| Non-motoring > Wind Farms. | Green Issues |
| Thread Author: Roger. | Replies: 43 |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 12:15
Wind Farms. - Roger.
|
|
A Delingpole rant, which I dare say some of you here will excoriate, but which I found interesting! (Link to Breitbart, London, that bastion of Libertarian thought!) tinyurl.com/lzoo95l |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 12:34
Wind Farms. - Bromptonaut
|
|
I agree whole heartedly with point 6 (subsidy moves money from poor to better off) but much of the rest is short of any apparent source for 'facts'. That they kill bats or birds seems plausible and common sense but still births? |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:54
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
" much of the rest is short of any apparent source for 'facts'." He does supply some links Brompt and the "stillbirths" mentioned were of Mink. The other points are "Googleable" Nevertheless, one of the problems of debating all this "renewable energy to combat Climate Change" is that both sides are prone to exaggeration - see Hockey Stick/ rising sea levels/extreme weather/Arctic Ice disappearing/children in Britain won't know what snow is/ Mann/ Gore/Obama/ decaprio(!!) etc compared to Delingpole/Anthony Watts/Christopher Booker/MacIntyre and McIntrick/Judith Curry etc etc. For example, one of the links in Delingpole is from a well qualified scientist who says (words to the effect of) "we are promoting wind farms which kill birds. Why do this when we are already losing 40 species a day to extinction" However, there is only one recorded "extinction" said to be caused by Climate change. A snail from some island group in the Indian Ocean. Declared extinct a few years ago because of lower rainfall and rising sea levels, it has been found again! www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8941/20140909/extinct-snail-reappears.htm "40 species a day?" But, according to "models" it is 40 species a YEAR but "where are all the corpses?" See wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/ It's actually very interesting!!! A couple of quotes "Wilson’s claim that 27,000 extinctions per year have been occurring since at least 1980 means that there should be 26 bird extinctions and 13 mammal extinctions per year, a total of 39 bird and mammal extinctions per year." "the most recent value being 0.2 extinctions per year." One of the "extinctions" was of an antelope from North Africa, the existence of which has only ever been proved by the discovery of "Algerian gazelle, Gazela Rufina, 1894 – Reason for extinction unknown, this species known only from an adult male skull and a flat skin. (CREO)" Anyway, I won't go on too long (!) but it seems odd to me that we are going through all this "renewable energy" lark to combat "Global Warming/Climate Change" 1) When everyone agrees that temps have not risen for at least 17 years (Yes even the Met Office!) 2) That anything done in Britain will have no impact whatsoever on CO2 emissions worldwide. 3) That expecting 3rd World Countries (is that PC??) to cut their CO2 emissions is unrealistic when so many of their people have no access to electricity and the quickest, easiest way to get them out of subsistence is cheap, electricity via coal or gas. Who are we to deny them that? 4) When Germany has realised that renewables are unreliable (when wind don't blow or sun don't shine) so is reverting to the most "polluting" generation possible - lignite. etc Did I say I wouldn't go on too long - oops - sorry. Finally - I'm all in favour of reducing pollution and environmental degradation, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant. P |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 17:23
Wind Farms. - Manatee
|
|
Not just wind. A couple of people we know here have the full solar array,which they get a good return on essentially from levies on electricity bills. They are of course very well off anyway, so it is a transfer of wealth from poorer to richer - the poor can't afford the panels, but they get the inflated bills. There's a 75 acre solar farm planned about half a mile from here, subject to permission. The parish council is to get a "bung" from the operator - to be spent on community projects of course, but if that doesn't suggest it's a lucrative racket I don't know what does. Without subsidies these investments would not be made. In terms of reducing CO2 would it not make more sense to encourage the developing world to adopt renewables rather than burn fossil fuel, and to develop nuclear power here? |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 17:34
Wind Farms. - Zero
|
| If you need to "subsidise" something, it has no commercial future. If it has no commercial future its not long term viable. If its not long term viable its of no use to meet greenhouse gas emissions. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:08
Wind Farms. - Roger.
|
| Spot on. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:39
Wind Farms. - Mark
|
|
There seem to be a few places in the US where once the subsidies stopped these just became scrap metal projects. tinyurl.com/oknlkxe tinyurl.com/bb4z7uq As always Mark |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:56
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
Yep. (To Roger and Z)
Last edited by: PhilW on Wed 8 Oct 14 at 18:57
|
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:46
Wind Farms. - CGNorwich
|
|
Is there any non subsidised electricity production that will reduce co2 emissionss? If there is not then the choice is between subsidies and increasing emissions. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 18:55
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
reduce co2 emissions?" Why would you want to do that? ;-) P |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 19:44
Wind Farms. - Roger.
|
|
Trees and plants need CO2 ! Trees and plants give off O ! |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 20:41
Wind Farms. - CGNorwich
|
|
>> Trees and plants need CO2 ! >> Trees and plants give off O ! >> And if we were trees or plants we wouldn't have too much cause for concern. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 21:08
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
"cause for concern" About exactly what GC? |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 21:27
Wind Farms. - wokingham
|
|
Increasing world population gives off increasing amounts of C02 Decreasing world trees etc absorb less C02 Overall CO2 increases and is allegedly a major contribution to global warming |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 21:42
Wind Farms. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Overall CO2 increases and is allegedly a major contribution to global warming And there's not many reputable scientists who'll deny, let alone disprove, that. The 'contras' tend to be public figures like Lord Lawson or Christopher Monckton who've got more profile than science. Warming of course is not, for good meteorological reasons, consistent over globe - hence the more accurate term Climate Change. Latterly (in historic terms) the UK and Europe's western coast has been unnaturally warm. Compare Edinburgh temperatures with those of Moscow - a city at similar latitude - due to Atlantic currents. If cooling elsewhere diverts that current UK will chill markedly. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 21:48
Wind Farms. - Old Navy
|
|
One good volcanic eruption can produce more C02 than mankind ever has. The climate has always changed and always will, its a good scam for taxation though. Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 8 Oct 14 at 21:50
|
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 21:58
Wind Farms. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> One good volcanic eruption can produce more C02 than mankind ever has. Evidence? |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 22:54
Wind Farms. - CGNorwich
|
|
>> >> One good volcanic eruption can produce more C02 than mankind ever has. >> >> >> Evidence? >> There is none but it doesn't stop this canard being trotted out. Here are some facts with citations as to sources which provide evidence that annual man man made emissions exceed volcanic emission by a huge factor. volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Of course the scientists would be lying though - it's all a conspiracy. |
|
New Wed 8 Oct 14 22:57
Wind Farms. - Kevin
|
|
>And there's not many reputable scientists who'll deny, let alone disprove, that. And by implication any scientist who does is disreputable and can be labelled as a "climate denier!" The 'reputable' scientists that I've spoken to will only say that they "don't know". Hopefully Copernicus will provide more clues. Last edited by: Kevin on Wed 8 Oct 14 at 22:58
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 10:29
Wind Farms. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And by implication any scientist who does is disreputable and can be labelled as a >> "climate denier!" Scientific theories might be expected to be advanced by articles in learned journals and subject to peer review. There is, or so I believe, little in the way of such evidence for those suggesting that rising CO2 levels and rising temperature are merely correlation and not causative. >> The 'reputable' scientists that I've spoken to will only say that they "don't know". >> >> Hopefully Copernicus will provide more clues. We've moved on from there - see learned journals etc. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 19:18
Wind Farms. - Kevin
|
|
>Scientific theories might be expected to be advanced by articles in learned journals.. >There is, or so I believe,.. All that tells us is that you know articles about Climate Change exist. You haven't read any of them, but you are prepared to believe that the case for ACC is already proven. >We've moved on from there - see learned journals etc. Well Bromp, if you're the expert you'd better email these folks and let them know they are wasting their time and shed loads of taxpayer's money. www.copernicus.eu/ |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 19:22
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
"There is, or so I believe, little in the way of such evidence for those suggesting that rising CO2 levels and rising temperature are merely correlation and not causative." "There is, or so I believe, little in the way of such evidence for those suggesting that rising CO2 levels and rising temperature are causative." Fixed it for you Brompt!! ;-) P Last edited by: PhilW on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 19:24
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 11:21
Wind Farms. - madf
|
|
ANY theory which works by forecasting has a simple test: do the actual results meet the forecast - within the forecast error of margin.? You can allow for a spread of results both above and below the forecast - that's forecasting error. BUT when the results are flatlining and the forecast is going up every year, there can only be one cause: the forecast is WRONG. Period. No debate. Those who disagree and quote "scientists" ignore the scientific principle " actual results prove or disprove theories". There can be no further debate: the theories of global warming - as currently propounded - are wrong. Note: I don't deny there has been climate change. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 12:49
Wind Farms. - No FM2R
|
|
>> " actual results prove or disprove theories" ...over time. Where in the world of climate change, "time" is quite a big thing. So if one measures the forecast accuracy over 10 years, is it still wrong? Over 50? Over 100? |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 13:40
Wind Farms. - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> the scientific principle " actual results prove or >> disprove theories". >> Results can disprove a theory, but never prove it. All they do, if they conform with the hypothesis, is establish it as the best theory so far. A pattern in the history of science is that a theory will suffice for the time being, adequately explaining the then-known facts, but gradually inconsistencies develop and a new theory has to be found. Scientists are as reluctant as anyone else to discard a neat, possibly simplistic theory, in the face of contrary facts. Newton doctored his observations of planets' orbits, Einstein fudged one of his theories, ironically thereby missing the chance of discovering an even bigger one, and lived to regret it. The most likely reason for a theory being wrong is surely that there are other, as yet unquantified factors at work, subject to other theories which have not yet been reconciled with the first. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 14:15
Wind Farms. - Zero
|
|
>> There can be no further debate: the theories of global warming - as currently propounded >> - are wrong. >> >> >> Note: I don't deny there has been climate change. So what is causing climate change? I also accept that climate change is happening, and not your normal "climate change over a long period of time" climate change. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 15:41
Wind Farms. - Manatee
|
|
>> There can be no further debate: the theories of global warming - as currently propounded >> - are wrong. Insufficient data? You're a scientist aren't you? Forecasts are always wrong, more or less, other than by coincidence, when they involve complex multivariate analysis in which many of the data are unreliable or estimated and some of the variables are missing, unknown unknowns. It doesn't necessarily mean the key hypothesis (more CO2 > climate change) is flawed. It might just mean that there are other factors at work that are not well understood - which seems likely. Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 16:49
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 15:57
Wind Farms. - madf
|
|
>> It doesn't necessarily mean the key hypothesis (more CO2 > climate change) is flawed. It >> might just mean that there are other factors at work that are not well understood >> - which seems likely. >> I don't dispute the climate is warming. It has been for the past 25,000 years or so..enough to prove it has been warming .. long before any industrial activity of man. We have the glaciated rocks within 800 meters to prove it.. BUT - and this is my key point - the climate change forecasters kept telling us "snow will be no longer" (University of Sussex), "hotter summers" (Met Office) etc - BASED on their models... which said the temperature would KEEP rising. Every year. And it's patently rubbish.. If they are going to publish forecasts designed to change human behaviour - and they were designed to do so - and get it wrong - they deserve to be distrusted and pilloried.. And if the forecast IS ALWAYS wrong in the same direction, that's a pretty good indication it's carp. Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 16:50
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 16:09
Wind Farms. - Armel Coussine
|
|
Global warming is neither here nor there in the matter of power generation. The pollution from hydrocarbons isn't the point, the point is that they will run out quite soon because we (that can of worms the 'world economy') are over-dependent on them. So it seems quite a good idea to develop a range of other sources of power - wind, photo-electric, wave, tidal even - not to mention trying to get a proper hold on nuclear which does seem to suffer from governmental villainy and onanism - and also to evolve less wickedly extravagant and planet-trashing ways of using power without suffering the social unrest always caused by a perceived decline in living standards. Damn tall order given our greedy and pig-headed nature. |
|
New Tue 14 Oct 14 16:55
Wind Farms. - madf
|
|
Global warming may not be damaging the Earth as quickly as feared after scientists found that plants can soak up more carbon dioxide than previously thought. According to researchers, climate models have failed to take into account that when carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plants thrive, become larger, and are able to absorb more CO2. tinyurl.com/kae5pgw |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 12:19
Wind Farms. - Boxsterboy
|
|
>> If you need to "subsidise" something, it has no commercial future. If it has no >> commercial future its not long term viable. If its not long term viable its of >> no use to meet greenhouse gas emissions. >> On that basis we would have no nuclear power and be reliant on imported oil/gas from or via regions that are far from politically stable. Not a very good long term plan ... Power supply is too big an issue to leave to 'pure' market forces. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 14:18
Wind Farms. - Zero
|
|
>> On that basis we would have no nuclear power and be reliant on imported oil/gas >> from or via regions that are far from politically stable. Not a very good long >> term plan ... >> >> Power supply is too big an issue to leave to 'pure' market forces. We don't have nuclear power now, output form the reactors is through the floor because POLITICS and GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE made sure we invested un unreliable and non standard expensive reactors. Nuclear power in the UK as decreed by government interference has been an unmitigated and expensive failure. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 15:10
Wind Farms. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> We don't have nuclear power now, output form the reactors is through the floor because >> POLITICS and GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE made sure we invested un unreliable and non standard expensive reactors. >> Nuclear power in the UK as decreed by government interference has been an unmitigated and >> expensive failure. Serious question. What alternatives to the Magnox>AGR line of development were canvassed, available and with a proven safety case at times of decision to proceed with both technologies? US designs? Co-operation with the French? The greater missed opportunity was decision not to proceed with the follow ons to Sizewell B (probably a consequence of privatisation). A further 20yrs of procrastination and prevarication by govts of both main parties has made position far, far worse. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 15:13
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 16:01
Wind Farms. - madf
|
|
The greater missed opportunity was decision not to proceed with the follow ons to Sizewell B (probably a consequence of privatisation). A further 20yrs of procrastination and prevarication by govts of both main parties has made position far, far worse. Given the lies pedalled by Marshall of the CEGB www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1989-12-18/Orals-1.html anyone who invested in nukes was nuts as his lies basically made the nuclear industry distrusted and unloved, (rather like Climate Change today) Last edited by: madf on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 16:01
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 16:08
Wind Farms. - Zero
|
|
>> Serious question. What alternatives to the Magnox>AGR line of development were canvassed, available and with >> a proven safety case at times of decision to proceed with both technologies? >> >> US designs? Co-operation with the French? >> >> The greater missed opportunity was decision not to proceed with the follow ons to Sizewell >> B (probably a consequence of privatisation). A further 20yrs of procrastination and prevarication by govts >> of both main parties has made position far, far worse. Nobody but nobody else used magnox or AGR, PWR was always the preferred route, but that "wasn't invented here" Lets be honest, Magnox/AGR was only used as the pretext to enrich uranium for weapons. Commercial generators would have gone PWR. Like the rest of the world. Oh except North Korea so that says it all. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 16:30
Wind Farms. - Boxsterboy
|
|
>> We don't have nuclear power now, output form the reactors is through the floor because >> POLITICS and GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE made sure we invested un unreliable and non standard expensive reactors. >> Nuclear power in the UK as decreed by government interference has been an unmitigated and >> expensive failure. >> My point was that the new EDF investment in a new nuclear facility has only happened because the government has promised to pay over the odds for the juice it will produce, which is going against the 'market'. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 16:54
Wind Farms. - Manatee
|
|
So we are really paying for the capacity. We already take a certain amount of power from France via the 2GW interconnect - they run the nuclear stations near capacity and flog the surplus, no doubt at a significantly lower price than agreed for the new station. The marginal cost of producing nuclear electricity is very low. Right now, just before 5pm, the UK load is 40GW. Guess how the biggest share of that is being generated? Yup, coal. Coal 13.5GW / 34% CCGT 12.6GW / 32% UK Nuclear 6.2GW / 15% Wind 3.5GW / 9% Imported from France - 1.3GW / 3% Imported from Holland - 1GW / 3% Biomass - 1.1GW / 3% Hydro - 1GW / 2% Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 9 Oct 14 at 16:55
|
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 17:45
Wind Farms. - madf
|
|
Solar energy and shale are the future, not costly nuclear power plants tinyurl.com/qy9gzum |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 18:29
Wind Farms. - Old Navy
|
| Until the shale runs out, solar should last a while unless there is a major volcanic event which puts us into a dark winter for decades. |
|
New Thu 9 Oct 14 18:50
Wind Farms. - Harleyman
|
| Worth pointing out that solar energy is ultimately sourced from what is effectively a nuclear power station, albeit one that is about 93 million miles away. |
|
New Tue 14 Oct 14 19:01
Wind Farms. - Manatee
|
|
There has just been a feature on windfarms on the local BBC news, based around the plan to stick a lot of 200 metre turbines off Bournemouth. Surely everybody knows now that these things are expensive elephants? (self-evidently they are white). The presenter trumpeted that there is now 10GW of wind power. I checked gridwatch - just now we are getting 1.5GW from wind. Of course, the wind usually drops in the early evening. Just as the demand goes up! |
|
New Tue 14 Oct 14 19:41
Wind Farms. - PhilW
|
|
"The presenter trumpeted that there is now 10GW of wind power. I checked gridwatch - just now we are getting 1.5GW from wind." That fits pretty well with "on average, wind turbines only produce about 15 - 20% of their capacity because of wind variability" Quote from somewhere I can't remember. It means, for instance, that that big turbine by the side of M4 at Reading received £130,000 subsidy in 2011 and produced £100,000 worth of electricity! Ones out at sea tend to be more "efficient" Here's another daft thing. Because of the Climate Change Act and our increased use of "renewables" we might get "blackouts" this winter - we might no longer have enough conventional power to cover a really cold spell caused by high pressure system when there is little wind. The Gov's solution is to encourage hospitals/large companies to have their own diesel generators to supply themselves with power when "the lights go out". These generators, of course, pump out far more "Carbon pollution"* than conventional power stations! * It's not Carbon, it's Carbon dioxide. It's not "pollution" - it's a harmless gas which enables plants to live. |
|
New Tue 14 Oct 14 19:54
Wind Farms. - Crankcase
|
|
Plants seem to like it well enough, true. www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/11159926/Global-warming-plants-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide-than-previously-thought.html Perhaps if we build call centres in the Amazon and make them a service economy, they would be able to move away from chopping down the Amazonian rainforest at a rate of knots. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
