a couple of dozen all by yourself. :P


Build them taller in already spoiled areas then, as I've said before. Better still, build them all out at sea where theres plenty of wind and space.

Originally posted by t020
Build them taller

You cant build them taller, because if you were intelligent enough to know about moments about a pivot the things would fall over in a strong wind, thus rendering them pointless and a danger to society

Originally posted by RPG
You cant build them taller, because if you were intelligent enough to know about moments about a pivot the things would fall over in a strong wind.


Not with deeper foundations.

:| you dont seem to get it do you :lol:

even with deep foundations they'd wobble all over the place.

it just cant be done, or they'd have already done it

Originally posted by RPG
:| you dont seem to get it do you :lol:

even with deep foundations they'd wobble all over the place.

it just cant be done, or they'd have already done it .


I'm not talking 1000s of feet taller here. They're usually about 50ft tall I believe. Make that 80ft and they'd be more exposed. If the pole was wider and the foundations deeper, they'd hardly fall down or wobble. It just requires better engineering and maybe a bit more funding in terms of construction, but it'd be worth it so that they don't have to the erected in unspoiled, pretty areas of land. As I said before though, better still - build them out at sea.

They are building them at sea, but it just isnt enough.

Originally posted by t020
.


I'm not talking 1000s of feet taller here. They're usually about 50ft tall I believe. Make that 80ft and they'd be more exposed. If the pole was wider and the foundations deeper, they'd hardly fall down or wobble. It just requires better engineering and maybe a bit more funding in terms of construction, but it'd be worth it so that they don't have to the erected in unspoiled, pretty areas of land. As I said before though, better still - build them out at sea.

Unspoiled (sic) is in the eye of the beholder.

This landscape was spoiled when they cut all the trees down.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

This landscape was spoiled when they cut all the trees down.

Where abouts are you referring to?????

Dooohhh... Building 'em taller just doesn't do it. High winds are generated by high hills, not high poles.

Anyway, why should everyone in Sheffield have to see these huge turbines just because you don't want them in your back garden?

Originally posted by t020
Where abouts are you referring to?????
That will be Ecclesall. Everyone else seems to understand that what you call "unspoilt landscape" is an obvious man-made fabrication

Originally posted by Tony
Dooohhh... Building 'em taller just doesn't do it. High winds are generated by high hills, not high poles.

Anyway, why should everyone in Sheffield have to see these huge turbines just because you don't want them in your back garden?

It's SHEFFIELDS back garden - it's one of the city's main attractions. The land is beautiful and ideal for walks, bordering a National Park. Putting up big and ugly wind turbines is going to ruin this, not only for people living with a mile or 2, but for the whole of Sheffield - can't you see this?

Can't YOU see that wind turbines need to go on high hills?

Originally posted by Tony
That will be Ecclesall. Everyone else seems to understand that what you call "unspoilt landscape" is an obvious man-made fabrication

Completely wrong then, since the proposal is for them to be built on the moorlands that border the Peak District (which is pretty much unspoiled land, and I'm not aware of any mass tree cutting programmes that have taken place there). I think you're confusing where I live to where the turbines will be built. If they were to be built, they'd be out near Hathersage. I don't regard Ecclesall as unspoiled landscape at all, fool. However, moorlands bordering a National Park that are virtually unspoiled should not have huge and unsightly wind turbines blotting the landscape.

Originally posted by t020
However, moorlands bordering a National Park that are virtually unspoiled should not have huge and unsightly wind turbines blotting the landscape.

Virtually unspoilt are they now?

As for unsightly, it seems that you're virtually the only one in the Forum that doesn't think that they are pretty elegant and beautiful.

They still need to go on the top of exposed hills, unspoilt or not, and in SW Sheffield that will be Limb Lane / Dore Moor(ish) where the council own lots of land. Hehe, SW Sheffield - nothing but a big Council Estate ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Virtually unspoilt are they now?

As for unsightly, it seems that you're virtually the only one in the Forum that doesn't think that they are pretty elegant and beautiful.

They still need to go on the top of exposed hills, unspoilt or not, and in SW Sheffield that will be Limb Lane / Dore Moor(ish) where the council own lots of land. Hehe, SW Sheffield - nothing but a big Council Estate ;)


Quite a lot of people don't like the look of wind turbines. If the proposal was around Dore Moor/ Limb Lane, I think there'd be a very large petition, similar to that of the Ringinglow Fire Station closure, objecting to the erection of such ugly turbines. I for one, among with thousands of others, would sign this petition.

This issue is not about politics or some kind of strange social engineering where all that is good about a place is destroyed in the name of equality. Putting a wind farm on the moors near Hathersage, would be a wholly inappropriate response to what I admit is a difficult problem. The Dutch have invested heavily in wind farms, out at sea. Holland is not noted for its mountains. And it isn't just Sheffield. The Peak Park serves many big cities.

Originally posted by Jess
This issue is not about politics or some kind of strange social engineering where all that is good about a place is destroyed in the name of equality. Putting a wind farm on the moors near Hathersage, would be a wholly inappropriate response to what I admit is a difficult problem. The Dutch have invested heavily in wind farms, out at sea. Holland is not noted for its mountains. And it isn't just Sheffield. The Peak Park serves many big cities.

Indeed.

Don't you think that the Dutch would be putting them on mountains if they had any? Can you even begin to imagine how much more expensive it is to put them out at sea?

More expensive and they don't last as long.
If you put them out at sea that is.

Personally I think the Ringinglow Fire Station plot is the perfect spot for these turbines.

Is the cheapest option always the best? For the sake of cheapness and the smug satisfaction of some who believe that they are putting one over on the "toffs", we are to dumb down a precious bit of landscape.

How do you dumb down a landscape? Remove all the literary references or paint it in primary colours, or something?

Marine turbines are good from one or two perspectives, but the initial build cost is sky high compared to a land based turbine.

Likewise, maintaining these turbines in marine environments is especially expensive because you have built them in a big sea of corrosive liquid.

Tidal power turbines are better suited to marine environments, and wind turbines are better suited to the land.

And if you start building them offshore, you will get a bunch of NIMBYs whining about what eyesores they are, so no change there then (only this time they will be Yachting Nimbys)

Eyesore schmyesore, that's my philosophy.

I have many other philosophies similar to this one...

I was told that the Wind farm would be put in at Burbage Moor. Because of the valley which tunnels the wind towards the area

I think that we need to have a few turbines and see how they go. The current campaign by Noel Edmonds and his supporters against wind turbines uses lots of contentious facts which cite statistics which refer to older technology. We must build some turbines and prove the technology and efficiency.

In time ( 10-20 years ) technology will enable people to have invisible power generating equipment on their own houses. But it is not yet cheap enough for mass installation. And all electrical appliances will use much less power.

All this stuff about ruining the local countryside is complete hogwash. The countryside is a working environment, full of industrial equipment, and there are a fair few quarries, and disused quarries. On the moorland, there would be a lot more trees if it weren't for all the sheep eating everything. Just go for a walk or mountain bike ride over Houndkirk moor. And the forested areas are mostly pine, which aren't native woodland, but managed forestry, which are cleared in an industrial fashion periodically. There are Huge reservoirs, which are basically water tanks. Do you think we should revert back to nature and have little streams and the little village at the bottom of Ladybower back? Maybe we should knock down the war memorial, after all you can see it from the road!

If it were up to me there'd be a nice dual carriageway from totley right through to the M57 at the other side of Glossop. This would make all the little Derbyshire villages much quieter without all the through traffic blasting past. Nobody complains about what the the railway lines look like.

Originally posted by t020
The land is beautiful and ideal for walks, bordering a National Park. Putting up big and ugly wind turbines is going to ruin this,

Personally I think they look OK, much nicer than giant coal fired power stations creating acid rain that is disolving the beautifull landscape in Sweeden and Norway, but hey, thats miles away, not near my house so what should I care ?

I read that if every household in the UK switched just one lightbulb in their house to an energy saving one, it would remove the need for one power station. Not sure how true this is.

sorry - coming late to the discussion...many of these points may have been made already. But here is my 2p's worth anyway...

are the wind energy developers actually planning to put turbines inside the national park boundaries? I would very much doubt it - would be far more hassle that it is worth in terms of planning and dealing with objectors.

The bare fact is that wind energy is sustainable. In some very windy spots, the energy used to build, construct and run the windfarm is reclaimed within less than a year. Even windfarms in lower wind spots produce many more times the energy than they use. If you take into account all the energy used in mining/drilling/transporting/disposing of conventional energy sources then wind energy starts to look very attractive indeed.

I also happen to think that the turbines are aesthetically attractive. Even if you don't, at least there aren't any poisonous side effects to them - no waste to leave to our great (x50) grandkids, or greenhouse gasses to suffocate their world.

We need a balance of energy sources, and some of this should come from onshore wind energy. If it is a suitably windy site, and the company runs full public consultation so that everybody gets the facts, then I say 'Hurrah for Wind Energy in Sheffield!'

The wind is not reliable and we have not yet developed a means of storing the power to provide supply in windless times (although hydro-schemes could be used).
This means that we still need a back-up source and currently this is the conventional power stations. These cannot just be fired up and down as the wind comes and goes and so must be kept running.
This means that, for the near future anyway, construction of windfarms are not going to reduce the number of conventional power stations operating.

I am in no position to argue with the energy reclamation balance explained by EricaJane, but I do know that they are not financially viable.
The money currently being made from the construction and running of windfarms is by virtue of the grants being made available to the various companies involved.

I really do not like the look of them and would like to see a bit more sensitivity used in choice of sites, but I do look forward to confirmation that they can be used as a viable alternative to fossil fuel.

Incidentally, I think that the air pollution from coal-fired stations (in the UK) has been virtually eliminated since the acid-rain scares of the past.

Originally posted by cgksheff
The wind is not reliable and we have not yet developed a means of storing the power to provide supply in windless times (although hydro-schemes could be used).
You make good points but I think you will find that the turbines will be generating for most of the time in even light winds. However this is the very reason why this type of electricity generation must be tried, to prove it's value.

But even if they don't then all the more reason for having smaller wind farms all over the UK instead of a large one in one place.

Dont know if this been mentioned before, too lazy to read whole thread, but latest idea would be to put a small turbine on each roof and generate your own leccy. That, coupled with photo-voltaics and solar heat collectors for your water, would make most houses almost energy self-sufficient!!
No need to build huge great windfarms anymore.
Check out the package that's on the Zedfactory website. Can get some grants for some of the costs too!

sorry, don't know how to quote from previous posts...

No-one is saying that you wouldn't need other sources of energy. However, the system is set up so that every unit of energy you produce using wind is a unit you don't have to get from more polluting sources. You CAN moderate the amount of fuel you burn to produce power in conventional power stations, and they do this all the time.

Wind energy has been proven to integrate with other electricty generating sources up to about 20% of capacity. The grid has this flexibilty in it to make sure that it can cope with the big surges (people putting the kettles during Corrie commercial breaks), and if a power station goes down for some reason. So the grid can take up to 20% power from intermittent sources, like wind, without messing with continutiy of supply.

cgksheff, wind energy in the UK is about the same price as new build gas powered stations, and far far cheaper than the full costs of nuclear. If renewables got even 1/10th of the subsidies and grants and handouts that the nuclear industry gets, the UK would be a world leader in one of the fastest growing energy industries in the world.

Ferret, you are absolutely right about this but you are still talking about an outlay of 15-20 thousand pounds. Which is far too much capital for the average houseowner.

Having said that, you sell electricity back to the "national grid" and you have a seperate meter for this, and it is taken from your consumption bill. Making your fuel costs a fraction of their current level over a full year.

I believe that house roof wind turbines are being developed which do not look like windmills, they look more like roof vents and are very small. You take of ridge tiles on your roof and put these on instead at the apex.

Originally posted by EricaJane
sorry, don't know how to quote from previous posts...

No-one is saying that you wouldn't need other sources of energy. However, the system is set up so that every unit of energy you produce using wind is a unit you don't have to get from more polluting sources. You CAN moderate the amount of fuel you burn to produce power in conventional power stations, and they do this all the time.

Wind energy has been proven to integrate with other electricty generating sources up to about 20% of capacity. The grid has this flexibilty in it to make sure that it can cope with the big surges (people putting the kettles during Corrie commercial breaks), and if a power station goes down for some reason. So the grid can take up to 20% power from intermittent sources, like wind, without messing with continutiy of supply.

cgksheff, wind energy in the UK is about the same price as new build gas powered stations, and far far cheaper than the full costs of nuclear. If renewables got even 1/10th of the subsidies and grants and handouts that the nuclear industry gets, the UK would be a world leader in one of the fastest growing energy industries in the world.

Nice one. And with the skills base and geographic location of Sheffield, the hardware could all be built here, creating jobs and reducing distribution mileage. But thats another argument.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Ferret, you are absolutely right about this but you are still talking about an outlay of 15-20 thousand pounds. Which is far too much capital for the average houseowner.

Having said that, you sell electricity back to the "national grid" and you have a seperate meter for this, and it is taken from your consumption bill. Making your fuel costs a fraction of their current level over a full year.

I believe that house roof wind turbines are being developed which do not look like windmills, they look more like roof vents and are very small. You take of ridge tiles on your roof and put these on instead at the apex.

I'll have a look for those.
Fairly obviously, if we spent as much as we do on our cars, holiday loans and assorted other distractions, on making our homes 'sustainable' instead, then that price seems fairly reasonable to me. I'm convinced. Just don't know how to persuade my neighbours!
A single rooftop turbine is around a grand. I'm seriously thinking about it. It'd one thing to do that would generate awareness in your street. Wot the 'ells that!, etc..

Just so you know, I used to work for a wind energy development company (doing PR) about 5 years ago. Not the ones who are proposing this scheme, but it is an issue very close my heart. Still captures my youthful idealism now that I am a big sell out.

in the spirit of full declaration of interests etc etc

I'm really glad that so many people have spoken in defence of wind turbines. I actually find them oddly beautiful, and strangely soothing to watch.

We have them up here in Scotland, in some of the most beautiful countryside on the British Isles, and I don't think they spoil it at all.

And to all those people who think they're ugly - are you really so selfish as to insist on covering the world with smog and greenhouse gases, which pollute our air and melt our oceans, just because you want a bit of countryside to remain postcard-pure?

Odd. Very odd.

Originally posted by ferret
A single rooftop turbine is around a grand. I'm seriously thinking about it. It'd one thing to do that would generate awareness in your street. Wot the 'ells that!, etc..
Don't you have trouble with planning permission for one of those? They sound like a great idea. Are they like the one at heeley city farm?

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Don't you have trouble with planning permission for one of those? They sound like a great idea. Are they like the one at heeley city farm?
Now that would be fun to put up!
Actually they are quite small and are i think designed for any house with planning permission in mind.
If you put 'Zedfactory' into google and look for their improvements to existing houses, you will see them on there.

Originally posted by JBee
I'm really glad that so many people have spoken in defence of wind turbines. I actually find them oddly beautiful, and strangely soothing to watch.

We have them up here in Scotland, in some of the most beautiful countryside on the British Isles, and I don't think they spoil it at all.

And to all those people who think they're ugly - are you really so selfish as to insist on covering the world with smog and greenhouse gases, which pollute our air and melt our oceans, just because you want a bit of countryside to remain postcard-pure?
I agree that they can be beautiful, but its really unnecessary to have them at all if you combine home-generation with efficiency measures.
The wilds of Scotland are as much a state of mind as they are actual wilderness. You may never see them, but the signs of humanity are never far away. You can't be further than nine miles away from a road, in GREAT Britain! Turbines are visible for miles, how will you ever feel like you're in a wilderness again, considering the amount needed to service our current energy needs, let alone projected ones??

Odd. Very odd.

Originally posted by ferret


oops. got my reply mixed with a quote. Now how did I do that?

Does anyone know about any plans that have been mentioned regarding proposed wind turbine developments on the moors surrounding Sheffield? I understand that there is consideration being given to the Totley moor on the edge of the National Park boundary.

Does anyone know anymore info on this or similar plans??

I know nothing about this but if the results of a recent poll on this forum are to be believed I'm sure most forum members will be delighted if this development gets the go-ahead. ;)

I'd have one in my back yard.

I'd have one in my back yard.

Me too, if I was allowed to tap into the power for free :)

I think they are beautiful !

I think that the wind turbines are nice to see too. Although the moors near totley are not particularly beautiful. The sheep have eaten everything and the ground looks scarred and deeply rutted. That part of the peak district if you didn't know where you were, some of it looks like an abandoned building site. And other parts look like it was made like that by being bombed. And over the last decades a bit of grass, bush or heather has grown over it since.

Anything which reduces the burden on fossil fuels through renewable sources is desperately needed, and they look nice too.

Wind power is never going to be a real alternative. It produces relatively little energy, uses many, many fossil fuels in their production, kills wildlife, large farms disrupt wind currents on the ground, they require lots of maintenance, using more energy(from fossil fuels) and destroy the beutiful view - what's the point in destroying the one thing we're trying to protect.

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy there is and we've been doing it for years, the french produce about 80% of their energy from Nuclear. People in power should grow up and face reality.

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy there is and we've been doing it for years, the french produce about 80% of their energy from Nuclear. People in power should grow up and face reality.
Well said. :thumbsup:
To be fair to Tony Blair he is grasping the nettle though.

I've got nothing against nuclear power, it's the waste it produces, if we could find some way of safely handling it then I'd be all for lots of power stations.