World's largest offshore wind farm opens

The Largest offshore windfarm has just opened off the coast of Kent. It's still being built, but the 100 turbines there will start generating electricity, with the expectation that there will be 341 turbines in total.Apparently, the 100 turbines should generate enough electricity for 240,000 homes.

On the one hand they generate clean energy, on the other hand they are an eyesore. So how useful are wind farms in other parts of the globe. Does it work, or is it more of a bonus when it comes to electricity.

More on the story here

I find the eyesore argument against them kind of silly. It's not as if a coal plant is pretty, after all. On a small scale, wind farming is great. I know a number of people around here who have wind power on their farms (plants and animals, not wind) and it seems to work fantastically.

On a larger scale, though, I'm not sure if it's really the best investment as far as renewable energy goes. Wind is intermittent, for one. There are also a lot of other options being neglected in favor of wind farming.

Why are they an eyesore? I never understood that part at all.

Wind Farms can be very useful. It is an excellent source of renewable energy. Largely carbon and pollution free. Anywhere with steady winds is a candidate. The technology keeps improving.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I find the eyesore argument against them kind of silly. It's not as if a coal plant is pretty, after all. On a small scale, wind farming is great. I know a number of people around here who have wind power on their farms (plants and animals, not wind) and it seems to work fantastically.

On a larger scale, though, I'm not sure if it's really the best investment as far as renewable energy goes. Wind is intermittent, for one. There are also a lot of other options being neglected in favor of wind farming.

---

Zuul, nothing is being neglected in favor of wind. Energy needs to come from many sources and each has problems. You know the fight against nukes. Solar is not really that cost effective yet without the subsidies. Hydroelectric is a tough sell and it does immediately change the local environment, Solar Towers are interesting ideas but so far not practical, burning trash is very problematic, cleaning up coal is expensive and the industry fights it. Natural Gas is fairly good but more expensive than dirty coal. So wind is a cheap and fairly easy solution. It generates a lot of power cheaply and there are places where the winds are pretty steady. We cannot go to wind only but no one is suggesting that either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Zuul, nothing is being neglected in favor of wind. Energy needs to come from many sources and each has problems. You know the fight against nukes. Solar is not really that cost effective yet without the subsidies. Hydroelectric is a tough sell and it does immediately change the local environment, Solar Towers are interesting ideas but so far not practical, burning trash is very problematic, cleaning up coal is expensive and the industry fights it. Natural Gas is fairly good but more expensive than dirty coal. So wind is a cheap and fairly easy solution. It generates a lot of power cheaply and there are places where the winds are pretty steady. We cannot go to wind only but no one is suggesting that either.

---

It's cheap and fairly easy, but it's not the only solution and even if no one is suggesting it be treated as the only solution, it's also being relied on disproportionately compared to other, potentially better, solutions. I don't have anything against wind farms. I just think that they're being used as a band-aid instead of investing more research in making solar energy or other sources of energy more practical. I'm not the only one thinking so, either:

Quote:

---

But Professor Ian Fells, an energy expert, said: "What worries me is the government seems to be obsessed with the option of wind farms and neglects other sources of renewable energy, which in may ways could be more important."

---

Solar could use more investment but it is hardly being ignored. Besides the US subsidies, Germany and South Africa are investing heavily in Solar Panel development to make it cheaper and more efficient. BP is heavily investing in Solar. The main reason why I don't rant and rave about BP the way I did about Exxon. Solar has the same of more limitations as Wind as far as not being a constant source of power.

I made a social investment about 7 years ago to put panels on my roof. I have a 6700 watt system. The state paid 70% of the bill and I still expected the pay-back to be 10-12 years. Now as a pleasant surprise the panels paid for themselves already. The rates went up quicker than I or anyone in the industry expected and the Green Credits have risen steadily hitting a full $1000 this year. My company is putting panels up on most of the roof as a phase one project to greatly reduce the cost of power and phase two if things go well is to roof over the parking lots and have the roofs be more panels.

The Holy Grails of energy is sustainable Fusion which is always 20 years away. :) And cheap solar panel material that just becomes the defacto roofing product. But Wind is another important part of the puzzle.

Here is another easy one we are failing at as a world. Efficiency. We could go a long way towards more efficient products. Cable boxes that burn more than a watt when not even in use. Inefficient Hot Water Heaters, Electric Heat for that matter. Plasma TVs use roughly twice the energy as the same size LCD. Hundreds of appliances use energy when not actually in use. Our transmission network of wires is very dated and has huge losses. Then there is lighting. Incandescent bulbs should be phasing out by now but people can't let go of them. LED lighting should have government and industry support as the near future. I am already using some and most of my house is on CFLs.

Great, so how long until it explodes and spills wind all over the ocean? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Incandescent bulbs should be phasing out by now but people can't let go of them. LED lighting should have government and industry support as the near future. I am already using some and most of my house is on CFLs.

---

I had to quote this because there's a 7+ page thread on my favorite stupid forum about how THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUT LIGHT BULBS and I weep a little.
http://www.backyardchickens.com/foru....php?id=399549