Clown to the left of me, jokers to the right

[secrets in symmetry]

Mr Young, who was accompanied by anti-wind farm campaigner Brenda Herrick, denied he is “scaremongering”.


Jenny Hogan, director of policy for Scottish Renewables, rebuffed the claims.

Yes, it's from The Groat (http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Caithness-wind-farm-plans-prompt-wasteland-concern-24012013.htm)

Can anyone come up with three people who get things wrong more often than the trio above lol? :cool:

For those of you that aren't personally acquainted with Ms Hogan - she takes ignorance of science to new heights.

[2little2late]

I agree with Stuart Young and Brenda Herrick. Wind farms are a blot on the landscape. How can they make money? It must cost no end of millions to produce a wind farm, so how can they produce so much energy that they can actually pay for themselves? It is us the consumer that is paying for these through our expensive energy bills. How can the energy companies justify raising prices after allegedly make billions of pounds profit? Or are we just paying for the cost of these failures as the energy companies know there is no money in them anyway? And as for Jenny Hogan's quote, “We have yet to see independent evidence to support the view that wind farms have an adverse impact on tourism and, indeed, renewable energy projects across Scotland are becoming tourism attractions in their own right. We would urge people to visit an operating wind farm and judge for themselves".
Tourist attractions my back side. What she is saying is that tourists are now visiting Caithness to look at the wind farms. Imagine the scenario. "Oh look darling, what a beautiful wind farm isn't it? it looks far nicer than the hills they are obscuring the view of doesn't it? we must come back again next year and visit another wind farm. It really is exciting, I can't wait until next year, I wonder how many more wind farms will have been built in Caithness?, I am so excited I really can't wait. Even better, why don't we move up to Caithness and build our own house under a wind turbine on the Causewaymire?" What a pathetic statement from Ms. Hogan.

[ywindythesecond]

Yes, it's from The Groat (http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Caithness-wind-farm-plans-prompt-wasteland-concern-24012013.htm)

Can anyone come up with three people who get things wrong more often than the trio above lol? :cool:

For those of you that aren't personally acquainted with Ms Hogan - she takes ignorance of science to new heights.


What bit have I got wrong this time sis? Is it the £35million that the existing big windfarms in Caithness coin in every year in subsidy paid through our electricity bills or is it the further £65 million a year that would be added if all the windfarms in planning in Caithness get the go ahead?
Or is it the £2million we pay to enrich our neighbours with small windmills and pay their electricity as well?

Here’s an idea. Instead of you sniping anonymously from your seedy spider’s web, lets hire the High School and have a proper public debate. Let us have your name and address and we can set it up.
Ywy2 aka Stuart Young

BTW, you have it all wrong about Jenny Hogan. She does not make mistakes. She knows exactly what lies she is telling.
y

[gerry4]

Just like to point out a few things.
Firstly the Uk Gov has just signed a multi billion pound contract to buy electricity from wind farms to be built in Ireland. These wind farms during the building and running phases will create 10,000 & then 3,000 job respectively. So these and the profits now go to the irish and not people here in the UK.

What is not costed into nuclear power is the decommissioning costs. As you can see from Dounreay, these are astronomical and complex. The waste will be stored not just for the next generation or the next, next but for 100's of 1000 of years. What happens to the waste from wind farms? What is the land like after the farms come down? Will Reay beach ever be safe?

Also bare in mind every accident in a nuclear power station has been underplayed. Will those who lived in those towns in Japan will ever be able to return to their homes? If a problem happens to the wind farms at the back of me fail. I am safe and my life will go one as normal. Those babies in Japaan found with more than the normal level of nuclear exposure will not know what problems they have until adulthood or old age or even when their children are born.

Give me wind farms anytime to new nuclear power stations.

[Rheghead]

How can they make money? It must cost no end of millions to produce a wind farm, so how can they produce so much energy that they can actually pay for themselves?

Well, the Baillie wind farm is said to cost the developer £80 million to build. That is not flim flam.

There are 8760 hours in a year, that is not flim flam either.

The wind farm has planning permission and is expected to operate for 25 years, that is not flim flam

The wind Farm is rated at 52MW, that is not flim flam either?

The energy company charges me 13.77p per kWh, that is not flim flam either.

The wind farms in this area have average load factors of 30% at the very least, the closest to Baillie, Forss is >40%. also not flim flam.

So over 25 years, Baillie will cost £80 million and produce over 3.4 billion kWh making it 2.3p per kWh and yet the energy companies are selling it at 13.77p!! Each ROC is trading at £41 per MWh, or an additional 4.1p/kWh totalling 6.3p. It is hard to justify that onshore wind will increase bills if you look at the numbers.

Compare that to Hinkley where it is estimated to cost £14 billion to build a double unit power station (many times more than originally estimated) and then we would need to to look after the radioactive waste for centuries at a cost of £3 billion per year.

Wind power is a no brainer. I take your point about the aesthetics though.

[secrets in symmetry]

There is a question: who is the clown, and who are the jokers?

To this day, I don't know how to what extent the Hogan thing realises that almost everything she says about wind energy is a lie. She tells such blatant lies that she surely must know! Mr Herrick, on the other hand (who also spouts blatant untruths as if they were going out of fashion) seems to understand nothing about wind energy generation. In one sense the two are as bad as each other, because very little of what they say is ever correct, but I suspect Ms Herrick actually believes some of her nonsense. Jokers?

Mr Young, on the third hand, does attempt to do his homework, and he does sometimes get the right answers - albeit to questions that are blooming obvious to anyone who understands the science. His problem is that he so often misinterprets his data, and he (almost) invariably draws the wrong conclusions. A clown - albeit a simple one?

Unlike many, I rather like clowns. :cool:

[Rheghead]

Unlike many, I rather like clowns. :cool:

I like clowns as well, clowns know the truth but they hide the truth, they keep the truth behind their mask...

[secrets in symmetry]

I like clowns as well, clowns know the truth but they hide the truth, they keep the truth behind their mask...I was being charitable to this particular clown, but I'll bow to your first-hand experience.

One problem with the Hogan thing is that she's a denier, she denies that wind power has any problems. She causes schoolboys to run after her, and they get all bolshy (or lovestruck) when they find she can run faster than they can.

[Rheghead]

I was being charitable to this particular clown, but I'll bow to your first-hand experience.

One problem with the Hogan thing is that she's a denier, she denies that wind power has any problems. She causes schoolboys to run after her, and they get all bolshy (or lovestruck) when they find she can run faster than they can.

I see what you mean by Hogan, I also get frustrated by pro-renewables evangelists

[secrets in symmetry]

I see what you mean by Hogan, I also get frustrated by pro-renewables evangelistsShe's worse in real life - much worse!

[2little2late]

Well, the Baillie wind farm is said to cost the developer £80 million to build. That is not flim flam.

The wind Farm is rated at 52MW, that is not flim flam either?



Why are you questioning your own statement?

[Rheghead]

Why are you questioning your own statement?

It was a typo, do you accept the costs?

[2little2late]

No I do not accept the costs. Not enough wind they do not produce electricity, too much wind they are switched off. Where's the logic? Get rid of them all, they are a waste of money. They are only there to keep the Greens happy. as long as they can see these energy companies are trying to do something about global warming the Greens are happy.

[Rheghead]

No I do not accept the costs. Not enough wind they do not produce electricity, too much wind they are switched off. Where's the logic? Get rid of them all, they are a waste of money. They are only there to keep the Greens happy. as long as they can see these energy companies are trying to do something about global warming the Greens are happy.

But I've just gone through the maths, step by step. I couldn't have made it more simpler.

OK, a question, could your dislike of wind farms on a visual level be affecting so severely your ability to assess wind farms logically with respect to their other attributes?

[squidge]

We have to take responsibility for the power we use. I would sooner live near a wind farm than a power station, coal fired or nuclear. We dont get electricity for nothing. The way wind power is subsidised, privatised and in the hands of companies who make massive profits is wrong, the planning process may be wrong and flawed but we cant get away from the fact that we have to have clean electricity in this day and age and we have to have ways of generating it.

[newweecroft]

If the cut in speed is 2.1m/s and the cut out speed is 25m/s how many of those 8500 hours is the turbine going to be spend in an unproductive state? I will endeavor to provide an accurate answer before the evening is out, but for now I can think of only 20days last year during which there was less than a breath of wind and perhaps 15 days where the wind blew consistently above 56mph. So this would lead you to believe that a wind turbine in Caithness would be very productive.Now on aesthetics, are they really that bad? Granted the littlest ones go round at 200rpms and can make you a little sea sick but any model over 50kw will be running at 45rpms, I find watching them quite relaxing, particularly if you do not deliberately place them between yourself and the vista you wish to watch. At night they blend into ghostly shadows, unless they have a bloody light on them, this would be my pet hate. Oh I understand the reason they do it but the light pollution far out weighs the visual obstruction during the day of the great beasts.

[ywindythesecond]

So over 25 years, Baillie will cost £80 million and produce over 3.4 billion kWh making it 2.3p per kWh and yet the energy companies are selling it at 13.77p!! Each ROC is trading at £41 per MWh, or an additional 4.1p/kWh totalling 6.3p. It is hard to justify that onshore wind will increase bills if you look at the numbers.

.

That was Reggy's answer to your question 2little2late:

Originally Posted by 2little2late http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1003151#post1003151) How can they make money? It must cost no end of millions to produce a wind farm, so how can they produce so much energy that they can actually pay for themselves?

Reggy is right, you have to look at the numbers. But you actually have to look at all the numbers, not just those that suit you. This takes about 22 minutes but it might help answer the question. http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html

[ywindythesecond]

If the cut in speed is 2.1m/s and the cut out speed is 25m/s how many of those 8500 hours is the turbine going to be spend in an unproductive state? I will endeavor to provide an accurate answer before the evening is out, but for now I can think of only 20days last year during which there was less than a breath of wind and perhaps 15 days where the wind blew consistently above 56mph. So this would lead you to believe that a wind turbine in Caithness would be very productive.Now on aesthetics, are they really that bad? Granted the littlest ones go round at 200rpms and can make you a little sea sick but any model over 50kw will be running at 45rpms, I find watching them quite relaxing, particularly if you do not deliberately place them between yourself and the vista you wish to watch. At night they blend into ghostly shadows, unless they have a bloody light on them, this would be my pet hate. Oh I understand the reason they do it but the light pollution far out weighs the visual obstruction during the day of the great beasts.

Not quite so relaxing neweecroft. If by 45rpms you mean 45 revolutions per minute, the tip of a blade 6 metres long would be travelling at 63 miles an hour, and one of 40 metres (Causeymire), would be travelling at 424 miles an hour.

You mention "unproductive state". You are right, wind turbines produce electricity to some degree over a pretty high % of the time, but it has to be useful, not just there. To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random.

[Rheghead]

To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random.

That is silly.

[ywindythesecond]

That is silly.

Please enlighten me, what is silly about :
http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1003735#post1003735)

To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random.

[Rheghead]

Please enlighten me, what is silly about :
http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1003735#post1003735)

To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random.

Well when the wind blows and the turbines are producing electricity for like you say most of the time, ~85% then they are doing useful work. Not all power stations can operate all of the time so by your argument, all power stations are useless, that is why it is silly.

[ywindythesecond]

Well when the wind blows and the turbines are producing electricity for like you say most of the time, ~85% then they are doing useful work. Not all power stations can operate all of the time so by your argument, all power stations are useless, that is why it is silly.

Reggy, you are exhibiting classic trolling behaviour. Somebody posts something sensible you immediately post a daft reply to take it off the top of the page and divert attention from it.

I said
" To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random."

You said
"That is silly."

I said
" Please enlighten me, what is silly about :
To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random."

You said the claptrap quoted above.

So this time could you please answer my question. Not another question I asked or one you would have preferred me to ask.

Just answer:
"Please enlighten me, what is silly about :
To be useful, electricity generation has to be controllable, that is if you need it, you switch it on, if you don't need it you switch it off. Can't do that with wind. You get it at random."

Perhaps you could explain what you consider to be undesirable about controllable electricity generation for a start.

[Rheghead]

Your definition of useful is silly.

Then you said
Perhaps you could explain what you consider to be undesirable about controllable electricity generation for a start.

I propose you are confusing useful with desirable.

Of course I wish that we could turn the wind on, only God can do that. But there is a huge set of mitigating measures that we can take to allow us to use wind power. But even so, the grid can put a lot more wind power on stream before we need to do that.

[secrets in symmetry]

But I've just gone through the maths, step by step. I couldn't have made it more simpler.Indeed.

Evidently, there are people who think windfarms can't pay their way (even in principle) because sometimes it's too calm and sometimes it's too windy.

[newweecroft]

I do understand your logic windy. But would the same not apply to fossil fuel and plants? They run continually even when demand is low. This is not an antagonist question I am genuinely interested, what do you propose is the answer to our ever growing populations need for power?

On the point of revolutions, yes the tips are moving at high speed but that is not how we perceive them. We see either a fast moving bladeset or a slow moving blade set. I know I prefer the latter. And I do think they are less of a blemish on the landscape than all the white and cream kit houses that have been thrown up all over the county, I am so very pleased that the Highland council has enacted new design guidance to return the charm and beauty to Caithness architecture.