View Full Version : Snp pressurising councils to build more windfarms
Green_not_greed
13-Jun-13, 18:32
FOI request shows that the SNP administration has been putting pressure on local councils to build more and more windfarms, despite council views and recommendations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10117029/Revealed-How-SNP-pressurises-councils-to-allow-more-wind-farms.html
P (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10117029/Revealed-How-SNP-pressurises-councils-to-allow-more-wind-farms.html)robably unsurprising but now shown to be a fact.
The old reason Baille was "approved" was politics. How many more have been built completely in the face of council planners, local residents and other concerned groups ?
Hopefully this will help to be another nail in the coffin for the SNP amateurs.
Any Government has a right and duty to push councils for more development of renewable energy sources out of sheer scientific necessity to cut carbon emissions. I don't see a story in this at all but all credit to the Telegraph for twisting the story into anti independence propaganda.
Any Government has a right and duty to push councils for more development of renewable energy sources out of sheer scientific necessity to cut carbon emissions.
While I can agree with this objective I cannot agree that these developments be funded out of the pockets of the most vulnerable members of society. IMO the current system amounts to robbing the poor to line the pockets of the rich and should be resisted by any means. Fuel poverty has been increasing alarmingly and yet the grubbiement does nothing to help - they even charge 5% VAT on energy costs!
If nothing changes there will come a time when winter will mean an increase in ill health, possibly more deaths and increased costs for looking after the most vulnerable.
A drive for green energy is all very well - but a drive for green energy at any cost amounts to fascism!
While I can agree with this objective I cannot agree that these developments be funded out of the pockets of the most vulnerable members of society. IMO the current system amounts to robbing the poor to line the pockets of the rich and should be resisted by any means. Fuel poverty has been increasing alarmingly and yet the grubbiement does nothing to help - they even charge 5% VAT on energy costs!
If nothing changes there will come a time when winter will mean an increase in ill health, possibly more deaths and increased costs for looking after the most vulnerable.
A drive for green energy is all very well - but a drive for green energy at any cost amounts to fascism!
If you look at the bigger picture, who is actually robbing who here?
Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any council with a spare bit of land with a good wind resource can put up a wind farm, the profits pour back into the council's coffers for OUR benefit.
Don't like wind? So what is the alternative? Rich oil barons? Rich coal barons? Rich nuclear barons?
Who is actually robbing who here? All credit to the spinners of truth down at Antiwind HQ in twisting the facts or rather leaving the facts out of the debate.
The real causes of high fuel prices has always been the risng cost of fossil fuel, not renewable energy the cost of which is coming down
If you look at the bigger picture, who is actually robbing who here?
Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any council with a spare bit of land with a good wind resource can put up a wind farm, the profits pour back into the council's coffers for OUR benefit.
Don't like wind? So what is the alternative? Rich oil barons? Rich coal barons? Rich nuclear barons?
Who is actually robbing who here? All credit to the spinners of truth down at Antiwind HQ in twisting the facts or rather leaving the facts out of the debate.
So if wind energy is cheaper than the alternatives, and we are producing more and more of it, when are we going to see fuel bills reduce? If the answer is never, who is gaining?
So if wind energy is cheaper than the alternatives, and we are producing more and more of it, when are we going to see fuel bills reduce? If the answer is never, who is gaining?
Correct, we will never see fuel bills reduce. But which path do you want to follow? The path that doesn't do anything about carbon emissions, fossil fuel costs go through the roof. Or the path where eventually the cost of renewable energy decouples and stabilises the cost of fuel from the rise in fossil fuels?
How do you compare the environmental chaos (species extinction, crippled economies, climate chaos) that would ensue from the first path to the second path of perhaps having the inconvenience of having a few turbines in your area?
It's a no-brainer to me.
ywindythesecond
13-Jun-13, 20:45
Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available.
A blatant unsupportable lie.
A blatant unsupportable lie.
Stop lying Ywindy, you know the facts as much as I do. I'm still waiting for you to take me to court...
ywindythesecond
13-Jun-13, 22:14
Reggy
Please explain to the followers of this post how "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
Reggy
Please explain to the followers of this post how "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
When are you taking me to court? Or are you in the habit of making threats? Can I take you seriously?
ywindythesecond
13-Jun-13, 22:37
Reggy
Please explain to the followers of this post how "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If you don't explain, people might think that you do not have an answer.
If you look at the bigger picture, who is actually robbing who here?
Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any council with a spare bit of land with a good wind resource can put up a wind farm, the profits pour back into the council's coffers for OUR benefit.
Don't like wind? So what is the alternative? Rich oil barons? Rich coal barons? Rich nuclear barons?
Who is actually robbing who here? All credit to the spinners of truth down at Antiwind HQ in twisting the facts or rather leaving the facts out of the debate.
The real causes of high fuel prices has always been the risng cost of fossil fuel, not renewable energy the cost of which is coming down
From where I'm standing the "bigger picture" is vulnerable and older people having to choose between feeding themselves or keeping warm while many more sink into fuel poverty. The grubbiement should be working to protect the people but instead it gives the energy providers carte blanche to triple the amount of money they can add to customers' bills to pay for renewable power, nuclear and other environmental measures.
Rheggie you might be fortunate to have deep pockets but there are many who don't. Energy prices have to be controlled even if investment has to be slowed. No right thinking person can allow people to suffer as many already do.
Reggy
Please explain to the followers of this post how "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If you don't explain, people might think that you do not have an answer.
No, you already know that wind is cheaper than most forms of energy. We've thrashed that out on countless times. I just enjoyed peer-reviewed up to date information, you deal in doubt and scaremongering.
Before we engage on wind farms, answers please to When are you taking me to court? Or are you in the habit of making threats? Can I take you seriously?
Or just a plain apology will do.
From where I'm standing the "bigger picture" is vulnerable and older people having to choose between feeding themselves or keeping warm while many more sink into fuel poverty. The grubbiement should be working to protect the people but instead it gives the energy providers carte blanche to triple the amount of money they can add to customers' bills to pay for renewable power, nuclear and other environmental measures.
Rheggie you might be fortunate to have deep pockets but there are many who don't. Energy prices have to be controlled even if investment has to be slowed. No right thinking person can allow people to suffer as many already do.
As I said before, the government is pushing for wind and other renewables partly because it is acutely aware that people are sruggling to pay their bills. We cannot afford to pay for more fossil fuels, we need wind energy to make fuel more affordable for the old folks.
wavy davy
13-Jun-13, 23:06
How do you compare the environmental chaos (species extinction, crippled economies, climate chaos) that would ensue from the first path to the second path of perhaps having the inconvenience of having a few turbines in your area?
Given that Scotland accounts for around 0.15% of global carbon emissions and that the major producers are doing zilch to reduce their emissions I don't think that 'a few turbines' in my area is going to have much of an effect. And it's more than a few. I drove a visitor round the county recently and was horrified by the number of (mostly stationary) towers blighting the landscape. And that's just the beginning, god knows how many more are coming.
Nuclear is the only option that makes sense for baseload. The argument about sky high decommissioning costs is based on the likes of Dounreay, where virtually no thought was given to decommissioning in the design stage. The technology has moved on and we need to utilise it pretty soon or the lights surely will be going off on those cold calm winter days.
I'm all for renewables but carpeting the country with wind turbines to meet some high minded and ultimately futile political goal doesn't IMHO make any sense.
Given that Scotland accounts for around 0.15% of global carbon emissions and that the major producers are doing zilch to reduce their emissions I don't think that 'a few turbines' in my area is going to have much of an effect. And it's more than a few.
The world's governments will not reduce their dependence on fossil fuels if we look around and blame the country next door for not doing enough. We can only reduce carbon emissions on our own door step and support international treaties that do the same.
I drove a visitor round the county recently and was horrified by the number of (mostly stationary) horrors blighting the landscape. And that's just the beginning.
And another person will feel that Caithness is doing a bit more than other areas and will be heartened by that.
Nuclear is the only option that makes sense for baseload.The argument about sky high decommissioning costs is based on the likes of Dounreay, where virtually no thought was given to decommissioning in the design stage. The technology has moved on and we need to utilise it pretty soon or the lights will be going off on those cold calm winter days.
Nuclear doesn't have much of a future. Resources are finite, 60-100 years at the most at current consumption rates and it just supplies about 3% of our total energy.
I'm all for renewables
Ah, that sounds promising.
but carpeting the country with wind turbines to meet some high minded and ultimately futile political goal doesn't IMHO make any sense.
Oh dear, now the truth comes out. You are getting too bothered about their aesthetic qualities.
macadamia
13-Jun-13, 23:27
My main consolation with the Great Windmill Debate, which effectively robs the poor to feed the rich, is that it has the full backing of the SNP. This at least means the farce will not be with us in 15 months time.
secrets in symmetry
13-Jun-13, 23:52
Windfarms are ethical, aesthetic, and, in the short term, inevitable. You should learn to love them, because they (and their owners) love you, and Earth-destroying carbon polluters hate them. Dolphins could love them too. :cool:
Fission would have more of a future than Rheghead suggests if we were serious about it - but it's by no means a panacea.
Our energy problems would be solved if only we had some anti-nutters to annihilate with all the nutters in the anti-wind wind brigade. :cool:
Green_not_greed
14-Jun-13, 00:07
Given that Scotland accounts for around 0.15% of global carbon emissions and that the major producers are doing zilch to reduce their emissions I don't think that 'a few turbines' in my area is going to have much of an effect. And it's more than a few. [/QUOTE]
Its a hell of a lot more than a few. How many are around Edinburgh or in the vicinity of the main SNP ministers homes ? Almost none.
I drove a visitor round the county recently and was horrified by the number of (mostly stationary) towers blighting the landscape. And that's just the beginning, god knows how many more are coming.
A recent article by Visit Scotland reported on the vast majority of recent tourists being appalled by the number of turbines now in place.
Nuclear is the only option that makes sense for baseload. The argument about sky high decommissioning costs is based on the likes of Dounreay, where virtually no thought was given to decommissioning in the design stage. The technology has moved on and we need to utilise it pretty soon or the lights surely will be going off on those cold calm winter days.
Dounreay like Vulcan were test reactors and never intended to provide a baseload. As the UK Government knows well, there are very viable and relatively cheap reactors available to provide a CO2-free baseload. Most "greens" are now behind new nuclear build as the balance between waste legacy and alternative reliable generation source CO2 emissions is now in nuclear's favour. There is only the odd idiot who now doesn't back new nuclear as a good and reliable source of CO2 friendly energy. Money is the only reason that new nuclear hasn't yet gotten off the ground. If subsidies to wind were cut by even as little as 50%, new nuclear would be far easier for the UK government to roll out.
Of course, the SNP assembly are anti nuclear, typical of their one policy stance.... i.e. we want independence and nothing else we don't believe in, at any cost. We just dont know how or if we can afford any of it yet.
I'm all for renewables but carpeting the country with wind turbines to meet some high minded and ultimately futile political goal doesn't IMHO make any sense.
Completely agree. And for many in rural areas it is seriously affecting their lives and wellbeing.
secrets in symmetry
14-Jun-13, 00:12
The lack of an indigenous nuclear construction industry is a bit of a problem....
As I understand it, we can't even build the turbines, never mind the reactors themselves....
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The lack of an indigenous nuclear construction industry is a bit of a problem....
As I understand it, we can't even build the turbines, never mind the reactors themselves....
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
We aren't building wind turbines either, or hadn't you noticed?
secrets in symmetry
14-Jun-13, 00:47
We aren't building wind turbines either, or hadn't you noticed?Indeed we're not, but at least someone else is building them for us! I think we're building a few, but not very many.... This is a real problem too.
ywindythesecond
14-Jun-13, 00:56
Reggy
Sorry to be a pain , but you said
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
I really do think you should explain this.
Reggy
Sorry to be a pain , but you said
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
I really do think you should explain this.
When will you say sorry for making legal threats and admit that you have a financial interest in protesting against wind farms? Your supporters for CWIF won't be impressed by that will they?
ywindythesecond
14-Jun-13, 18:20
When will you say sorry for making legal threats and admit that you have a financial interest in protesting against wind farms? Your supporters for CWIF won't be impressed by that will they?
Thanks Reggy, keep building up the evidence.
However, you did say that :
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If you don't explain why you say so, people will think that perhaps it is not true, and perhaps you can't back it up?
Thanks Reggy, keep building up the evidence.
However, you did say that :
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If you don't explain why you say so, people will think that perhaps it is not true, and perhaps you can't back it up?
We've covered it already on countless times but I know you're not interested in what I've got to say.
Now come on ywindy, why don't you walk in the shoes of a gentleman for once and apologise for making legal threats, or are you a scoundrel whose words mean absolutely nothing?
ywindythesecond
14-Jun-13, 20:15
We've covered it already on countless times but I know you're not interested in what I've got to say.
Now come on ywindy, why don't you walk in the shoes of a gentleman for once and apologise for making legal threats, or are you a scoundrel whose words mean absolutely nothing?
The really good thing about libel is that someone else writes your case for you.
I might be interested if you actually said anything about why you believe
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
The really good thing about libel is that someone else writes your case for you.
I might be interested if you actually said anything about why you believe
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
Care to explain how I libeled you when I said you have created a business out of protesting against wind farms and that you are using your position as chairman of Caithness Wind farm information Forum to go off on jollies to speak at wind farm inquiries?
We can play this ping pong all week, you'll just get bad press until you apologise. Your funding will probably suffer as well in the long term as people become aware of what you're up to.
ywindythesecond
14-Jun-13, 22:07
Care to explain how I libeled you when I said you have created a business out of protesting against wind farms and that you are using your position as chairman of Caithness Wind farm information Forum to go off on jollies to speak at wind farm inquiries?
We can play this ping pong all week, you'll just get bad press until you apologise. Your funding will probably suffer as well in the long term as people become aware of what you're up to.
Please do explain in detail what I am up to.
Please also explain why you believe
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
Any Government has a right and duty to push councils for more development of renewable energy sources out of sheer scientific necessity to cut carbon emissions.
No. What should be happening is with every major infrastructure program planned or in construction across the UK, windymills should be enforced in the program.
HS2, how many miles of windymills will this allow? New motorway??? Or, even build them alongside or in the central reservation of existing M'ways.
Why are we carving up and decimating huge chunks of the countryside (in the name of the environment) when there are thousands of square miles already turned over to the 'concrete jungle'.
The govt should be enforcing windymills and solar in built up areas. If it was actually about necessity, they would.
wavy davy
14-Jun-13, 23:26
Your funding will probably suffer as well in the long term as people become aware of what you're up to.
I'm not getting drawn into this, but I donated to CWIF because I wanted somebody like Stuart (whom I have never met) to do what he is doing, not having the energy or the bottle to do it myself. I somehow doubt that the 'jollies' involve suites in posh hotels, fine dining, port and cigars. And I'm pretty sure that they are not on the scale of the jollies quietly bequeathed by the (mostly foreign) developers on their supporters (which I am unwillingly paying for). More power to him. Crack on Stuart, I've just donated another tenner to CWIF - have a dram on me on your next jolly.
I'm not getting drawn into this, but I donated to CWIF because I wanted somebody like Stuart (whom I have never met) to do what he is doing, not having the energy or the bottle to do it myself. I somehow doubt that the 'jollies' involve suites in posh hotels, fine dining, port and cigars. And I'm pretty sure that they are not on the scale of the jollies quietly bequeathed by the (mostly foreign) developers on their supporters (which I am unwillingly paying for). More power to him. Crack on Stuart, I've just donated another tenner to CWIF - have a dram on me on your next jolly.
I understand your position, but I think you've just wasted your money because these career objectors carry less weight at inquiries than geniune locals who live within the viscinity of a development. Why do you think they are complaining of having so little success all the time? They complicate the process into a circus by regurgitating all the bogus and irrelevant stuff each time, the reporter just gets fed up with it and thus there is a bias towards acceptance of the wind farm.
No. What should be happening is with every major infrastructure program planned or in construction across the UK, windymills should be enforced in the program.
HS2, how many miles of windymills will this allow? New motorway??? Or, even build them alongside or in the central reservation of existing M'ways.
Why are we carving up and decimating huge chunks of the countryside (in the name of the environment) when there are thousands of square miles already turned over to the 'concrete jungle'.
The govt should be enforcing windymills and solar in built up areas. If it was actually about necessity, they would.
Then in that case you've just framed the issue into a visual amenity argument or an anti-wind bonanza.
orkneycadian
15-Jun-13, 15:07
Reggy
Sorry to be a pain , but you said
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
I really do think you should explain this.
Sounds fairly understandable to me. What bit about that very straightforward statement is giving you difficulty, YWindy?
ywindythesecond
15-Jun-13, 20:15
Sounds fairly understandable to me. What bit about that very straightforward statement is giving you difficulty, YWindy?
I don't have any difficulty OKC, but Reggy seems a bit tongue-tied over it. Perhaps you can explain why Reggy said "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ?
I don't have any difficulty OKC, but Reggy seems a bit tongue-tied over it. Perhaps you can explain why Reggy said "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ?
Can you prove what Rheghead said is not true? If so can you post some simple facts. You seem to have a vendetta going on in here against Rheghead.
orkneycadian
16-Jun-13, 00:05
I don't have any difficulty OKC, but Reggy seems a bit tongue-tied over it. Perhaps you can explain why Reggy said "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ?
Sorry, I can't speak on behalf of Rheghead. But I can recognise a very straightforward and understandable statement when I see one.
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 01:08
Can you prove what Rheghead said is not true? If so can you post some simple facts. You seem to have a vendetta going on in here against Rheghead.
Not a vendetta Golach, but Reggy has a tendency to make statements which appear to be facts and when he is asked to substantiate them, he doesn't.
Are you convinced by his statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ? Or do you want more information from him?
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 01:14
Sorry, I can't speak on behalf of Rheghead. But I can recognise a very straightforward and understandable statement when I see one.
Me too.
"Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available" is a very straightforward and understandable statement.
"The moon is made of blue cheese" is also a very straightforward and understandable statement.
Are you convinced by his statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ? Or do you want more information from him?
I can understand and accept Rhegheads statements, but you have yet to prove to me that he is wrong.
tonkatojo
16-Jun-13, 10:12
With articles in public papers like this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html I for one think were being taken for a ride with subsidies on a colossal scale, but are they correct.
Not a vendetta Golach, but Reggy has a tendency to make statements which appear to be facts and when he is asked to substantiate them, he doesn't.
Are you convinced by his statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." ? Or do you want more information from him?
when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries?
Pink Lippy
16-Jun-13, 10:25
Magnificent wind machines
Towering above us
Will they empower us
To stay and fourish
Or will they leave
Unsightly wreckage behind
For our children to suffer and clear away?
I am optimistic
But not overly so.
With articles in public papers like this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html I for one think were being taken for a ride with subsidies on a colossal scale, but are they correct.
Can you trust the Telegraph or are they just being glib?
If you google 'cost of wind' and research on reputable sources (not anti-wind or right-wing news outlets) then you will see that wind power is cheaper than most forms of energy.
tonkatojo
16-Jun-13, 11:17
Can you trust the Telegraph or are they just being glib?
If you google 'cost of wind' and research on reputable sources (not anti-wind or right-wing news outlets) then you will see that wind power is cheaper than most forms of energy.
That is my problem, with so many opinions on costs etc who is correct and who to believe.
That is my problem, with so many opinions on costs etc who is correct and who to believe.
I suggest that you first look at the costs and figures that the Government is using. This is the info that the higher echelons of antiwind HQ and the editor of the Telegraph don't want you to read. Be advised that this document is 3 years old now and gas has increased in cost substantially and the cost of wind has significantly reduced.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65716/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 19:33
when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries?
Thanks Reggy, more evidence.
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 19:43
I can understand and accept Rhegheads statements, but you have yet to prove to me that he is wrong.
I understand Reggy's statements. Do you accept them because you have done the research and proven to yourself that he is right, or do you just accept them?
Reggy said "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." I asked him to explain the statement. He hasn't done so.
People must be asking themselves "Why doesn't Reggy just explain it and get rid of that damned annoying ywindy?"
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 19:56
I suggest that you first look at the costs and figures that the Government is using. This is the info that the higher echelons of antiwind HQ and the editor of the Telegraph don't want you to read. Be advised that this document is 3 years old now and gas has increased in cost substantially and the cost of wind has significantly reduced.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65716/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf
Do please click on the link!
Read the Title.
UK Electricity Generation Costs Update
And scroll down to the first text.
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
Is that all you got, a go at a standard disclaimer? Very poor show, It just goes to show how desperate you are.
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries?
ywindythesecond
16-Jun-13, 21:42
Is that all you got, a go at a standard disclaimer? Very poor show, It just goes to show how desperate you are.
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries?
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
That doesn't seem to me to be like any standard disclaimer I have ever seen. Perhaps someone else can point to its use elsewhere?
And perhaps Reggy you can be precise about the details of my financial interests and jollies?
Oh, and by the way, can you please explain "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
That doesn't seem to me to be like any standard disclaimer I have ever seen. Perhaps someone else can point to its use elsewhere?
And perhaps Reggy you can be precise about the details of my financial interests and jollies?
Oh, and by the way, can you please explain "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries on behalf of CWIF?
I haven't checked out figures for either side. I am quite sure that wind energy is cheaper than any other form of energy....for the electricity companies and those who host the windfarms. I'm not convinced, however, that it is for the taxpayer and the energy bill payer, given the subsidies the electricity companies and windfarm hosts get direct and in the hidden subsidies which exist within green energy pricing policies. (and that's not even considering the cost of getting the electricity from where the wind is to where the power stations are...which will undoubtedly cost the taxpayer as well.)
Can't see that Green energy tariffs are any less than standard tariffs.....and in some cases within the big six, are more. So where is it leaving a penny more in my purse....because that's my definition of cheaper. And if we didn't subside windfarms, that would leave the subsidy money to do something more useful instead.....like keep local libraries and swimming pools etc open.
I haven't checked out figures for either side. I am quite sure that wind energy is cheaper than any other form of energy....for the electricity companies and those who host the windfarms. I'm not convinced, however, that it is for the taxpayer and the energy bill payer, given the subsidies the electricity companies and windfarm hosts get direct and in the hidden subsidies which exist within green energy pricing policies. (and that's not even considering the cost of getting the electricity from where the wind is to where the power stations are...which will undoubtedly cost the taxpayer as well.)
Can't see that Green energy tariffs are any less than standard tariffs.....and in some cases within the big six, are more. So where is it leaving a penny more in my purse....because that's my definition of cheaper. And if we didn't subside windfarms, that would leave the subsidy money to do something more useful instead.....like keep local libraries and swimming pools etc open.
I'm no economist but I would think that once renewables become the major supplier of the country's energy sources then there will be a major decoupling of the price of electricity from the price of fossil fuels. So long as fossil fuel prices are rocketing in price then I'm sure that renewable energy companies are happy to be paid over the odds for their product.
There seems no end to these battles between the pros and cons with neither side budging but I am getting irritated by Rheghead's repeated accusations of jollies at CWIF's expense. Anyone who has attended a CWIF AGM in the past few years will have seen the accounts and will know that what Rheghead says is simply not true so I suggest he stops saying it and withdraws the statement. No travel expenses at all were claimed last year and very little in previous years, usually by more than one person and to cover very long journeys when costs are kept to a minimum. Most smaller expenses, including travelling, stationery etc., are not claimed but borne by committee members personally. All this is obvious from the accounts.
There seems no end to these battles between the pros and cons with neither side budging but I am getting irritated by Rheghead's repeated accusations of jollies at CWIF's expense. Anyone who has attended a CWIF AGM in the past few years will have seen the accounts and will know that what Rheghead says is simply not true so I suggest he stops saying it and withdraws the statement. No travel expenses at all were claimed last year and very little in previous years, usually by more than person and to cover very long journeys when costs are kept to a minimum. Most smaller expenses, including travelling, stationery etc., are not claimed but borne by committee members personally. All this is obvious from the accounts.
Not only should he come clean about his jollies to wind farm inquiries but he also has to come clean about him having a financial interest in objecting to wind farms. He is running a business from promoting the anti-wind agenda. Only then folks can judge for themselves what he is up to.
Windfarms are ethical, aesthetic, and, in the short term, inevitable. You should learn to love them
I believe that when you get as far entrenched or obsessed as the career protestors then I think the irrational fear of wind farms become pathological. In fact it's called anemomenophobia (google it, you might not realise you suffer from it). How can you blame folk for having this irrational fear? The poor souls are bombarded by specious information or even downright lies. I'd like Paul McKenna to bring out one of his self-help CDs but I fear there'd be no real market as it is just the small vocal minority who really suffer.
ywindythesecond
17-Jun-13, 20:25
I'm no economist but I would think that once renewables become the major supplier of the country's energy sources then there will be a major decoupling of the price of electricity from the price of fossil fuels. So long as fossil fuel prices are rocketing in price then I'm sure that renewable energy companies are happy to be paid over the odds for their product.
This post seems to be at odds with your earlier assertion that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If renewable energy companies are being "paid over the odds", how does that make wind energy cheap?
This post seems to be at odds with your earlier assertion that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If renewable energy companies are being "paid over the odds", how does that make wind energy cheap?
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries on behalf of CWIF?
ywindythesecond
17-Jun-13, 20:59
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries on behalf of CWIF?
Why don't you just expose my wrong-doings Reggy? Chapter and verse. Tell the world exactly what I am doing. You have nothing to fear from telling the truth.
Though the truth appears to be that you can't substantiate your statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
Why don't you just expose my wrong-doings Reggy? Chapter and verse. Tell the world exactly what I am doing. You have nothing to fear from telling the truth.
Though the truth appears to be that you can't substantiate your statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
I think you need to apologise to the admin of this site for making legal threats to them.
Why don't you just admit that you have a financial interest by running a business that promotes the anti-wind agenda? That is why you aren't interested in any rational debate about wind farms or any facts that I present. In 9 years of providing substantiated facts and reasoned debate with respect to wind farms you have never acknowledged any of it. That is irrational.
So come on, come clean with what you're up to. I don't believe for a second you are that stupid.
Ywindy, here is a simple question for you to answer.
"Are you running a business that promotes the anti-wind agenda?"
If you don't answer then many others will assume that you do.
ywindythesecond
17-Jun-13, 22:01
Ywindy, here is a simple question for you to answer.
"Are you running a business that promotes the anti-wind agenda?"
If you don't answer then many others will assume that you do.
See
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?205096-Baillie-Windfarm/page2
See post #29 quoted in full below.
http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.png
http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1030865#post1030865)
[Dunno what you mean ywindy, lets go over it again shall we? You are ideologically opposed to wind turbines, you are out for fame and money, you are highly motivated, you aren't interested in facts, you are linked to national and international antiwind groups, you will stop at nothing just to stop wind farms.]
My reply:-
"You are ideologically opposed to wind turbines"
Wrong
My opposition comes from long and careful study of the motivation for windfarm development, and its effects on people, the economy, the environment and the visual trashing of our lovely country. And its futility as a reliable source of electricity.
"you are out for fame and money"
Wrong
I have had my 15 minutes of fame from "Analysis of UK Wind etc" and from that I have become known to journalists etc, and am often quoted in the papers. If I told them nonsense they would soon stop asking me things. See motivation. As for money, those who oppose wind development have no money, those who develop it do and it is our money they do it with.
" you are highly motivated"
True
This country is in such a mess with its energy policy and its rush to ruin through it, that I and many others across the land can't stay silent. Some day, people will wake up to the con that has been perpretated on them. And they will be very unhappy.
"you aren't interested in facts"
Wrong
I am only interested in facts. That is fact facts, not the gospel according to St Reggy.
"you are linked to national and international antiwind groups"
True
It is a global problem.
"you will stop at nothing just to stop wind farms"
Wrong
And probably libelous. You are treading a fine line Reggy. I stop at lawbreaking and bad manners.
OK, I will ask again, just because it is you.
"Are you running a business that promotes the anti-wind agenda?"
ywindythesecond
17-Jun-13, 22:46
OK, I will ask again, just because it is you.
"Are you running a business that promotes the anti-wind agenda?"
That is a far cry from the accusations you have been levelling at me, and it is a question I am happy to answer.
I am now retired but a small part of my business was in preparing visualisations for individuals or groups opposing wind farm developments. I still occasionally get inquiries. www.syvisuals.co.uk (http://www.syvisuals.co.uk) .
As to running a business "that promotes the anti-wind agenda", your question smacks of McCarthyism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism .
This post seems to be at odds with your earlier assertion that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
If renewable energy companies are being "paid over the odds", how does that make wind energy cheap?
Ywindy, when are you going to give me an apology for making legal threats and come clean about your financial interests in making a business out of objecting to wind farms and your jollies to wind farm inquiries on behalf of CWIF?
So I'll repeat ywindythesecond's question........If renewable energy companies are being "paid over the odds", how does that make wind energy cheap?
It might have been more honest to say that at some stage before we have to dig them and the concrete they sit in, out of the ground in which they have been planted, we will be able to stop subsidising windmills and the owners/land hosts of them...rather than being economical with the truth when you know that is what you are doing.
orkneycadian
18-Jun-13, 06:33
I am only interested in facts.
Sorry Ywindy, but you lost it with me when you confessed to the immersion heater incident. Forever more, I will wonder if you have any clue as to what you are speaking about. Wish I had been there at the time though. Would have been hilarious!
orkneycadian
18-Jun-13, 06:41
"The moon is made of blue cheese" is also a very straightforward and understandable statement.
But also wrong. Everyone knows since the Wallace and Grommit lunar mission, that the moon is made of Wenselydale.
Oh Ywindy, you and your facts.....
ywindythesecond
18-Jun-13, 08:42
But also wrong. Everyone knows since the Wallace and Grommit lunar mission, that the moon is made of Wenselydale.
Oh Ywindy, you and your facts.....
"But also wrong." Thank you, thank you, OKC. That is precisely the point I am making about Reggy's statement that "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available." Just in case I have made another heinous and unforgiveable mistake, I have asked him to explain it. Just so people are properly informed.
orkneycadian
18-Jun-13, 09:24
Oh Ywindy, Reggy is so right when he says you will clutch at any straws. The reference to "wrong" is about the moon being made of blue cheese..... :roll:
Unless of course, you are going to tell us that it has actually be turned into blue cheese (from Wensleydale) as a direct consequence of the construction of windmills.
Maybe you should just stick to amateur electrics.
So I'll repeat ywindythesecond's question........If renewable energy companies are being "paid over the odds", how does that make wind energy cheap?
They are just being paid the going rate for electricity for that time of day. The cost of wind is cheap, cheap to make. Don't confuse cost with price.
That is a far cry from the accusations you have been levelling at me, and it is a question I am happy to answer.
I am now retired but a small part of my business was in preparing visualisations for individuals or groups opposing wind farm developments. I still occasionally get inquiries. www.syvisuals.co.uk (http://www.syvisuals.co.uk) .
As to running a business "that promotes the anti-wind agenda", your question smacks of McCarthyism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism .
Halleluya, a sort of straight answer. So your business supports the anti-wind agenda, that is quite obvious.
My main point is that you aren't exactly a victim in the sense that you are having a wind farm developed near your home. In fact you make money from those people in that situation.
In fact, I've seen your work at wind farm inquiries, quite a show you put on for all and sundrie to see. Suffice to say that you take advantage of your position as CWIF Chairman to use those wind farm inquiries as a publicity stunt for your merchandise and business.
They are just being paid the going rate for electricity for that time of day. The cost of wind is cheap, cheap to make. Don't confuse cost with price.
I'm not...but I'm not understanding your logic. Where is the benefit of "free" Green energy of any kind if it costs us more....given we still pay the same for "cheap green energy" as for the "less cheap" fossil and nuclear options"..and often even pay more if we opt to go with a Green Energy tariff. Do you pay for your electricity on a Green energy tariff or just do standard, out of interest.........or are you self-sufficient re energy?
ywindythesecond
19-Jun-13, 00:12
I'm not...but I'm not understanding your logic. Where is the benefit of "free" Green energy of any kind if it costs us more....given we still pay the same for "cheap green energy" as for the "less cheap" fossil and nuclear options"..and often even pay more if we opt to go with a Green Energy tariff. Do you pay for your electricity on a Green energy tariff or just do standard, out of interest.........or are you self-sufficient re energy?
Oddquine, pour a dram, get nice and comfortable, take the phone off the hook and spend half an hour watching this http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
I'm not...but I'm not understanding your logic. Where is the benefit of "free" Green energy of any kind if it costs us more....given we still pay the same for "cheap green energy" as for the "less cheap" fossil and nuclear options"..and often even pay more if we opt to go with a Green Energy tariff. Do you pay for your electricity on a Green energy tariff or just do standard, out of interest.........or are you self-sufficient re energy?
For pity's sake, green energy costs us less. It sounds like you are still confusing cost with price.
wavy davy
19-Jun-13, 17:14
For pity's sake, green energy costs us less. It sounds like you are still confusing cost with price.
Costs who less? (my definition of cost is what it costs me to pay my leccy bill)
Costs who less? (my definition of cost is what it costs me to pay my leccy bill)
Then your beef is with fossil fuels and nuclear.
For pity's sake, green energy costs us less. It sounds like you are still confusing cost with price.
So explain the obvious difference you can see between the price to me of my leccy bill because of Green Energy.....and the cost to me of subsidising energy producers and windmill/farm owners (which is less council services etc)? Either way only those raking in the money benefit in this money-oriented society.and joe punter pays. How is that cheaper if you add the two together?
So explain the obvious difference you can see between the price to me of my leccy bill because of Green Energy.....and the cost to me of subsidising energy producers and windmill/farm owners (which is less council services etc)? Either way only those raking in the money benefit in this money-oriented society.and joe punter pays. How is that cheaper if you add the two together?
I don't expect to spell it out to you, but the more wind energy gets put into the grid then the price of energy overall will become relatively cheaper. The more renewable energy gets produced then there will be more ROCs on the market so the price of them will approach zero if the obligation is met. It really is simple economics, if you have more expensive fossil fuels and nuclear in the energy mix then the generation costs are higher and that gets passed on to the consumer.
Forget who is raking in what and by whom, if you let your mind get bogged down by that then you'll never move on.
I don't expect to spell it out to you, but the more wind energy gets put into the grid then the price of energy overall will become relatively cheaper. The more renewable energy gets produced then there will be more ROCs on the market so the price of them will approach zero if the obligation is met. It really is simple economics, if you have more expensive fossil fuels and nuclear in the energy mix then the generation costs are higher and that gets passed on to the consumer.
Forget who is raking in what and by whom, if you let your mind get bogged down by that then you'll never move on.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the energy mix used to be 100% Fossil fuel, which is more expensive, now the energy mix is a percentage of fossil fuel and a percentage green energy, which is cheaper, the average price would be lower, but it isn't. With the greatest respect you are talking ballcocks.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the energy mix used to be 100% Fossil fuel, which is more expensive, now the energy mix is a percentage of fossil fuel and a percentage green energy, which is cheaper, the average price would be lower, but it isn't. With the greatest respect you are talking ballcocks.
Then you haven't considered the fact that the costs of fossil fuels are rising too steeply than what the cost of wind at this level can mitigate due to the development of wind energy is being hampered by the curmudgeons and fault-finders of this world. If we kept pace with what is needed, wrt the obligation targets then there would be no problem. So no, you don't see or want to see/acknowledge the big picture.
wavy davy
19-Jun-13, 22:06
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the energy mix used to be 100% Fossil fuel, which is more expensive, now the energy mix is a percentage of fossil fuel and a percentage green energy, which is cheaper, the average price would be lower, but it isn't. With the greatest respect you are talking ballcocks.
Seconded..
Seconded..
If there wasn't any wind energy in the mix then how much would we be paying now for our energy? A bit more I think.
wavy davy
19-Jun-13, 23:02
If there wasn't any wind energy in the mix then how much would we be paying now for our energy? A bit more I think.
I've done my research and drawn my conclusions as have you. And before you ask, I have neither the time nor the energy to bat figures to and fro. Let's agree to differ. :)
secrets in symmetry
19-Jun-13, 23:18
It sounds like you are still confusing cost with price.Indeed they are - although in reality both of these quantities have values that include or omit subsidies, inclusion of which would make this "discussion" cross its purposes yet further!
ywindythesecond
19-Jun-13, 23:57
I don't expect to spell it out to you, but the more wind energy gets put into the grid then the price of energy overall will become relatively cheaper. The more renewable energy gets produced then there will be more ROCs on the market so the price of them will approach zero if the obligation is met. It really is simple economics, if you have more expensive fossil fuels and nuclear in the energy mix then the generation costs are higher and that gets passed on to the consumer.
Forget who is raking in what and by whom, if you let your mind get bogged down by that then you'll never move on.
Reggy is right. As more ROCs are earned, their value will decrease and wind energy prices will get closer to parity with fossil or nuclear. At that time, National grid will not be hampered by the excessive cost of constraining off wind generation and will choose to do so in preference to using reliable despatchable fossil or nuclear generation. The big down side is that by the time there are sufficient ROCs on the market there will be a huge overprovision of potential generation and on windy days very high volumes of surplus generation will have to be constrained off, albeit at more reasonable prices than at present. Whatever way you look at it the presence of wind generation in the mix just adds to our costs.
Reggy is right. As more ROCs are earned, their value will decrease and wind energy prices will get closer to parity with fossil or nuclear. At that time, National grid will not be hampered by the excessive cost of constraining off wind generation and will choose to do so in preference to using reliable despatchable fossil or nuclear generation. The big down side is that by the time there are sufficient ROCs on the market there will be a huge overprovision of potential generation and on windy days very high volumes of surplus generation will have to be constrained off, albeit at more reasonable prices than at present. Whatever way you look at it the presence of wind generation in the mix just adds to our costs.
I do not know where you get your information. You've not quantified your assessment. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear and fossil fuels even with the ROCs included, that is what levelised costing is all about and is subject of the Mott MacDonald report. So you don't know what you are talking about.
Nuclear is getting a fixed pprice for its product which is way higher than any other generation. You don't seem to be gurning about that. It's all about the nimby thing isn't it?
Happy Global Wind Day!
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/unknowns/1017210_10151504217802572_643516841_n_zps08ce7822. jpg
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-13, 20:57
I do not know where you get your information. You've not quantified your assessment. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear and fossil fuels even with the ROCs included, that is what levelised costing is all about and is subject of the Mott MacDonald report. So you don't know what you are talking about.
Nuclear is getting a fixed pprice for its product which is way higher than any other generation. You don't seem to be gurning about that. It's all about the nimby thing isn't it?
Your answer is completely unrelated to my post.
Your answer is completely unrelated to my post.
I think it completed rebutts it, I've presented the evidence and reasoned it, you saying it doesn't doesn't mean anything.
Ywindy, I welcome honesty in any debate, if you admit that you honestly can't bring yourself to agree with any supportive statements and evidence relating to wind energy just because you hate the look of them then I'd welcome that. You'd get a huge amount of support from both sides of the debate if you did so we could bring this debate further on to a higher level.
If there wasn't any wind energy in the mix then how much would we be paying now for our energy? A bit more I think.
You think? So you don't actually know......you just think because it makes a good argument on forums? ROCS are subsidies...so lets start from that premise.
What I haven't ever been able to find is anything online which adds up and collates.......
1)the cost to the taxpayer for subsidies to the energy company/windfarm owner/owner who lets out land the windfarm is planted on
2) the additional cost of subsidy to the owners of the individual grid connected windmills, or solar panels (had windmill once before the cutbacks...so have done that, know how it works...have figures as to production up here over a year or more...which was very little to nil.....but heck it helped me with my electricity bills in a caravan........and likely wouldn't now with the cuts!)
3) the cost to the energy user in increased bills to pay for the "green energy" ..because we, the joe punters are being charged over the cost of fossil fuel energy to pay for the energy companies government imposed obligations to "go green". Nothing to do with the real cost of our electricity usage.....but more to do with energy companies meeting their green energy obligations and still managing to make profits.....so we pay, indirectly, for the low energy light bulbs, the home insulation offers etc, which is the energy companies, method of meeting their obligations to Government, their obligations to shareholders, their obligations to staff and staff bonuses.....but nothing much to do with charging joe punter the cheapest price.
If you added up all of the above (and I'm darn sure I haven't thought of every legal scam being used to ensure energy company profits stay high for their shareholders etc) and compared it to the cost of only fossil fuels over the piece....I am absolutely not convinced that green energy, added to the mix is cheaper. Green Energy and no fossil fuel is not an option....as green energy is not and will never be base load...so a fossil fuel basis will always be required if we all want to watch telly when we want.......or post on here when it suits us, even if it doesn't suit the wind and the sun. Do you have a link to accurate figures comparing the cost of fossil fuels alone versus the cost of fossil fuels plus green energy input? If so, I'd appreciate a link.
I'm going to repeat what I have said before ....and had a rather self-serving/not carbon-friendly response from you (lip-service to a theory is easy...doing something to prove you really give a toss about it is more difficult)......the only way..if you, other people, the Government etc are convinced Global Warming is man made and man has to sort it out is to start from the bottom....with the usage of individuals/households.....and that should be starting with control of cars. 4X4s should be banned..particularly in towns...4X4s in towns are just posing....motorhomes should be banned.....subsidies for windmills/solar panels should be stopped, altogether...... heating levels in houses should be restricted (I have total control, controlled by the electricity company, heating which has levels from 1 to 9. I, personally, have never set it to input at more than 6, and only if the weather is extremely bad..because I am happy enough to wear more than a just a T-shirt /blouse sitting about in my living-room.)
Man-made Carbon, if it is an influence on Global warming, does not only come from the usage of businesses......it also comes from what the likes of you and I, particularly in the West, use daily, and if the millions of people in the world assume that it is up to Governments to subsidise our lifestyles so we don't have to do anything about it..then nobody, even you, despite your posts on here, really believes in man-made carbon input hastening global warming. And, frankly, imo, carbon credit trading is simply the latest method of replacing the sub-prime mortgage market to make money for the arseholes who trade them..much as the sub-prime mortgage market made money for bank employees.....until the whole set up exploded in our faces!
You think? So you don't actually know......you just think because it makes a good argument on forums? ROCS are subsidies...so lets start from that premise.
What I haven't ever been able to find is anything online which adds up and collates.......
1)the cost to the taxpayer for subsidies to the energy company/windfarm owner/owner who lets out land the windfarm is planted on
2) the additional cost of subsidy to the owners of the individual grid connected windmills, or solar panels (had windmill once before the cutbacks...so have done that, know how it works...have figures as to production up here over a year or more...which was very little to nil.....but heck it helped me with my electricity bills in a caravan........and likely wouldn't now with the cuts!)
3) the cost to the energy user in increased bills to pay for the "green energy" ..because we, the joe punters are being charged over the cost of fossil fuel energy to pay for the energy companies government imposed obligations to "go green". Nothing to do with the real cost of our electricity usage.....but more to do with energy companies meeting their green energy obligations and still managing to make profits.....so we pay, indirectly, for the low energy light bulbs, the home insulation offers etc, which is the energy companies, method of meeting their obligations to Government, their obligations to shareholders, their obligations to staff and staff bonuses.....but nothing much to do with charging joe punter the cheapest price.
If you added up all of the above (and I'm darn sure I haven't thought of every legal scam being used to ensure energy company profits stay high for their shareholders etc) and compared it to the cost of only fossil fuels over the piece....I am absolutely not convinced that green energy, added to the mix is cheaper. Green Energy and no fossil fuel is not an option....as green energy is not and will never be base load...so a fossil fuel basis will always be required if we all want to watch telly when we want.......or post on here when it suits us, even if it doesn't suit the wind and the sun. Do you have a link to accurate figures comparing the cost of fossil fuels alone versus the cost of fossil fuels plus green energy input? If so, I'd appreciate a link.
I'm going to repeat what I have said before ....and had a rather self-serving/not carbon-friendly response from you (lip-service to a theory is easy...doing something to prove you really give a toss about it is more difficult)......the only way..if you, other people, the Government etc are convinced Global Warming is man made and man has to sort it out is to start from the bottom....with the usage of individuals/households.....and that should be starting with control of cars. 4X4s should be banned..particularly in towns...4X4s in towns are just posing....motorhomes should be banned.....subsidies for windmills/solar panels should be stopped, altogether...... heating levels in houses should be restricted (I have total control, controlled by the electricity company, heating which has levels from 1 to 9. I, personally, have never set it to input at more than 6, and only if the weather is extremely bad..because I am happy enough to wear more than a just a T-shirt /blouse sitting about in my living-room.)
Man-made Carbon, if it is an influence on Global warming, does not only come from the usage of businesses......it also comes from what the likes of you and I, particularly in the West, use daily, and if the millions of people in the world assume that it is up to Governments to subsidise our lifestyles so we don't have to do anything about it..then nobody, even you, despite your posts on here, really believes in man-made carbon input hastening global warming. And, frankly, imo, carbon credit trading is simply the latest method of replacing the sub-prime mortgage market to make money for the arseholes who trade them..much as the sub-prime mortgage market made money for bank employees.....until the whole set up exploded in our faces!
I'm sorry Oddquine, but your posts often end up as a tangled web of ifs, buts, whys, wherefores, irrelevences and unsubstantiated suppositions. I'm not going to dissect your post, but I could.
Here is a task, find out how much a wind farm cost the developer to build. Give even a pessimistic load factor, use Ywindy's load factor if you want from his 2010 schoolby study and work out the cost of wind energy generation per kWh over the 25 years that the wind farm will last. It is simple maths.
For anyone that just wants to know worst case. Wind build costs are 3.3p per kWh but will in reality be 2.3p per kWh.
but then look at nuclear.
See this webiste (http://www.4-traders.com/EDF-4998/news/EDF-Fixed-Electricity-Price-for-New-UK-Nuclear-Would-Be-Linked-to-Inflation-Sources-17028766/)
EDF, the world's largest nuclear operator, seeks a strike price between GBP95 to GBP100 per megawatt hour of electricity while the government would rather settle around GBP80 to GBP85 per megawatt hour, one of the people said. The current wholesale electricity price is around GBP48/MWh.
In conversion, 10p per kWh for new nuclear when wholesale prices are 4.8p per kWh cf cost of wind @2.3p + 5p for the cost of a ROC.
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-13, 23:09
I'm sorry Oddquine, but your posts often end up as a tangled web of ifs, buts, whys, wherefores, irrelevences and unsubstantiated suppositions. I'm not going to dissect your post, but I could.
Here is a task, find out how much a wind farm cost the developer to build. Give even a pessimistic load factor, use Ywindy's load factor if you want from his 2010 schoolby study and work out the cost of wind energy generation per kWh over the 25 years that the wind farm will last. It is simple maths.
For goodness sake Reggy if you can't find your own insults and have to rely on Sis's, at least spell it properly! (And it is dated March 2011. http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&nid=JMT-N10561)
Developers are concerned with the cost of construction and the cost of operation, consumers are concerned with the price they pay for electricity. The price the consumer pays is the cost to the consumer, and as far as wind is concerned it bears no direct relation to the build cost.
I do wish someone would watch this http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
For goodness sake Reggy if you can't find your own insults and have to rely on Sis's, at least spell it properly! (And it is dated March 2011. http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&nid=JMT-N10561)
Developers are concerned with the cost of construction and the cost of operation, consumers are concerned with the price they pay for electricity. The price the consumer pays is the cost to the consumer, and as far as wind is concerned it bears no direct relation to the build cost.
I do wish someone would watch this http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
you are looking a bit desperate now. I really hoped that you could put up an antiwind argument that stood up to scrutiny. Any chance you could admit to not honestly bringing yourself to agree with any supportive statements and evidence relating to wind energy just because you hate the look of them?
Because that is what is on trial here. That is the summation of what a reasoned person will draw from our engages.
secrets in symmetry
20-Jun-13, 23:22
I'm sorry Oddquine, but your posts often end up as a tangled web of ifs, buts, whys, wherefores, irrelevences and unsubstantiated suppositions. I'm not going to dissect your post, but I could.The oddquine bloke's posts are always like that. The word "scatterbrain" could have been invented to describe them, together with the thought processes that precede them. The schoolboy may be wrong most of the time, but at least he has the presence of mind to digest his wrong ideas before he posts them.
There aren't may scatterbrains with authoritarian tendencies (that he would of course deny), but he is truly an exception.
ywindythesecond
21-Jun-13, 01:00
you are looking a bit desperate now. I really hoped that you could put up an antiwind argument that stood up to scrutiny. Any chance you could admit to not honestly bringing yourself to agree with any supportive statements and evidence relating to wind energy just because you hate the look of them?
Because that is what is on trial here. That is the summation of what a reasoned person will draw from our engages.
Our "engages" revolve around your statement "Wind energy is now one of the cheapest forms of energy available."
I would be interested in finding out how many people believe that you have actually provided evidence (as opposed to bluster and smokescreen) to support that statement.
And Reggy, have you noticed that I don't continuously barrage you with personal insult? I should be grateful if you would provide me with the same courtesy. Debate and disagreement is fine, gratuitous insult is not.
I'm sorry Oddquine, but your posts often end up as a tangled web of ifs, buts, whys, wherefores, irrelevences and unsubstantiated suppositions. I'm not going to dissect your post, but I could.
Here is a task, find out how much a wind farm cost the developer to build. Give even a pessimistic load factor, use Ywindy's load factor if you want from his 2010 schoolby study and work out the cost of wind energy generation per kWh over the 25 years that the wind farm will last. It is simple maths.
Here is a task....dissect my post...and also do your own work to prove (or disprove your claims). I know the effect on my purse currently...and on the landscape of Scotland..and I know that a 2.5 KW grid-connected windmill couldn't power two connected caravans, over a year + of Caithness wind production (and that windmill didn't stop producing when the wind got above a certain speed), despite cooking and heating with gas..so what more do I need than those facts on the ground.
Perhaps if the government(s) in the UK did a bit more to combat carbon usage by joe punter, with just as much enthusiasm as they legislate against other personal choices in life, I'd begin to believe that man was the main instigator of Global Warming..and that the Government wasn't just just jumping on the band-wagon of current preferred scientific theory to give us all something, apart from terrorists, to panic about. A panicked population is a population controllable by governments.
I'm not saying that man has no effect on anything..and I do agree with the need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels...but not by windfarm proliferation...and not because of Global Warming.....but because if we carry on as we are, our descendents, in not too many years, will be obliged to live as the world did in the days before the fossil fuels were discovered in the first place.
This current population is a self-perceived entitled society....and what they think they are entitled to do is run one or more cars per household..(and the bigger the better), live in houses hot enough so they can wander about naked if they feel the urge, fly abroad on holiday or on political jollies, buy goods and food imported from the other side of the world..and export ours in return etc.....and all to make profit for those supplying the goods and services.
We should have started from changing the way the individual uses scarce resources and then, if that wasn't enough to make an appreciable difference, put money into more reliable green energy sources, like tidal..and if that didn't work then fill the country with windmills...rather than starting by filling the country with windmills as a short-term fix so we don't have to consider anything but our entitlement to waste finite resources for our benefit, and leave nothing for future generations..but then windmill proliferation is also private company profit (or is that being overly cynical? :confused) It's not too late to do sensible, but then doing sensible and making efforts to change individual attitudes will likely reduce company profits as we buy less of everything they sell (is nobody but me seeing a pattern here? :Razz)
And Reggy, have you noticed that I don't continuously barrage you with personal insult? I should be grateful if you would provide me with the same courtesy. Debate and disagreement is fine, gratuitous insult is not.
Talking about providing evidence, can you quote where I have insulted you please.
Here is a task....dissect my post...and also do your own work to prove (or disprove your claims). I know the effect on my purse currently...and on the landscape of Scotland..and I know that a 2.5 KW grid-connected windmill couldn't power two connected caravans, over a year + of Caithness wind production (and that windmill didn't stop producing when the wind got above a certain speed), despite cooking and heating with gas..so what more do I need than those facts on the ground.
Perhaps if the government(s) in the UK did a bit more to combat carbon usage by joe punter, with just as much enthusiasm as they legislate against other personal choices in life, I'd begin to believe that man was the main instigator of Global Warming..and that the Government wasn't just just jumping on the band-wagon of current preferred scientific theory to give us all something, apart from terrorists, to panic about. A panicked population is a population controllable by governments.
I'm not saying that man has no effect on anything..and I do agree with the need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels...but not by windfarm proliferation...and not because of Global Warming.....but because if we carry on as we are, our descendents, in not too many years, will be obliged to live as the world did in the days before the fossil fuels were discovered in the first place.
This current population is a self-perceived entitled society....and what they think they are entitled to do is run one or more cars per household..(and the bigger the better), live in houses hot enough so they can wander about naked if they feel the urge, fly abroad on holiday or on political jollies, buy goods and food imported from the other side of the world..and export ours in return etc.....and all to make profit for those supplying the goods and services.
We should have started from changing the way the individual uses scarce resources and then, if that wasn't enough to make an appreciable difference, put money into more reliable green energy sources, like tidal..and if that didn't work then fill the country with windmills...rather than starting by filling the country with windmills as a short-term fix so we don't have to consider anything but our entitlement to waste finite resources for our benefit, and leave nothing for future generations..but then windmill proliferation is also private company profit (or is that being overly cynical? :confused) It's not too late to do sensible, but then doing sensible and making efforts to change individual attitudes will likely reduce company profits as we buy less of everything they sell (is nobody but me seeing a pattern here? :Razz)
So you are unwilling to multiply a few terms together to show that wind costs less than most forms of energy.
If you are unwilling to bring yourself to acknowledge any supportive statements or evidence towards wind energy then I'd like some honesty from you to that effect. Being truthful with oneself is one of the hardest things to do. You also will receive a huge amount of respect from both sides of the debate if you did.
So you are unwilling to multiply a few terms together to show that wind costs less than most forms of energy.
If you are unwilling to bring yourself to acknowledge any supportive statements or evidence towards wind energy then I'd like some honesty from you to that effect. Being truthful with oneself is one of the hardest things to do. You also will receive a huge amount of respect from both sides of the debate if you did.
If you are unwilling to bring yourself to acknowledge any negative statements or evidence against wind energy then I'd like some honesty from you to that effect. Being truthful with oneself is one of the hardest things to do. You also will receive a huge amount of respect from both sides of the debate if you did.
If you are unwilling to bring yourself to acknowledge any negative statements or evidence against wind energy then I'd like some honesty from you to that effect. Being truthful with oneself is one of the hardest things to do. You also will receive a huge amount of respect from both sides of the debate if you did.
Eh? Have you been reading my posts or do you just read what you want? I acknowledge the negative aspects of wind wrt to visual amenity, birds, variability etc, wind isn't a panacea to all our energy needs but then the negative aspects of wind are all too over stated by the anti-wind brigade.
The trouble with having a balanced view of wind energy with someone who is irrationally opposed to wind is that I possess a pro-wind opinion.
So you are unwilling to multiply a few terms together to show that wind costs less than most forms of energy.
If you are unwilling to bring yourself to acknowledge any supportive statements or evidence towards wind energy then I'd like some honesty from you to that effect. Being truthful with oneself is one of the hardest things to do. You also will receive a huge amount of respect from both sides of the debate if you did.
Of course I'm unwilling.
That's not saying I haven't looked at both sides of the argument, or couldn't come up with the figures.....just that I'm not prepared to search them out when you could so easily link me to them.or even better, for once, on this subject actually make a factual authoritative post yourself as opposed to simply producing your interpretation of cherry-picked parts of every thing you read remotely in favour, and sneering at and trying to ridicule all those who do not agree with you.
Give me a link to a site with figures all in one place....a site not aligned to the pro-windmill crowd.....which itemises the cost of subsidies to the energy companiies, the cost of subsidies to the windmill owner, the cost of subsidies by the energy end-user etc....and includes at least an estimate of the carbon cost of carting all those windmills around to where they need to be, the carbon cost of removing carbon sinks like trees and peat to fill with carbon-costly cement to support them.and of course the carbon cost of removing them in 25 years or so. I can add them together.......but then so could you.
Go on, you know you want to! :roll:
Of course I'm unwilling.
That's not saying I haven't looked at both sides of the argument, or couldn't come up with the figures.....just that I'm not prepared to search them out when you could so easily link me to them.or even better, for once, on this subject actually make a factual authoritative post yourself as opposed to simply producing your interpretation of cherry-picked parts of every thing you read remotely in favour, and sneering at and trying to ridicule all those who do not agree with you.
Give me a link to a site with figures all in one place....a site not aligned to the pro-windmill crowd.....which itemises the cost of subsidies to the energy companiies, the cost of subsidies to the windmill owner, the cost of subsidies by the energy end-user etc....and includes at least an estimate of the carbon cost of carting all those windmills around to where they need to be, the carbon cost of removing carbon sinks like trees and peat to fill with carbon-costly cement to support them.and of course the carbon cost of removing them in 25 years or so. I can add them together.......but then so could you.
Go on, you know you want to! :roll:
Well I have looked into both sides of the argument and found that the anti-wind position is full of misleading information and over stated rubbish. Sometimes they go and tell outright lies and fabricate evidence like with that eagle and turbine clip.
You've just done it with giving equal parity of the carbon cost with transportation with any carbon benefits as if there is no net benefit. As if a turbine can never recoup the carbon used in its construction. Every study just tells the opposite unless you go by anti-wind groups and all their lies.
It is heavily influenced with climate sceptical nonsense etc etc.
Eh? Have you been reading my posts or do you just read what you want? I acknowledge the negative aspects of wind wrt to visual amenity, birds, variability etc, wind isn't a panacea to all our energy needs but then the negative aspects of wind are all too over stated by the anti-wind brigade.
The trouble with having a balanced view of wind energy with someone who is irrationally opposed to wind is that I possess a pro-wind opinion.
Couldn't resist and, no, I'm afraid I don't read all through these endless threads that go nowhere. I have a life :) . Off now to get on with it.
ywindythesecond
21-Jun-13, 20:31
Talking about providing evidence, can you quote where I have insulted you please. In virtually every post in response to one of mine. You are now doing it with oddquine. You don't like our answers, we must be liars who do not know our own minds. Can't wait for your inoffensive response.
In virtually every post in response to one of mine. You are now doing it with oddquine. You don't like our answers, we must be liars who do not know our own minds. Can't wait for your inoffensive response.
So you can't quote where I've insulted you, so you have lied again. I've explained with references from standard scientific sources that a lot of the flim flam of which you speak is not supported by the evidence. You are allowed one discretion until you are proven in error. After that, you are intentionally reiterating the lie. Saying a falsehood is not a crime if you are ignorant of the proper facts. Time upon time I've given you links to scientific sources to disprove your assertions about wind energy yet you persistently fail to acknowledge their validity. In my opinion this process just exposes your irrational opposition to wind energy.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 21:10
Talking about providing evidence, can you quote where I have insulted you please.I don't recall you insulting the schoolboy. That's my job - in the schoolboy's opinion, of course lol!
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 21:12
The trouble with having a balanced view of wind energy with someone who is irrationally opposed to wind is that I possess a pro-wind opinion.Indeed. The oddbloke and the one with the stripey head make the schoolboy look like a scientist - which is even more ridiculous than it sounds!
Well I have looked into both sides of the argument and found that the anti-wind position is full of misleading information and over stated rubbish. Sometimes they go and tell outright lies and fabricate evidence like with that eagle and turbine clip.
You've just done it with giving equal parity of the carbon cost with transportation with any carbon benefits as if there is no net benefit. As if a turbine can never recoup the carbon used in its construction. Every study just tells the opposite unless you go by anti-wind groups and all their lies.
It is heavily influenced with climate sceptical nonsense etc etc.
Stop blustering and saying nothing much, Rheghead....what a windmill/farm has to do is to be at a minimum carbon neutral (which I thought was the whole point of this extremely expensive green energy) So it has to produce over its life time, enough green energy to ameliorate the carbon cost of construction and also the carbon cost of removal...or are you happy to have derelict windfarms littering Caithness forever not being removed and the land re-instated?
Both sides are filled with misleading information to push their particular agendas......which is why I have made up my own mind....having, as I have said before, spent a year + in caravans (one living, one storage)with an expensive, in monetary terms and in carbon cost...and cost to the taxpayer in subsidies, windmill, which didn't shut down in high Caithness winds...and didn't manage to power the caravans over any quarter in that year +. So I know, from personal experience, that the windmill sellers are economic with the truth....there is a difference between a best case scenario.....and fact! This is the reason I think they are the absolutely last worst option re green energy.and not the first best (and looking to be the only one).
Way back in 2009, I said in one of the extremely boringly similar threads, in response to you........I don't disagree with your sentiments at all, Rheghead...........but you have not answered the thrust of my original post which was........ On this forum, I have seen many posts pro and anti wind farms...........but I have yet to see one which actually gives the benefits of a plethora of windfarms as against other methods of reducing carbon emissions.......or, if truth be told, any anti posts which offer a different, better and less expensive (to the economy and the landscape) one. You want copies of your snidey remarks in reply...not a lot in your attitude has changed in the last five years or so..and you still haven't convinced me that the Global Warming groupies are correct and we are headed for Armageddon. (more chance of that if the US Christian right get their way and manage to rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount in Jerusalem.)
In that same thread, I said We should be working as hard to find ways to reduce energy usage as to replace energy production.........but we are not.
So my opinion has not changed in the past five years.
I'm really tempted to stop responding to your posts, but just choose one appropriate to your responses from all those I have written in response to you over my time on here and copy and paste it..because they all say much the same in different words.
I am not anti-windfarms per se, in the right place..which would be on hills overlooking cities with a power-station in close proximity. In rural situations far from power stations, I'd prefer individual domestic windmills..not industrial level windfarms as we have in the far North of Scotland, hundreds of miles from power-stations able to make use of that electricity production without vast expense (and the resultant pylons despoiling the landscape as badly as lots of windfarms do) in getting that production to where it is needed, is not the right place.
If as much thought had been given to making best use of the windmill proliferation,as opposed to throwing them up willy-nilly to pay lip-service to the likes of UK Kyoto obligations.... then some thought could have been directed at setting up some way to harness and store the production locally for local use...and maybe then the occasional carbon producing power station could be closed down. But Governments.and scientists/windmill producers and other people on possibly the kind of sites you read, who have built their careers/reputation/income on pushing Global Warming as a problem for us now, do knee-jerk...much on the same knee-jerk lines which produced the likes of the dangerous dogs act (as opposed to an owner who encourages.trains etc dangerous dogs act) and which doesn't work unless someone is killed or maimed.
As a result........we have windmills galore....and still have the carbon-producing power stations, but hey, the UK can preen on the world stage, so that is alright, then!
Keyser_soze
22-Jun-13, 01:40
Typical Nats, Bullies & clowns. if you dont vote for them they dont like it, retweet you so that people with a higher IQ (debateable) try to bully you.
Im staying out of the picture until the vote comes in, the SNP will will be hounded out of town after it & their ridiculous energy policy. imagine if Orkney & Shetland says no ?? ha ha ha not as much revenue.com
secrets in symmetry
22-Jun-13, 02:09
Oddquine, pour a dram, get nice and comfortable, take the phone off the hook and spend half an hour watching this http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.htmlWhy would anyone want to spend half an hour being bored to death by a Sontaran?
Typical Nats, Bullies & clowns. if you dont vote for them they dont like it, retweet you so that people with a higher IQ (debateable) try to bully you.
Im staying out of the picture until the vote comes in, the SNP will will be hounded out of town after it & their ridiculous energy policy. imagine if Orkney & Shetland says no ?? ha ha ha not as much revenue.com
I'm not a Nat but Oddquine is and she hates wind farms. Funnily enough, I saw another prominent hater of wind farms from the west of the county go past me in his car with a big SNP sticker in the back window. They're all pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to energy.
I'm not a Nat but Oddquine is and she hates wind farms. Funnily enough, I saw another prominent hater of wind farms from the west of the county go past me in his car with a big SNP sticker in the back window. They're all pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to energy.
Maybe it is just me.......but possibly others on here might wonder just why you prefer to respond to a post which has little to do with the thread as it has progressed but addresses an OP made 10 days ago and 6 pages later. That couldn't possibly be because it allowed you to be snidey about me personally, rather than actually addressing the post I made directly before (as in a couple of hours earlier and immediately before) the one you chose as worth a response.
And those same people might just wonder, despite many queries by me, why you still fail to compare your "Green" lifestyle to those of us not all over the org preening as to being on the side of the currently government preferred scientific angels. But then maybe some others reading this may be offended by my opinions..and if so, I am sorry about that..particularly if you have not spent the years I have been reading and vainly responding to Rheghead.
So some direct questions, Rheghead (and I'm not holding my breath waiting for any answers)...do you have a big "I am Green" (or words to that effect) sticker in your back window..and would that back window be on a 4x4, out of interest, or a little hybrid car with dual options as to power? Even in rural areas, imo, a 4x4 is only necessary if you live a very long way from the made up road. down a dirt and badly potholed track..or live on a croft and need the 4x4 to tow horse boxes into fields or transport hay/silage bales into fields on a trailer etc or transport animals out of those fields. Nobody needs a 4x4 just to go shopping, wherever they happen to live....rural isn't an excuse to have a big gutsy car....but it sure is an excuse to play with big boys toys. Are you energy self sufficient? I know people who are so it is possible with some will,Do you have a windmill yourself.,,,or solar panels to reduce your personal effect on carbon usage even if grid connected and attracting subsidies? How do you get away on holiday..by plane, boat/ferry, towing a caravan, driving a motorhome? Do you only buy locally produced goods and food? Is your house well insulated so that your home is always at at comfortable but less than sweating temperatures? Could think of more.but that will do.
Frankly I wouldn't care what your lifestyle is...if you were not eternally, ad nauseam, on here pushing your belief that windfarms are great and those who oppose their proliferation are, to put it more nicely than you usually do, as thick as two short planks, Because you are, as per usual, wrong..I don't hate windfarms...but I do hate their proliferation to no real useful longterm benefit and the effects of that proliferation on the landscape of our empty places and as a result the effect on tourism.
Before I moved here, I came up to my uncle's funeral in 2004 after the Causeymire was in existence..and I rather liked it when we stopped to look at it and thought it much better than the pylons marching over the fields and hills.....but that was before windfarms started erupting all over Caithness and Sutherland (and my home area of Moray) like a plague of plooks! And I suspect I am not alone in that opinion.
secrets in symmetry
22-Jun-13, 22:47
They're all pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to energy.Indeed they are. It's similar with economics, they're totally dysfunctional there.
Frankly I wouldn't care what your lifestyle is...if you were not eternally, ad nauseam, on here pushing your belief that windfarms are great and those who oppose their proliferation are, to put it more nicely than you usually do, as thick as two short planks,
Well I don't think wind farms are great, they are a fantastic source of low carbon energy as part of a broader low carbon mix, despite their limitations. And I don't think the usual crowd on here who are opposed to wind farms are as thick as two short planks. It actually takes skill and intelligence to twist the evidence or overstate the negative attributes into a format which makes windfarms look as bad as they'd like, that is why I think it is deceitful. They've even accused local wind farm developers of carrying out psychological war tactics on schoolkids just by inviting children to come forward and give names to turbines. That takes real skill and shameless intelligence and it would be funny in the monty python style if there wasn't a real sinister undertone to the accusation.
If I am ad nauseum then all others that oppose my views are guilty of it too.
Well I don't think wind farms are great, they are a fantastic source of low carbon energy as part of a broader low carbon mix, despite your limitations. And I don't think the usual crowd on here who are opposed to wind farms are as thick as two short planks. It actually takes skill and intelligence in twisting evidence or overstating the negative attributes into a format which makes windfarms look as bad as they'd like, that is why I think it is deceitful. They've even accused local wind farm developers of carrying out psychological war tactics on schoolkids just by inviting children to come forward and give names to turbines. That takes real skill and shameless intelligence and it would be funny in the monty python style if there wasn't a real sinister undertone to the accusation.
If I am ad nauseum then all others that oppose my views are guilty of it too.
Oh Pulleeeeeassse don't tell us it's all about cutting carbon emissions. Since we import anything and everything from the Far East we're causing the creation more emissions every day.
Oh Pulleeeeeassse don't tell us it's all about cutting carbon emissions. Since we import anything and everything from the Far East we're causing the creation more emissions every day.
It is and always has been about cutting carbon emissions. Time to get on-message.
secrets in symmetry
23-Jun-13, 13:02
Well I don't think wind farms are great, they are a fantastic source of low carbon energy as part of a broader low carbon mix, despite your limitations. And I don't think the usual crowd on here who are opposed to wind farms are as thick as two short planks. It actually takes skill and intelligence in twisting evidence or overstating the negative attributes into a format which makes windfarms look as bad as they'd like, that is why I think it is deceitful. They've even accused local wind farm developers of carrying out psychological war tactics on schoolkids just by inviting children to come forward and give names to turbines. That takes real skill and shameless intelligence and it would be funny in the monty python style if there wasn't a real sinister undertone to the accusation.
If I am ad nauseum then all others that oppose my views are guilty of it too.That's a very good post. The anti-windies have chosen to believe that windfarms are bad, and now they twist facts to try to support their case. They are in the same class as astrologists, psychics, fortune tellers, climate change deniers, and crystal healers.
It is and always has been about cutting carbon emissions. Time to get on-message.
I've got nothing against wind farms, cutting carbon emissions etc. but I am sick of the hypocracy. The reasons Caithness Stone is going to the wall is because it is cheaper to import stone from China! The Carbon emissions created in dragging tons of the stuff halfway round the world must be huge. I don't hear voices raised in dissent when we've got all the stone we need on our doorstep.
secrets in symmetry
23-Jun-13, 14:49
The reasons Caithness Stone is going to the wall is because it is cheaper to import stone from China!Do you know that is the case, or are you hypothesising? If you know, how do you know?
I've got nothing against wind farms, cutting carbon emissions etc. but I am sick of the hypocracy. The reasons Caithness Stone is going to the wall is because it is cheaper to import stone from China! The Carbon emissions created in dragging tons of the stuff halfway round the world must be huge. I don't hear voices raised in dissent when we've got all the stone we need on our doorstep.
Even if that were true, where is the hypocrisy? Nobody is claiming importing stone from China has a lower carbon footprint. We have the freedom to choose what suits our situation, it is your choice to buy local stone or not and if you choose local stone over imported then I will applaud your informed choice.
Now if you are suggesting that the Government should create the right economic conditions that would make it a no-brainer to buy local over imported, iow, if you want to stop globalisation then I support that.
Stopping wind farms is not going to stop globalisation, is it, if that is your real gripe? In fact it will make things worse as we will have to import energy from abroad to replace it. You can still exercise your freedom to choose what you want to buy and still support wind energy.
It is and always has been about cutting carbon emissions. Time to get on-message.
No, it hasn't,and isn't now.....unless the message is to how cut carbon emissions in any way which doesn't cut company profits, (and windfarms increase company profits by adding sales to the producers and subsidies to the energy companies), and to that end doesn't make us walk or bike to the corner shop rather than taking the family car...often a 4x4...doesn't make us don a fleece rather than up the heating...doesn't make us think twice about hopping on a plane for a holiday.....and does let us choose to buy exotic fruits which grow half across the world, or buy clothes made at a pittance half across the world and sold at silly money by the likes of Nike.
Come on, Rheghead...you never appear to say much re carbon emission cutting bar "MORE WINDMILLS GOOD REFUSING WINDMILLS BAD".....which smacks rather of someone who wants to continue to have his lifestyle cake as long as everybody else has to pay for it..or everybody else has to take the consequences along with you.
If it was really all about carbon emissions, we'd have started with constricting/rolling back the "global economy", and increasing foreign aid/ forgiving foreign debt, so third world countries didn't have to export to us to get aid from us or repay IMF loans of the same kind which produced the Banking meltdown, because the IMF thinks profit before anything (All Friedman groupies to the core.. and the result is that foreign aid nowadays isn't really aid to third world countries..but thinly disguised aid to our western businesses....as in "we give you aid and you sell us what we want to buy cheaply so we can add a big mark-up, or we give you aid and you buy the armaments etc we want to sell so our businesses can make a profit) but REAL foreign aid, directed away from Governments (because all Governments are corrupt (or incompetent) to some extent including our own) and directly into local industries producing goods used locally, so third world countries wouldn't have to pay crap to their populations to produce food and manufactured crap for ours to buy cheaply and fly in from the bahookey-end of beyond.
If carbon emissions were really a problem to the extent Governments, scientists and the likes of you would have us believe...we'd have killed off the WTO/or at least shoved Friedman's economic philosophies up the anal orifices of every Western Government until it choked them and we'd be forcing you, me and everybody else in the West to live within our own means and not off the livelihoods of others...as the livelihoods of others are a large source element in world carbon emissions.....and we, through our choices are helping directly to increase them.
Do you know that is the case, or are you hypothesising? If you know, how do you know?
People in the Building Supplies industry tell me that contractors undertaking major public works are buying slabs, setts, cobbles and paviours from China regardless of the Carbon emissions issue because it is cheaper. It’s been happening in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow recently, however detailed information is difficult to access because it is being done under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality.’
Even if that were true, where is the hypocrisy? Nobody is claiming importing stone from China has a lower carbon footprint. We have the freedom to choose what suits our situation, it is your choice to buy local stone or not and if you choose local stone over imported then I will applaud your informed choice.
The hypocrisy is that those with the power want to cut carbon emissions by encouraging the development of green energy while they are happy to tolerate a rise in carbon emissions by encouraging sponsors of major works to import material from the Far East.
Now if you are suggesting that the Government should create the right economic conditions that would make it a no-brainer to buy local over imported, iow, if you want to stop globalisation then I support that.
Import tariffs have never been popular with British governments because the argument goes that our exports would be subject to reciprocal tariffs.
Stopping wind farms is not going to stop globalisation, is it, if that is your real gripe? In fact it will make things worse as we will have to import energy from abroad to replace it. You can still exercise your freedom to choose what you want to buy and still support wind energy.
I’m not saying we should stop wind farms entirely. But I will argue that there has to be a fair and equitable means of funding such developments and I am increasingly skeptical regarding the motives of government and developers involved with the 'green' agenda.
secrets in symmetry
23-Jun-13, 22:48
People in the Building Supplies industry tell me that contractors undertaking major public works are buying slabs, setts, cobbles and paviours from China regardless of the Carbon emissions issue because it is cheaper. It’s been happening in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow recently, however detailed information is difficult to access because it is being done under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality.’Thanks. :cool:
Similarly, I was told that the granite for one project at my work came from China, but I have no evidence for that assertion.
The hypocrisy is that those with the power want to cut carbon emissions by encouraging the development of green energy while they are happy to tolerate a rise in carbon emissions by encouraging sponsors of major works to import material from the Far East.
Well I would say the real reason that those that have the power to cut carbon emissions are happy to tolerate a rise in carbon emissions is that they are all too cosy with the fossil fuel industries. You only need to look into detail who has interest with what to discover that one.
Well I would say the real reason that those that have the power to cut carbon emissions are happy to tolerate a rise in carbon emissions is that they are all too cosy with the fossil fuel industries. You only need to look into detail who has interest with what to discover that one.
Unfortunately corporate vested interest has always dictated government policy. I'm old enough to remember the advent of a British built Hydrogen powered car in the mid 50s, (I think it was based on the Rover P4). The prospect of the development of pollution free transport was quietly shelved because oil was cheap and the oil industry was at its most powerful.
My concern with the Renewable Energy Industry is that powerful corporations and numptie politicians are screwing energy users in their drive to fund their projects with no guarantee what-so-ever that energy users will gain any benefit. In fact it has been reported recently that energy bills would increase significantly to support the development of renewable energy. What I want to know is when are electricity prices going to level off or even come down?
In fact it has been reported recently that energy bills would increase significantly to support the development of renewable energy. What I want to know is when are electricity prices going to level off or even come down?
It has been reported alright, by right wing media outlets with an editorial bias against wind and other renewables. They've all got links to the fossil fuel industry.
We'd all want to know when fuel prices stable out. But there is one thing for sure, if you want fuel prices to stable out without the aid of renewables then you'll be waiting for a long time and getting all the more poorer for it.
ywindythesecond
11-Jul-13, 00:49
It has been reported alright, by right wing media outlets with an editorial bias against wind and other renewables. They've all got links to the fossil fuel industry.
We'd all want to know when fuel prices stable out. But there is one thing for sure, if you want fuel prices to stable out without the aid of renewables then you'll be waiting for a long time and getting all the more poorer for it.
Reggy
That answer is unintelligible. How will expensive renewable power stabilise prices?
orkneycadian
15-Jul-13, 17:57
How will ......... renewable power stabilise prices?
Maybe by Darwinian natural selection reducing the population, and therefore the demand on the electricity system? ;)
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1323821
ywindythesecond
15-Jul-13, 23:47
Maybe by Darwinian natural selection reducing the population, and therefore the demand on the electricity system? ;)
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1323821
The wife's still laughing!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.