• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Another wind farm..."

Collapse

  • hyperD
    replied
    What a bollocks eye-straining graph.

    I was kind of expecting Colonel Sanders to make the top of that list.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by hyperD View Post
    FTFY
    If they aren't economically viable (or ecologically) then fine. I don't know the details.
    Assuming that they were, though, I'd be amazed that so many people don't like them.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Originally posted by wurzel View Post
    That's what the guy from G2 argued at the council meeting. 25 years & it would be decommissioned.

    Though the council planning officer, who backed the proposal, had to admit that after 25 years the site would be classified as a brownfield site & it would never return to just being a field.
    Exactly. The reason being that they might remove the useless sticking out bit, but the thousands of tonnes of concrete will not be removed (as can be seen by a previous picture I posted).

    Leave a comment:


  • wurzel
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    Wind turbines don't have a particularly long life so they'll be rusty eye sores within 20 years.
    That's what the guy from G2 argued at the council meeting. 25 years & it would be decommissioned.

    Though the council planning officer, who backed the proposal, had to admit that after 25 years the site would be classified as a brownfield site & it would never return to just being a field.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Wind turbines don't have a particularly long life so they'll be rusty eye sores within 20 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
    I think the turbines are beautiful things. They're elegant and are a monument to human stupidity.
    FTFY

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    You always have to remember their purpose is not to produce electricity, they never will produce any sensible amount of electricity, they have a symbolic purpose. They're there to make people feel better.

    People drive past and think "ah we're saving the planet" and completely ignore the unchanging emissions curve.

    All the coal and gas being produced will get consumed regardless of how many wind turbines are stuck up.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    I think the turbines are beautiful things. They're elegant and are a monument to human ingenuity.

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    I found another wind farm here...



    All that methane sure does give off a stink.

    Leave a comment:


  • wurzel
    replied
    Some goods new to report on this (if you don't like wind farms, that is).

    Got voted down unanimously 11-0. They cited visual impact on landscape and knock on effect to tourism, threat to heritage assets and local ecology (horseshoe bats, peregrine falcons etc).

    But here's the real clincher:

    Last edited by wurzel; 9 May 2014, 21:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Here's a 900 tonne concrete base for one of those 3MW useless feckers:



    Try digging that up.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    So they'd rather have watched it being chewed up alive by a cat? Bastards.


    DUCK

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    "It was seen by birders fly straight into the turbine. It is ironic that after waiting so long for this bird to turn up in the UK, it was killed by a wind turbine and not a natural predator
    So they'd rather have watched it being chewed up alive by a cat? Bastards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Could have been worse (for the bird)

    BBC NEWS | England | Twitchers accused of bird's death

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X