The wind power myth exploded?

Question

See this report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7546466.stm

Seems to me that the wind turbines are just an expensive and inefficient means of producing electricity which if this report is true will use more carbon that it will ever repay in the lifetime of the machine. As most of the European ones are produced in Germany this also includes the transport costs to deliver.

Seems to me that the EU directive on CO2 emissions is more for the German production of these unsightly beasts than anything to do with saving the planet.

Answer 1

you are extrapolating from a report on small roof mounted horizontal axis turbines, well known to be inefficient, to all turbines.

typical denyer tactic.

Answer 2

I still think it is a move in the right direction. These studies never seem to take into account the CO2 emissions it took to create the energy plant that would be supplying the energy the turbine displaces, or how many more energy plants that will need to be built if noone uses solar or windpower at an individual level. How about the fact that people who invest in personal energy production tend to become very aware of how much energy they use and often reduce their usage.

Answer 3

Wind power even if it can repay the carbon emissions of turbine construction isn't reliable enough to actually take over from fossil fuels on a large scale.

The whole point of wind and ground based solar is that they make people think they are doing something to help the environment and replace fossil fuels without actually replacing them or solving our CO2 problem.  But making people think that wind and solar are solutions when they are not means that people become willing to reject nuclear power which is a solution (those who realise that wind and ground based solar are essentially useless tend not to be anti-nuclear).

Answer 4

oh dear, thats a blow innit

did you see that enviroman george monbiot say he doesnt care about nuclear anymore, only about reducing CO2

and then the former energy minister said he should get a gold medal for slow learning?

lmao

Answer 5

As more and more of these windmills appear and the performance of them is measured, the Greenies are going to find they have been backing the wrong horse.  

Answer 6

I confess that i absolutely hate them, a complete blot on the landscape, as to the ones out to sea, well words can't be printed here, what i really think

Answer 7

Try reading the whole article.   It explodes your wish that wind power is a myth.   Wind power is extremely reliable when trubines are placed in the correct locations.   While in Germany the wind did not stop blowing ONCE in the two months I was there.   What about the cost and distance of transporting oil?    Do you complain about that?    BTW, Vestas, a Danish company makes the most wind turbines in Europe.   I'd much rather see a field full of wind turbines than the smoke belching coal plant near me.

Answer 8

Wrong, I'm afraid. The report shows that when sited properly, wind can make a valuable contribution to carbon reduction. One of the major reasons that wind looks uncompetitive is the level of subsidy given to its competitors, especially nuclear. The CANE web site gives a good account of the real cost of nuclear power.

The Carbon Trust quite properly pointed out that the first option should be to reduce usage by using the most energy efficient light and heat sources and insulation and that small scale wind generation in towns will not be cost effective, but where wind speeds are four times higher, in rural communities and offshore, they are.