The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
LongQ said:
If the old bases cannot be re-utilised in some way and if the new bases are larger (which seems likely but who knows .....?) then ever larger chunks of moorland will be replaced by concrete and steel.
They'll be larger - but fewer of them. Llandinam (Powys) was built in '92 with 100 turbines and around 30MW capacity. The 'repowering' involves under 40 turbines, and capacity jumps to over 100MW.
Turbine height is roughly 3 times higher. I don't know the physics in terms of foundation size but I'm guessing foundations are 9 times heavier...
I suspect most windfarm operators have to provide insurance-backed decommissioning bonds in case they go belly-up...?
silentbrown said:
I suspect most windfarm operators have to provide insurance-backed decommissioning bonds in case they go belly-up...?
Govt was severely lacking in the early days regarding requesting funds from developers for decommissioning. But they have been putting the pressure on over the past few years, primarily for offshore wind. There is guidance published by govt on the requirement of decommissioning programmes for offshore renewables...but guidance for onshore renewables is lacking. Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Access roads are just paid hardcore - again, used in construction projects all over
Here is a typical condition for decommissioning from Torridge DC
Nothing is said about what should be done about the access road. Simply put, that land has been taken out of food production.
rolando said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Access roads are just paid hardcore - again, used in construction projects all over
Here is a typical condition for decommissioning from Torridge DCNothing is said about what should be done about the access road. Simply put, that land has been taken out of food production.
In terms of land use I would guess that several hundred tons of concrete and steel 1M underground is not a great recipe for arable use and even grass for grazing along with land drainage might well be compromised.
The value of the land with planning permission for a "distribution centre" would probably be much more attractive to both the land owner and the local council's rates collection department.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 11th November 16:50
LongQ said:
The value of the land with planning permission for a "distribution centre" would probably be much more attractive to both the land owner and the local council's rates collection department.
Just what is not wanted on high ground visible for tens of miles around. One eyesore exchanged for another.(Sorry for the drift)
LongQ said:
In terms of land use I would guess that several hundred tons of concrete and steel 1M underground is not a great recipe for arable use and even grass for grazing along with land drainage might well be compromised.
Isolated spots of ground on a hill with 1m of topsoil won't have any effect.In Wales we have hundreds of hills that are coal mine waste or landfill rubbish with just a bit of clay and topsoil!
Evanivitch said:
LongQ said:
In terms of land use I would guess that several hundred tons of concrete and steel 1M underground is not a great recipe for arable use and even grass for grazing along with land drainage might well be compromised.
Isolated spots of ground on a hill with 1m of topsoil won't have any effect.In Wales we have hundreds of hills that are coal mine waste or landfill rubbish with just a bit of clay and topsoil!
So you won't mind if the rest of it that is not currently so overtly industrialised eventually goes the same way?
rolando said:
LongQ said:
The value of the land with planning permission for a "distribution centre" would probably be much more attractive to both the land owner and the local council's rates collection department.
Just what is not wanted on high ground visible for tens of miles around. One eyesore exchanged for another.(Sorry for the drift)
LongQ said:
Evanivitch said:
LongQ said:
In terms of land use I would guess that several hundred tons of concrete and steel 1M underground is not a great recipe for arable use and even grass for grazing along with land drainage might well be compromised.
Isolated spots of ground on a hill with 1m of topsoil won't have any effect.In Wales we have hundreds of hills that are coal mine waste or landfill rubbish with just a bit of clay and topsoil!
So you won't mind if the rest of it that is not currently so overtly industrialised eventually goes the same way?
Except for the principle of Welsh land being used to subsidise English NIMBYism for little reward. Bit at least it's the French and Germans profiting from it.
'Potentially catastrophic' wind turbines next to road will stay
This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
Evanivitch said:
LongQ said:
Evanivitch said:
LongQ said:
In terms of land use I would guess that several hundred tons of concrete and steel 1M underground is not a great recipe for arable use and even grass for grazing along with land drainage might well be compromised.
Isolated spots of ground on a hill with 1m of topsoil won't have any effect.In Wales we have hundreds of hills that are coal mine waste or landfill rubbish with just a bit of clay and topsoil!
So you won't mind if the rest of it that is not currently so overtly industrialised eventually goes the same way?
Except for the principle of Welsh land being used to subsidise English NIMBYism for little reward. Bit at least it's the French and Germans profiting from it.
rolando said:
'Potentially catastrophic' wind turbines next to road will stay
This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
What about power cables over roads? Or gas pipelines under them? Or bridges or tunnels? Or other cars!?This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
Catastrophic turbine failure is statistically unlikely.
Evanivitch said:
rolando said:
'Potentially catastrophic' wind turbines next to road will stay
This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
What about power cables over roads? Or gas pipelines under them? Or bridges or tunnels? Or other cars!?This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
Catastrophic turbine failure is statistically unlikely.
rolando said:
'Potentially catastrophic' wind turbines next to road will stay
This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
There have been instances of turbines breaking off during strong winds. And what a silly place to have the turbines! Unbelievable from the local planning team.This is the sort of bad planning decision we have to put up with.
Officer's decision was made on the basis of the applicant's risk assessment despite the report by Devon Highways.
And don't say wind turbines never fall over. They do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff