View Full Version : Fed up with windmills?
ywindythesecond
08-Mar-13, 09:41
Come to Inverness on Saturday 23rd March and say so out loud.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/930/sasposter2013.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/sasposter2013.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
But like the electric that enables you to go on the internet to post this.
What a waste of time and effort this is, especially since you do not know the difference between a "Windmill" and a "Wind Turbine"
What a waste of time and effort this is, especially since you do not know the difference between a "Windmill" and a "Wind Turbine"
Before you insult someone you should at least find out if they know what they are taking about, I'm sure he know's the difference.
Why is it such a waste if time and effort, it's his time and his effort
Why does it bother you so much?
Tubthumper
08-Mar-13, 18:02
Can I smell a Trump?
Alice in Blunderland
08-Mar-13, 18:04
Can I smell a Trump?
Hmmm more wind then [lol]
Tubthumper
08-Mar-13, 18:11
WarOnWind.com
Sponsored by Gaviscon...
Fed up with the anti wind brigade, I usually settle for Andrews liver salts
M Swanson
08-Mar-13, 19:55
I once read, that the first years figures show it takes 40 years for three large turbines to pay for themselves, but they'll need replacing after 25 years!! Can anyone confirm these figures please?
I once read, that the first years figures show it takes 40 years for three large turbines to pay for themselves, but they'll need replacing after 25 years!! Can anyone confirm these figures please?
Nope, sorry.
Alice in Blunderland
08-Mar-13, 20:52
Fed up with the anti wind brigade, I usually settle for Andrews liver salts
or positioned in the correct orifice it can be quite effective for wind [lol]
http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20061108/Wine-Bottle-Cork-133238.jpg
ywindythesecond
08-Mar-13, 21:00
So no takers so far then?
So, they just want a mob to turn up and make a lot of noise. We knew that any way as reasoned dialogue was never on offer. Mob rules and they hope they can bully our elected representatives to kow tow.
ywindythesecond
08-Mar-13, 21:54
So, they just want a mob to turn up and make a lot of noise. We knew that any way as reasoned dialogue was never on offer. Mob rules and they hope they can bully our elected representatives to kow tow.
"Persuade our elected representatives to listen" is more accurate.
secrets in symmetry
08-Mar-13, 22:17
So, they just want a mob to turn up and make a lot of noise. We knew that any way as reasoned dialogue was never on offer. Mob rules and they hope they can bully our elected representatives to kow tow.Indeed.
On the other hand, a fight to the death between the anti-windies and the secessionists would be an edifying event. I'd consider paying real money to witness it. :cool:
What a waste of time and effort this is, especially since you do not know the difference between a "Windmill" and a "Wind Turbine"It's WINDYMILL!
So yer both wrong!
So, they just want a mob to turn up and make a lot of noise. We knew that any way as reasoned dialogue was never on offer. Mob rules and they hope they can bully our elected representatives to kow tow.Well. When faced with industry 'lobbying' the elected representatives with brown enve...... 'financial' incentives over a nice dinner on a yacht in the Caribbean what else can peeps do but make noise?
secrets in symmetry
08-Mar-13, 22:30
Well. When faced with industry 'lobbying' the elected representatives with brown enve...... 'financial' incentives over a nice dinner on a yacht in the Caribbean what else can peeps do but make noise?They could learn something about windymills instead of writing rubbish, more rubbish, and yet more rubbish....
They could learn something about windymills instead of writing rubbish, more rubbish, and yet more rubbish....Or maybe the business plan behind them, it is after all about money. Specifically those that make the profits, not those being taxed for them.
secrets in symmetry
08-Mar-13, 22:45
Or maybe the business plan behind them, it is after all about money. Specifically those that make the profits, not those being taxed for them.No it isn't.
No it isn't.Yes it is!
(yer just bein' childish now)
"Persuade our elected representatives to listen" is more accurate.
Can you not see how the noisy tactic can be misreported in the news? Everyone already appreciates that you and your lot do not like the look of windymills but a rabble has never endeared itself to a TV audience.
secrets in symmetry
08-Mar-13, 23:37
Yes it is!
(yer just bein' childish now)No it isn't!
secrets in symmetry
08-Mar-13, 23:46
Yes it is!Oh no it isn't!
He's behind you !
Who? Trump?
John Little
10-Mar-13, 00:10
Well I am ignorant in these matters but I would like to ask a question.
I am not fond of windmills wherever they are.
I think they look ugly and spoil the landscape.
On the other hand I have nothing against harvesting wind for power- it seems a good idea.
But surely the two things are not mutually exclusive, because surely there are other ways to get wind power than great sailed mills? Are there not wind tunnel type turbines under development, and given the feelings they arouse, can better and less intrusive methods not be researched?
You are speaking of different things it seems to me, and they are not necessarily in opposition.
Or do I fall down on technological ignorance?
M Swanson
10-Mar-13, 00:19
I admit that I don't have any scientific qualification, but since joining the Org and reading threads dedicated to wind turbines, I've become extremely interested in the subject. So, if I may, I'd like to ask a few questions that may lead to a better understanding of this controversial debate.
Is it true, for instance, that bills have gone up by over a billion pounds a year, because we are being forced to subsidise the use of wind farms? And what is the return for such a crippling increase? Do they pay for themselves, ultimately?
Finally, what is the argument for the government filling the country with propellers, when we have billions of tons of coal which can be burnt safely?
cptdodger
10-Mar-13, 00:28
What a bunch of losers. You don't agree with what I find important and act like four year olds to distract attention from it. 27 posts and not one brain cell challenged. Tossers!
(Excluding EOS, M Swanson, and Phill who tried to have a conversation but couldn't be heard in the nursery!!)
We have a nuclear chemist and an alleged scientist starring in the foregoing crap. It beggars belief.
Signed
Disgusted in Dunnet!!
The problem with you is, if you do'nt get the answers, or the attention you think your "cause" deserves, you resort to name calling. Now, maybe you do find trying to stop wind farms being built important, that's fine (we have been through this on countless other threads) but you are not going to gain respect coming out with that.
It was you yourself said on the Baillie wind farm thread, that there are over 100 turbines and many more planned, personally, I think it is a bit late in the day to be complaining about them, should you not have thought about organising a march before the first lot were put in place ? And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer as to what kind of power you are going to use when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?
What a bunch of losers. You don't agree with what I find important and act like four year olds to distract attention from it. 27 posts and not one brain cell challenged. Tossers!
(Excluding EOS, M Swanson, and Phill who tried to have a conversation but couldn't be heard in the nursery!!)
We have a nuclear chemist and an alleged scientist starring in the foregoing crap. It beggars belief.
Signed
Disgusted in Dunnet!!
Oh dear that was a beeg dummy spitting effort. Maybe now you will realise many of us fellow Orgers do not think as you do, but calling us Tossers and brain dead does not help your cause
M Swanson
10-Mar-13, 00:38
It does get a bit frustrating though Golach, when somebody raises a serious thread, only to find it trashed within a few posts. In fairness to Ywindy it's not something I've ever known him to do to others.
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 00:45
What a bunch of losers. You don't agree with what I find important and act like four year olds to distract attention from it. 27 posts and not one brain cell challenged. Tossers!
(Excluding EOS, M Swanson, and Phill who tried to have a conversation but couldn't be heard in the nursery!!)
We have a nuclear chemist and an alleged scientist starring in the foregoing crap. It beggars belief.
Signed
Disgusted in Dunnet!!
Well that has certainly wakened you up.
I will reply in turn.
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-13, 00:51
The problem with you is, if you do'nt get the answers, or the attention you think your "cause" deserves, you resort to name calling. Now, maybe you do find trying to stop wind farms being built important, that's fine (we have been through this on countless other threads) but you are not going to gain respect coming out with that.
It was you yourself said on the Baillie wind farm thread, that there are over 100 turbines and many more planned, personally, I think it is a bit late in the day to be complaining about them, should you not have thought about organising a march before the first lot were put in place ? And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer as to what kind of power you are going to use when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?Perhaps it's the usual schoolboy problem - raging hormones! :cool:
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 00:59
Well I am ignorant in these matters but I would like to ask a question.
I am not fond of windmills wherever they are.
I think they look ugly and spoil the landscape.
On the other hand I have nothing against harvesting wind for power- it seems a good idea.
But surely the two things are not mutually exclusive, because surely there are other ways to get wind power than great sailed mills? Are there not wind tunnel type turbines under development, and given the feelings they arouse, can better and less intrusive methods not be researched?
You are speaking of different things it seems to me, and they are not necessarily in opposition.
Or do I fall down on technological ignorance?
Thanks John.
Wind power seems like a good idea and it is, within limits. What is bad is reliance on it, and what is worse is obliging us to pay for the costs of allowing it to be used for political rather than practical purposes. The damage to views is secondary, the damage to the quality of some people's lives is unforgiveable.
Invest in this, don't just heed what I say
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wind-Farm-Scam-Independent-Minds/dp/1905299834/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362873400&sr=1-1
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 01:12
I admit that I don't have any scientific qualification, but since joining the Org and reading threads dedicated to wind turbines, I've become extremely interested in the subject. So, if I may, I'd like to ask a few questions that may lead to a better understanding of this controversial debate.
Is it true, for instance, that bills have gone up by over a billion pounds a year, because we are being forced to subsidise the use of wind farms? And what is the return for such a crippling increase? Do they pay for themselves, ultimately?
Finally, what is the argument for the government filling the country with propellers, when we have billions of tons of coal which can be burnt safely?
Thanks M Swanson for your voice of reason.
Bills have not gone up by billions of pounds per year but the cost of renewables will cost us billions over the years. We are forced to subsidise the use of windfarms. There is no return to the consumer for such a crippling increase. Wind farms pay for themselves handsomely, but to the developers and shareholders, and we the consumers pay for them.
Coal. By safely, I guess you mean "cleanly". Burning coal has been safe for ages. " Clean" coal technology has still to be developed at least at large scale.
We can't ditch coal. I will leave others to make the case for filling the country with propellors.
What a bunch of losers. You don't agree with what I find important and act like four year olds to distract attention from it. 27 posts and not one brain cell challenged. Tossers!
(Excluding EOS, M Swanson, and Phill who tried to have a conversation but couldn't be heard in the nursery!!)
We have a nuclear chemist and an alleged scientist starring in the foregoing crap. It beggars belief.
Signed
Disgusted in Dunnet!!
Phew! Calm down ywindy I don't want you giving yourself a heartattack over that lot, they're not worth it. Pour yerself another large dram, cheers.
As to the point of the thread, good luck to them all on the march in Inverness. I hope there is a great turnout.
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-13, 01:30
Phew! Calm down ywindy I don't want you giving yourself a heartattack over that lot, they're not worth it. Pour yerself another large dram, cheers.
As to the point of the thread, good luck to them all on the march in Inverness. I hope there is a great turnout.Poor ywindy. He's quite good at gathering data, he's not even bad at summarising it, but he always gets his conclusions wrong.
Are you his Mum?
Or his Missus?
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 01:44
The problem with you is, if you do'nt get the answers, or the attention you think your "cause" deserves, you resort to name calling. Now, maybe you do find trying to stop wind farms being built important, that's fine (we have been through this on countless other threads) but you are not going to gain respect coming out with that.
It was you yourself said on the Baillie wind farm thread, that there are over 100 turbines and many more planned, personally, I think it is a bit late in the day to be complaining about them, should you not have thought about organising a march before the first lot were put in place ? And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer as to what kind of power you are going to use when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?
I really don't know where to start here. Where have I name-called? On which countless other threads have we "been through this"? As far as Baillie is concerned ask Reggie how long I have been trying to raise awareness. As to "when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?" I have no answer, but the answer my friend is definitely not blowing in the wind.
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 01:50
Perhaps it's the usual schoolboy problem - raging hormones! :cool:
This is from the alleged scientist I referred to earlier.
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 01:54
Oh dear that was a beeg dummy spitting effort. Maybe now you will realise many of us fellow Orgers do not think as you do, but calling us Tossers and brain dead does not help your cause
Sorry Golach, I thought I was just raising awareness of the obvious.
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-13, 01:59
Can you not see how the noisy tactic can be misreported in the news? Everyone already appreciates that you and your lot do not like the look of windymills but a rabble has never endeared itself to a TV audience.Shouting at Shrek isn't necessarily a bad tactic. He's employed it with major success for some years - although I don't think ywindy is as dumb or as ugly as Shrek, so he might not get away with it so easily....
Aaldtimer
10-Mar-13, 04:09
I really don't know where to start here. Where have I name-called?
Maybe here:"What a bunch of losers. You don't agree with what I find important and act like four year olds to distract attention from it. 27 posts and not one brain cell challenged. Tossers! "
:roll:
webmannie
10-Mar-13, 09:25
So no takers so far then?
Nope, i'll be waiting for the postman that day, i'm not waiting for anything in particular.
Or do I fall down on technological ignorance?
Not at all, we should site them underground. :eek:
The problem with you is, if you do'nt get the answers, or the attention you think your "cause" deserves, you resort to name calling. Now, maybe you do find trying to stop wind farms being built important, that's fine (we have been through this on countless other threads) but you are not going to gain respect coming out with that.
It was you yourself said on the Baillie wind farm thread, that there are over 100 turbines and many more planned, personally, I think it is a bit late in the day to be complaining about them, should you not have thought about organising a march before the first lot were put in place ? And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer as to what kind of power you are going to use when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?
Do you not think that us 'antiwindies' have been working our little socks off to try to stop the march of the windymills in Caithness and beyond. We have had some success, Spittal Hill (30 turbines) was a major triumph, Durran (not sure how many turbines but in the twenties I believe), Forss III, Lieurary and Borrowston to name some but unfortunately it is a massive struggle against a system that is biased in favour. Actually there are 135 large wind turbines built or approved and Halsary, Bad a Cheo and Lime Kiln will be before the planning committee in the next few months so the march of the turbines continues. And before I get slagged off again about my view getting spoiled etc. etc. it is about so much more than that and if you have never been in the position of having a large scale windfarm planned literally on your doorstep then you have no right to do down those who campaign against this happening to them and their neighbours! Now I need a dram.
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 11:28
What a waste of time and effort this is, especially since you do not know the difference between a "Windmill" and a "Wind Turbine"
Sorry to take so long to reply Kodiak. I use the term "windmill" to upset the sort of person who gets upset about me using it. However, I asked a person who knows about these things whether wind mill or wind turbine is correct and he has replied as follows.
"Hi Stuart.
A few thoughts about windmills. What we have is strictly not windmills though they resemble them. They do not drive mills as they did in the past. The word “mill” really is inappropriate though there is widespread use of the term windmill.
So what should we use? Leaving “wind” as the first part we want another word to describe what is being worked. I do not think turbine is right. I have worked on turbines and they do not look like what the vanes turn. A turbine is a machine that does work on something else such as an alternator so wind turbine describes the propeller bit twice but again nothing there looks like a turbine to me. Turbines are in the main comprised of a shaft fitted with blades that rotate within a casing fitted with static blades.
So sticking with the wind bit the second term should describe what is being worked on. We can have alternator, dynamo or generator. Only generator fits an electrical machine of any type.
So my choice would be wind generator, or even wind machine. Windmill has the benefit of being nice and short even though it is not correct. Wind turbine though is as incorrect as is wind mill.
Far too many words but if you put them all it should floor your pest.
Regards,
Bill"
cptdodger
10-Mar-13, 13:19
I really don't know where to start here. Where have I name-called?
"What a bunch of losers." "Tossers! "
cptdodger
10-Mar-13, 13:25
and if you have never been in the position of having a large scale windfarm planned literally on your doorstep then you have no right to do down those who campaign against this happening to them and their neighbours! Now I need a dram.
I never "downed you" I just pointed out how many had actually been built already. I also just asked what is supposed to happen when all the natural resources run out. Would it bother me having a large scale windfarm built on my doorstep ? No, it would not.
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-13, 15:54
If you want to complain about a post, click on the black triangle on the left underneath the post, and explain why you are complaining. Your comments will be seen by the admin and the moderator(s) (probably).
Tubthumper
10-Mar-13, 16:09
We hear an awful lot from those determined to support the poor folk that are cursed by these monstrosities, whose lives are blighted, who suffer untold misery at the hands of the greedy landowners. Not a lot from the poor afflicted folk themselves though.
Makes me wonder if the anti brigade just like making a noise. Which some of us find mighty annoying, keeps us from sleeping at night etc.
By the way, anyone who calls me a tosser, even just to get my attention, would certainly get my attention.
Sorry to take so long to reply Kodiak. I use the term "windmill" to upset the sort of person who gets upset about me using it. However, I asked a person who knows about these things whether wind mill or wind turbine is correct and he has replied as follows.
"Hi Stuart.
A few thoughts about windmills. What we have is strictly not windmills though they resemble them. They do not drive mills as they did in the past. The word “mill” really is inappropriate though there is widespread use of the term windmill.
So what should we use? Leaving “wind” as the first part we want another word to describe what is being worked. I do not think turbine is right. I have worked on turbines and they do not look like what the vanes turn. A turbine is a machine that does work on something else such as an alternator so wind turbine describes the propeller bit twice but again nothing there looks like a turbine to me. Turbines are in the main comprised of a shaft fitted with blades that rotate within a casing fitted with static blades.
So sticking with the wind bit the second term should describe what is being worked on. We can have alternator, dynamo or generator. Only generator fits an electrical machine of any type.
So my choice would be wind generator, or even wind machine. Windmill has the benefit of being nice and short even though it is not correct. Wind turbine though is as incorrect as is wind mill.
Far too many words but if you put them all it should floor your pest.
Regards,
Bill"
Who is your pest?
Tubthumper
10-Mar-13, 21:59
And before I get slagged off again about my view getting spoiled etc. etc. it is about so much more than that and if you have never been in the position of having a large scale windfarm planned literally on your doorstep then you have no right to do down those who campaign against this happening to them and their neighbours!.
Bearing in mind that the anti-windfarm brigade never hesitate to slag off those who are pro or neutral in their stance on windpower, I think you're being a bit cheeky.
Surely, based on this post, every single person who lives within sight of a windfarm must be suicidal or at death's door as a result. That might explain why we seldom (if ever) hear them complaining on this site.
As far as I am aware the construction phase for such undertakings is quite benign, while having walked the dogs regularly around such places I don't see or hear (or even sixth-sense) any major downsides to the operational phase either. The dogs didn't seem bothered - you'd expect them to get unsettled in the presence of life-changing subsonic (or hypersonic) issues. Or disturbances in The Force, Luke.
I also get the feeling that, as you say, it's about 'so much more than just a spoilt view' - Perhaps it's about change, upset, upheaval; maybe it's about fear, or about resentment at one's personal space being invaded by the world. Or the feeling of powerlessness a small (but noisy) interest group may feel when up against it. I expect you'd be up in arms at any large scale proposal planned for literally on your doorstep. A NOMD 'Not On My Doorstep' perhaps?
I'd rather you people didn't speak out on our behalf. Please stop it, go find something else to get outraged about. Like world hunger or nuclear dumping.
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 23:25
Bearing in mind that the anti-windfarm brigade never hesitate to slag off those who are pro or neutral in their stance on windpower, I think you're being a bit cheeky.
Surely, based on this post, every single person who lives within sight of a windfarm must be suicidal or at death's door as a result. That might explain why we seldom (if ever) hear them complaining on this site.
As far as I am aware the construction phase for such undertakings is quite benign, while having walked the dogs regularly around such places I don't see or hear (or even sixth-sense) any major downsides to the operational phase either. The dogs didn't seem bothered - you'd expect them to get unsettled in the presence of life-changing subsonic (or hypersonic) issues. Or disturbances in The Force, Luke.
I also get the feeling that, as you say, it's about 'so much more than just a spoilt view' - Perhaps it's about change, upset, upheaval; maybe it's about fear, or about resentment at one's personal space being invaded by the world. Or the feeling of powerlessness a small (but noisy) interest group may feel when up against it. I expect you'd be up in arms at any large scale proposal planned for literally on your doorstep. A NOMD 'Not On My Doorstep' perhaps?
I'd rather you people didn't speak out on our behalf. Please stop it, go find something else to get outraged about. Like world hunger or nuclear dumping.
Tubs. Its easy, you don't need to read and you don't need to post.
It is your choice to get annoyed at us, we are not thrusting it down your throat.
And if you do want to continue a reasonable dialogue, which you are quite capable of, start by giving examples of "slagging off those whose are pro or neutral in their stance". My outburst does not count because it was about infantile posting, not genuine debate.
It is your choice to get annoyed at us, we are not thrusting it down your throat. .
but you are and calling us names sic "What a bunch of losers." "Tossers! "
My outburst does not count because it was about infantile posting, not genuine debate.
Rather ironic don't you think? :roll:
ywindythesecond
10-Mar-13, 23:44
but you are and calling us names sic "What a bunch of losers." "Tossers! "
I am sorry, I should have been more inspired. I clearly haven't done you justice.
cptdodger
10-Mar-13, 23:49
My outburst does not count because it was about infantile posting, not genuine debate.
What a joke - the minute somebody disagrees with you, or dares to say something you do'nt like, we are "burying our heads in the sand" you accused me of being an "ostrich" on the other thread - this thread - ( your words, not mine) ""What a bunch of losers." "Tossers! "
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-13, 23:59
It's typical schoolboy behaviour lol!
It beats me how someone with a near 100% record of failure in deducing results from data can call us infantile! :cool: Have you read his nonsense in his infamous schoolboy report?
The only people who listen to him are the imbeciles at the John Muir Trust and the mendacious tendency at the Torygraph.
The only people who listen to him are the imbeciles at the John Muir Trust and the mendacious tendency at the Torygraph.
Well you have to question the motives of someone who seems so obsessed with a singular issue. Self promotion?
ywindythesecond
11-Mar-13, 00:24
It's typical schoolboy behaviour lol!
It beats me how someone with a near 100% record of failure in deducing results from data can call us infantile! :cool: Have you read his nonsense in his infamous schoolboy report?
The only people who listen to him are the imbeciles at the John Muir Trust and the mendacious tendency at the Torygraph.
Sis could you please include this link when you refer to my schoolboy report, thanks, you are doing a great job advertising it.
Stuart.
http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/Report_Analysis%20UK%20Wind_SYoung.pdf
PS And for a balanced view could you please provide references to considered peer reviewed criticism of it.
Thanks.
It was so error laden that JMT have removed it.
secrets in symmetry
11-Mar-13, 00:33
Well you have to question the motives of someone who seems so obsessed with a singular issue. Self promotion?Oh yes, there is a lot of self-promotion here. He doesn't waste an opportunity to tell us his name and to advertise himself and his schoolboy report.
secrets in symmetry
11-Mar-13, 00:35
It was so error laden that JMT have removed it.I just wish he would learn to present and interpret data in an unbiased fashion. He should read the section on numbers in David Mackay's book on Hot Air.
There is (or was) a page on the JMT site which presents the schoolboy's results as amazing, whereas they are essentially a simple consequence of the v3 rule. He also presents output as a percentage of the unattainable. He could get a job with the Torygraph, and they'd think he was good lol!
ywindythesecond
11-Mar-13, 00:42
The problem with you is, if you do'nt get the answers, or the attention you think your "cause" deserves, you resort to name calling. Now, maybe you do find trying to stop wind farms being built important, that's fine (we have been through this on countless other threads) but you are not going to gain respect coming out with that.
It was you yourself said on the Baillie wind farm thread, that there are over 100 turbines and many more planned, personally, I think it is a bit late in the day to be complaining about them, should you not have thought about organising a march before the first lot were put in place ? And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer as to what kind of power you are going to use when the natural resources (coal, oil and gas) run out?
ywy2 talking. This is the last recorded post on the Baillie Windfarm thread:
http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by cptdodger http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1011827#post1011827)
Okay, we have ascertained you do'nt like wind or tidal power - fine. Supplies of coal, gas and oil, will eventually run out . Dounreay is closing, and after the absolute catastrophe at Fukushima, I for one would be happier if the government did'nt build anymore nuclear power stations (just to quantify that, I have family in Japan, so that is just my personal opinion)
So, what is your answer, when all of the above have run out, where would you like the power to be sourced from?
ywy2's reply
Baseload has to come from nuclear coal and gas. Hydro and pump storage hydro provide instant response. Gas and coal are used for daily and seasonal fluctuations. Gas is kept in reserve for major outages. Nothing else that works on a big enough scale has been invented yet and until it has been, these are all we have that work.
Wind and wave absented itself a couple of days ago and does so frequently. I have just heard on the radio that Wavegen is pulling out of the UK because there is no investment coming forward. Renewables simply don't work when you are trying to power a nation.
Like it or not that is the reality at present. My beef is that our governments are spending our money hand over fist on a technology which can't succeed rather than own up to the fact that for years everyones head was in the sand, and they still don't have the guts to face it. Meanwhile we are trashing the country and unforgiveably imposing the likes of Baillie Windfarm on the people who live there.
Sorry for the garish colours. Nobody has answered that post. Now you all have another opportunity.
ywindythesecond
11-Mar-13, 00:45
I just wish he would learn to present and interpret data in an unbiased fashion. He should read the section on numbers in David Mackay's book on Hot Air.
There is (or was) a page on the JMT site which presents the schoolboy's results as amazing, whereas they are essentially a simple consequence of the v3 rule. He also presents output as a percentage of the unattainable. He could get a job with the Torygraph, and they'd think he was good lol!
Links to peer reviewed criticism please?
If you want to complain about a post, click on the black triangle on the left underneath the post, and explain why you are complaining. Your comments will be seen by the admin and the moderator(s) (probably).
I bet you were the teachers pet at school
Telling on everybody, to make yourself look good, we all know the type
I'm not sure if Rheghead and you are the same person, it seems Rheghead replys to someone's quote and like
magic you then come along and back him up and then add heaps of praise on him.!!
When somebody post's something you do not agree with you state rubbish, it's all wrong, don't know what they are talking about, but you being a scientist!!
never seem to back up any of your arguments with facts just that everybody else is typing excrement, your really no more than a bully on a keyboard.
There was a thread on a while back as to why people were not using the org so much, I wonder why.
Fed up with Windmills? You may be, that is your choice but you cannot complain about them bringing down the cost of energy as reported by Bloomberg. The anti-wind campaigners will trick you into thinking that it is wind energy that is pushing the cost of energy up. I suppose if they repeat that lie often enough then they think it may come true.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/nuclear-industry-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy.html
Well said EOS. The bile that is being spewed by certain individuals on this thread is downright disgusting. for example -
'The only people who listen to him are the imbeciles at the John Muir Trust'
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion about everything. Just because someone doesn't agree with it doesn't give them the right to insult all and sundry. I will just skip over these orgers contributions in future as they are not worth the effort of reading them.
Fed up with Windmills? You may be, that is your choice but you cannot complain about them bringing down the cost of energy as reported by Bloomberg. The anti-wind campaigners will trick you into thinking that it is wind energy that is pushing the cost of energy up. I suppose if they repeat that lie often enough then they think it may come true.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/nuclear-industry-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy.html
So does this mean we will not have to pay for the subsidies any more I will look forward to stop paying the 11% on my electric bill
to the green energy fund as will many other people.
A couple of important details in case people don't want to trawl through the whole thing
A glut of government-subsidized wind power
Atomic-power providers complain that the upheaval is an example of government subsidies distorting the market.
even when there is no demand for the power they produce, operators keep turbines spinning, sending their surplus to the grid because the tax credit assures them a profit.
ywindythesecond
12-Mar-13, 01:28
Fed up with Windmills? You may be, that is your choice but you cannot complain about them bringing down the cost of energy as reported by Bloomberg. The anti-wind campaigners will trick you into thinking that it is wind energy that is pushing the cost of energy up. I suppose if they repeat that lie often enough then they think it may come true.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/nuclear-industry-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy.html
I have looked at the link you posted Reggy and I can't find where it says windfarms don't push up the cost of uk energy, or that they bring it down. Can you please refer me to the part I should be looking at.
It was so error laden that JMT have removed it.
If you are referring to the Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation - it's here http://www.jmt.org/responses-to-issues.asp
MerlinScot
12-Mar-13, 18:51
There was a thread on a while back as to why people were not using the org so much, I wonder why.
@EOS, because it is plain, plain boring. You would be surprised to discover that forum and websites where people are insulting each other all the time keep having loads of hits and users. Yes, sad.... but it is true.
The only reason why I skip posting most of the times is because there is nothing interesting to post or to say. This is the umpteenth thread about wind turbines...
I mean, how many times you need to reiterate that wind energy is bad or good? Another thread on the nuclear again.... Pfft, honestly get Dounreay out of the picture and this area dies straightaway.. I am not in favour of the nuclear, but posters in Caithness whining all the time against windmills and nuclear whilst both are a source of income of nearly all the population here.. Well that is so utterly ridiculous...
If you are referring to the Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation - it's here http://www.jmt.org/responses-to-issues.asp
Well the humour was definitely lost on you. but if you want a critique of the report (which I very much doubt) then here it is.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/wind_turbines_performance_capacity_muir_trust_expr ess_daily_mail-2646
So does this mean we will not have to pay for the subsidies any more I will look forward to stop paying the 11% on my electric bill
to the green energy fund as will many other people.
I'm glad you like it. You will be looking forward to paying less for your bill as wind gets even cheaper than it is now. The Chancellor is expected to gradually cut the RO incentive over the coming years because it makes no sense, to us the consumers, to keep paying it when the wind industry has fully matured and all targets are met. In the meantime, it makes sense to get behind renewable energy because if there is a glut of green energy then the subsidy falls to zero. Because there is a shortfall in green energy then that creates the extra cost.
ywindythesecond
13-Mar-13, 08:34
@EOS, because it is plain, plain boring. You would be surprised to discover that forum and websites where people are insulting each other all the time keep having loads of hits and users. Yes, sad.... but it is true.
The only reason why I skip posting most of the times is because there is nothing interesting to post or to say. This is the umpteenth thread about wind turbines...
I mean, how many times you need to reiterate that wind energy is bad or good? Another thread on the nuclear again.... Pfft, honestly get Dounreay out of the picture and this area dies straightaway.. I am not in favour of the nuclear, but posters in Caithness whining all the time against windmills and nuclear whilst both are a source of income of nearly all the population here.. Well that is so utterly ridiculous...
MerlinScot, you clearly have absolutely no idea of what is happening around you wherever you live. We are not just a few whingers in Caithness and we are not just bothered about our views. Believe it or not I am trying my best for you your children and their children to avoid looming financial hardship and to preserve a land which we all love. It is the scale of wind development, the duplicity of the Scottish Government, the blind adherence to a dogma by UK and EU born in fear of an Armaggedon which is not proven and nobody has the political will to question. And the cost is enormous - financially, environmentally, and in human quality of life.
Have you seen the windfarm development maps which Scottish Natural Heritage produce?
http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/research-data-and-trends/trendsandstats/windfarm-footprint-maps/
Please take five minutes to look and consider whether you are really happy or not with it. Also compare the scale of planned development shown in 2011, with that shown in 2012 and which is already well out of date.
ywindythesecond
13-Mar-13, 09:02
Well the humour was definitely lost on you. but if you want a critique of the report (which I very much doubt) then here it is.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/wind_turbines_performance_capacity_muir_trust_expr ess_daily_mail-2646
To save everyone looking it up, below is the conclusion to the “criticism” of my report which Reggie refers to. It is not what he would have you believe. The criticism is of the way in which the Express and Daily Mail reported it, by not referring to the limitations which I clearly describe starting on page 6.
Conclusion
The data on wind power reported by the Express and the Daily Mail does accurately reflect a report that in turn is based on official data.
However, the reporting in both papers fail to point out that the report can only be seen to reflect the performance of wind farms mostly situated onshore in Scotland.
Further, issues around measuring the installed capacity and grid infrastructure limitations make it difficult to measure metered wind turbine performance with certainty.
A more comprehensive UK data set of wind turbine performance is produced by the Department for Energy and Climate.
Extract from my report
Wind Generation which is “visible” to National Grid
There is no central instantly-accessible record of all industrial wind generated electricity. NG can
only “see” the generation which is metered at the point of connection to the transmission system
under NG’s control and where it has operational metering.
If a wind farm connects to a substation owned or operated by NG, NG can “see” it. If it simply
hooks into the wider distribution system, NG cannot “see” it. It is an invisible source of power
satisfying an invisible demand. However, it remains NG’s responsibility to balance the Grid to
ensure that the invisible demand which wind satisfies when it is generating continues to be met
when it is not generating.
NG can “see” around 50% of all industrial UK wind generation. There is no reason to believe that wind generation not “seen” by NG performs any more efficiently. Indeed, it is possible that, since all the onshore wind generation in the metered total is presently in Scotland, which is generally windier than the rest of the UK, the “unseen” wind generation may perform less well.
Until July 2010, all wind generation “visible” to NG, and in the data analysed in this Report, was from onshore wind in Scotland. It represented about 80% of all industrial wind generation in Scotland and had a good geographical spread. It is reasonable to assume, due to the good geographical spread, that the “visible” generation was a fair representation of all generation in Scotland at that time.After July 2010, with output from offshore wind farms off North East England, in the Solway Firth and at Thanet off the Kent coast having been added to those “visible”, the geographical spread became dispersed, and the data is no longer representative of any particular area.
However, one simple fact remains true. If there is little or no wind generated power available
at any one time from the whole of the “visible” wind fleet, then there is little or no wind
generated power available from any part or geographical sub-section of the wind fleet at that time.
ywindythesecond
13-Mar-13, 09:07
I have looked at the link you posted Reggy and I can't find where it says windfarms don't push up the cost of uk energy, or that they bring it down. Can you please refer me to the part I should be looking at.
I'm glad you like it. You will be looking forward to paying less for your bill as wind gets even cheaper than it is now. The Chancellor is expected to gradually cut the RO incentive over the coming years because it makes no sense, to us the consumers, to keep paying it when the wind industry has fully matured and all targets are met. In the meantime, it makes sense to get behind renewable energy because if there is a glut of green energy then the subsidy falls to zero. Because there is a shortfall in green energy then that creates the extra cost.
Can you answer the first question please to help me understand how wind energy, even cheaper wind energy, will reduce my bills?
I suppose if they repeat that lie often enough then they think it may come true.
From the linky you posted: "government subsidies distorting the market"
Lies, damn lies and statistics. From all sides.
The business case is the best way to look at it for me, remove the subsidies and let business move it forward.
If you removed the subsidies Phill, no-one would be interested in building wind turbines.
MerlinScot
13-Mar-13, 18:25
MerlinScot, you clearly have absolutely no idea of what is happening around you wherever you live. We are not just a few whingers in Caithness and we are not just bothered about our views. Believe it or not I am trying my best for you your children and their children to avoid looming financial hardship and to preserve a land which we all love. It is the scale of wind development, the duplicity of the Scottish Government, the blind adherence to a dogma by UK and EU born in fear of an Armaggedon which is not proven and nobody has the political will to question. And the cost is enormous - financially, environmentally, and in human quality of life.
Have you seen the windfarm development maps which Scottish Natural Heritage produce?
http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/research-data-and-trends/trendsandstats/windfarm-footprint-maps/
Please take five minutes to look and consider whether you are really happy or not with it. Also compare the scale of planned development shown in 2011, with that shown in 2012 and which is already well out of date.
My profile says where I live. And no, I don't concern myself with wind turbines all the time only because I live in Caithness. Scotland is ruled by a party, SNP, that is building its propaganda and its political agenda around renewables energies. That could be for many reasons, but it doesn't matter why.
What matters is that nobody will care about what me and you have to say about it.
Furthermore... I don't really think wind turbines are dangerous. Ugly, maybe. Useless, maybe. But not dangerous :cool:
Another planning app in today's journal for 13 turbines, tower, transformers etc in Caithness.......when will it end?
Believe it or not I am trying my best for you your children and their children to avoid looming financial hardship and to preserve a land which we all love.
And there's the rub. You do not represent us. You are ramming your views down our throats and your active CWIF membership is wanting.
Can you answer the first question please to help me understand how wind energy, even cheaper wind energy, will reduce my bills?
Can you answer my question first please.
From the linky you posted: "government subsidies distorting the market"
Lies, damn lies and statistics. From all sides.
The business case is the best way to look at it for me, remove the subsidies and let business move it forward.
The subsidies are not really distorting the market in the way that you want. The price of wind is cheaper regardless of the 'subsidy'.
Work it out for yourself with this Case Study.
Baillie cost £80 million. Load factor is expected to be 35%. Lifetime of the wind farm is expected to be 25 years. The max output is 52MW. Those are the facts.
The build cost works out to be 2p/kWh plus marginal costs.
Cheap as chips. I think renewable energy will decouple us from the rising costs of fossil fuels and bring down the cost of energy. We only need to get behind the developments.
Cheap as chips but we need to subsidise :confused
Cheap as chips but we need to subsidise :confused
Replace 'subsidy' with 'incentive', a subsidy is used to keep an old uneconomic industry going, an incentive is needed to get a much needed industry a headstart.
Yes there was a need to incentivise back in 2002. Now I see a need to reduce but that was never in doubt.
secrets in symmetry
13-Mar-13, 23:54
I bet you were the teachers pet at school
Telling on everybody, to make yourself look good, we all know the type
I'm not sure if Rheghead and you are the same person, it seems Rheghead replys to someone's quote and like
magic you then come along and back him up and then add heaps of praise on him.!!
When somebody post's something you do not agree with you state rubbish, it's all wrong, don't know what they are talking about, but you being a scientist!!
never seem to back up any of your arguments with facts just that everybody else is typing excrement, your really no more than a bully on a keyboard.
There was a thread on a while back as to why people were not using the org so much, I wonder why.Lol!
Any rational person would conclude that the bullies are You, the schoolboy, greed not green, olivia and rupert - most of you only appear to attack learned sensible people on windy threads! You all line up together and kick out at anyone who talks sense!
Where is the tilting one? Did he, she or it tilt too far and fall on his, her or its face lol?
Replace 'subsidy' with 'incentive', a subsidy is used to keep an old uneconomic industry going, an incentive is needed to get a much needed industry a headstart.
Yes there was a need to incentivise back in 2002. Now I see a need to reduce but that was never in doubt.
Well that's not going to happen any time soon for the smaller turbines
Feed in tariff is guaranteed for 20 years and rises with inflation
Even with running costs and buying the turbine you can make £300000 tax free you can understand why so many people want to install them
Absolutely nothing to do with cutting down our use of oil or coal, all about subsidies and the electricity they produce does not even have to make it to grid.
If you removed the subsidies Phill, no-one would be interested in building wind turbines.
I have asked this question many times and have had no answer or straight answer. Power station are subsidies. Even the new ones that will be built will need some subsidies so all the campaign the anti wind farm groups are talking about money being wasted then it seems our lights will go out as no power companies will produce power with out some subsidies
If you removed the subsidies Phill, no-one would be interested in building wind turbines.
Nobody would be interested in building nuclear power stations either if it weren't for the promise of a decent subsidy.
The French energy giant had just been dealt a body blow by HM Treasury: an offer of a subsidy far below the level EDF felt necessary to spend £14bn building reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9914126/Nuclear-future-hangs-in-the-balance-as-EDF-talks-reach-critical-stage.html
So the beef that the anti-wind brigade have against wind power is not really the subsidies, is it? :roll:
secrets in symmetry
15-Mar-13, 23:04
Do the anti-wind brigade have shares in Gaviscon?
I think we should be told.
Do the wind brigade really believe that covering the UK with windmills will work in terms of climate changeback?
Mystical Potato Head
16-Mar-13, 10:16
And there's the rub. You do not represent us. You are ramming your views down our throats and your active CWIF membership is wanting.
You've been ramming your views down the throats of org members more than anyone else on the forum.Take a look at the threads,
If its ok for you to do it then its ok for YW or anyone else to do so because you do not represent us either although you seem to think you do.
You've been ramming your views down the throats of org members more than anyone else on the forum.Take a look at the threads,
If its ok for you to do it then its ok for YW or anyone else to do so because you do not represent us either although you seem to think you do.
No I'm not.
I'm just debunking all the BS from the anti-wind brigade. My 'views' can be independently verified by any reputable source. Facts are facts, my opinions are my own.
ywindythesecond
21-Mar-13, 21:40
Come to Inverness on Saturday 23rd March and say so out loud.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/930/sasposter2013.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/sasposter2013.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
participate in future discussions of policy with the appropriate members of the Scottish government in a suitable forum.
participate in future discussions of policy with the appropriate members of the Scottish government in a suitable forum.
Who was your pest that Bill referred to in your email???
ywindythesecond
21-Mar-13, 22:27
Who was your pest that Bill referred to in your email???
See post 52. At that time it was Kodiak. I hadn't called him a pest but Bill is quite astute. Re the random line below the poster,
"participate in future discussions of policy with the appropriate members of the Scottish government in a suitable forum."
that is a detached quote from another document so I will edit it out. No idea how it got in there.
Only meant to post this. Hope to see you there everyone.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/930/sasposter2013.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/sasposter2013.jpg/)
secrets in symmetry
22-Mar-13, 01:04
On the other hand, a fight to the death between the anti-windies and the secessionists would be an edifying event. I'd consider paying real money to witness it. :cool:Are tickets on sale for this event yet?
Eck vs ywindy.
Windmills at dawn.
I put my money on ywindy.
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-13, 21:54
Are tickets on sale for this event yet?
Eck vs ywindy.
Windmills at dawn.
I put my money on ywindy.
Its free! Windbags at 3pm Saturday 23rd, Eden Court, Inverness!!!
Come along and cheer your favourite.
A more important event is also taking place tomorrow between 10.00am and 1.30pm in the Thurso British Legion club.
At this event you will be actually be listened to because the organisers want your ideas on how £thousands from wind farm Community benefits should be spent in the county.
http://community.caithness.org/article.php?id=3769
secrets in symmetry
23-Mar-13, 01:39
Its free! Windbags at 3pm Saturday 23rd, Eden Court, Inverness!!!
Come along and cheer your favourite.It doesn't count unless it's to the death.
Windy! Windy! Windy!
radiohead
24-Mar-13, 15:15
We should be allowed to question the building of these things as, after all, we pay for them in the "Green Subsidy" we all have in our fuel bills. I like the new unit of measurement quoted in all Windfarm plans, ie "the house". All windfarms generate enough power for X number of houses. At least nuclear and gas have output quoted in real terms.
I like the new unit of measurement quoted in all Windfarm plans, ie "the house". All windfarms generate enough power for X number of houses. At least nuclear and gas have output quoted in real terms.
That is rubbish. A quick google can prove that to be bogus.
ywindythesecond
25-Mar-13, 01:06
That is rubbish. A quick google can prove that to be bogus.
You are scraping the barrel now Reggy. It is correct that radiohead refered to the house as a unit used by windfarm developers when they actually refer to homes served by the development.
Please answer this. Please refer me to one wind farm planning application which did not refer to the number of homes which would/could/might/perhaps/ have their needs met/supplied/delivered by that particular proposal. Please do answer the question.
You are scraping the barrel now Reggy. It is correct that radiohead refered to the house as a unit used by windfarm developers when they actually refer to homes served by the development.
Please answer this. Please refer me to one wind farm planning application which did not refer to the number of homes which would/could/might/perhaps/ have their needs met/supplied/delivered by that particular proposal. Please do answer the question.
I have no complaint about wind farm planning applications saying how many 'Homes' are being supplied by the development eg. Baillie Hill wind farm will supply the equivalent energy for about 35,000 homes.
I say it is bogus or rubbish to assert that developers of nuclear power stations do not do the same thing or say anything more meaningful..
A quick goole can prove a lot of things to be bogus
Green light for £80m wind farm to feed Beauly-Denny power line (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Green-light-for-80m-wind.5976402.jp)
THE Scottish Government yesterday approved an £80 million wind farm that will feed into the controversial Beauly-Denny power line, given the go-head last week. The 52.5 megawatt (mW) BAILLIE wind farm near Thurso will supply almost 25,000 homes
The 52.5 Megawatt (MW) Baillie wind farm near Thurso will supply almost 25,000 homes and feed electricity in to the upgraded Beauly-Denny line. The £80 million scheme will create 30 jobs during construction
This is from the Scottish Goverment Web site
Only a difference of 10,000 homes
I might have missed it but I can't remember 30 construction jobs being created
I'm sure you will provide us with the info.
A quick goole can prove a lot of things to be bogus
Green light for £80m wind farm to feed Beauly-Denny power line (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Green-light-for-80m-wind.5976402.jp)
THE Scottish Government yesterday approved an £80 million wind farm that will feed into the controversial Beauly-Denny power line, given the go-head last week. The 52.5 megawatt (mW) BAILLIE wind farm near Thurso will supply almost 25,000 homes
The 52.5 Megawatt (MW) Baillie wind farm near Thurso will supply almost 25,000 homes and feed electricity in to the upgraded Beauly-Denny line. The £80 million scheme will create 30 jobs during construction
This is from the Scottish Goverment Web site
Only a difference of 10,000 homes
I might have missed it but I can't remember 30 construction jobs being created
I'm sure you will provide us with the info.
You got to trust the Scotsman to get it wrong!! ;)
ywindythesecond
25-Mar-13, 22:22
I have no complaint about wind farm planning applications saying how many 'Homes' are being supplied by the development eg. Baillie Hill wind farm will supply the equivalent energy for about 35,000 homes.
I say it is bogus or rubbish to assert that developers of nuclear power stations do not do the same thing or say anything more meaningful..
Here we go again Reggy. You either cannot/will not/choose not to answer simple questions. Try this one again:
"Please answer this. Please refer me to one wind farm planning application which did not refer to the number of homes which would/could/might/perhaps/ have their needs met/supplied/delivered by that particular proposal. Please do answer the question."
Please. I expect you will not answer me and you will divert the topic, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Here we go again Reggy. You either cannot/will not/choose not to answer simple questions. Try this one again:
"Please answer this. Please refer me to one wind farm planning application which did not refer to the number of homes which would/could/might/perhaps/ have their needs met/supplied/delivered by that particular proposal. Please do answer the question."
Please. I expect you will not answer me and you will divert the topic, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Why are you changing the subject? I'm just debunking radiohead's assertion that nuclear and gas planning applications etc say anything different than in the case of wind. If you want to me to clarify an assertion that I did not make then you are going to wait a long time.
I think they look fantastic !
webmannie
27-Mar-13, 08:02
How many turned up for your 'demo' in Inverness Windy-2?
Ochone Ochone, now who was that on Call Kaye Adams show today from Thursa, what a waste of breath [lol]
ywindythesecond
27-Mar-13, 11:00
Why are you changing the subject? I'm just debunking radiohead's assertion that nuclear and gas planning applications etc say anything different than in the case of wind. If you want to me to clarify an assertion that I did not make then you are going to wait a long time.
"Please. I expect you will not answer me and you will divert the topic, but I will be happy to be proven wrong."
So I was right then.
ywindythesecond
27-Mar-13, 11:09
Ochone Ochone, now who was that on Call Kaye Adams show today from Thursa, what a waste of breath [lol]
Yep that was me golach. Instead of just being offensive, would you care to say what I said that was wrong? Alex Salmond was so keen to get close and cosy with Donald Trump that HE not Trump overturned the planning refusal for a golf course on an SSSI. Salmond, the man entrusted with the care of this land and its people threw the baby out with the bathwater in the pursuit of his own glorification.
I came back from Inverness on Monday on a fine sunny day and even I was astonished at how the Caithness landscape has changed over the winter with turbines being built.
Stop making cheap points and and start thinking about what is going on. Make some inquiries into what all these wind turbines and solar panels are costing you personally, you might laugh on the other side of your face if you were to be better informed.
Yep that was me golach. Instead of just being offensive, would you care to say what I said that was wrong?.
As I am totally opposed to your way of thinking, need I say more, IMO even Kaye Adams gave you short shrift, many others had longer air time, and were for the turbines.
Second, nwc, birds don't hatch with the knowledge that a turbine blade travelling at 100mph or more might be at the same precise location as them as they fly past. They have to learn by experience.
You're not bothered about birds but you do latch on to any reason to gurn about wind farms so it suits your grist to mention this.
Seemingly birds suffer similar fate just by flying into stationary buildings. My house is a bungalow and I've had 2 bird deaths against the windows already this year despite me putting out stickers.
To be fair, I think all new building applications, not just wind farms, should have ornithological assessments although I do not think there would be much stomach for it.
ywindythesecond
27-Mar-13, 20:52
How many turned up for your 'demo' in Inverness Windy-2?
About 60 to 70, but given the weather across the country, that wasn't bad, and we made up with enthusiasm. It was really cold though!
Sis was asking how we got on with Mr Salmond. He didn't turn up but that was an error of judgment.
http://bit.ly/15L68wd
Yep that was me golach. Instead of just being offensive, would you care to say what I said that was wrong? Alex Salmond was so keen to get close and cosy with Donald Trump that HE not Trump overturned the planning refusal for a golf course on an SSSI. Salmond, the man entrusted with the care of this land and its people threw the baby out with the bathwater in the pursuit of his own glorification.
I came back from Inverness on Monday on a fine sunny day and even I was astonished at how the Caithness landscape has changed over the winter with turbines being built.
Stop making cheap points and and start thinking about what is going on. Make some inquiries into what all these wind turbines and solar panels are costing you personally, you might laugh on the other side of your face if you were to be better informed.
Well as I thought no one answer my question. I note again you mention wind farms and Solar but left out Power stations yet again I wonder why
ywindythesecond
28-Mar-13, 10:10
About 60 to 70, but given the weather across the country, that wasn't bad, and we made up with enthusiasm. It was really cold though!
Sis was asking how we got on with Mr Salmond. He didn't turn up but that was an error of judgment.
http://bit.ly/15L68wd
Sorry, that link didn't work. Here is the whole article, sorry about the quality. If anyone wants a better resolution image please pm me.
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/189/demopj.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/demopj.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
ywindythesecond
28-Mar-13, 10:14
Well as I thought no one answer my question. I note again you mention wind farms and Solar but left out Power stations yet again I wonder why
Not quite sure what question you are referring to Scout. Please ask it again and I will answer it.
Not quite sure what question you are referring to Scout. Please ask it again and I will answer it.
The question was Power Stations are Funded by Tax payer. When you really look at all power companies all are funded. So I am surprised when you mention wind farms solar wave power etc you do not go on to saying about power stations as well.
Wind is cheap it seems. The new Hinckley power station is set to be subsidised with a guaranteed £90 billion deal that will cost us over twice the current market value of electricity thus costing consumers dear in their pocket.
And it is EDF, the French who will be rolling all the way to the bank.
It is renewables that are coming down in price and it is coal, gas and nuke that is costing us more.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2298087/EDF-horse-race-build-14bn-nuclear-plant-Hinkley.html
ywindythesecond
28-Mar-13, 19:55
The question was Power Stations are Funded by Tax payer. When you really look at all power companies all are funded. So I am surprised when you mention wind farms solar wave power etc you do not go on to saying about power stations as well.
The reason I don't say Power Stations (assuming you mean conventional sources - coal gas nuclear etc) are also subsidised is that they are not. Historical nuclear decommissioning and waste storage are indeed a public cost, but presently operating nuclear power stations are not subsidised to produce electricity, neither are coal oil and gas generators, and hydro over 20MW. I will leave aside meantime the very good point Reggy makes about EDF being the only game in town and address it in another post.
The idea that coal, oil, and gas generation of electricity was subsidised came from an article in the Guardian on 27th February 2012. It was based on the fact that domestic electricity has VAT applied at 5% and industrial users pay the 20% standard rate. It failed to note that domestic electricity from whatever source attracts VAT at 5%, including wind.
There is a very good paper putting it into perspective here http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Coal%20gas%20and%20oil%20subsidy.pdf . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has disputed its findings, but watch this space.
The reason I don't say Power Stations (assuming you mean conventional sources - coal gas nuclear etc) are also subsidised is that they are not. Historical nuclear decommissioning and waste storage are indeed a public cost, but presently operating nuclear power stations are not subsidised to produce electricity, neither are coal oil and gas generators, and hydro over 20MW. I will leave aside meantime the very good point Reggy makes about EDF being the only game in town and address it in another post.
The idea that coal, oil, and gas generation of electricity was subsidised came from an article in the Guardian on 27th February 2012. It was based on the fact that domestic electricity has VAT applied at 5% and industrial users pay the 20% standard rate. It failed to note that domestic electricity from whatever source attracts VAT at 5%, including wind.
There is a very good paper putting it into perspective here http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Coal%20gas%20and%20oil%20subsidy.pdf . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has disputed its findings, but watch this space.
Sorry I must be seeing things then.
The government is launching a last-ditch attempt to sign up energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy)companies to build new nuclear power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/nuclearpower) stations by proposing to sign contracts guaranteeing subsidies for up to 40 years.
The coalition agreement reached between the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) and Liberal Democrats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats) in 2010 promised that nuclear power stations would be built only if the industry got no public subsidy, but costly overruns for new reactors overseas and the exit of several major utilities from the UK programme, most recently Centrica, have driven ministers and officials to backtrack on that pledge and accept they will have to provide financial support.
The Guardian has learned that ministers, intent on keeping the guaranteed wholesale cost of each unit of energy below the politically crucial figure of £100 per megawatt hour, are proposing to extend contracts from the 20 years originally envisaged to at least 30 and possibly as long as 40 years.
"To build the full 16GW (gigawatt) at the same price would cost £250bn over 40-year contracts, and over 30-year contracts £150bn," said Tom Burke, a founding director of the environmental campaign group E3G.
Industry sources believe the likely agreed price for the first project in the pipeline to be contracted on this timescale – two 1.6 GW reactors to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset by the energy company EDF – will be below £100, though not by a large margin. That price, however, is more than double the market price for electricity, and higher than all but the most expensive government forecasts (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65722/7019-annex-f-price-growth-assumptions.xls) for the future.
"It makes a huge difference if it's 30, 35 or 40 years," said one industry source with knowledge of the negotiations.
Whitehall sources said they were confident that although the cost of the new reactor would be very high, that will start to fall with subsequent projects, and could fall as low as £55-56 a unit later in the programme. The Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, Martin Horwood, commenting on the threat to extend contracts to 40 years, said: "Over that timescale it's ludicrous because we should really see renewables come into their own: there's no justification for subsidising nuclear like that."
At the same time some MPs are concerned that the energy bill, which is being scrutinised by MPs, would allow future governments to give nuclear power stations more money if it was needed, without telling parliament.
Suspicion about the clauses in the bill enabling future financial support have been fuelled by industry claims in recent weeks. Vincent de Rivas, chief executive of EDF, told MPs that he wanted the government to guarantee buying all the possible output from the new nuclear plants, not just what was needed.
Horwood said he supported most of the bill and the funding mechanism being used, but would be tabling amendments over the financial support being extended to a much older technology like nuclear power – a technology that Lib Dems have traditionally opposed.
MPs are also angry about the government's changing rhetoric on subsidies. Since the 2010 promise there would be "no public subsidy", ministers have modified it to say no "unfair" subsidies – wording intended to cover support for a range of technology. This month the energy secretary, Ed Davey, admitted to MPs the funding mechanism could differ between technologies and even individual projects.
Under the proposed funding system, called contracts for difference, companies such as EDF that build and operate nuclear reactors would be guaranteed a minimum "strike" price for the energy they generate.
If the market price falls below this strike price, the difference will be made up by a surcharge on customer bills; if the market price rises higher then the generator will have to refund the difference. "This is Jesuitical Casuistry," said Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and long time anti-nuclear campaigner. "He [Davey] is saying there will be a subsidy. Perhaps an enormous subsidy. But you, parliament and the public, will not know what it is until it is too late to change."
Burke, who is visiting professor at Imperial and University colleges in London, calculated that at just below £100 a unit, if the market price stabilised at £50 – which is below the lowest government forecast market price of £59 in 2030 – EDF would receive £50bn in support from the government over four decades for Hinkley.
The government argues that despite the problems getting new nuclear plants built it is essential to keep nuclear power alongside renewable energy and new gas plants to keep prices lower and help reduce the risk of over-relying on one technology. Long term the government hopes to build up to 16GW of new nuclear power to help diversify the energy sources, also including renewable energy and new gas power, to keep prices down and make the UK more resilient to supply problems with one technology.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change said in a statement: "No commitment has been made on commercial terms or a strike price. Ongoing discussions are focused on finding a fair, affordable deal, which represents value for money for consumers. Any agreement reached will be laid before parliament, and will include details of the strike price."
Sorry I must be seeing things then.
The government is launching a last-ditch attempt to sign up energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy)companies to build new nuclear power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/nuclearpower) stations by proposing to sign contracts guaranteeing subsidies for up to 40 years.
The coalition agreement reached between the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) and Liberal Democrats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats) in 2010 promised that nuclear power stations would be built only if the industry got no public subsidy, but costly overruns for new reactors overseas and the exit of several major utilities from the UK programme, most recently Centrica, have driven ministers and officials to backtrack on that pledge and accept they will have to provide financial support.
The Guardian has learned that ministers, intent on keeping the guaranteed wholesale cost of each unit of energy below the politically crucial figure of £100 per megawatt hour, are proposing to extend contracts from the 20 years originally envisaged to at least 30 and possibly as long as 40 years.
"To build the full 16GW (gigawatt) at the same price would cost £250bn over 40-year contracts, and over 30-year contracts £150bn," said Tom Burke, a founding director of the environmental campaign group E3G.
Industry sources believe the likely agreed price for the first project in the pipeline to be contracted on this timescale – two 1.6 GW reactors to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset by the energy company EDF – will be below £100, though not by a large margin. That price, however, is more than double the market price for electricity, and higher than all but the most expensive government forecasts (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65722/7019-annex-f-price-growth-assumptions.xls) for the future.
"It makes a huge difference if it's 30, 35 or 40 years," said one industry source with knowledge of the negotiations.
Whitehall sources said they were confident that although the cost of the new reactor would be very high, that will start to fall with subsequent projects, and could fall as low as £55-56 a unit later in the programme. The Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, Martin Horwood, commenting on the threat to extend contracts to 40 years, said: "Over that timescale it's ludicrous because we should really see renewables come into their own: there's no justification for subsidising nuclear like that."
At the same time some MPs are concerned that the energy bill, which is being scrutinised by MPs, would allow future governments to give nuclear power stations more money if it was needed, without telling parliament.
Suspicion about the clauses in the bill enabling future financial support have been fuelled by industry claims in recent weeks. Vincent de Rivas, chief executive of EDF, told MPs that he wanted the government to guarantee buying all the possible output from the new nuclear plants, not just what was needed.
Horwood said he supported most of the bill and the funding mechanism being used, but would be tabling amendments over the financial support being extended to a much older technology like nuclear power – a technology that Lib Dems have traditionally opposed.
MPs are also angry about the government's changing rhetoric on subsidies. Since the 2010 promise there would be "no public subsidy", ministers have modified it to say no "unfair" subsidies – wording intended to cover support for a range of technology. This month the energy secretary, Ed Davey, admitted to MPs the funding mechanism could differ between technologies and even individual projects.
Under the proposed funding system, called contracts for difference, companies such as EDF that build and operate nuclear reactors would be guaranteed a minimum "strike" price for the energy they generate.
If the market price falls below this strike price, the difference will be made up by a surcharge on customer bills; if the market price rises higher then the generator will have to refund the difference. "This is Jesuitical Casuistry," said Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and long time anti-nuclear campaigner. "He [Davey] is saying there will be a subsidy. Perhaps an enormous subsidy. But you, parliament and the public, will not know what it is until it is too late to change."
Burke, who is visiting professor at Imperial and University colleges in London, calculated that at just below £100 a unit, if the market price stabilised at £50 – which is below the lowest government forecast market price of £59 in 2030 – EDF would receive £50bn in support from the government over four decades for Hinkley.
The government argues that despite the problems getting new nuclear plants built it is essential to keep nuclear power alongside renewable energy and new gas plants to keep prices lower and help reduce the risk of over-relying on one technology. Long term the government hopes to build up to 16GW of new nuclear power to help diversify the energy sources, also including renewable energy and new gas power, to keep prices down and make the UK more resilient to supply problems with one technology.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change said in a statement: "No commitment has been made on commercial terms or a strike price. Ongoing discussions are focused on finding a fair, affordable deal, which represents value for money for consumers. Any agreement reached will be laid before parliament, and will include details of the strike price."
My point really is ywindythesecond You can not pick and choose with arguments you put forward If you really are against subsidised then you should also point out Power Stations will get these as well.
ywindythesecond
28-Mar-13, 22:10
My point really is ywindythesecond You can not pick and choose with arguments you put forward If you really are against subsidised then you should also point out Power Stations will get these as well.
If you go back to my post you will see that I say two things:
"but presently operating nuclear power stations are not subsidised to produce electricity, neither are coal oil and gas generators, and hydro over 20MW.""I will leave aside meantime the very good point Reggy makes about EDF being the only game in town and address it in another post."
I do not pick and choose, my answer was clear. I was addressing present generation. You referred to "When you really look at all power companies all are funded." That is what you were asking about and I answered it.
I will respond to Reggy's point about EDF which refers to possible future subsidy, in a seperate post.
ywindythesecond
28-Mar-13, 23:20
Wind is cheap it seems. The new Hinckley power station is set to be subsidised with a guaranteed £90 billion deal that will cost us over twice the current market value of electricity thus costing consumers dear in their pocket.
And it is EDF, the French who will be rolling all the way to the bank.
It is renewables that are coming down in price and it is coal, gas and nuke that is costing us more.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2298087/EDF-horse-race-build-14bn-nuclear-plant-Hinkley.html
The new Hinckley Power station may be subsidised with a £90 bn deal, and if so it will cost us over twice the current market value of electricity and cost consumers dear in their pocket.
The reason for this is that EDF wants to maximise its profits. The argument is that if wind electricity is subsidised to the extent that it already costs twice the cost of the current market value of electricity (from coal oil gas hydro and nuclear etc), why should new nuclear generated electricity not be given the same market advantage? Particularly because nuclear is reliable and wind is not reliable?
EDF, the French, will be rolling all the way to the bank, but Iberdrola, the Spanish owners of Scottish and Southern Electricity are already rolling that way.
Renewables are not coming down in price. The cost of other forms of electricity generation are being artificially inflated so that renewables generated electricity appears competetitive.
Certainly, 1MWh wind now only earns 90% of 1ROC, but because there are now fewer ROCs available, each costs more. A shot in the foot for UK govt.
Coal, gas, and oil generated electricity will cost us more from 1st April, from when they are taxed to make fossil generated electricity more expensive so we use more “renewables “.
Prices of renewable generated electricity start at twice conventional for onshore wind, to three times as much for offshore wind, to five times as much for wave and tidal.
orkneycadian
29-Mar-13, 00:04
Here we go again Reggy. You either cannot/will not/choose not to answer simple questions. Try this one again:
"Please answer this. Please refer me to one wind farm planning application which did not refer to the number of homes which would/could/might/perhaps/ have their needs met/supplied/delivered by that particular proposal. Please do answer the question."
Please. I expect you will not answer me and you will divert the topic, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
On Rheggies behalf, will this one do? Not very far away from me, the first one that popped out of Google and not a single mention of the number of homes it will power.
http://planningandwarrant.orkney.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3BA11102CFC9F677F8BA0C26AF5FB108/pdf/13_073_TPP-Design_Statement-129493.pdf
(http://planningandwarrant.orkney.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3BA11102CFC9F677F8BA0C26AF5FB108/pdf/13_073_TPP-Design_Statement-129493.pdf)
The reason I don't say Power Stations (assuming you mean conventional sources - coal gas nuclear etc) are also subsidised is that they are not. Historical nuclear decommissioning and waste storage are indeed a public cost, but presently operating nuclear power stations are not subsidised to produce electricity, neither are coal oil and gas generators, and hydro over 20MW. I will leave aside meantime the very good point Reggy makes about EDF being the only game in town and address it in another post.
The idea that coal, oil, and gas generation of electricity was subsidised came from an article in the Guardian on 27th February 2012. It was based on the fact that domestic electricity has VAT applied at 5% and industrial users pay the 20% standard rate. It failed to note that domestic electricity from whatever source attracts VAT at 5%, including wind.
There is a very good paper putting it into perspective here http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Coal%20gas%20and%20oil%20subsidy.pdf . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has disputed its findings, but watch this space.
I am sorry but you are wrong to say the others are not subsidised they are but may not be as open the way public money is pumped in to them.
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 08:24
I am sorry but you are wrong to say the others are not subsidised they are but may not be as open the way public money is pumped in to them.
Ok, tell us how you know they are subsidised.
Ok, tell us how you know they are subsidised.
You only need to type in google and search
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 09:50
You only need to type in google and search
Now you are doing a Reggy! That is exactly what he does when he can't answer a question.
Now you are doing a Reggy! That is exactly what he does when he can't answer a question.
How do you get your answers then? So are you saying I am wrong then. I think most people who look at this page would only need to do what I have said and find out the answer of course you do not like the answer because it goes against your argument.
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 10:37
How do you get your answers then? So are you saying I am wrong then. I think most people who look at this page would only need to do what I have said and find out the answer of course you do not like the answer because it goes against your argument.
You haven't given me an answer.
You haven't given me an answer.
I have now
Public subsidies for the development of wind power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/windpower) in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuels), a new Guardian analysis has revealed. Financial support for fledgling renewable energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy)industries has increasingly come under attack in recent months, but the new data shows that the older industries benefit to a far greater extent.
Gas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gas), oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil) and coal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/coal) prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3746,en_2649_37431_48813609_1_1_1_37431,00.html) , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).
The government argues that investing in wind (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/06/nick-clegg-wind-power-subsidies), marine, solar and otherrenewable energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/renewableenergy) sources will help meet the nation's legally binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing economic opportunities for the UK and a more diversified and less volatile energy supply. It points to rising global gas prices as the major reason (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/clean-energy-bills) for the sharp rise in home energy bills in recent years. Opponents argue investing in renewables is unaffordable in this economic climate.
The Treasury was unable to provide figures for the tax relief and other subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, but the OECD data is described as "very robust" by subsidies expert Peter Wooders, who worked for British Gas and is now at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (http://www.iisd.org/about/staffbio.aspx?id=989).
Almost 90% of the fossil fuel subsidy comes from the reduced rate of VAT paid by households. Wooders said if such price cuts were intended to reduce energy costs for poorer households, they were a "very blunt tool" with many better-off people also gaining. "Just about any other way than fossil fuel cost subsidies will be more effective," he said. Gas, which dominates home heating and electricity generation in the UK, received about £3bn in subsidy, with oil getting £500m and coal £72m.
Wooders said the purpose of subsidies should be to reduce the cost of new – rather than existing – energy sources: "You want renewable subsidies to reduce the cost of the technology, so you have better options going forward." Support for renewables in the UK comes mainly via an obligation on electricity suppliers to provide increasing amounts of renewable energy (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx), paid for by a levy on energy bills. Feed-in-tariffs – direct payments for green power such as those for solar power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/feed-in-tariffs) – account for just 1% of the total subsidies to renewables.
Green electricity benefits from the price cut delivered by the reduced VAT rate but, while no data is available on the sum, it will be far smaller than for gas and coal, which provide 85% of UK electricity, compared with 6% for renewables in 2010-11 (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/fuel_mix/fuel_mix.aspx).
No comprehensive analysis of subsidies provided to each energy technology exists with, for example, no data on the cost of subsidising red diesel, used in agriculture and industry by about 70p a litre (about 50%) or on export credit guarantees given to British companies who have recently ventured into deep-sea oil drilling off Brazil and coal mining in Siberia. Other subsidies include the millions of pounds of free coal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/government-data-schools-welfare-coal)given each year to former British Coal miners and their families, a scheme that has cost almost £1bn since 1994 and is not expected to end until 2064.
"It's incredible that as millions of families across Britain are feeling the squeeze, George Osborne is handing billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to some of the biggest and most polluting corporations in the world," said a senior Greenpeace campaigner, Joss Garman. "Whilst ministers are transparent about the relatively small sums they are using to support our emerging clean energy businesses, in contrast there's no openness about the staggering amounts they're spending on huge fossil fuel and nuclear corporations."
Most of the Decc's budget is spent on decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn on 2010-11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11). Nuclear power is expected to benefit from the forthcoming carbon floor price, receiving perhaps £50m a year, and possible tax exemption on uranium. Anti-nuclear campaigners (http://www.energyfair.org.uk/home) also claim that "hidden subsidies", such as the limit on an operator's liability for accidents, are worth billions.
The UK's greater subsidies for fossil fuels mirrors the global situation, with the International Energy Agency recently showing that, in the 37 countries it analysed, oil, gas and coal received $409bn (£261bn) in 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-target) compared with $66bn for renewable energy. Wooders noted the IEA analysis excluded support for the exploration and recovery of oil and gas, which he estimates to be worth about $100bn a year, and that fossil fuel subsidies have not been declining in recent years.
But the pressure to remove such subsidies is growing: the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase them out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/g20-communique-pittsburgh) in "the medium term", with President Barack Obama pledging the same (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/obama-proposes-cutting-40-billion-in-u-s-fossil-fuel-credits.html) this month. The issue is also on the agenda for the global environment summit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/10/leaked-document-rio-goals) in Rio de Janeiro this June, 20 years on from the Earth summit.
Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, has backed wind power subsidies (http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Offshore_wind.pdf). "People forget the government supported the oil and gas supply chain in its early days: with generous tax incentives, training programmes, strategic infrastructure; and supportive regulation," he said in 2011. "The result today is a world leading industry, creating jobs in manufacturing and engineering across the UK."
Others have called for far greater support for the green economy, by direct investment of some of the money created by the government through so-called "quantitative easing." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/15/quantitative-easing-bank-of-england-inflation-report) The economist who coined the phrase, Professor Richard Werner, now at Southampton University, said: "The staggering £325bn [of QE to date] has largely ended up with the banks in the futile hope that it would result in a substantial increase in UK lending to business. To ensure that this does not happen again, we need a different kind of QE, to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as creating thousands of new jobs."
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 18:07
I have now
Public subsidies for the development of wind power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/windpower) in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuels), a new Guardian analysis has revealed. Financial support for fledgling renewable energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy)industries has increasingly come under attack in recent months, but the new data shows that the older industries benefit to a far greater extent.
Gas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gas), oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil) and coal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/coal) prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3746,en_2649_37431_48813609_1_1_1_37431,00.html) , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).
The government argues that investing in wind (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/06/nick-clegg-wind-power-subsidies), marine, solar and otherrenewable energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/renewableenergy) sources will help meet the nation's legally binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing economic opportunities for the UK and a more diversified and less volatile energy supply. It points to rising global gas prices as the major reason (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/clean-energy-bills) for the sharp rise in home energy bills in recent years. Opponents argue investing in renewables is unaffordable in this economic climate.
The Treasury was unable to provide figures for the tax relief and other subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, but the OECD data is described as "very robust" by subsidies expert Peter Wooders, who worked for British Gas and is now at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (http://www.iisd.org/about/staffbio.aspx?id=989).
Almost 90% of the fossil fuel subsidy comes from the reduced rate of VAT paid by households. Wooders said if such price cuts were intended to reduce energy costs for poorer households, they were a "very blunt tool" with many better-off people also gaining. "Just about any other way than fossil fuel cost subsidies will be more effective," he said. Gas, which dominates home heating and electricity generation in the UK, received about £3bn in subsidy, with oil getting £500m and coal £72m.
Wooders said the purpose of subsidies should be to reduce the cost of new – rather than existing – energy sources: "You want renewable subsidies to reduce the cost of the technology, so you have better options going forward." Support for renewables in the UK comes mainly via an obligation on electricity suppliers to provide increasing amounts of renewable energy (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx), paid for by a levy on energy bills. Feed-in-tariffs – direct payments for green power such as those for solar power (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/feed-in-tariffs) – account for just 1% of the total subsidies to renewables.
Green electricity benefits from the price cut delivered by the reduced VAT rate but, while no data is available on the sum, it will be far smaller than for gas and coal, which provide 85% of UK electricity, compared with 6% for renewables in 2010-11 (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/fuel_mix/fuel_mix.aspx).
No comprehensive analysis of subsidies provided to each energy technology exists with, for example, no data on the cost of subsidising red diesel, used in agriculture and industry by about 70p a litre (about 50%) or on export credit guarantees given to British companies who have recently ventured into deep-sea oil drilling off Brazil and coal mining in Siberia. Other subsidies include the millions of pounds of free coal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/government-data-schools-welfare-coal)given each year to former British Coal miners and their families, a scheme that has cost almost £1bn since 1994 and is not expected to end until 2064.
"It's incredible that as millions of families across Britain are feeling the squeeze, George Osborne is handing billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to some of the biggest and most polluting corporations in the world," said a senior Greenpeace campaigner, Joss Garman. "Whilst ministers are transparent about the relatively small sums they are using to support our emerging clean energy businesses, in contrast there's no openness about the staggering amounts they're spending on huge fossil fuel and nuclear corporations."
Most of the Decc's budget is spent on decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn on 2010-11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11). Nuclear power is expected to benefit from the forthcoming carbon floor price, receiving perhaps £50m a year, and possible tax exemption on uranium. Anti-nuclear campaigners (http://www.energyfair.org.uk/home) also claim that "hidden subsidies", such as the limit on an operator's liability for accidents, are worth billions.
The UK's greater subsidies for fossil fuels mirrors the global situation, with the International Energy Agency recently showing that, in the 37 countries it analysed, oil, gas and coal received $409bn (£261bn) in 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-target) compared with $66bn for renewable energy. Wooders noted the IEA analysis excluded support for the exploration and recovery of oil and gas, which he estimates to be worth about $100bn a year, and that fossil fuel subsidies have not been declining in recent years.
But the pressure to remove such subsidies is growing: the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase them out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/g20-communique-pittsburgh) in "the medium term", with President Barack Obama pledging the same (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/obama-proposes-cutting-40-billion-in-u-s-fossil-fuel-credits.html) this month. The issue is also on the agenda for the global environment summit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/10/leaked-document-rio-goals) in Rio de Janeiro this June, 20 years on from the Earth summit.
Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, has backed wind power subsidies (http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Offshore_wind.pdf). "People forget the government supported the oil and gas supply chain in its early days: with generous tax incentives, training programmes, strategic infrastructure; and supportive regulation," he said in 2011. "The result today is a world leading industry, creating jobs in manufacturing and engineering across the UK."
Others have called for far greater support for the green economy, by direct investment of some of the money created by the government through so-called "quantitative easing." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/15/quantitative-easing-bank-of-england-inflation-report) The economist who coined the phrase, Professor Richard Werner, now at Southampton University, said: "The staggering £325bn [of QE to date] has largely ended up with the banks in the futile hope that it would result in a substantial increase in UK lending to business. To ensure that this does not happen again, we need a different kind of QE, to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as creating thousands of new jobs."
That is about the Guardian article I referred to above (#124). The reason that the Guardian was wrong is found here http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/...%20subsidy.pdf (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Coal%20gas%20and%20oil%20subsidy.pdf)
You only need to type in google and search
You are wasting your time on ywindythesecond.
His sole interest in life is stopping wind farms. Hook or by crook.
All energy generators enjoy a tax break in VAT on its product, in a market which is dominated by the fossil fuel industry then that is a huge subsidy to coal and gas generation.
Any company that takes over a former publically owned generator enjoys a subsidy just by the sheer nature of privatisation. Nuclear power particularly enjoys a huge public subsidy to the tune of £3 billion per year to clean up all the radioactive waste.
And now the nuclear industry will get a guaranteed price, another subsidy for its electricity at twice the market price.
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 21:15
All energy generators enjoy a tax break in VAT on its product, in a market which is dominated by the fossil fuel industry then that is a huge subsidy to coal and gas generation.
Any company that takes over a former publically owned generator enjoys a subsidy just by the sheer nature of privatisation.
Nuclear power particularly enjoys a huge public subsidy to the tune of £3 billion per year to clean up all the radioactive waste. And now the nuclear industry will get a guaranteed price, another subsidy for its electricity at twice the market price.
All energy generators enjoy a tax break in VAT on its product, in a market which is dominated by the fossil fuel industry then that is a huge subsidy to coal and gas generation.
The generators don't "enjoy it", it is the consumers who are protected by government. The generators are not advantaged in any way. Read the paper.
Any company that takes over a former publically owned generator enjoys a subsidy just by the sheer nature of privatisation.
Interesting point, but all we pay nowadays is the cost of generation. For renewables we also pay the cost of the Renewables obligation, which incidentally simply puts onshore wind in the same ballpark cost as future nuclear, twice as expensive as fossil generation.
Nuclear power particularly enjoys a huge public subsidy to the tune of £3 billion per year to clean up all the radioactive waste.
That is true but it is a development cost, not one of generation, and anyway, what both Scout and I were referring to was coal oil and gas.
And now the nuclear industry will get a guaranteed price, another subsidy for its electricity at twice the market price.
Which is the same as onshore wind.
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 21:19
You are wasting your time on ywindythesecond.
His sole interest in life is stopping wind farms. Hook or by crook.
Wrong Reggy. My interest is in trying to waken people up to the disaster waiting for us when we have insufficient reliable generation to serve the country and no money or time left to fix it. Once they waken up, they will stop the windfarms by stopping the politicians wasting our money and making a few people very rich indeed with it. It is probably already too late.
Wrong Reggy. My interest is in trying to waken people up to the disaster waiting for us when we have insufficient reliable generation to serve the country and no money or time left to fix it. Once they waken up, they will stop the windfarms by stopping the politicians wasting our money and making a few people very rich indeed with it. It is probably already too late.
No. your singular objective is to stop the development of wind farms.
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 22:42
No. your singular objective is to stop the development of wind farms.
Young! Write 100 lines:
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
etc
etc
orkneycadian
29-Mar-13, 23:13
You are wasting your time on ywindythesecond.His sole interest in life is stopping wind farms. Hook or by crook.Aye, looks like you are right there Rheggy. In post #109 above he said he would be happy to be proven wrong. When he was, in post #129, he ignores it. Can we get the thread title changed to "Fed up with Ywindys Windmill Threads"?
ywindythesecond
29-Mar-13, 23:40
Aye, looks like you are right there Rheggy. In post #109 above he said he would be happy to be proven wrong. When he was, in post #129, he ignores it. Can we get the thread title changed to "Fed up with Ywindys Windmill Threads"?
The link you posted http://planningandwarrant.orkney.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3BA11102CFC9F677F8BA0C26AF5FB108/pdf/13_073_TPP-Design_Statement-129493.pdf
(http://planningandwarrant.orkney.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3BA11102CFC9F677F8BA0C26AF5FB108/pdf/13_073_TPP-Design_Statement-129493.pdf)is broken, it says "document unavailable".
Anyway, I was proven right, Reggy didn't answer and you attempting to answer on his behalf to make a point was just plain pathetic.
Happy to see that Sis has joined us, nice and cosy, all the windybashers lined up to be shot down!
Now, did I see an intellect anywhere, that would be something new .....?
secrets in symmetry
29-Mar-13, 23:48
Aye, looks like you are right there Rheggy. In post #109 above he said he would be happy to be proven wrong. When he was, in post #129, he ignores it. Can we get the thread title changed to "Fed up with Ywindys Windmill Threads"?Welcome back orkneycadian! :cool:
You and your intellect have been sorely missed.
I'm not fed up with windy's ythreads. Their nonsense is the highlight of my week. :cool:
cptdodger
29-Mar-13, 23:55
Wrong Reggy. My interest is in trying to waken people up to the disaster waiting for us when we have insufficient reliable generation to serve the country and no money or time left to fix it. Once they waken up, they will stop the windfarms by stopping the politicians wasting our money and making a few people very rich indeed with it. It is probably already too late.
I will ask you again, when gas, coal and oil eventually run out - what is the alternative ?
secrets in symmetry
29-Mar-13, 23:56
I will ask you again, when gas, coal and oil eventually run out - what is the alternative ?There's no point in asking him. He would have been a Luddite in a previous life.
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 01:10
I will ask you again, when gas, coal and oil eventually run out - what is the alternative ?
Sorry cpt if I didn't answer at the time.
It is becoming clear that coal gas and oil reserves are greater than previously thought, but more expensive to exploit. So cheap fossil fuel is a thing of the past. But it takes time to gear up. That is not what I am banging on about.
We have no coal industry, we rely on imports, our oil production is limited and we have almost run out of gas. We have just shut down two major coal fired power stations. We have no wave or tidal generation capability. We have a growing wind energy capability that you dont know when or how much, or little, will be available. If it is too much, you can't store it. If it is too little there is nothing to use. Some nuclear power stations will close in the coming years, and certainly in Scotland none will replace them.
This is not a future problem, the future will be sorted because we are about to enter a period of uncontrollable energy shortages that will force Governments to face up to reality.
This is today, and I don't know how it can be sorted.
All energy generators enjoy a tax break in VAT on its product, in a market which is dominated by the fossil fuel industry then that is a huge subsidy to coal and gas generation.
The generators don't "enjoy it", it is the consumers who are protected by government. The generators are not advantaged in any way. Read the paper.
Any company that takes over a former publically owned generator enjoys a subsidy just by the sheer nature of privatisation.
Interesting point, but all we pay nowadays is the cost of generation. For renewables we also pay the cost of the Renewables obligation, which incidentally simply puts onshore wind in the same ballpark cost as future nuclear, twice as expensive as fossil generation.
Nuclear power particularly enjoys a huge public subsidy to the tune of £3 billion per year to clean up all the radioactive waste.
That is true but it is a development cost, not one of generation, and anyway, what both Scout and I were referring to was coal oil and gas.
And now the nuclear industry will get a guaranteed price, another subsidy for its electricity at twice the market price.
Which is the same as onshore wind.
Yes that is true and I thought this section refer to the oil and gas section My point your argument is you are against any company that receives subsidies for producing power or is it just Wind Farms and Solar even with the other companies receiving huge amounts of susbsidies
Just about any other way than fossil fuel cost subsidies will be more effective," he said. Gas, which dominates home heating and electricity generation in the UK, received about £3bn in subsidy, with oil getting £500m and coal £72m
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 11:08
Yes that is true and I thought this section refer to the oil and gas section My point your argument is you are against any company that receives subsidies for producing power or is it just Wind Farms and Solar even with the other companies receiving huge amounts of susbsidies
Just about any other way than fossil fuel cost subsidies will be more effective," he said. Gas, which dominates home heating and electricity generation in the UK, received about £3bn in subsidy, with oil getting £500m and coal £72m
From http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/...%20subsidy.pdf (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Coal%20gas%20and%20oil%20subsidy.pdf) . Please read it.
“Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010” Or were they?
August 2012 Page 2
Executive Summary
Gas, oil and coal prices were NOT subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010
The claim in the Guardian article has no substance or merit. It is disingenuous, totally misleading and ispredicated upon a highly inventive and dubious notion of “subsidy”.The £3.63bn “fossil fuel tax breaks” referred to in the article turn out to be an imaginary relief on a level oftaxation on domestic fuel which never has and almost certainly never will be levied.On the other hand, the £0.7bn subsidy to wind with which it was compared is indeed a true subsidy to assist anunreliable technology which is likely to rise to at least £1.06bn for 2012, and to which a further £0.72bn subsidyto other Renewables and an unknown sum for Feed-In Tariffs need to be added.
• One thousand seven hundred and eighty million pounds subsidy to Renewables in 2012
• Ultimately paid for by the 66 million people of UK
• £27 per head of population or £65 per household
• Excluding the cost of the Feed-In Tariff
• Subject to VAT at 5%
• (and to your electricity supplier’s profit margin)Stuart Young
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 11:42
How many homes could you heat with the hot air emitted from windy's nether regions?
It is so abundant that it wouldn't need to be subsidised!
Keyser_soze
30-Mar-13, 12:12
Aye, looks like you are right there Rheggy. In post #109 above he said he would be happy to be proven wrong. When he was, in post #129, he ignores it. Can we get the thread title changed to "Fed up with Ywindys Windmill Threads"?
i certainly am fed up with the anti wind farm threads , I do not post much on the org or log in but when I do , there is always an anti windmill thread- they are here & theres nothing you can do about it, Ok deal with it
No they are not pretty, wind turbines are here for the duration
Keyser_soze
30-Mar-13, 12:14
I will ask you again, when gas, coal and oil eventually run out - what is the alternative ?
Tidal energy ? Thats a winner for me, maybe expensive but it should be seriously implemented
cptdodger
30-Mar-13, 12:37
Sorry cpt if I didn't answer at the time.
It is becoming clear that coal gas and oil reserves are greater than previously thought, but more expensive to exploit. So cheap fossil fuel is a thing of the past. But it takes time to gear up. That is not what I am banging on about.
We have no coal industry, we rely on imports, our oil production is limited and we have almost run out of gas. We have just shut down two major coal fired power stations. We have no wave or tidal generation capability. We have a growing wind energy capability that you dont know when or how much, or little, will be available. If it is too much, you can't store it. If it is too little there is nothing to use. Some nuclear power stations will close in the coming years, and certainly in Scotland none will replace them.
This is not a future problem, the future will be sorted because we are about to enter a period of uncontrollable energy shortages that will force Governments to face up to reality.
This is today, and I don't know how it can be sorted.
And this is the point I have been trying to make. You can't give me an alternative. So although you do not like/approve or whatever of wind farms and tidal energy, you have to admit, something has to replace the gas, coal and oil, and it will not be nuclear, so they have to try something. It might not be ideal, but they have to try.
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 15:33
And this is the point I have been trying to make. You can't give me an alternative. So although you do not like/approve or whatever of wind farms and tidal energy, you have to admit, something has to replace the gas, coal and oil, and it will not be nuclear, so they have to try something. It might not be ideal, but they have to try.
As I write this, England is importing 1000MW from Holland, I don't know how that is generated, 1388MW nuclear generated electricity from France, and Scotland is importing 672MW from England. Demand is only 38,600MW across the UK, and there is virtually no wind across Scotland. At times like this we are dependent upon French nuclear electricity even though our own nuclear power stations are providing 7669MW.
The future solution will almost certainly be nuclear because there are no other large scale viable alternatives. If we had twice the wind capacity in Scotland, today we would be generating twice almost nothing.
cptdodger
30-Mar-13, 15:46
As I write this, England is importing 1000MW from Holland, I don't know how that is generated, 1388MW nuclear generated electricity from France, and Scotland is importing 672MW from England. Demand is only 38,600MW across the UK, and there is virtually no wind across Scotland. At times like this we are dependent upon French nuclear electricity even though our own nuclear power stations are providing 7669MW.
The future solution will almost certainly be nuclear because there are no other large scale viable alternatives. If we had twice the wind capacity in Scotland, today we would be generating twice almost nothing.
I understand what you are saying, and I'm certainly not disputing it. This then brings us on to what happens if Scotland does gain independence. Will England still be quite happy to supply us? Will the price increase? I'm not looking for answers, as that's just speculation on my part. However, if it is right about the future of energy being in nuclear power then Scotland might struggle if it has to rely on other countries to supply it.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 15:49
I understand what you are saying, and I'm certainly not disputing it. This then brings us on to what happens if Scotland does gain independence. Will England still be quite happy to supply us? Will the price increase? I'm not looking for answers, as that's just speculation on my part. However, if it is right about the future of energy being in nuclear power then Scotland might struggle if it has to rely on other countries to supply it.Windy's problem is that he can't see past today's generators, today's grid, or today's technology.
Rheghead and I have explained this to him many times, but he doesn't listen or he doesn't understand. He has no scientific (or engineering?) training or understanding, and he has no vision. It's like listening to a two year old who wants more dinner.
Young! Write 100 lines:
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
If Reggy says so, it must be true.
etc
etc
When the reporter at the Baillie wind farm public inquiry asked if you were interested in photography you just replied that you were only interested in stopping wind farms.
Your words, not mine!! [lol]
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 18:24
I understand what you are saying, and I'm certainly not disputing it. This then brings us on to what happens if Scotland does gain independence. Will England still be quite happy to supply us? Will the price increase? I'm not looking for answers, as that's just speculation on my part. However, if it is right about the future of energy being in nuclear power then Scotland might struggle if it has to rely on other countries to supply it.
If Scotland gains independence, the other problem will be who will want to buy our surplus wind generated electricity at inflated prices?
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 18:27
When the reporter at the Baillie wind farm public inquiry asked if you were interested in photography you just replied that you were only interested in stopping wind farms.
Your words, not mine!! [lol]
I actually said I just don't like windfarms, and I could be wrong but I think it was Colin Innes acting for the applicant who asked the question. Took me a bit by surprise and it wasn't my best ever answer.
cptdodger
30-Mar-13, 18:41
If Scotland gains independence, the other problem will be who will want to buy our surplus wind generated electricity at inflated prices?
Everything when it begins is expensive, I might be wrong, but surely as the years go on, the price will come down. And to be honest, if they could not sell the surplus electricity, they would have no choice but to bring the cost down.
Can anybody tell me why Dounreay is being decommissioned? Do nuclear power stations have a shelf life, or did the government decide to close it for some other reason ?
ywindythesecond
30-Mar-13, 19:01
Everything when it begins is expensive, I might be wrong, but surely as the years go on, the price will come down. And to be honest, if they could not sell the surplus electricity, they would have no choice but to bring the cost down.
Can anybody tell me why Dounreay is being decommissioned? Do nuclear power stations have a shelf life, or did the government decide to close it for some other reason ?
Windpower isn't expensive because it is a new emerging technology. It is expensive because of the artificial incentives it receives. I have pasted an article called "ROCs explained" which I found to be the clearest description of how the Renewables Obligation works when I was inquiring into it about 9 years ago. It is still the best brief explanation I have found.
Other people know much more than I do about why Dounreay is being decommissioned but basically, Dounreay's technology was at the beginning of nuclear and the lessons learned helped shape the modern industry. However, the decision to stop reprocessing at Dounreay was a political one which has contributed a great deal to the energy mess we are now in. That is my personal understanding of the situation.
ROCS EXPLAINED
By Ray Berry
I am asked time and time again: "If what you say about windfarms is true, why would anybody ever consider investing money in them? How come there is this scramble to erect windfarms all over the country? If the electricity that they supply is intermittent and unreliable, why would people spend so much on these huge turbines?"
Actually the answer is very simple. It isn't only about the electricity they generate for the grid, what makes them so profitable to erect and for international banks to invest in them is something else entirely.
That something else is what is globally known by several curious acronyms: TRECs, RECs, ROCs or simply Green Certificates. The UK version is the ROC: Renewable Obligation Certificate. That puts us between a ROC and a hard place I'm afraid because this is what makes windfarms in particular the source of the latest goldrush.
So let me explain from the beginning. Most people assume that wind turbines are designed to generate electricity — well so they are and this electricity is sold on the local grid for whatever the going rate is — around 3 pence per kWh or 30 pounds per MWh.
That is one product. The wind turbine actually generates a second product — this product is the ROC which has a value of its own in addition to the electricity sold to the grid. Think of it as two distinct products being produced by the windfarm both of which have a marketable value.
How does this work? Well the ROC is part of the government's plan to increase the use of renewable energy used and generated in the UK in line with Kyoto and other agreements. Non-renewable energy producers, coal, gas etc are now obligated to supply 3 percent of all of the energy they sell as coming from a renewable source. To do this they can buy a Hydro Dam or a Windfarm and hope it constitutes 3 percent of their sales. Most of the time it doesn't come close so the government fines them so much per kWh. The other way is to buy ROCs from renewable energy producers to the amount of MWh they are short. So there is a market for ROCs right away. But it isn't the only one.
So how does a ROC get issued. It works like this: OFGEM, the government's energy regulator is the issuing body. When a windfarm or whatever is built they register with OFGEM and OFGEM then comes along and inspects the facility to see that the output metering is correct etc. Then as electricity is generated (and sold on to the local grid for cash) every MWh generated creates one ROC. Thus each ROC is worth 1MWh (or 1000 kWh depending how you count these things.)
Every ROC generated is kept on OFGEM's register of ROCs — its database. These ROCs can then be used by power companies to offset their 3 percent fines or they can be sold on the open market through a growing network of traders. How much are they worth? Well in the last auction (yes they are auctioned too) the average price was about £67 per ROC or per MWh. And this is for the NEXT year's generation — future generation. Thus if you add together the sales from the local grid mentioned above - £30 per MWh PLUS £67 per ROC you get every Megawatt-hour turned out by a windfarm being worth close to £100.
So let's do a few sums. If we have one 2.2 MW turbine putting out just 1MWh for 12 hours a day (25 percent rated capacity) it earns around £1200. If we multiply that by
365 days in the year we get £438,000 or getting on for half a million quid - and that is just very conservative output on one turbine. Multiply that by say 30 turbines in the average windfarm and we have over £13,000,000 or thirteen million pounds per annum. If you own ten windfarms........over say 20 years we start getting into big numbers like two and a half billion green ones - and that is only at 25 percent efficiency.
Of course you have the capital costs of buying and erecting the things and a pittance in comparison on maintenance, but look at the rewards. How much do they pay the landowners? Not a lot in fact, and the communities get say £30,000 a year.
So perhaps you can see why banks and investment houses are scrambling to get a slice of the action. Right now trading markets are being set up world wide to deal in Green certificates and the EU is jumping firmly on the bandwagon. The price for Green certificates is on the rise and who knows what they will be worth ten years down the road when even more stringent carbon emission penalties are imposed.
Lovely jubbly as someone frequently says, and less than a third of the bonanza comes from actually generating electricity.
Can anybody tell me why Dounreay is being decommissioned? Do nuclear power stations have a shelf life, or did the government decide to close it for some other reason ?
Dounreay was only ever an experimental establishment.
Apparently it wouldnt make economic sense to build a fully blown commercial power station so far from major population sources.
Presumably Dounreays purpose had been served and it was costing many many millions to keep it open with little or no income coming in, there was no alternative but to close it.
Its unlikely reprocessing alone would have made much difference to the government decision.
I knew the game was over when they knocked down Veiwfirth. :(
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 19:16
Can anybody tell me why Dounreay is being decommissioned? Do nuclear power stations have a shelf life, or did the government decide to close it for some other reason ?The PFR at Dounreay was a prototype fast reactor, as its name tells us. It ran for 20 years before it was shut down! The nuclear industry was designing commercial fast reactors (in collaboration with our European friends) when the fast reactor project was cancelled - in the early 90s, I think.
Fast breeders are a possible way forward, but not in the short term - because the project was cancelled!
cptdodger
30-Mar-13, 19:46
Thanks for your replies regarding Dounreay, I did watch a documentary back in 2009 about it. If memory serves, a lot of the achievements there were subject to the official secrets act. I know I have said this before, but the one thing that stuck out in that documentary was the reason it was put there in the first place. Basically if it all went pear shaped and most of Caithness was blown to kingdom come, that would just be seen as collateral damage. I'm afraid, at the time, the people here were thought no more of than guinea pigs. And that still horrifies me. I did'nt grow up here, so I am just not used to having a nuclear reactor on my doorstep.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 19:52
As far as I know, the lack of population in Caithness was indeed one of the reasons given for building fast reactors in the county. Perhaps an old Dounreay employee can correct me if I'm wrong.
I've often wondered why this criterion was applied only to fast reactors. Were they really considered more dangerous than the early conventional reactors that were built closer to centres of population? If so, why?
You forget that the original fast reactor was designed in the early 1950s right at the dawn of the nuclear age. No one was under any illusion that anything could have happened during the experimental phases and from what ive been told by some of the early workers anything nearly happened often and did happen once or twice. :lol:
Nuclear industry was developed at Dounreay. Not only has it served the economic needs of caithness for nearly 60 years but its technological succeses have served the world forever.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 20:16
I'm not forgetting the timing. The reactors at Berkeley and Hinkley Point were built at roughly the same time as the DFR. These were very close to population centres. I suppose they weren't as revolutionary as the DFR.
Some nuclear technologies developed at Dounreay have indeed served the world, but fast reactors are not amongst the technologies used widely worldwide today.
John Little
30-Mar-13, 20:23
I'm not forgetting the timing. The reactors at Berkeley and Hinkley Point were built at roughly the same time as the DFR. These were very close to population centres. I suppose they weren't as revolutionary as the DFR.Some nuclear technologies developed at Dounreay have indeed served the world, but fast reactors are not amongst the technologies used widely worldwide today.Yet.......
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 20:27
Yet.......... and probably not in the near future.
John Little
30-Mar-13, 20:30
... and probably not in the near future.
I would not be so sure:
" ultimate goal of nuclear power engineering goes back to the 1950s, when experts predicted that fast-breeders would generate all Britain’s electricity by the 1970s. But the Clinton administration eventually shut down the U.S.’s research program in 1994. Britain followed soon after, shutting its Dounreay fast-breeder reactor on the north coast of Scotland in 1995. Other countries have continued with fast-breeder research programs, including France, China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Russia, which has been running a plant at Sverdlovsk for 32 years."
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 20:41
That's why I said "probably not".
John Little
30-Mar-13, 20:43
Fair enough. If the industry can solve the problem of waste then it will of course, be quite another matter. Them as has researched it will have rather an advantage.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 20:57
Fair enough. If the industry can solve the problem of waste then it will of course, be quite another matter. Them as has researched it will have rather an advantage.I don't think you can truly "solve" the problem of waste. Fast reactors will always produce waste that can't be recycled in any useful way, and this stuff has to be stored somewhere somehow.
As Rheghead has pointed out on more than one occasion, an extensive fast breeder programme implies an extensive reprocessing programme, which isn't cheap and which produces its own waste - and its own political and strategic issues, not least of which is the increase in plutonium that would be travelling the world!
John Little
30-Mar-13, 21:03
I don't think you can truly "solve" the problem of waste. Fast reactors will always produce waste that can't be recycled in any useful way, and this stuff has to be stored somewhere somehow.As Rheghead has pointed out on more than one occasion, an extensive fast breeder programme implies an extensive reprocessing programme, which isn't cheap and which produces its own waste - and its own political and strategic issues, not least of which is the increase in plutonium that would be travelling the world!
Exactly so - and quite a conundrum it is too. All my life i have been in favour of nuclear power - a legacy of a Dounreay background. I have no superstitious fear of nuclear : but the problem is waste.
Solve that and you have the greenest energy source of all the mainstream sources.
In 100 years they'll be shooting it on a million year ride to Alpha Centauri. The Alpha Centaurians will probably eat it...
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 21:03
Them as has researched it will have rather an advantage.Yes, but most of "Them" retired long ago. The results of their research (hopefully!) still exists, but a new generation of scientists and engineers would need to read and learn.
Maybe today's Dounreay decommissioners count as "Them". Perhaps a decommissioner could enlighten us.
John Little
30-Mar-13, 21:06
Yes, but most of "Them" retired long ago. The results of their research (hopefully!) still exists, but a new generation of scientists and engineers would need to read and learn.Maybe today's Dounreay decommissioners count as "Them". Perhaps a decommissioner could enlighten us.I spoke to Tam Dalyell about this last year. He thought the abandonment was political cowardice. But yes - we have lost the edge when our new nuclear plants are to be built by the French or the US.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 21:06
Exactly so - and quite a conundrum it is too. All my life i have been in favour of nuclear power - a legacy of a Dounreay background. I have no superstitious fear of nuclear : but the problem is waste.
Solve that and you have the greenest energy source of all the mainstream sources.
In 100 years they'll be shooting it on a million year ride to Alpha Centauri. The Alpha Centaurians will probably eat it...I don't believe nuclear waste will need to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years either, but that belief isn't based on anything more tangible than general progress in technology. I have no idea how we will eventually deal with it!
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 21:10
I spoke to Tam Dalyell about this last year. He thought the abandonment was political cowardice. But yes - we have lost the edge when our new nuclear plants are to be built by the French or the US.As far as I know, there is no indigenous civil nuclear construction industry left in the UK, which in my opinion is disgraceful. I'm not sure how Rolls Royce fits into my previous sentence. Can someone from Rolls Royce enlighten us?
At the level its at now its all political and unless theres political will you can forget it. They had a long public enquiry up here in the mid 1980s about the availability of Dounreay for hosting a national repository to store the waste until the technology came along to solve the problem. It would have been one the biggest civil engineering jobs in the world to build 3 massive underground storage areas housing high level waste for as long as it takes but as you can imagine it caused more furore than a puckly of windmills on Spittal hill.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-13, 21:27
Yes, there's a huge political element, but there's also an economic one - as evidenced by the drip, drip, drip of companies withdrawing from nuclear new builds in England due to perceived lack of profit and subsidy.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.