View Full Version : How green are our windfarms really ???
Check out this web link for a revelation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1jo5m5AON
Check out this web link for a revelation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1jo5m5AON
Not very by the look of....
It is nothing to do with wind farms and all to do with China not regulating their pollution.
It is nothing to do with wind farms and all to do with China not regulating their pollution.
How do we regulate the pollution from the concrete used to build the bases of the windmills or is that process done elsewhere?
exactly , we could turn everything off in the uk , stop running cars the lot,,for ever, and it will not make a noticeable difference to global warming, while china ,india, and good old usa, and the rest of the developing countries pump god knows what into the atmosphere unchecked. Not that it is any of my business what other countries do,, but i notice im paying in my taxes and leccy bills for these windfarms on private land and all the solar panels on peeps private homes, have yet to see them on a council house i wonder why,
you would have thought that is the first place they would be used in local authority housing seeing as they all get grants, oops sorry, a grant is a state benefit just like jobseekers allowance but for the better off in society.
its all a scam to get us taxpayers to think we are doing our bit to save the planet while lining the pockets off the better of in society,,
and if these windfarms are meant to benefit caithness, why are they not distributing power to our local power stations and thus cheaper leccy for all us kaitness peeps,, as we have to put up with them on our doorsteps.
exactly , we could turn everything off in the uk , stop running cars the lot,,for ever, and it will not make a noticeable difference to global warming, while china ,india, and good old usa, and the rest of the developing countries pump god knows what into the atmosphere unchecked. Not that it is any of my business what other countries do,, but i notice im paying in my taxes and leccy bills for these windfarms on private land and all the solar panels on peeps private homes, have yet to see them on a council house i wonder why,
you would have thought that is the first place they would be used in local authority housing seeing as they all get grants, oops sorry, a grant is a state benefit just like jobseekers allowance but for the better off in society.
its all a scam to get us taxpayers to think we are doing our bit to save the planet while lining the pockets off the better of in society,,
and if these windfarms are meant to benefit caithness, why are they not distributing power to our local power stations and thus cheaper leccy for all us kaitness peeps,, as we have to put up with them on our doorsteps.
Couldn't agree more.
How do we regulate the pollution from the concrete used to build the bases of the windmills or is that process done elsewhere?
What is the nature of that pollution, exactly?
In matters green there are some ground rules:
1. Anything with the word "green" slapped on the front is sacred. Even if it is expensive, or consumes more carbon or other currently important blah dreamt up by "professors" at former East Anglian Polycrap Universitettes.
2. Anyone questioning even to the slightest degree the word "green" is a denier, which is up there on the social scale with "paedophile" or "Hitler".
3. Is absolutely forbidden to mention, let alone co-compute, any offset of "green" values. So you mustn't mention the carbon footprint involved in the manufacture of concrete bases, metal superstructure construction, transportation, erection, maintenance, durability, efficiency, or subsidy in terms of cash, social, or environmental costs.
4. Remember all those years ago when we talked about "Global Warming"? That went a bit pear when Americans (and us) had one or two stark winters. So then, before they were laughed out of court, the tree-huggers came up with "Climate Change". So it is forbidden to disagree with the current "Climate Changers", on pain of accruing pariah status.
5. Government scientists are responsible for supplying selected data and statistics proving that our legs will fall off if we don't conform to an "appropriate" 5 a day, 21 unit a week, no smoking, no red meat, carbon-eschewing group of gullible humanipods all singing from the same atheistic version of a hymn book. This must NOT be written down, mentioned, or even thought.....
6. Newspeak and doublethink are not to be mentioned. Shortly, all copies of 1984 will be burned. Humanipods will NOT display sorrow at such events.
Thank God for human nature, variety, laughter, fun, and plenty. We'll drive you Calvinistic doom-peddlers back into the Slough of Despond, where you will be much more comfortable!
What is the nature of that pollution, exactly?
Is not the production of cement one of the biggest polluters in the world?
What is the nature of that pollution, exactly?
Oh come on Rheg, even I know that when the concrete is placed on the peat bogs it releases Co2 that the bogs have been holding from entering the atmosphere.
Dirty horrible useless things are wind turbines, devised to make us feel guilty for causing global warming but in all honesty they are used to make the rich richer!!
C3............:eek::roll:
Oh come on Rheg, even I know that when the concrete is placed on the peat bogs it releases Co2 that the bogs have been holding from entering the atmosphere.
Dirty horrible useless things are wind turbines, devised to make us feel guilty for causing global warming but in all honesty they are used to make the rich richer!!
C3............:eek::roll:
And there is also the amount of CO2 realeased in the production of cement for the concrete.
They all seem to be white to me, green would make a nice change.... maybe even multicoloured.
nah they all should be camo colour,,:)
billmoseley
18-Jan-12, 19:44
They all seem to be white to me, green would make a nice change.... maybe even multicoloured.
drat you pinched my next thread lolol well said
nah they all should be camo colour,,:)
Isn't that multicoloured?
Oh come on Rheg, even I know that when the concrete is placed on the peat bogs it releases Co2 that the bogs have been holding from entering the atmosphere.
Dirty horrible useless things are wind turbines, devised to make us feel guilty for causing global warming but in all honesty they are used to make the rich richer!!
C3............:eek::roll:
A 2.5 MW turbine mitigates 85,000 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, I think they look pretty clean.
In matters green there are some ground rules:
1. Anything with the word "green" slapped on the front is sacred. Even if it is expensive, or consumes more carbon or other currently important blah dreamt up by "professors" at former East Anglian Polycrap Universitettes.
2. Anyone questioning even to the slightest degree the word "green" is a denier, which is up there on the social scale with "paedophile" or "Hitler".
3. Is absolutely forbidden to mention, let alone co-compute, any offset of "green" values. So you mustn't mention the carbon footprint involved in the manufacture of concrete bases, metal superstructure construction, transportation, erection, maintenance, durability, efficiency, or subsidy in terms of cash, social, or environmental costs.
4. Remember all those years ago when we talked about "Global Warming"? That went a bit pear when Americans (and us) had one or two stark winters. So then, before they were laughed out of court, the tree-huggers came up with "Climate Change". So it is forbidden to disagree with the current "Climate Changers", on pain of accruing pariah status.
5. Government scientists are responsible for supplying selected data and statistics proving that our legs will fall off if we don't conform to an "appropriate" 5 a day, 21 unit a week, no smoking, no red meat, carbon-eschewing group of gullible humanipods all singing from the same atheistic version of a hymn book. This must NOT be written down, mentioned, or even thought.....
Sounds like Green Fascism to me. Now all we need is for Wee Eck to call himself Adolf,:confused
Sgitheanach
18-Jan-12, 21:22
I don't know how green wind farms are but I get paid lots to build them.
good for you im glad too see the ordinary working man is getting something out of it,, by the way what proportion of these windmill things were made in the uk , if you know lek:)
A 2.5 MW turbine mitigates 85,000 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, I think they look pretty clean.
A tonne of cement equals a tonne of CO2 according to a quick google-3rd worst polluter of CO2 alledgedly, though TBH your figures, if accurate seem to stack up in favour of the windmills. Iv no idea how much stored CO2 is released when the holes are dug for the bases.
Green_not_greed
18-Jan-12, 21:51
11727
The only thing green about windfarms.....
Global Warming is happening naturally, due to the sun getting bigger & therefore getting closer to our wee planet. Pretty soon, (in a few million years) planet earth will be sucked into the sun due to it's size.
It's obvious we're polluting our planet due to waste, cars, factories & other man made items that are causing our air to get dirty. But to determine that one country is causing more pollution than another country is a mere impossible task. We're all to blame here & to point the finger is merely passing the blame on elsewhere.
& why does it matter anyway? As I stated above, earth is counting it's days to destruction, we need to concentrate on moving away from this death trap asap (Kepler 22B?) & stop worrying about this place. Earth's served us well, & we need to respect her, but she's nearing her sell by date.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 22:43
This thread gets my prize for the worst thread I've ever seen on this topic on this forum. Every post that isn't by Rheghead contains little but rubbish and downright lies.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 22:45
I forgot to say that Rheghead was right several months ago when he said there's no point arguing with deniers on this forum - they just ignore the facts and believe what they want.
This thread gets my prize for the worst thread I've ever seen on this topic on this forum. Every post that isn't by Rheghead contains little but rubbish and downright lies.
That's that discussion finished then.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 22:50
That's that discussion finished then.That's correct. Well, it would be correct of there were any discussion, but none of you lot know anything about the topic, so there's no point in "discussing" anything with you.
You're all talking rubbish!
Mystical Potato Head
18-Jan-12, 22:54
I forgot to say that Rheghead was right several months ago when he said there's no point arguing with deniers on this forum - they just ignore the facts and believe what they want.
Classic sock puppet behaviour.
SIS, that's quite a tantrum you've just thrown there. Are you saying that I'm talking rubbish & telling downright lies? Are you saying that nobody on the org know "anything about the topic"?
If you're passionate about something, that's brilliant, passion is a powerful emotion, but don't throw tantrums just because you're not reading things as you see it.
It is nothing to do with wind farms and all to do with China not regulating their pollution.
Have we not got an ethical duty to obtain our "fridge magnets" from a country that is prepared to regulate their pollution, or would the cost be too prohibitive and put off investors?
I forgot to say that Rheghead was right several months ago when he said there's no point arguing with deniers on this forum - they just ignore the facts and believe what they want.
Facts have never been taken into consideration when it comes to justifying windfarms, as everbody knows facts are the last thing on a politicians political agenda. Cash for the manufacturers, erectors and landowners is the only criteria that has ever been taken into account where justification is concerned. You only need to look at some of the places that these windfarms have been built to realise that there is no real justification for them.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 22:58
SIS, that's quite a tantrum you've just thrown there. Are you saying that I'm talking rubbish & telling downright lies? Are you saying that nobody on the org know "anything about the topic"?
If you're passionate about something, that's brilliant, passion is a powerful emotion, but don't throw tantrums just because you're not reading things as you see it.You are talking more rubbish than most of the rest put together! Go learn some science and come back and laugh at the rubbish you wrote in your previous post!
You are talking more rubbish than most of the rest put together! Go learn some science and come back at laugh at the rubbish you wrote in your previous post!
Am I really? I know what I wrote in my previous post, SIS. Seems like you're quite wound up here, SIS. Go learn some science, when you do, you'll find you've got what's medically known as a, temper.
All the information I typed was from books, articles & documentaries I've researched for years. I know them to be true. If you believe that the Sun isn't Global Warming then you're floating in Egypt.
Denial.
Global Warming - The Sun
Pollution - Man Made
Oolong Tea is good for temper.
You are talking more rubbish than most of the rest put together! Go learn some science and come back at laugh at the rubbish you wrote in your previous post!
Mmm, it's very easy to say someones talking rubbish and not back it up with something tangible. The OP was about the pollution in the process of making magnets in a far away country to use in windmills. Surely it is the responsibility of all countrys using said windmills to be responsible in part for how this pollution is regulated in the manufacture process otherwise whats the point of windfarms in the first place? Or am I talking rubbish again?
Classic sock puppet behaviour.So you thought so as well "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - re the sock puppet thread?
Mystical Potato Head
18-Jan-12, 23:22
That's correct. Well, it would be correct of there were any discussion, but none of you lot know anything about the topic, so there's no point in "discussing" anything with you.
You're all talking rubbish!
Heres one to replace the one you just spat out.
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/untitled.png
SIS - aka Tantrums In Tantrumville - aka - TIT!
I won't deny global climate change is happening there's lots of evidence to show that it is. There might even be compelling evidence to show that it has been caused by man and our industrialisation. However from where I'm standing it's all very well going green and getting all high and mighty about how change is necessary but I have yet to find a 'green' who will explain to me how screwing the punters in our wee neck of the woods is going to save the world. The OP has already pointed out the pollution China is causing. Asia is becoming increasingly industrialised and burning fossil fuels with gay abandon. The US of A showns no sign of ending its love affair with fossil fuels. Do any of these environmental fascists expect me to believe that by covering this small country with wind turbines we're going to undo/reverse/curb the damage being done by these other countries? I thought not. If anyone wants to save the planet they should start with a binding international treaty that all countries sign and adhere to but we know that's never going to happen.
That's correct. Well, it would be correct of there were any discussion, but none of you lot know anything about the topic, so there's no point in "discussing" anything with you.
You're all talking rubbish!
Yes but our rubbish is a better class of rubbish than the rubbish that you spew out on a weekly basis.
I dont think there is anything worse than a pretend scientist and a sock puppet too boot!! Mind you, it must be nice knowing that you are far, far, superior to all the other Members of this forum!!!
1st class idiot is what I would label you as !!!
C3...............:lol:;)
Blinking heck; yet another who mentions the word 'sock puppet', seems strange that since wiki shut for a bit, there's been no 'scientific' posts? ;)
A tonne of cement equals a tonne of CO2 according to a quick google-3rd worst polluter of CO2 alledgedly, though TBH your figures, if accurate seem to stack up in favour of the windmills. Iv no idea how much stored CO2 is released when the holes are dug for the bases.
The CO2 emitted by each base is approx 250 tonnes which is miniscule compared to the 85,000 over its lifetime. Dr John Etherington, the high priest of the anti-wind brigade even recognises this fact in the Case against Wind farms.
The CO2 emitted by each base is approx 250 tonnes which is miniscule compared to the 85,000 over its lifetime. Dr John Etherington, the high priest of the anti-wind brigade even recognises this fact in the Case against Wind farms.
Like I said, your figures do seem to stack up in favour of windmills, however unless we can regulate the pollution caused by the manufacture of their components, then I don't see the point. Maybe you have figures which can mitigate the pollution which the OP posted??
Like I said, your figures do seem to stack up in favour of windmills, however unless we can regulate the pollution caused by the manufacture of their components, then I don't see the point. Maybe you have figures which can mitigate the pollution which the OP posted??
First we will have to break down the problem into its basic components.
Is the pollution just down to wind turbine components? No
How much is down to UK wind components? Very little.
Should China be clearing it up and not letting it spill all over? Yes
It is clearly a Chinese problem and not attributable to UK wind farms.
The problem with windfarms is that there are to many....
Instead of lots of little ones about the county they should just make one big one, I would suggest expanding the Spittal one, there is probably enough barren land there to make it at least 10 times bigger if not more. This would also help keep the costs of needed infrastructure down.
Also... stop these huge subsidies to the landowners (I believe £20,000 per year per turbine, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me) & compulsory purchase the land (personally I'd just seize it for free since that they shouldn't own it in the first place but that's another issue entirely).
First we will have to break down the problem into its basic components.
Is the pollution just down to wind turbine components? No
How much is down to UK wind components? Very little.
Should China be clearing it up and not letting it spill all over? Yes
It is clearly a Chinese problem and not attributable to UK wind farms.
So clearly whoever buys the parts for uk windfarms needs to be sourcing them from elsewhere?
So clearly whoever buys the parts for uk windfarms needs to be sourcing them from elsewhere?
I would agree with that, or better still, UK manufacturers of all users of rare earths put pressure on the Chinese that the pollution is taken care of properly.
I would agree with that, or better still, UK manufacturers of all users of rare earths put pressure on the Chinese that the pollution is taken care of properly.
So in part this pollution can be attributable to UK windmill manufacturers?
whaligoechiel
19-Jan-12, 19:31
The problem with windfarms is that there are to many....
Instead of lots of little ones about the county they should just make one big one, I would suggest expanding the Spittal one, there is probably enough barren land there to make it at least 10 times bigger if not more. This would also help keep the costs of needed infrastructure down.
Also... stop these huge subsidies to the landowners (I believe £20,000 per year per turbine, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me) & compulsory purchase the land (personally I'd just seize it for free since that they shouldn't own it in the first place but that's another issue entirely)
Just drove past this one at 3PM not one single blade turning (to much wind no. no wind no, just getting money for nothing again)
So in part this pollution can be attributable to UK windmill manufacturers?
No, the pollution is attributable to the Chinese not having a waste management program in place.
If I had a leg amputated and I found it in a bin bag strewn out with other body parts at the back of the hospital, should I blame myself or the hospital for not disposing of it properly?
No, the pollution is attributable to the Chinese not having a waste management program in place.
If I had a leg amputated and I found it in a bin bag strewn out with other body parts at the back of the hospital, should I blame myself or the hospital for not disposing of it properly?
Surely the solution is that the UK and other windmill producers insist that a pollution regulation policy is in place-the same goes for your pre op leg amputation.
Surely the solution is that the UK and other windmill producers insist that a pollution regulation policy is in place-the same goes for your pre op leg amputation.
Agreed.
And it seems the Chinese are forcing the rare earth mining companies to sort out their act.
So clearly whoever buys the parts for uk windfarms needs to be sourcing them from elsewhere?
They are called "Rare Earth" for a reason, that being that they are rare, ergo not a lot of choice where you can source them from.
To put things into perspective, the UK is expanding its wind energy capacity, by ~1000MW/year, mostly made up of ~2MW turbines. The Daily Mail says 4400lb of neodymium magnet material goes into a top end turbine, eg 2MW, of which 256kg is neodymium. Therefore, UK demand from wind industry is 128,000kg. Chinese annual production is 110,000 tonnes/year so that means that the UK is 'responsible' for 0.12% of the pollution.
Another Daily Mail fantasy.
To put things into perspective, the UK is expanding its wind energy capacity, by ~1000MW/year, mostly made up of ~2MW turbines. The Daily Mail says 4400lb of neodymium magnet material goes into a top end turbine, eg 2MW, of which 256kg is neodymium. Therefore, UK demand from wind industry is 128,000kg. Chinese annual production is 110,000 tonnes/year so that means that the UK is 'responsible' for 0.12% of the pollution.
Another Daily Mail fantasy.
C'mon Rheggy, isn't it time you let S-i-S have a go on the computer now? Don't hog it all to yourself, let your sock puppet have a go as well!!!
C3..............:roll:[lol]
C'mon Rheggy, isn't it time you let S-i-S have a go on the computer now? Don't hog it all to yourself, let your sock puppet have a go as well!!!
C3..............:roll:[lol]
I'm very much my own person. Two great minds can't help thinking alike.
To put things into perspective, the UK is expanding its wind energy capacity, by ~1000MW/year, mostly made up of ~2MW turbines. The Daily Mail says 4400lb of neodymium magnet material goes into a top end turbine, eg 2MW, of which 256kg is neodymium. Therefore, UK demand from wind industry is 128,000kg. Chinese annual production is 110,000 tonnes/year so that means that the UK is 'responsible' for 0.12% of the pollution.
Another Daily Mail fantasy.
But you said the UK wasn't responsible for any of it?
But you said the UK wasn't responsible for any of it?
It is not, that is why I put in the apostrophes thinking it would be easier to understand, obviously not.
Do you accept that the Daily Mail has a bias against wind farms based upon the arithematic?
Some good news for the wind industry this week, the UK has passed the 6GW installed capacity. The Ministry of Defence has approved new radar that will enable it to remove its objections to 3GW of wind that is stuck in planning process and a report by the Massachusetts Health Authority has concluded that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is any link between ill health and living near a wind farm which was suspected by any logical thinking person all along.
[QUOTE=Rheghead;921650]It is not, that is why I put in the apostrophes thinking it would be easier to understand, obviously not.
Do you accept that the Daily Mail has a bias against wind farms based upon the arithematic?[/QUOTE
Either you believe that the 0.12% is down to the UK or you don't. Tell me what's the difference in importing magnets or fossil fuels into this country then if it causes pollution? I don't read the Mail so I can't comment.
Some good news for the wind industry this week, the UK has passed the 6GW installed capacity. The Ministry of Defence has approved new radar that will enable it to remove its objections to 3GW of wind that is stuck in planning process and a report by the Massachusetts Health Authority has concluded that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is any link between ill health and living near a wind farm which was suspected by any logical thinking person all along.
Big health risk living to a magnet factory though...
Big health risk living to a magnet factory though...
Yes, 99.9% of which is caused by our thirst for ipods, computers, hair dryers, food processers, etc etc
I'm very much my own person. Two great minds can't help thinking alike.
That's a rather high opinion you have of yourself there, Rheghead, never mind TIT.
These windfarms, awful expensive are they not? Quote me if I'm wrong here, but I'm led to believe that each blade cost's £25, 000. That equates to £75, 000 for three blades. Plus don't these blades have a 25year life span? That's a lot of money, an awful lot of money. We've just survived one recession & on the verge of entering another.
Can windfarms, or any other "green" source, save our pockets & protect the globe? Yet still provide us with a way of living of which we're used to?
Yes, 99.9% of which is caused by our thirst for ipods, computers, hair dryers, food processers, etc etc
Mmm don't quite get the maths there then-99.9% plus 0.12 for the magnets? Somethings wrong there!
That's a rather high opinion you have of yourself there, Rheghead, never mind TIT.
These windfarms, awful expensive are they not? Quote me if I'm wrong here, but I'm led to believe that each blade cost's £25, 000. That equates to £75, 000 for three blades. Plus don't these blades have a 25year life span? That's a lot of money, an awful lot of money. We've just survived one recession & on the verge of entering another.
Can windfarms, or any other "green" source, save our pockets & protect the globe? Yet still provide us with a way of living of which we're used to?
I disagree, you need to compare like for like. Wind power is projected to be the cheapest source of electricity in 2-3 years.
Mmm don't quite get the maths there then-99.9% plus 0.12 for the magnets? Somethings wrong there!
Stop nitpicking, please.
I disagree, you need to compare like for like. Wind power is projected to be the cheapest source of electricity in 2-3 years.
2-3 years? I can't seem to find that information online, would you mind sending me a link please? Thank you.
I really believe in "green" energy, but I just can't see it in our lifetime I'm afraid. What about that wind turbine they tested out in the Pentland Firth a few years back? It was a prototype that cost £5million or so, it got torn to shreds! The Pentland Firth is regarded as one of the fiercest waters on earth, yet they're planning more tidal energy systems there. It's madness. Mind you, keeps some folk in work I suppose...
In theory, it's a great idea, but until we see facts that green is better (in many ways) than nuclear, I, & many other folk are not convinced.
Yes I was being optimistic. It is 4 years
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2124487/onshore-wind-reach-grid-parity-2016
The CO2 emitted by each base is approx 250 tonnes which is miniscule compared to the 85,000 over its lifetime. Dr John Etherington, the high priest of the anti-wind brigade even recognises this fact in the Case against Wind farms.
What about all the other CO2 emissions that need to be added to the windmills 85,000 tonnes that come from all the conventional power stations, they still have to be run 24 hours a day alongside all the very very expensive and totally subsidised windfarms just to meet our growing demands for electricity. How do they stack up to that scenario, are you suggesting that we can do away with all the conventional power stations and run entirely on windpower alone. Incidentally, that's 250 tonnes per windmill base and there's thousands of bases with lots more to come. I nearly forgot, there's the huge concrete installation crane bases to each windmill plus all the access roads, there's the pylon bases and steel structures, theres thousands of miles of copper wire, sub stations, maintainance vehicles etc, etc.
Stop nitpicking, please.
Well you do seem to pick your figures out of the air..
What about all the other CO2 emissions that need to be added to the windmills 85,000 tonnes that come from all the conventional power stations, they still have to be run 24 hours a day alongside all the very very expensive and totally subsidised windfarms just to meet our growing demands for electricity. How do they stack up to that scenario, are you suggesting that we can do away with all the conventional power stations and run entirely on windpower alone. Incidentally, that's 250 tonnes per windmill base and there's thousands of bases with lots more to come. I nearly forgot, there's the huge concrete installation crane bases to each windmill plus all the access roads, there's the pylon bases and steel structures, theres thousands of miles of copper wire, sub stations, maintainance vehicles etc, etc.
Yes the increased CO2 emissions from conventional plant that are either in spinning reserve or hotstandby amounts to just 0.1% of that 85,000, we are still 84,667 tonnes in the green.
I disagree, you need to compare like for like. Wind power is projected to be the cheapest source of electricity in 2-3 years.
How do you work that out? It's subsidised to hell and back, it only works for part of the time and is not there on demand. Add to that that we will still need full back up from all our conventional power stations, many of which are in desperate need of replacing. Windmills don't cut it and never will even if we cover the entire country with them. Oh yes, and the rest of the world will continue doing what they are doing now and will have the ability to leave us behind in manufacturing because we wont have sufficient power to meet our industries needs.
Yes the increased CO2 emissions from conventional plant that are either in spinning reserve or hotstandby amounts to just 0.1% of that 85,000, we are still 84,667 tonnes in the green.
Where did you get that from, the conventional stations are working flat out even when the wind turbines are working.
it only works for part of the time and is not there on demand.
It is not asked of it to be there on demand.
Where did you get that from, the conventional stations are working flat out even when the wind turbines are working.
They don't, they back off precisely to the output of the wind turbines.
Neil Howie
19-Jan-12, 23:41
The problem with the rare earth elements, and Neodymium is quite common really, is that it was much cheaper to mine it in China.
So in 1990 the US had 12 factories and 6,000 employees. China had cheaper prices so eventually all the companies moved there.
And the result, like a lot of products from China, is that the cost is passed on to the people of China.
REE are also used in the nuclear and oil industries. Interesting, when reading this on your REE containing monitor, via your REE hard drive, and maybe one day via a REE fibre optic internet connection?
Source: http://www.slideshare.net/agkline/rare-earth-metals-9166479
Mystical Potato Head
19-Jan-12, 23:42
Blinking heck; yet another who mentions the word 'sock puppet', seems strange that since wiki shut for a bit, there's been no 'scientific' posts? ;)
Seems strange to me that replies very often take a while to materialise,must take a while to troll for the right answer,opps i mean trawl.
There are some clever people on the planet but none are a wikigoogle expert in everything scientist like T I T.
There are some clever people on the planet but none are a wikigoogle expert in everything scientist like T I T.
:lol: lmao
They don't, they back off precisely to the output of the wind turbines.
I think Rheghead talks with his head stuck somewhere else !!!
Have a look at the following web link for another interesting read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html
and here's another one with facts and figures just for Rheghead.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/08/does-wind-power-reduce-carbon-emissions/
I think Rheghead talks with his head stuck somewhere else !!!
I'm disappointed with you with your insult, especially when I showed you hospitality when you visited my house. I'll not return the gesture.
I'll not tackle Christopher Booker's article in the Daily Fail, it amounts to a rant with no facts and figures. He maintains that asbestos, BSE and passive smoking is comletely benign so I'll leave him to carry on with those delusions.
But I've already found some great flaws in the 'retired engineers' assessment of wind just with a cursory glance. I've not got time just now so I'll be back in good time.
Green_not_greed
20-Jan-12, 11:16
To put things into perspective, the UK is expanding its wind energy capacity, by ~1000MW/year, mostly made up of ~2MW turbines. The Daily Mail says 4400lb of neodymium magnet material goes into a top end turbine, eg 2MW, of which 256kg is neodymium. Therefore, UK demand from wind industry is 128,000kg. Chinese annual production is 110,000 tonnes/year so that means that the UK is 'responsible' for 0.12% of the pollution.
Another Daily Mail fantasy.
So you're saying that 0.12% isn't worth considering as its insignificant? I'm just wondering at what stage something then becomes significant in your opinion? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%?
Green_not_greed
20-Jan-12, 11:19
Wind power is projected to be the cheapest source of electricity in 2-3 years.
The wind industry has been reiterating this tired old phrase for years. If its true, then they shouldn't need all the subsidies which we are all paying for through our energy bills and taxes.
I'm disappointed with you with your insult, especially when I showed you hospitality when you visited my house. I'll not return the gesture.
Come on Reggie, don't take these things personally, you may have had acquaintances in photography or on facebook, but we can all be quite fervent when we have an opinion, but you can't just dismiss these posts - complete with links, as you do.
If I said "without the need to create artificial (contrived, at best) markets like the wind turbine and solar panel markets that we have today" would you disagree?
(There would be no chance of falling out with me - would there!)
and here's another one with facts and figures just for Rheghead.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/08/does-wind-power-reduce-carbon-emissions/
Yes I've read the report now and its assertion that there is little CO2 mitigation from wind is down to the false assumption that fossil generators do not vary according to wind output. This false assumption strikes at the heart of what grid balancing is all about. The report can't be supported on energy conservation or economic grounds. Why or how is it possible to have fossil generators running at full output when the wind varies? At maximum wind output, where is all that spare energy going? Why waste it? Why waste money doing it?
So the report's author is pulling the wool over the reader's eyes. If I honestly thought the report was correct in its assertions then I would speak against wind farms as being environmentally unfriendly.
I'm disappointed with you with your insult, especially when I showed you hospitality when you visited my house. I'll not return the gesture.
I'll not tackle Christopher Booker's article in the Daily Fail, it amounts to a rant with no facts and figures. He maintains that asbestos, BSE and passive smoking is comletely benign so I'll leave him to carry on with those delusions.
But I've already found some great flaws in the 'retired engineers' assessment of wind just with a cursory glance. I've not got time just now so I'll be back in good time.
I'm amazed you took this so personally and disappointed you think it has affected our friendship, this is a forum where views are open to debate and not meant with any animosity, (for most folks that is) it was merely an intimation of your reluctance to remove your blinkers and accept any other views on this subject which has been raging for many years, remember the Bird Forum debate and the RSPB unwilling to accept the windfarm moritorium signed by many of it's members and thousands of others, web link here. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=52129&highlight=Windfarm+moritorium
ywindythesecond
22-Jan-12, 01:43
I disagree, you need to compare like for like. Wind power is projected to be the cheapest source of electricity in 2-3 years.
I haven't mastered multiquote but Reggy acknowledged in a later post that the figure was four years. The way the calculation works is that wind power stays at the same price while fossil prices rise.
Fossil prices will rise because of two reasons;
1. Market forces
2. Political intervention
3. Because there will be more wind power used, conventional generation plant will be less used. All businesses need turnover to continue in business. Wind disappears from time to time, so there has to be something on tap to step in and give us electricity. So the conventional generators which do this as part of the day to day routine now are being sidelined and their income stream is being eroded. In a free market, they would fold up. But it is not a free market. The country needs electricity, so as more wind is added to the mix, there is more pressure to support conventional generation, so we will end up subsidising conventional generation to be available when needed to allow us the privilege of buying wind energy subsidised to the tune of 5p per unit or thereabouts.
I know, I can't count beyond two.
The fact of the matter is that build costs of wind have come down substantially, as this happens, there is less need for the Renewable Obligation incentive to be held at the current level. There is currently a consultation underway to reduce the RO to 0.9 ROCs per MWh for onshore wind which seems to me to be a reasonable reduction.
The fact of the matter is that build costs of wind have come down substantially, as this happens, there is less need for the Renewable Obligation incentive to be held at the current level. There is currently a consultation underway to reduce the RO to 0.9 ROCs per MWh for onshore wind which seems to me to be a reasonable reduction.
I'm no expert but a 'reduction to 0.9', what is that from? (forgive me for my obtuseness)..
I understand:
"ROCs are intended to create a market, and be traded at market prices that differ from the official buy-out price. If there is an excess of renewable production, beyond the supplier obligation, the price of ROCs would fall below the buy-out price. The price of ROCs could approach zero if renewable and non-renewable generation costs became similar, when there would be little or no subsidy of renewable generation. If there is less renewable production than the obligation, the price of ROCs would increase above the buy-out price, as purchasers anticipate later payments from the buy-out fund on each ROC."
Ofgem's comment, seems to ring true, although the Wind Energy Sector blames Ofgem for not upgrading the National Grid?
"On 22 January 2007, Ofgem called for the Renewables Obligation to be replaced, claiming that the scheme is a 'very costly way' of supporting renewable electricity generation. In particular they are concerned that electricity customers pay for renewables projects even if they are not built due to problems obtaining planning permission, and the failure of the Renewables Obligation to link financial support for renewables to either the electricity price or the price of renewables in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme"
Neil Howie
22-Jan-12, 23:20
BBC recent article on a complaint by the Energy Fair group:
Green energy campaigners are attempting to block new nuclear power stations in the UK by complaining to the European Commission that government plans contravene EU competition regulations.
They say financial rules for nuclear operators include subsidies that have not been approved by the commission.
here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16646405)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.