I live off the
Botley Road, around
the corner from the
proposed site and
see no issue with
the plans to put up
this turbine. That
it interrupts the
view of Oxford is
disappointing;
However, everybody
needs to work
towards reducing
carbon emissions and
wind turbines,
whilst not the most
aesthetically
pleasing things in
the world, do help
towards this.
We can no longer put
the view from our
windows above the
need to save our
environment.

When taking into
account the
manufacturing,
installation,
maintenance
requirements,
inefficiency and
limited lifespan of
these turbines; are
they really a
'green' option?

They're greener than burning gas, coal and oil. More expensive? yes. unfortunately, we now have to pay for the cheaper and dirtier option we've relied on. I'd rathger a thousand turbines costing 4 times more than more CO2 or the nuclear option.

You are all niave, Green? Has anyone actually thought of all the non environmental friendly chemicals and processes that go into making the composites and metals that make these structures? Nothing in this life is green. Not even Turbines, Eco Friendly Lightbulbs, Hybrid cars and so on.

Er, isn't it rather tokenism gone mad? You'd need a lot of these turbines to make much of an impact on Botley's power needs, let alone Oxford's.

And as John points out, you do need a careful analysis of the 'carbon footprint' (not to mention other pollutant costs) of the manufacture and eventual decommissioning of the thing before you declare it 'green'. It ain't necessarily so.

Oxford's cherished skyline of dreaming spires could be dramatically altered with the city's first wind turbine - standing 85 metres tall.

I can't help wondering if that's the entire point--to add one of these hideous monuments to Green politics to Oxford's familiar silhouette. "Tokenism" is the right word here: it looks like it's just another rather sad example of the importance of making a point instead of making things better.

Thing is, everyone who disagrees with this isn't actually coming up with any alternatives. Constantly saying wind turbines are necessarily green. I'm trying to envisage how much CO2 is emitted during construction, erection and decommissioning versus a dirty great power station pumping out tonnes of CO2 every day, and to be honest the idea that the turbine is not greener jars, ever so slightly.
The main issue here is some people don't want to have to deal with the fact that pollution is actually causing problems, they'd rather not have the inconvenience of paying more for their electricity and worry about the value of their houses. We live in a world where thousands of these turbines, solar panels and other more eco friendly but more expensive energy providers are needed but nobody wants them in their back yards.
I hope it gets the go ahead, we've spent a good 100 years pumping crap into the atmosphere in the name of energy and we have to pay the price. That price is spoiled views, noisy turbines, less powerful cars, energy efficient light bulbs and higher energy bills. If we don't pay the price then those of us with children better invest in several thousand tonnes of sunblock and buy a house in the mountains before half the country is flooded.

What happened to the post by the American offering a low-rise wind turbine solution? It was here about 5 hours ago and has now disappeared ...

A recent independent House of Commons review concluded that wind taurbines 'payback' the carbon expended in their manufacture and installation in 3-9 months depending on location. Their standard life span is 25 years therefore definately making them carbon negative.

To be honest, who cares? Jeremy Clarkson is right, if all this sandalista fuss saves the planet for six years in centuries from now, what difference does it make? I won't be around to see it. All the brown rice veggi-fascists need to get a life and buy a bigger car.

M wrote:
Thing is, everyone who disagrees with this isn't actually coming up with any alternatives. Constantly saying wind turbines are necessarily green. I'm trying to envisage how much CO2 is emitted during construction, erection and decommissioning versus a dirty great power station pumping out tonnes of CO2 every day, and to be honest the idea that the turbine is not greener jars, ever so slightly. The main issue here is some people don't want to have to deal with the fact that pollution is actually causing problems, they'd rather not have the inconvenience of paying more for their electricity and worry about the value of their houses. We live in a world where thousands of these turbines, solar panels and other more eco friendly but more expensive energy providers are needed but nobody wants them in their back yards. I hope it gets the go ahead, we've spent a good 100 years pumping crap into the atmosphere in the name of energy and we have to pay the price. That price is spoiled views, noisy turbines, less powerful cars, energy efficient light bulbs and higher energy bills. If we don't pay the price then those of us with children better invest in several thousand tonnes of sunblock and buy a house in the mountains before half the country is flooded.

The point i am trying to make is they are NOT GREEN, Yes they are Greener but not Totally Green as some environmentalists and Our Political leaders would have us believe. Is the Carbon Footprint of one of these giant Turbines Less than the Carbon Footprint of a Normal Power station generating the Equivilant Amount of Electricity? What is the Carbon Footprint of Nuclear or Fusion Power?

A Recent report also stated that Low rise Wind Turbines of the type suitable for installation on Individual Houses is very inefficient. This is due a lack of Wind and turbalance generated by the Owners Roof, so I would not suggest buying one of these!

John wrote:

M wrote:
Thing is, everyone who disagrees with this isn't actually coming up with any alternatives. Constantly saying wind turbines are necessarily green. I'm trying to envisage how much CO2 is emitted during construction, erection and decommissioning versus a dirty great power station pumping out tonnes of CO2 every day, and to be honest the idea that the turbine is not greener jars, ever so slightly. The main issue here is some people don't want to have to deal with the fact that pollution is actually causing problems, they'd rather not have the inconvenience of paying more for their electricity and worry about the value of their houses. We live in a world where thousands of these turbines, solar panels and other more eco friendly but more expensive energy providers are needed but nobody wants them in their back yards. I hope it gets the go ahead, we've spent a good 100 years pumping crap into the atmosphere in the name of energy and we have to pay the price. That price is spoiled views, noisy turbines, less powerful cars, energy efficient light bulbs and higher energy bills. If we don't pay the price then those of us with children better invest in several thousand tonnes of sunblock and buy a house in the mountains before half the country is flooded.

The point i am trying to make is they are NOT GREEN, Yes they are Greener but not Totally Green as some environmentalists and Our Political leaders would have us believe. Is the Carbon Footprint of one of these giant Turbines Less than the Carbon Footprint of a Normal Power station generating the Equivilant Amount of Electricity? What is the Carbon Footprint of Nuclear or Fusion Power?

And what is the footprint of building a normal power station, or a nuclear power station? You haven't included that in your "argument".

All electricity generating technologies emit CO2 at some point in their lifecycle. Life cycle inventory analysis is used to measure the amount of CO2 emitted during a technology's life cycle. A report from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology clearly states that fossil fuel technologies generate the most carbon in their life cycle at 1000g CO2/kWh, most of this during the plant's operational phase. Wind turbines are classified as 'low carbon' technolgy and alongside Hydro-electric plants and nuclear plants generate 100g CO2/kWh, most of this during non-operational phases.
1 tenth of the Carbon during its life cycle compared to power stations burning oil and coal.
On top of that, onshore wind turbines generate slightly less CO2 than offshore.
The life cycle includes Construction, operatio, decommissioning for both types of technologies. Plus the extraction, processing and transport of fossil fuels.
If you're not convinced take a look at this site, read the report then come back and say that moving towards this kind of technology is pointless.
www.parliament.uk/do
cument/upload/postpn
268.pdf

M - That's more like it: proper analysis and specific language, not the half-baked tripe that passes for 'comment' round these parts! Many thanks.

My pleasure James.
I know that Turbines are not everyone's cup of tea, I'm fully aware that Oxford's skyline would be intruded upon. However, we live in a world that is suffering because of the damage unwittingly done in the past. I wish it wasn't the case and would love to live in a world of beautiful landscapes and crisp clean air, that energy was created without any form of damage or pollution, where cars ran on CO2 and pumped out O2, where flying from country to country caused no emissions whatsoever. But we don't, we live in a world that is increasingly poisonous, any moves towards reducing the amount of carbon with we fill the air we breathe is a positive move. Even if it means spoiling the view from our windows.

M wrote:
My pleasure James. I know that Turbines are not everyone\'s cup of tea, I\'m fully aware that Oxford\'s skyline would be intruded upon. However, we live in a world that is suffering because of the damage unwittingly done in the past. I wish it wasn\'t the case and would love to live in a world of beautiful landscapes and crisp clean air, that energy was created without any form of damage or pollution, where cars ran on CO2 and pumped out O2, where flying from country to country caused no emissions whatsoever. But we don\'t, we live in a world that is increasingly poisonous, any moves towards reducing the amount of carbon with we fill the air we breathe is a positive move. Even if it means spoiling the view from our windows.

So M you are for it. Are you prepared to pay me the value that my house drops by when this monster is built? I am selling my house at the moment and I am really worried this monster will make its value plummet...

Sorry Jim, I need to save if my house value drops too. Yes I am for it, I like to think the future safety of the environment for my kids and their kids is more important than my bank balance.

Aesthetically I think wind turbines are pleasing. A monument to a modern age. A rare symbol of technology and the environment working together. Perhaps a daily reminder of the process of power generation will help us to think about our power consumption.

It can only add to the ‘cherished’ sky line as it’s situated next to Seacourt tower!

If it does make a noise I’m sure it will be drowned out by the constant drone of traffic from the A34

go to Germany they have lots of them higher than 60m and after a while you dont even notice them and they are in the mountains of Germany and to be honest they are not the blot on the landscape you would think they would be.
They are not that noisey the A34 is worse

I don't have a problem with it, I live close to the proposed site and having seen the turbine installed near the M4 in Reading and the numerous wind farms in Cornwall, I don't think they're noisy or an eyesore at all. We need to find alternative ways of generating power and the Co-op should be applauded for making this decision. As for 'spoiling the view of Oxford from the A420' I think the maze of pylons, Seacourt tower and the J.R hospital do a pretty good job of that already! Given the choice I'd rather look at a wind turbine than the concrete eyesore that is Didcot power station!

Whats the problem with all the people here?? Wind turbines look cool. The would not be economical to put up if they were carbon positive, simple as that. Go do some proper research before making stupid claims.