Wind turbines

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I was irradiated (70 runcons) over A 10 month period 1959/1960.

What does not kill you only makes you stronger:coolgleamA:





The blame has to fall on Greenpeace (again) They hate anything to do with coal.

Pretty much sums up the state we are in now, or more precisely will be in 5-10 year time.
 
Hidden message?

Jessica Aldred guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 May 2008 00.01 BST Article history
Sizewell B power station

1934 Nuclear fission is first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi.

1956 The Queen opens the first two 65MW dual purpose reactors at Calder Hall at Windscale (later Sellafield). The government says Britain has become "the first station anywhere in the world to produce electricity from atomic energy on a full industrial scale".

1957 The government promises a nuclear power building programme that would achieve 5,000-6,000MW capacity by 1965.

The world's first nuclear power accident occurs at Windscale in west Cumbria, when a fire in the reactor results in a release of radioactivity. The then prime minister, Harold Macmillan, told the cabinet that he was suppressing the report that detailed the full extent of the disaster, defects in organisation and technical shortcomings. The facts were not made public for 30 years.

1960 Government white paper scales back nuclear building plans to 3,000MW, acknowledging that coal generation is 25% cheaper.

1962 Berkeley nuclear power station, situated on the bank of the River Severn, in Gloucestershire, begins generating electricity.

1964 The Government white paper, The Second Nuclear Programme, says 5,000MW of new plants will be built between 1970-76.

This begins the era of advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) after other designs are rejected. Minister for power Fred Lee tells the House of Commons: "We have won the jackpot this time - we have the greatest breakthrough of all times."

Magnox reprocessing plant opens at Windscale for the dual purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons and fast-breeder reactor fuel.

1965 Proposed building programme for AGRs increased to 8,000MW.

1966 First AGR construction begins.

1977 Last of seven AGR stations is ordered for Heysham, Lancashire, to complete the 8,000MW programme. The Central Electricity Generating Board describes them as "one of the major blunders of British industrial policy."

1979 Energy secretary David Howell announces 10 new pressurised water reactors (PWR) to be built, calling nuclear power "a cheaper form of electricity generation than any known to man".

1983 Planning inquiry for the first PWR at Sizewell in Suffolk starts, lasting two years.

Government forced to abandon dumping of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste in the Atlantic following pressure from environmental groups.

1986 The world's worst nuclear accident occurs at Chernobyl in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.

1987 Plans for Sizewell B approved.

1988 Construction begins on Sizewell B, the first of a family of four PWRs that are planned but later abandoned.

The government decides to privatise electricity production and a "nuclear tax" is proposed.

1989 Magnox reactors are withdrawn from electricity privatisation. The city refuses to buy the older stations because of decommissioning costs and the taxpayer is left with the bill.

AGRs and Sizewell B are withdrawn from privatisation because city investors discover that the cost of generating nuclear power is far greater than that of coal.

1990 Nuclear levy is introduced to cover the difference between the cost of generating nuclear energy and coal, adding 11% to electricity bills.

The cost of building Sizewell B increases from £1.69bn to £2.03bn.

1991 Government announces plans for a nuclear waste repository costing between £2.5bn and £3.5bn that would be completed by 2005.

1992 International Atomic Agency says the building up of vast stocks of plutonium at reprocessing plants poses "a major political and security risk".

1993 It is revealed that the 11% nuclear levy on electricity bills has not been put aside for dealing with decommissioning costs and waste, but spent on building Sizewell B. Economists estimate that the projected income from the levy between 1990-98 will represent a £9.1bn subsidy for the nuclear industry.

1994 Government announces nuclear reviews, one into whether new nuclear stations can be built and the seond into whether the industry can be privatised.

1995 Government decides to make a second attempt to privatise AGRs and the still-to-be-completed Sizewell B.

1996 Sell-off of the newer nuclear stations goes ahead. Despite calls for its cancellation because of delays and cost overruns, Sizewell B opens.

1997 Two nuclear waste stores are to be built at Sellafield, to take intermediate-level waste for the next 50 years. Another 10 are planned for the future.

1998 Deputy prime minister John Prescott signs agreement to progressively reduce concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment as a result of emissions from Sellafield.

2000 In February, the British Nuclear Fuels chief executive, John Taylor, resigns over a scandal relating to faked safety records at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria.

2002 Bradwell power station is shut down after 40 years of operation.

2003 The government's 2003 energy white paper highlights the lack of planned new nuclear plants to replace decommissioned ones, but rejects the technology, saying "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity".

September 2004 The European commission launches legal action against the government over "unacceptable" failings in dealing with nuclear waste at Sellafield.

May 2005 A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel forces the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.

October 2005 The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, voices his support for a nuclear power revival, saying there are economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors.

November 2005 The then prime minister, Tony Blair, commissions a second white paper on energy policy and confirms that a new generation of nuclear power station's is to be considered. He says nuclear power is once again a serious option because "the facts have changed over the last couple of years".

March 2006 The Sustainable Development Commission warns Tony Blair that there is "no justification" for a new nuclear programme.

April 2006 The government's environment audit committee warns that a new generation of nuclear power stations would not be able to avert a serious energy crisis. The government has become "too focused" on nuclear energy, it says.

May 2006 Tony Blair endorses a new generation of nuclear power stations in a speech to business leaders. He says the issue of a new generation of stations is back on the agenda "with avengeance". He is backed up again by King.

July 2006 The new white paper confirms that nuclear power is back on the agenda. It says a mix of energy supplies is essential and that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution. The review says it will be up to the private sector to cover the costs of investment, decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste.

Major power generators such as E.ON and EDF welcome what they call an "important milestone".

October 2006 Greenpeace launched a court action claiming that the government's consultation was "legally flawed".

February 2007 Greenpeace wins its case and governmen launches a new consultation, which includes plans to treble the amount of electricity from renewable sources and signals a return to the government's nuclear agenda.

A Guardian/ICM poll shows opponents of nuclear energy narrowly outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44%.

November 2007 New prime minister, Gordon Brown, calls for an acceleration of nuclear power in a speech to business leaders.

January 2008 The government announces its nuclear plans. It backs a new generation of nuclear power stations.

March 2008 Britain and France announce a deal to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and to export the technology around the world. The deal will allow Britain to take advantage of French expertise in building new reactors.

May 2008 Half a million people in the UK hit by power cuts as seven power stations, including Sizewell B, unexpectedly stop working.


June 2008 Government inspectors warn that plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations may be delayed because of a shortage of skilled engineers.

July 2008 In a speech to EU states, Gordon Brown calls for eight new nuclear plants to be built in as part of a 'nuclear renaissance' in the UK.

September 2008 Business secretary John Hutton calls for a 'renaissance in nuclear power' in a speech to parliament.

French energy giant EDF finalises a £12.4bn deal to buy British Energy, which runs eight nuclear sites with land on which new reactors could be built.

January 2009 Gordon Brown backs plans for a new nuclear power station at Sellafield, after the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority agrees to provide land for the building of two new stations adjacent to the old site.

February 2009 Magnox Electric Ltd, the operator of the Bradwell-on-Sea nuclear plant, is found guilty of allowing a radioactive leak to continue at the site for 14 years between 1990 and 2004.

April 2009 The government publishes a list of potential sites for a new generation of nuclear plants.

Reading this impartial? nuclear history does nothing to allay my concerns over its safety..... Is it worth the risk, or should we be investing in clean alternatives and trying to reduce our energy consumption?


Has B-O-S Jim infiltrated a bee forum (naughty naughty!) if it is you please don't hide behind 'Somerset', Could be Crispin I suppose. If not, my appologies.:cuss:
 
Has B-O-S Jim infiltrated a bee forum (naughty naughty!) if it is you please don't hide behind 'Somerset', Could be Crispin I suppose. If not, my appologies.
Lol, not sure what this means?
 
I don`t think i`ve seen a member called "Somerset".
It`s just like the Da Vinci code what with "hidden messages" & infiltrations.
I wont be able to sleep properly tonight with all this cloak & dagger stuff going on, lol.
 
Last edited:
Location

I don`t think i`ve seen a member called "Somerset".
It`s just like the Da Vinci code what with "hidden messages" & infiltrations.
I wont be able to sleep properly tonight with all this cloak & dagger stuff going on, lol.

Location Location Location!!! as Spencer says, just a guessing game really.

Some people take this too seriously, all talk of nimbys conning people with wrong facts etc (not wrong) for Gods sake its a bee forum not the hustings.
I would hope people would give a more info on their location, so when bee matters are debated we would more idea if they would affect us. Bit like a plume really.
 
I would hope people would give a more info on their location, so when bee matters are debated we would more idea if they would affect us.
I live in the small Mendip village of Stoke St Michael, I used to live in Watchet, which probably isn't far from you.
My Mum still does live in Watchet and is an avid fan of wind turbines! :)
 
Lovely little harbour at Watchet :).

Forget the name of the pub by the harbour masters office ?
I remember the ale though :cheers2:

John Wilkinson
 
Lovely little harbour at Watchet :).

Forget the name of the pub by the harbour masters office ?
I remember the ale though :cheers2:

John Wilkinson

So thats where Keith took you for a pint or ten then John :cheers2: ......lol......nice little harbour at porlock weir as well.....and watering hole.
 
ID

I live in the small Mendip village of Stoke St Michael, I used to live in Watchet, which probably isn't far from you.
My Mum still does live in Watchet and is an avid fan of wind turbines! :)

Sorry for the mistaken ID, BOS Jim is Jim Duffy of the Stop Hinkley campaign. (Got the right name really) That was uncalled for, then again no it wasn't! :driving:
roadster
 
Sorry for the mistaken ID, BOS Jim is Jim Duffy of the Stop Hinkley campaign. (Got the right name really) That was uncalled for, then again no it wasn't!
Lol, thats Ok! ;)
Part of the reason we moved was to put some distance between ourselves and Hinkley, though I think we are still too close for comfort........
Nuclear power is obviously am emotive subject, but it's a good thing that people can express their opinions, whether for or against -debate is healthy!
 
I stand by my comment. Here are your two 'really useful' contributions to the discussion.

3200 1 MW 400 ft high wind turbines

proposing 410 ft 2.5 mw windmills

ONlY a factor of 250% difference in the size; No numbers stated when actually supposedly quoting from their website.

You conveniently state a number off the top of your head in post #7 - err and how many are Severn Trent applying for permission to erect? Bet it's not the 3200 you were spouting about in your previous post!!!!

You are simply misusing simple data in a simple way to try to influence simple people to take your simple line of NIMBY.

Don't cherry pick information, misuse information and exaggerate; do get your facts at least somewhere near right; supply all the relevant facts. That should basically reduce your input to near zero on this particular thread, methinks, as it appears, from your contributions thus far, that your future posts on this subject may need some pre-thought.....BTW, I do hope they build those two x 1600MW turbines in your garden!

I rest my case QED and all that. Thanks and:seeya::seeya:

I thought I would join the cut and paste brigade

Severn Trent appeal over wind turbine
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Translation tools are available at the bottom of the page «

Credit: Leicester Mercury, www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk 4 June 2010

Water company Severn Trent is to appeal against the refusal of its controversial plans to build a massive wind turbine in the heart of the Leicestershire countryside.

Charnwood Borough Council rejected the firm’s proposed 433ft ?(132m) high structure next to the A6 at Rothley. (429ft I think!)

Planning committee members felt that something so big would harm the appearance of the surrounding countryside and the picturesque Soar Valley.

Villagers had objected to the scheme because they feared they would be disturbed by light-flicker and noise from the large, spinning rotors, but the council did not reject the scheme on those grounds.

Severn Trent has told the Leicester Mercury it intends to challenge the decision and ask a Government planning inspector to over-rule the council.

A spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed that the planning committee refused planning for a single wind turbine at our Wanlip sewage treatment works.

“We feel this is a good location for this development, as it is immediately adjacent to the sewage treatment works and separated by busy roads from residential properties, which are some distance away.

“After reviewing the formal documentation and reasons behind the planning refusal, we have decided to appeal against this decision and we are compiling additional reports to submit alongside our appeal to the planning committee.”

The news of the appeal has dismayed villagers and countryside campaigners who fought the original application on land owned by the firm attached to its nearby Wanlip Sewage Treatment plant.

Joyce Noon, chairman of the Charnwood branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “It is not surprising they have appealed but it is disappointing.

“We feel if they must build wind turbines they should do it closer to the sewage plant, further down the valley and away from Rothley. They should build more smaller turbines rather than one giant one, which will totally ruin the character of the area.”

Rothley resident Peter Finch, who objected to the application, said: “If Severn Trent is determined to get this built they will find villagers are equally determined to continue to fight it.”

The firm says the turbine will feed enough electricity into the national grid to power 1,900 homes annually over 25 years, as well as reduce the emissions of harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 95,000 tonnes over its lifetime.

Normally when companies get permissions to do one thing, they usually want to go 'bigger and better'
:driving:
 
I stand by my comment. Here are your two 'really useful' contributions to the discussion.

3200 1 MW 400 ft high wind turbines

proposing 410 ft 2.5 mw windmills

ONlY a factor of 250% difference in the size; No numbers stated when actually supposedly quoting from their website.

You conveniently state a number off the top of your head in post #7 - err and how many are Severn Trent applying for permission to erect? Bet it's not the 3200 you were spouting about in your previous post!!!!

You are simply misusing simple data in a simple way to try to influence simple people to take your simple line of NIMBY.

Don't cherry pick information, misuse information and exaggerate; do get your facts at least somewhere near right; supply all the relevant facts. That should basically reduce your input to near zero on this particular thread, methinks, as it appears, from your contributions thus far, that your future posts on this subject may need some pre-thought.....BTW, I do hope they build those two x 1600MW turbines in your garden!

I rest my case QED and all that. Thanks and:seeya::seeya:

I thought I would join the cut and paste brigade

Severn Trent appeal over wind turbine
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Translation tools are available at the bottom of the page «

Credit: Leicester Mercury, www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk 4 June 2010

Water company Severn Trent is to appeal against the refusal of its controversial plans to build a massive wind turbine in the heart of the Leicestershire countryside.

Charnwood Borough Council rejected the firm’s proposed 433ft ?(132m) high structure next to the A6 at Rothley. (429ft I think!)

Planning committee members felt that something so big would harm the appearance of the surrounding countryside and the picturesque Soar Valley.

Villagers had objected to the scheme because they feared they would be disturbed by light-flicker and noise from the large, spinning rotors, but the council did not reject the scheme on those grounds.

Severn Trent has told the Leicester Mercury it intends to challenge the decision and ask a Government planning inspector to over-rule the council.

A spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed that the planning committee refused planning for a single wind turbine at our Wanlip sewage treatment works.

“We feel this is a good location for this development, as it is immediately adjacent to the sewage treatment works and separated by busy roads from residential properties, which are some distance away.

“After reviewing the formal documentation and reasons behind the planning refusal, we have decided to appeal against this decision and we are compiling additional reports to submit alongside our appeal to the planning committee.”

The news of the appeal has dismayed villagers and countryside campaigners who fought the original application on land owned by the firm attached to its nearby Wanlip Sewage Treatment plant.

Joyce Noon, chairman of the Charnwood branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “It is not surprising they have appealed but it is disappointing.

“We feel if they must build wind turbines they should do it closer to the sewage plant, further down the valley and away from Rothley. They should build more smaller turbines rather than one giant one, which will totally ruin the character of the area.”

Rothley resident Peter Finch, who objected to the application, said: “If Severn Trent is determined to get this built they will find villagers are equally determined to continue to fight it.”

The firm says the turbine will feed enough electricity into the national grid to power 1,900 homes annually over 25 years, as well as reduce the emissions of harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 95,000 tonnes over its lifetime.

Normally when companies get permissions to do one thing, they usually want to go 'bigger and better'. They will only need around 1280 dotted over the Quantocks and Exmoor. Plus all the cables, roads, etc.
:driving:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top