View Full Version : What is the logic of Windfarms?
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.
I am a great believer in individual wind turbines connected to the National Grid, but I have yet to be convinced that windfarms are little more than a method of generating income for the owners and kudos for a Government trying to meet silly targets from the EU who are too inclined to produce sound-bites rather than sensible policy.
In my web browsing, I have found the following.......from a couple of those energy companies who invest heavily in windpower.............
Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
Amid its triumphalist announcements last week (May 2009, after the formal opening ceremony at Whitelee wind farm, outside Glasgow), Scottish Power made no reference to the remarks made to Reuters news agency on 22 April by Rupert Steele, regulation director at ScottishPower Renewables, in which he warned that Britain, aiming to install some 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost an equivalent capacity of backup power generation to cover periods when the turbines are idle. "Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," he said. "The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all…"
Logical conclusion.............
So, what we are actually doing, at a time of financial stringency, is creating two parallel energy systems, at more than double the necessary cost, to meet demented EU targets, while simultaneously destroying our landscape – in the name of environmentalism. As Lord Reay pointed out, "per delivered megawatt, the capital cost of wind is three to five times the cost of nuclear, ten times the cost of gas and 15 times the cost of coal".
And the logic behind heavily subsidising this over-hyped system to the benefit of energy companies is what? :confused
As someone who believes that by far the worst way to reduce anything is to give incentives to produce some/any way which appears to do that, I'm of the opinion that we could get rid of (or at least limit) the windfarms despoiling our countryside by introducing a carbon tax........... simple, predictable, relatively cheap to collect. It would affect all businesses pro rata to their energy use, with no thresholds and cut-offs. And above all, it would create no anomalies and distortions.
But to do that, you have to really believe that carbon emissions contribute to global warming (if you believe that global warming is a problem in the first place).............and I'm not convinced the World's Governments do either.
I have always believed that to make something work...............you punish the transgressors............not incentivise them to come up with something which makes them money but doesn't make a lot of difference to the situation to be remedied.
When you have Ed Milliband saying things like "Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt."...............DUH! [evil]...............we are into green ideology and EU dictat fuelled by industrial greed..............and not into cutting carbon emissions.
[and here endeth the alcohol fuelled rant..............................I await the fallout. ;)]
"but I have yet to see one which actually gives the benefits"
Probably because nobody has yet been able to come up with the actual benefits to all the community.
Agree with the rest of your post.
and here endeth the alcohol fuelled rant..............................I await the fallout. ;)
And so endeth the alcohol fuelled rant but one which possesses so much insight to the logicity of windfarms. Nice one!:lol:
Aaldtimer
03-Jun-09, 03:50
..."logicity"...mmm, can't seem to find that in my dictionary.
Seems to be a word invented for some website!
"What is the logic of Windfarms?"...there is none! [disgust]
What is the logic of Windfarms?
Hi Oddquine, I just got in from work last night so I didn't have time fully to answer your rant (just a quip) but having thought of it overnight, can we get one thing out of the way?:confused
I would love to engage you on a logical discussion about having windfarms because the reasoning behind them is so clear-cut. I also have looked at your rant/post and found quite a few fallacies in amongst the drink fuelled ramblings of a person who I have found to be quite a passionate and irrational person on certain subjects such as Independence for Scotland and smoking.
A few details as I understand them.
You are all for Independence for Scotland at whatever it costs, you believe in it fundamentally. Nothing will change your mind, I am convinced of that despite that you are prepared to be poorer in an independent Scotland, OK?
Secondly, the last time you mentioned smoking, you weren't going to give up because you enjoy a smoke. I am fully convinced you are aware of the risks of smoking to your own health and also to others but yet you choose to either ignore the risks or you are prepared to take the risk at a conscious level. And all this despite you probably think that time with your family and grandkids is infinitely more precious time than a quick ciggie.
So I understand you to be an intelligent person who has bouts of irrationality with issues which has a grip on you at the emotional level, I believe that is your point of view not mine. (I suppose we all have these irrationalities to one extent or another, myself included)
That said, and it was not by any means a personal attack just an observation from where I'm sitting. So please, can you give me a logical reason how a logic-based discussion regarding your question could have any bearing to a clarification in your mind about some of the erroneous interpretations that you have about renewable energy?:confused
He's [oddquine] right you know (and I 'aint on about smoking or Independence):
Scottish Power says Britain needs backup for wind
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday.
The government is relying heavily on the growth of wind power to meet tough European Union renewable energy targets and promises another 525 million pounds in support for offshore wind as part of Wednesday's budget.
But the more wind turbines Britain erects the more conventional plants it will need.
"Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain's Iberdrola, one of the world's largest wind farm operators.
"The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all ... That happens also offshore," he told Reuters.
Britain plans to install as much as 30 gigawatt of wind capacity, mostly offshore, as part of its efforts to source 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.
At end-2008, it had wind capacity totalling 3.24 GW, including 2.65 GW onshore and 566 megawatts (MW) offshore. It is to reach 4 GW later in 2009 and 5 GW early next year.
Scottish Power had installed capacity of 665 MW by the end of last year and is close to completing Whitelee Windfarm, near Glasgow, which will be Europe's largest onshore site with 140 turbines.
Steele said wind farms usually had a load factor of 30 percent, which meant they provided 30 percent of named plate capacity over the year.
(Reporting by Nao Nakanishi)
Rupert Steele, must know what he's talking about he IS the expert!
*http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE53L40920090422
I will give my irrational perspective on onshore wind farm development, and it is totally irrational but with one vital difference, there is an element of logic to it.
Here goes.
It comes from Star Wars, I am an avid fan of the films. Annekin Skywalker describes to Chancellor Palpetine the essential differences between the good guys, the Jedi and the baddies, the Sith. He says that the Jedi are born to love universally and they love outwards to others to gain their strength. The Sith can only look inwards at themselves for their own passion to gain their strength.
We all know that the Jedi are good and the Sith are bad, yet Chancellor Palpetine thought that the Jedi were evil because his own personal passions had consumed his judgement to such an extent that he couldn't see that the peace that he promised was not achieveable in the long term because love has to be universal rather than a person thing.
So I feel that way about the battle for a low carbon future (and it is a battle where victories are won at the cost of a few casualties) a fight for the Greater Universal Good. I believe that we in the industrial nations have the duty to accept wind farms at perhaps some economic or even local environmental cost to ourselves for the sake of universal benefit to all Life's future generations. Those are people and creatures that do not even exist but we know they are threatened and who should enjoy a peaceful and happy life, they won't if we don't change our ways. I believe that renewable energy at a small local cost can cure oil wars, drought wars, rising flooding disasters, malaria deaths etc etc etc. A recent report (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25555143-12377,00.html) claims that already 315,000 deaths per year are caused or influenced by climate change. Yet we cannot name one of them as they simply go down as deaths due to floods famines etc etc, the logic of a warming world suggests that climate change is the underlying factor. And yet my universal love for the Earth and passion for renewable energy is fuelled every time I hear another 'natural disaster' which could be influenced by anthropological greenhouse gases.
Which brings me on to the Sith, the anti-wind farm campaigners or climate change deniers. They aren't necessarily evil but they do look inward towards themselves for their passion against wind farms. I can understand their concerns but they all seem at a certain time of their lives, one of retirement or bordering on it, not long to go before climate change really affects them. So logically why should they bother? They have bought their home in the countryside and they don't want the status quo upset by a multi-national company coming in and making megabucks at any amenity cost to themselves, I understand that resentment. They will also say that the wind farms will have an impact on how they see the landscape and expect everyone to see it the same way as they do. They overstate the risks of fly debris, flicker, noise, bats and birds, etc etc. You've no doubt read the outrageous claims. I have no doubt that these factors have some detrimental affect, but should the overstated claims of a few outweigh the needs of millions? The anti-wind campaigners only look towards themselves for their strength in the battle over sustainable life over death, good over evil.
Remember that only a future based on Universal love for the planet and everything on it is the only road to a happy sustainable future. Burning fossil fuels, dumping nuclear waste, and solely relying on more expensive forms of renewable energy will not or be sufficient to restore balance to the Earth's fragile ecosystem.
Hi Oddquine, I just got in from work last night so I didn't have time fully to answer your rant (just a quip) but having thought of it overnight, can we get one thing out of the way?:confused
I would love to engage you on a logical discussion about having windfarms because the reasoning behind them is so clear-cut. I also have looked at your rant/post and found quite a few fallacies in amongst the drink fuelled ramblings of a person who I have found to be quite a passionate and irrational person on certain subjects such as Independence for Scotland and smoking.
A few details as I understand them.
You are all for Independence for Scotland at whatever it costs, you believe in it fundamentally. Nothing will change your mind, I am convinced of that despite that you are prepared to be poorer in an independent Scotland, OK?
Secondly, the last time you mentioned smoking, you weren't going to give up because you enjoy a smoke. I am fully convinced you are aware of the risks of smoking to your own health and also to others but yet you choose to either ignore the risks or you are prepared to take the risk at a conscious level. And all this despite you probably think that time with your family and grandkids is infinitely more precious time than a quick ciggie.
So I understand you to be an intelligent person who has bouts of irrationality with issues which has a grip on you at the emotional level, I believe that is your point of view not mine. (I suppose we all have these irrationalities to one extent or another, myself included)
That said, and it was not by any means a personal attack just an observation from where I'm sitting. So please, can you give me a logical reason how a logic-based discussion regarding your question could have any bearing to a clarification in your mind about some of the erroneous interpretations that you have about renewable energy?:confused
Excuse me, Rheghead...........but rather than offer me any rebuttal to my "erroneous interpretations" or offering some of those "clear-cut" reasonings behind windfarms.........you have simply interpreted my attitude "from where you are sitting"............and quite erroneously, I may add.
If you will kindly explain where my interpretation of the information I cite is erroneous, and/or proffer the clear-cut reasoning to which you appear to be privy, I will be in a position to make up my mind.
Whatever you may think of my "irrational" attitudes to things about which you are not enthusiastic, I do not come to conclusions without a great deal of thought, and in the rationality stakes, I'm sure there are many issues on which you hold views others would find irrational.
I do, however, attempt to explain my views and why I hold them when I go to the trouble of replying to a thread which interests me, and, where possible, give facts and figures to back them up...........it would be more appropriate for you to do the same, rather than make personal remarks.
It strikes me that the excuse you have put forward for not discussing the logic behind windfarms (ie my inability to discuss issues logically) is perhaps a cover for the fact that there are few, if any, clear-cut benefits in windfarm proliferation..........and my interpretation of information is not all that erroneous.
Excuse me, Rheghead...........but rather than offer me any rebuttal to my "erroneous interpretations" or offering some of those "clear-cut" reasonings behind windfarms.........you have simply interpreted my attitude "from where you are sitting"............and quite erroneously, I may add.
If you will kindly explain where my interpretation of the information I cite is erroneous, and/or proffer the clear-cut reasoning to which you appear to be privy, I will be in a position to make up my mind.
Whatever you may think of my "irrational" attitudes to things about which you are not enthusiastic, I do not come to conclusions without a great deal of thought, and in the rationality stakes, I'm sure there are many issues on which you hold views others would find irrational.
I do, however, attempt to explain my views and why I hold them when I go to the trouble of replying to a thread which interests me, and, where possible, give facts and figures to back them up...........it would be more appropriate for you to do the same, rather than make personal remarks.
It strikes me that the excuse you have put forward for not discussing the logic behind windfarms (ie my inability to discuss issues logically) is perhaps a cover for the fact that there are few, if any, clear-cut benefits in windfarm proliferation..........and my interpretation of information is not all that erroneous.
I was simply merely pointing out the futility of entering a logic based discussion with someone if I thought they were not prepared to listen and take in my logical arguements. I've wasted enough time making my case to ywindy and co with no success(they are an anti-wind farm pressure group afterall so I expect that). I've had the humility to offer that I may have some irrational viewpoint about renewable energy but I think it has a logical underlying premise. Which brings me to your question, why should I justify myself logically if you can't offer the same courtesy regarding smoking and Independence for Scotland? So why should I bother?
Are you prepared to disentangle your rant in a logical manner?
I was simply merely pointing out the futility of entering a logic based discussion with someone if I thought they were not prepared to listen and take in my logical arguements. I've offered that I may have some irrational beliefs about renewable energy. So why should I bother?
Are you prepared to disentangle your rant?
What do you mean......disentangle my rant.
I may have called it an alcohol induced rant..........but I believe I have made logical points which illustrate where I see the fallacy behind windfarm proliferation as opposed to other methods of reducing carbon emissions. What is to disentangle? :confused
You certainly shouldn't bother if you don't feel inclined to post........but then, if you don't feel inclined to post with information........why bother to post at all simply to tell us you don't intend to post because the OP is too irrational to have a logical discussion? Bear in mind, the thread title is not " What is the logic of Windfarms, Rheghead?"
"What is the logic of Windfarms, Rheghead?"
The logic of windfarms and other forms of renewable energy is that future generations will eventually have to go for wind energy in the longterm after the finite energy resources have depleted anyway. If you accept that consuming all those fossil fuels at once will be a bad thing for the environment (from what we get told by scientists etc), then why does the human race have to wait for their inevitable finality and mess up the Environment before it will consider using renewable energy?
:confused
The film Age of Stupid illustrates this quite well.
Good argument going on here, if it was a Tennis match I would say that the score would be :-
Oddquine 30
Rheghead 40
So you are serving to save the set Oddquine. :D
Ooops I think I have been watching too much Tennis on TV.
Let's follow the cash. Who benefits from these things?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
The logic of windfarms and other forms of renewable energy is that future generations will eventually have to go for wind energy in the longterm after the finite energy resources have depleted anyway. If you accept that consuming all those fossil fuels at once will be a bad thing for the environment (from what we get told by scientists etc), then why does the human race have to wait for their inevitable finality and mess up the Environment before it will consider using renewable energy?
:confused
The film Age of Stupid illustrates this quite well.
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.
I am a great believer in individual wind turbines connected to the National Grid, but I have yet to be convinced that windfarms are little more than a method of generating income for the owners and kudos for a Government trying to meet silly targets from the EU who are too inclined to produce sound-bites rather than sensible policy.
In my opinion, it would be more efficacious at this stage to be using the silly money used to subsidise windfarms to increase the research into less intermittent forms of replacement energy, such as wave power. However, it appears to me that Governments are looking for a quick fix in order to be seen to be doing something rather than actually trying to find a way round the eventual energy depletion which will not affect them or us in our lifetimes.
However, Governments are not encouraging windfarms right now in order to save future generations from running out of electricity.......they are building them because of global warming and the perceived need to reduce carbon emissions.
I am of the opinion that there are more efficient and cheaper ways to cut carbon emissions and thus reduce global warming...........given that the power stations which already exist will have to be kept running to cover windfarm downtime..........neither reducing carbon emissions.....nor making it any less likely that fossil fuels will run out at much the same rate as they already are.
Let's follow the cash. Who benefits from these things?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
Yep, the Wall Street Journal. The hub of information on world finance and all things ethical :roll:. I find it funny that they love the making of money from almost anything whether it be bad, benign or beneficial, except that is from doing something positive about the primary threat to the Earth's ecosystem.
I don't disagree with your sentiments at all, Rheghead...........but you have not answered the thrust of my original post which was........ [I]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
In terms of reducing carbon emissions for the purpose of producing electricity, wind farms have a proven track record. They are the cheapest and most reliable. The proof of that is the uptake by companies who want to develop wind farms over other forms of renewable energy generation and evidence of production on the Energy in Brief information. Once planning permission is gained, the wind farm can be up and running in a year or so. An offshore windfarm, tidal or wave generator has to resist a whole host of severe environment conditions, plus, they come at a greater environmental cost to build. So logically, if you had a energy company, which would you rather enter, the onshore wind farm business or the wave generator business which has recently had operational problems? Consider that you will have to pay underwritten insurance for a largely untested technology.
I am a great believer in individual wind turbines connected to the National Grid, but I have yet to be convinced that windfarms are little more than a method of generating income for the owners and kudos for a Government trying to meet silly targets from the EU who are too inclined to produce sound-bites rather than sensible policy.
Let us disentangle the logic here. Firstly, companies need to make a profit otherwise they go bust. Nobody wants companies to go bust, it tends to be a messy business for everyone. If you accept the fact that conventional energy generation is still cheaper than renewable but you accept that renewable energy generation is a necessity, and you accept that businesses involved in renewable energy need to make a profit then we need to find a way of satisfying all the bases here. We need to artificially raise the commercial rewards of entering the renewable energy business.
Our Government has gone down the Renewable Energy Obligation route. That is the system that we have to deal with, but we could have had a Feed-in Tariff system. Both ways have their strong points and weak points, but both are essentially fit for purpose to give financial incentives. The results of both schemes are the same, the consumer has to accept higher energy bills. There is no other way as I can see. No company is going to enter a high risk business for no extra financial reward. That is fact, not fiction.
In my opinion, it would be more efficacious at this stage to be using the silly money used to subsidise windfarms to increase the research into less intermittent forms of replacement energy, such as wave power. However, it appears to me that Governments are looking for a quick fix in order to be seen to be doing something rather than actually trying to find a way round the eventual energy depletion which will not affect them or us in our lifetimes.
Quite frankly the research has already been done by the very companies that we have been dealing with for our gas, oil and coal etc. The silly money is needed to sustain businesses in a high risk energy game, not for research. There is obviously some research such as nuclear fusion which gives hope for the golden bullet but it does not promise one, nor should we rely on one given that the lead time to test the technology is of the order of 50 years.
However, Governments are not encouraging windfarms right now in order to save future generations from running out of electricity.......they are building them because of global warming and the perceived need to reduce carbon emissions.
Agreed.
I am of the opinion that there are more efficient and cheaper ways to cut carbon emissions and thus reduce global warming
You may be right and I think energy efficiency, recycling, reducing energy use are all excellent ways to do that. But there are limits to the efficiency of this, everybody is selfish, nobody is going to do something if nobody else is doing it and nobody is going to go sacrifice the standard of their present lifestyles in order to go back to some idealistic hippy archaic existence. We need to find more energy for all our needs with minimum environmental cost to the environment. We are not going to do that with the preclusion of wind energy which is cheaper than other forms of renewable energy generation. It just won't happen.
...........given that the power stations which already exist will have to be kept running to cover windfarm downtime..........neither reducing carbon emissions.....nor making it any less likely that fossil fuels will run out at much the same rate as they already are.
A misconception if you may allow me to point out.
You are half right in that existing power stations need to be kept running during calm spells.
There are two types of 'back up' that we need to consider.
Spinning Reserve.
These are power plants that are run at a reduce percentage of their capacity, say at 50% for a 2GW power plant. It is producing 1GW of energy, but it is also providing spare capacity if the wind drops. I am well aware that power output to fuel performance may not be linear but I am assured from what I have read that the reduced fuel performance (hence higher carbon emissions) by operating at lower capacities is a tiny fraction to that mitigated by the wind farms that run in parallel to the power plant.
Hot Standby
These plants lie idle but they are kept warm by a auxilliary generator just to keep the machinery warm to prevent metal stress that would be observed if the plant started from cold. The power needed to do that is in the order of a 250kw generator to keep a 2GW power plant warm.
It would take a lot of imagination to assume that carbon emissions aren't saved here.
Rheaghed you say: Yep, the Wall Street Journal. The hub of information on world finance and all things ethical . I find it funny that they love the making of money from almost anything whether it be bad, benign or beneficial, except that is from doing something positive about the primary threat to the Earth's ecosystem.
Before you go into anti-media warp spasm here you should note that the piece in the Wall Street Journal is by Bjorn Lomburg. Why dont you take him on? He has an interesting point of view on global warming. But to appreciate it you have to stop whirling around tilting at windmills.
Be cool!
..."logicity"...mmm, can't seem to find that in my dictionary.
Seems to be a word invented for some website!
"What is the logic of Windfarms?"...there is none! [disgust]
You make out to the general public that you are somehow policing the written word through this Forum keeping the true essence of English away from Americanisation and yet you started a sentence with three full stops!
This thread is important and informative to the people who are discussing this subject.
Who needs your input for a slight spelling/grammatical error when the basis of whats being discussed is nevertheless understood by the people taking part.
Here is another word for you sir, Hyperbole.
Aaldtimer was using this form of punctuation.... to create a thoughtful pause. Not that I have many thoughtful pauses myself but I can appreciate it in others........
Aaldtimer was using this form of punctuation.... to create a thoughtful pause. Not that I have many thoughtful pauses myself but I can appreciate it in others........
Pause for effect ha!
Its a forum for discussion not an English lesson.
At no point did Aaldtimer discuss or offer opinions to the thread.
Then I apologise for my mistake....(long pause for dramatic effect)
Now then, here is the great Lomborg who places things in their context.
Listen to what he is saying.
It is important.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
Then I apologise for my mistake....(long pause for dramatic effect)
Now then, here is the great Lomborg who places things in their context.
Listen to what he is saying.
It is important.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
Been there,eaten the book and read the pie.
Why dont you listen to the late great Dave Allen on life and its flipside,soothe yourself bud and save yersel.:lol:
Then I apologise for my mistake....(long pause for dramatic effect)
Now then, here is the great Lomborg who places things in their context.
Listen to what he is saying.
It is important.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
Yep Bjorn Lomborg. Oh dear. Quite a name he has gained for himself in recent times. Is that an oxymoron to call oneself a political scientist? Just wondering how many of those coffee table books he has sold in the USA, quite a few I'd expect.
Science is science, politics is politics, it is up to our political leaders and social commentators to find ways of examining and dealing with what the scientists are coming up with.
I don't think that BL has actually any strategy to tackle climate change. Yet tackling climate change has the potential to cure one or two of his priorities. Famines?, plagues? Even world poverty if we can find a way of reaping renewable energy from poor areas to rich industrial nations. Just a thought.
He's [oddquine] right you know (and I 'aint on about smoking or Independence):
Scottish Power says Britain needs backup for wind
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday.
The government is relying heavily on the growth of wind power to meet tough European Union renewable energy targets and promises another 525 million pounds in support for offshore wind as part of Wednesday's budget.
But the more wind turbines Britain erects the more conventional plants it will need.
"Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain's Iberdrola, one of the world's largest wind farm operators.
"The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all ... That happens also offshore," he told Reuters.
Britain plans to install as much as 30 gigawatt of wind capacity, mostly offshore, as part of its efforts to source 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.
At end-2008, it had wind capacity totalling 3.24 GW, including 2.65 GW onshore and 566 megawatts (MW) offshore. It is to reach 4 GW later in 2009 and 5 GW early next year.
Scottish Power had installed capacity of 665 MW by the end of last year and is close to completing Whitelee Windfarm, near Glasgow, which will be Europe's largest onshore site with 140 turbines.
Steele said wind farms usually had a load factor of 30 percent, which meant they provided 30 percent of named plate capacity over the year.
(Reporting by Nao Nakanishi)
Rupert Steele, must know what he's talking about he IS the expert!
*http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE53L40920090422
I've no conflict with the content of your post. But I'd like to add that Britain's generation portfolio is ageing. It needs to be replaced at some point anyway, even if we had no wind farms at all.
What renewable energy generation allows us to do, is to mitigate some of the carbon emissions that the new build would produce if the wind capacity was absent. But that is if we stay as an almost island grid with few interconnectors. It could be possible to export and import energy when needed if we had a continental wide energy grid. The level of back up would then become proportional to the square root of the renewable energy on the grid. That means for an increasing amount of renewable energy, proportionally we need a diminishing amount of conventional back up.
In terms of reducing carbon emissions for the purpose of producing electricity, wind farms have a proven track record. They are the cheapest and most reliable. The proof of that is the uptake by companies who want to develop wind farms over other forms of renewable energy generation and evidence of production on the Energy in Brief information. Once planning permission is gained, the wind farm can be up and running in a year or so. An offshore windfarm, tidal or wave generator has to resist a whole host of severe environment conditions, plus, they come at a greater environmental cost to build. So logically, if you had a energy company, which would you rather enter, the onshore wind farm business or the wave generator business which has recently had operational problems? Consider that you will have to pay underwritten insurance for a largely untested technology.
I'm not saying that wind power doesn't of itself have zero carbon emissions........what I am saying is that those zero carbon emissions make very little impact on the overall carbon emissions of all electricity suppliers feeding into the National Grid. I'm afraid, being a cynic par excellence, that all those people who want to develop windfarms are looking at the monetary return to themselves rather than to the efficiency and appropriateness of large grid connected windfarms.
I agree that there is no renewable source of energy at all which is reliable enough to give base supply and remove any power stations, but those offshore possibilities, apart from wind, would at least be more reliable, given the tide comes in and goes out at reasonably predictable times......and have the added benefit that they are not in your face wherever you look in Watten. (Excuse me for being parochial)
I, as a taxpayer, would be more than prepared to spend the money currently being pumped into ROC subsidies to electricity companies for windfarms into solving the problems of offshore technology.......and even more into producing efficient seabed transmission to where it is needed.
That way we will be leaving our descendants a renewable energy production system which is guaranteed to work at full capacity at foreseeable times of day twice a day........which is more than can be said for wind power.
I'm of the opinion that, as long as electricity companies get subsidised for onshore windfarms, onshore windfarms will proliferate until the EU targets have been met, as the companies will go with what makes/saves them money to the exclusion of any other option.........and we will not lose one power station and their carbon emissions as a result.
Let us disentangle the logic here. Firstly, companies need to make a profit otherwise they go bust. Nobody wants companies to go bust, it tends to be a messy business for everyone. If you accept the fact that conventional energy generation is still cheaper than renewable but you accept that renewable energy generation is a necessity, and you accept that businesses involved in renewable energy need to make a profit then we need to find a way of satisfying all the bases here. We need to artificially raise the commercial rewards of entering the renewable energy business.
Our Government has gone down the Renewable Energy Obligation route. That is the system that we have to deal with, but we could have had a Feed-in Tariff system. Both ways have their strong points and weak points, but both are essentially fit for purpose to give financial incentives. The results of both schemes are the same, the consumer has to accept higher energy bills. There is no other way as I can see. No company is going to enter a high risk business for no extra financial reward. That is fact, not fiction.
Strikes me that if we can pay for illegal wars, subsidies for children, Trident, bailing out the banks, the Olympics, MPs allowances, the Millennium Dome, the Scottish Parliament (only unnecessary because we already had the Royal High School renovated and waiting) and other unnecessary items such as those, we could easily, if we had the will, find the money to "save the planet" or at least our bit of it for future generations. So we subsidise things which are more likely to work, rather than going with the cheapest option which suited the electricity companies......and which they push to the exclusion of any other option.
Quite frankly the research has already been done by the very companies that we have been dealing with for our gas, oil and coal etc. The silly money is needed to sustain businesses in a high risk energy game, not for research. There is obviously some research such as nuclear fusion which gives hope for the golden bullet but it does not promise one, nor should we rely on one give the lead time to test the technology.
See above.
Agreed.
So you agree that windfarms are not intended to save fossil fuels, despite your post................but do you agree that for zero carbon emissions and saving the 30 odd% of pwer station emissions, nuclear is the way to go?
You may be right and I think energy efficiency, recycling, reducing energy use are all excellent ways to do that. But there are limits to the efficiency of this, everybody is selfish, nobody is going to do something if nobody else is doing it and nobody is going to go sacrifice the standard of their present lifestyles in order to go back to some idealistic hippy archaic existence. We need to find more energy for all our needs with minimum environmental cost to the environment. We are not going to do that with the preclusion of wind energy which is cheaper than other forms of renewable energy generation. It just won't happen.
It has been shown that achieving carbon neutrality in older houses will reduce carbon emissions by an appreciable amount more than windfarms will. So why does the Government not put the windfarm subsidies into giving everybody subsidies to improve insulation, install double glazing etc.......because we all know that if we have to pay full whack, we will think twice about it, and then find something more immediate to spend our money on.
We don't really need to find more energy.........we just need to get carbon capture and storage onto the front burner, and then we can run our power stations with much less impact to the environment.
With regard to the "idealistic hippy archaic existence"....there are people who live a carbon neutral way of life because they are committed to reducing their impact on the environment. I assume you are not that committed.
A misconception if you may allow me to point out.
You are half right in that existing power stations need to be kept running during calm spells.
There are two types of 'back up' that we need to consider.
Spinning Reserve.
These are power plants that are run at a reduce percentage of their capacity, say at 50% for a 2GW power plant. It is producing 1GW of energy, but it is also providing spare capacity if the wind drops. I am well aware that power output to fuel performance may not be linear but I am assured from what I have read that reducing fuel performance (hence higher carbon emissions) at lower capacities comes anywhere near to that mitigated by the wind farms that run in parallel to the power plant.
But Spinning Reserve already exists to cope with spikes in demand.
The only difference will be that those spikes are likely to become more frequent as the wind doesn't care if you are boiling a kettle when it drops out of the system, or if you are in your bed sleeping in the middle of summer when it is producing at its highest capacity.
At present, there is no requirement for extra Spinning Reserve as wind power does not represent a significant input to the Grid (although it does represent a significant detriment to the landscape here in Caithness).
However, if wind power became a significant input to the National Grid, and power stations are taken out of service because they cannot meet the CO2 emissions as laid down by the EU, we would hit the problem of perhaps not having enough capacity on spinning reserve to maintain supply on those days when the wind produces little or when the high wind level causes the shut down of the turbines.
So, in the end, it appears that base supply will be maintained regardless of wind power input at any time in the forseeable future, and spinning standby will still be necessary, and may well be required more often than currently, given the vagaries of wind power.
Hot Standby
These plants lie idle but they are kept warm by a auxilliary generator just to keep the machinery warm to prevent metal stress that would be observed if the plant started from cold. The power needed to do that is in the order of a 250kw generator to keep a 2GW power plant warm.
It would take a lot of imagination to assume that carbon emissions aren't saved here.
But cost isn't saved, as the Hot Standby generators are still being used and we all know lower plant utilisation incurs a higher cost per unit of energy supplied. I have not been able to find figures on the start-up impact on cO2 levels...........and, again, those generators already exist, so much of my reply to the above would also pertain here.
So,logically, what you are saying is that wind power will make little or no difference to current levels of carbon emissions from power stations, regardless of the amount of money pumped into having them, but doing something/anything is better than taking our time and coming up with a way which may not be so easy, but may very well be more effective.........because we have to be seen to be doing something because Kyoto and the EU demand it.
He's [oddquine] right you know (and I 'aint on about smoking or Independence):
A word in your ear..........the level of verbosity, good grammar, spelling and pure intelligence in my post even with drink taken indicates that Oddquine is not a "he"!
And I'm sober tonight...Darn it! http://www.oddquine.co.uk/emoticons/rolleye11.gif
I'm not saying that wind power doesn't of itself have zero carbon emissions........what I am saying is that those zero carbon emissions make very little impact on the overall carbon emissions of all electricity suppliers feeding into the National Grid.
That depends on how much wind capacity gets through the planning stage. An average GWh of energy will release about 430 tonnes of carbon dioxide, wind energy can mitigate GWh for GWh other technologies so big savings in carbon emissions can be achieved.
I'm afraid, being a cynic par excellence, that all those people who want to develop windfarms are looking at the monetary return to themselves rather than to the efficiency and appropriateness of large grid connected windfarms.
I dispute your claim there. Wind energy profit is totally performance related. So wind farm developers are always looking to increase efficiency because that increases their profits. Secondly, I think developers are very conscious at the appropriateness of their developments, it makes sense because the more appropriate they are the better chance to get planning permission. But they are also pragmatic about the fact that you can't make a wind farm invisible.
I agree that there is no renewable source of energy at all which is reliable enough to give base supply and remove any power stations,
Wrong on all points, wind is very reliable, probably the most reliable energy source that we have. Counter-intuitively, wind gains its reliability from the fact that a sudden outage on the scale of a sudden loss of several GW is very unlikely. Large conventional plants will always suffer from this sudden large intermittancy. If a sudden outage is suffered from a windfarm then only a loss of one turbine will be experienced. Hardly a blot in the grand schemes of things.
But baseload is all that wind can supply, it can't meet demand it is not required of it, same with large nuke and coal.
About 35GW of wind energy can make about 8GW of coal capacity go into permanent retirement, in other words they can be scrapped because of wind penetration into the energy mix. Go see the statements by the National Grid. But the important thing is that you will never see a coal plant being taken out of service due to wind penetration because the reasons that they are being retired in realtime is due to they are individual businesses who will always retire due to end of useful life rather than redundancy.
but those offshore possibilities, apart from wind, would at least be more reliable, given the tide comes in and goes out at reasonably predictable times......and have the added benefit that they are not in your face wherever you look in Watten. (Excuse me for being parochial)
You are right that about visual amenity and the predictable nature of the flow of tidal but that is about it. Fact is that predictability is not of great value because tidal power still needs back up whether it is predicted or not. The tides can be predicted into the far future but must be dealt with every 12 hours. Possibly, it will result in more plants being in hot standby in comparison to wind because there isn't enough time between tides to take them offline into cold standby like what could happen during long windy periods. In fact wind predictions are accurate enough to allow cold standby plants to be brought online in good enough time to allow them warm up properly.
I, as a taxpayer, would be more than prepared to spend the money currently being pumped into ROC subsidies to electricity companies for windfarms into solving the problems of offshore technology.......and even more into producing efficient seabed transmission to where it is needed.
You will be paying 3 times the silly money for offshore technology than for wind when the RO gets banded for different technologies. If you would rather pay that through taxation that is fine, it is a matter of personal choice if you don't like the current set up, hard lines but in the end offshore technologies require much more incentives to get underway than windpower.
That way we will be leaving our descendants a renewable energy production system which is guaranteed to work at full capacity at foreseeable times of day twice a day........which is more than can be said for wind power.
Again you have a misconception of tidal power. The load factor of tidal energy in the Pentland Firth is expected to be around 36%, on a par with local wind. Secondly, the power curve of tidal is steeply parabolic, albeit it can be mitigated by careful siting in eddy currents to iron out the steepness of the parabola.
I'm of the opinion that, as long as electricity companies get subsidised for onshore windfarms, onshore windfarms will proliferate until the EU targets have been met, as the companies will go with what makes/saves them money to the exclusion of any other option.........and we will not lose one power station and their carbon emissions as a result.
That is your fear not mine because the banding of the RO will ensure financial interest will be kept up in the other technologies and the greater public acceptance for offshore will always ensure that tidal and wave will get preference through planning
Strikes me that if we can pay for illegal wars, subsidies for children, Trident, bailing out the banks, the Olympics, MPs allowances, the Millennium Dome, the Scottish Parliament (only unnecessary because we already had the Royal High School renovated and waiting) and other unnecessary items such as those, we could easily, if we had the will, find the money to "save the planet" or at least our bit of it for future generations. So we subsidise things which are more likely to work, rather than going with the cheapest option which suited the electricity companies......and which they push to the exclusion of any other option.
An emotional response and some I wholeheartedly agree with, but ironically the illegal wars were always over the fact that somebody else has energy in the ground which renewables could make redundant. In fact a Saudi prince has already criticised the western world for attempting to go renewable, things are looking up, they feel as if they are slowly going out of business.
So you agree that windfarms are not intended to save fossil fuels, despite your post................but do you agree that for zero carbon emissions and saving the 30 odd% of pwer station emissions, nuclear is the way to go?
Never said that, was agreeing with you that windfarms are intended to save fossil fuel use and agreed that they are not there to provide future generations with electricity.
It has been shown that achieving carbon neutrality in older houses will reduce carbon emissions by an appreciable amount more than windfarms will. So why does the Government not put the windfarm subsidies into giving everybody subsidies to improve insulation, install double glazing etc.......because we all know that if we have to pay full whack, we will think twice about it, and then find something more immediate to spend our money on.
Some good points there, I agree that there will be carbon emission savings through better insulation on older buildings. Sadly older houses are subject to preservation/listing orders. However, it would be a fallacy to link windfarm subsidies to housing improvements because the RO is not generated via taxation but through energy bills. Though you may have struck on a good idea that it must be the onus of a customer to bring the energy efficiency characteristics of his property up to a industry standard which is set by the Government BEFORE he can be supplied by an energy supplier.
It is also irrelevant to compare the magnitude of carbon emission savings of better energy efficiency to that of renewable energy generation.
We don't really need to find more energy.........we just need to get carbon capture and storage onto the front burner, and then we can run our power stations with much less impact to the environment.
I'm afraid that fullscale CCS is just a pie in the sky. It would require economically prohibitive infrastructure, no guarantee of success and extra carbon emissions to pressurise the waste gases and transport them into deep underground wells.
With regard to the "idealistic hippy archaic existence"....there are people who live a carbon neutral way of life because they are committed to reducing their impact on the environment. I assume you are not that committed.
I'm quite happy to be compliant to the task ahead. I'm just not sure everyone else is. And I was sort of making a nod to your signature.;)
The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. (Robertson Davies)
Very apt.
But Spinning Reserve already exists to cope with spikes in demand.
Indeed it does. We don't need anymore spinning reserve under a low carbon energy portfolio as we can never escape the fact that large fossil fuel generation will still be needed to meet peak demands etc and needs to be backed up by other fossil fuel generators. The madness at the moment is meeting demand with fossil fuel baseload that could be met through a mix of renewables.
The only difference will be that those spikes are likely to become more frequent as the wind doesn't care if you are boiling a kettle when it drops out of the system, or if you are in your bed sleeping in the middle of summer when it is producing at its highest capacity.
Again incorrect, large sudden outages can only met by spinning reserve. Wind doesn't produce 'spikes' or anything sudden. Wind is variable, not intermittent, although it is often quoted as such by many pro-wind sources even the BWEA.
At present, there is no requirement for extra Spinning Reserve as wind power does not represent a significant input to the Grid (although it does represent a significant detriment to the landscape here in Caithness).
However, if wind power became a significant input to the National Grid, and power stations are taken out of service because they cannot meet the CO2 emissions as laid down by the EU, we would hit the problem of perhaps not having enough capacity on spinning reserve to maintain supply on those days when the wind produces little or when the high wind level causes the shut down of the turbines.
So, in the end, it appears that base supply will be maintained regardless of wind power input at any time in the forseeable future, and spinning standby will still be necessary, and may well be required more often than currently, given the vagaries of wind power.
But cost isn't saved, as the Hot Standby generators are still being used and we all know lower plant utilisation incurs a higher cost per unit of energy supplied. I have not been able to find figures on the start-up impact on cO2 levels...........and, again, those generators already exist, so much of my reply to the above would also pertain here.
I understand that you may think existing wind does pose a significant detriment to the landscape, but I also understand that others don't hold that view.
As for spinning reserve, wind will only increase the need for more hot standby and cold standby plants. As I said before, the carbon emissions associated with that is negligible.
You mentioned 'cost' of having plants in standby, I assume you mean financial cost. Yes there is a cost incurred here to keep plants on standby and manned. But the marginal costs of these plants are very low, some 10% of their total expense, the main expense is the fuel. So costs are kept to a minimum and is deemed necessary if you want to go low carbon.
In contrast, the marginal expense for nuclear is about 72% of the total, so it makes sense economically to keep them at maximum output. However, they are technically capable of being used for peaking plants, it is just not an economic decision.
What cost will not cost you the Earth without costing you the Earth?:confused
So,logically, what you are saying is that wind power will make little or no difference to current levels of carbon emissions from power stations, regardless of the amount of money pumped into having them, but doing something/anything is better than taking our time and coming up with a way which may not be so easy, but may very well be more effective.........because we have to be seen to be doing something because Kyoto and the EU demand it.
What I am saying is that it is logical to start action on what we know is possible and achievable today instead of waiting until tomorrow to discover that the trendy impossible is unachievable and then hurriedly try to do the possible on the day after when it could be all too late.
Oddquine; Opps! should have checked..
Oddquine; Opps! should have checked..
Oddquine would be very odd if she were a he! :eek:
From what I understand about future energy needs it's not a matter of 'either' wind 'or' something else. We will need everything we can lay our hands on in the long term when the oil, gas and uranium run out. Coal will last longer but it burns smelly and carbon capture hasn't been proven so we can't rely on it yet. Recycled plutonium breeds only contempt for now but who knows whether it will make a come back in the longer term.
Rheghead, I was going to reply point for point, but there is a tendency to get bogged down in minutiae and missing the thrust of the post doing that......I am already finding it as hard to bring your posts together as I'm sure you find mine.
There is nothing incompatible with being green and being opposed to the proliferation of wind turbines.
I am questioning the efficiency of windfarms in carbon emission mitigation and their cost effectiveness in doing that compared to other methods, although the blot on the landscape propensity which will come with proliferation comes into it as well. (Present levels are not too obtrusive)
I'm of the opinion we should stop building them. I guess there is nothing we can do about those already in operation, being built and through planning..............but I think we should stop there and put the money which would be put into the energy companies for future windfarms to better use.
I am no maths wizard, and have likely got my calculations wrong, but I calculate, on your 430 tonnes figure that, currently, we are paying Ł500 million in subsidies to 216 windfarm operators with a total capacity load of 3625MW, and mitigating 430x24x365x3.6=13560480 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum...........or at least 30% of that using the more optimistic load of turbines....ie 4068144 tonnes. On a current power station emission annual total of 170million tonnes, that is a 2.4% reduction. Seems a lot of money for not a lot.
If we add together the capacities of all those windfarms working, in construction, through planning and planned, we will have 669 windfarms with a total load of 21525MW, or 21.5GW. Using the current figures, if those turbines all produced 24/7, they would mitigate 80986200 tonnes of CO2, but as they work optimistically only 30% of the time, the actual result would be 24295868 tonnes, or 14% of the total power station emissions per annum.
Now, is it really worth filling the UK with wind turbines for a 14% saving in emissions?
If you go to http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/google.asp, there is an interactive map.
If you start with the operational farms, and add in each level of those presently and possibly being built, the result is ridiculous for the benefits received.........unless you are a windfarm operator, an electricity company, a turbine manufacturer.....or someone who thinks you have to be seen to be doing something, however inefficient.
Imagine what this map of the UK would be like if the government continues to allow building of windfarms to the level they are talking about.ie to mitigate 20% of carbon emissions(and I'm not clear if that is 20% of power station emissions only or all emissions, which are presently 560million tonnes per annum.), given they are not presently encouraging any other renewable option to the same levels.
The UK is putting all its eggs in one basket, which is in danger of overflowing. We need a mix of technologies, not this obsession with erecting windfarms wherever there is a hill with nothing else on it.
However many large scale windfarms are built they will never close a power station, because their supply is not reliable enough and baseload by definition needs to be reliable with back up for maintenance. Turbines, and other renewables, may contribute to baseload when the wind blows enough, but that is all. For all that Denmark and Germany have a large percentage of windpower, nothing has been permanently retired as a result.
We are already paying silly money for Wind Turbines at the moment simply because the government has not banded to allow for the cost of the different technologies.
We can't be surprised at the proliferation of on-shore windfarms when they attract exactly the same subsidy as off-shore ones do, without recognition of the extra set-up costs..........easy money will always be preferred to that which is more difficult to recoup. I hope they reduce on-shore windfarm ROCs to allow for a mix of renewable technologies, as they don't appear to have increased the financing available by much in the last budget....just made it cover more under the Renewables Obligation banner.
But, in the end, much as a world running even mainly on renewables may be the ideal, it is simply not feasible.
If Global Warming is the threat the world Governments appear to think, there should be no method of combating emissions which is economically prohibitive. We either do what is necessary or our descendants reap the consequences.
We do not, however have to get it all in place tomorrow..........though it would have been better if we had started yesterday.
There is still the opportunity at this stage to innovate and test.......and let's be honest here, is that not what we are doing with windfarms as they increase the proportion put into the grid.....testing how it is going to impact on the National Grid? .
The obvious answer to emissions is to replace coal fired power stations with nuclear ones as base load, but that will not placate the Green Lobby, even though nuclear will do exactly what is required to combat global warming..........reduce emissions to zero.
We are still building power stations to replace those coming to the end of their useful life, but with the Green lobby emphasis on renewables, they are actually forcing the building of carbon-emitting power stations to ensure the reserves necessary for when those sources are not available.
( I have always been of the opinion that specific interest lobbies have too much say regarding what the majority is forced to accept, and the Green Lobby is no different.............. it wants what it wants whether that has the best outcome or not.)
Full scale CSS is not necessarily pie in the sky............I believe there are already CSS set-ups in power stations furth of the UK........but they are pie in the sky for us
There are, of course, the options of CCGT and ICGG which appear to be the preferred ones for new builds at the moment. The problem with those is that there is a lot more coal available in the UK than oil and gas, so it would be sensible, if not immediately economic to go the coal cleaning and CSS routes. If the new power station at Longannet works as it is hoped, it alone would cut emissions by 25%.
I agree that it is logical to start action on what we know is possible and achievable today instead of waiting until tomorrow but we are not starting action on what we know is achievable and possible today, because for years we have been too busy building windfarms.
As George Monbiot said The Whinash project, by replacing energy generation from power stations burning fossil fuel, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from London to Miami and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Britain and Florida costs three giant wind farms.
We could be carbon taxing transport.
We could be doing something about encouraging hybrid cars, rather than subsidising those with older cars to buy new gas guzzlers.
We could be offering every home owner a subsidy to insulate and double glaze their houses........and maybe reduce rates for businesses which make their work places energy efficient.
We could be encouraging the use of sustainable timber, logs, cob and other renewable methods of house building rather allowing planning departments to insist that breeze blocks and render is the only option.
We could stop insisting on specific suppliers (who charge silly money because they can) for personal wind, solar, ground heat and biomass installations, and pay the grants for efficient working systems whoever installs them.
We could be encouraging alternative technologies to ensure a better mix.........not pricing them the same as the easy ones, like on-shore wind.
We could stop cutting down vast swathes of forest and start planting trees.
And probably lots of other things which don't come immediately to mind.
Lifestyle changes are more difficult...............but even walking round to the corner shop rather than taking the car is doing a very little......or a pensioner taking the free bus rather than taking out the car.........and what about turning computers etc off at the wall when not in use rather than having them 24/7 on standby. As the saying goes "every mickle maks a muckle".
We should be working as hard to find ways to reduce energy usage as to replace energy production.........but we are not.
Another Monbiot quote, with which I agree (both quotes from http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/04/26/a-different-kind-of-revolution/
)
Alternative technology permits us to imagine that we can build our way out of trouble. By responding to one form of overdevelopment with another, we can, we believe, continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life. This might, for a while, be true. But it would soon require the use of the entire land surface of the UK
I am questioning the efficiency of windfarms in carbon emission mitigation and their cost effectiveness in doing that compared to other methods
The cost of onshore windfarms is a fraction to other renewable technologies and the principle of balancing the Grid is exactly the same with wind farms as with any other renewable technology. The load factors are similiar as far as I can see but can differ slightly across different technologies. Using wave, solar and tidal exclusively to wind will operate on the same principles of balancing the Grid eg, using hot standby etc. The drawback is that there will not be enough offshore capacity to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
I think 14% reduction of carbon emissions by windfarm proliferation on the scale of the BWEA map is worth it. Personally I think the rush for wind will buy some time until the other technologies come on line but it will take many decades until it is all built and approved.
Fact is, you need wind farms whether you like them or not. I accept them not because I like them, I don't, I hate them but I think we need them and I have not read anything of real operational merit to suggest we don't. I wish I could because I would be a vehement campaigner with CWIF.
The drawback is that there will not be enough offshore capacity to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
What makes you say that? We are surrounded by a lot of water! The North Sea oil and gas industry has been operating hundreds of miles from our shores for more than 30 years. Can they not transfer their experience and some of their technology to windfarms?
Fact is, you need wind farms whether you like them or not. I accept them not because I like them, I don't, I hate them but I think we need them and I have not read anything of real operational merit to suggest we don't. I wish I could because I would be a vehement campaigner with CWIF.
I concur. :)
The cost of onshore windfarms is a fraction to other renewable technologies and the principle of balancing the Grid is exactly the same with wind farms as with any other renewable technology. The load factors are similiar as far as I can see but can differ slightly across different technologies. Using wave, solar and tidal exclusively to wind will operate on the same principles of balancing the Grid eg, using hot standby etc. The drawback is that there will not be enough offshore capacity to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
I don't quite understand that. Nobody is talking about using tidal, wave and solar exclusively, but a mix of technologies which we don't have now.
Of course there will not be enough off shore capacity to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions if we don't allow the recouping of costs in the ROC system. There is scope for huge windfarms off shore........but not the will because of cost factors.
Wind power I have no problem with.........covering the UK in onshore windfarms to meet the UK energy targets because there is not enough money going into anything else is where my problems lie. It isn't the current windfarms per se.......but where does it stop?
I think 14% reduction of carbon emissions by windfarm proliferation on the scale of the BWEA map is worth it. Personally I think the rush for wind will buy some time until the other technologies come on line but it will take many decades until it is all built and approved.
At current build levels because of lack of government funding, many decades is right. My problem is that with windfarms as the easy option until Governments get their acts together, UK targets are going to be met by more and more onshore windfarms.
Fact is, you need wind farms whether you like them or not. I accept them not because I like them, I don't, I hate them but I think we need them and I have not read anything of real operational merit to suggest we don't. I wish I could because I would be a vehement campaigner with CWIF.
If you accept that Global warming is the threat some do, then we need windfarms. I'm not sure about Global warming, but some windfarms can't hurt whether it is a threat or not...........however windfarm proliferation on the levels envisaged by a blinkered Government can..........they and the Greens would have the UK one gigantic power station.......and I rather like walking in areas of empty space.
Maybe it's time to join CWIF.
I don't quite understand that. Nobody is talking about using tidal, wave and solar exclusively, but a mix of technologies which we don't have now.
I excluded the others for the sake of brevity.
I think you aren't seeing the wood because of the trees getting in the way.
Wind farm development on land has a finite limit. That is fairly obvious. Nobody wants the whole of Scotland covered in them, and if you look at the BWEA map then that is not quite the case. So some hope for everyone there. The bulk in Scotland are around populated areas where the need is, as you expect.
Of course there will not be enough off shore capacity to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions if we don't allow the recouping of costs in the ROC system. There is scope for huge windfarms off shore........but not the will because of cost factors.
I don't quite understand this. Either there is enough resource capacity offshore or there isn't, money shouldn't be a factor.
Wind power I have no problem with.........covering the UK in onshore windfarms to meet the UK energy targets because there is not enough money going into anything else is where my problems lie. It isn't the current windfarms per se.......but where does it stop?
How do express a need for renewable energy without some kind of expression to the public that we need renewable energy?
It stops when we have 80% of our energy produced by renewable energy.
At current build levels because of lack of government funding, many decades is right. My problem is that with windfarms as the easy option until Governments get their acts together, UK targets are going to be met by more and more onshore windfarms.
You are right bang on. Onshore wind farms are the easiest answer. So it is no wonder that the rush for this sector is being pursued first and foremost. I'm glad the penny has dropped.
If you accept that Global warming is the threat some do, then we need windfarms.
I feel we're getting somewhere.
I'm not sure about Global warming, but some windfarms can't hurt whether it is a threat or not...........however windfarm proliferation on the levels envisaged by a blinkered Government can..........they and the Greens would have the UK one gigantic power station.......and I rather like walking in areas of empty space.
A few mixed messages in there but I doubt the Green Party would want our lovely country destroyed by their own policies. Whichever party you wish then their scientific advice will be the same. We need renewable energy and we need it now. It is only UKIP that doesn't want onshore windfarms. Incidentally, the SNP seem to be the most vociferous at wanting onshore wind...
Maybe it's time to join CWIF.
I will when Caithness has ~450MW of onshore wind capacity, which may not be far off.
What makes you say that? We are surrounded by a lot of water! The North Sea oil and gas industry has been operating hundreds of miles from our shores for more than 30 years. Can they not transfer their experience and some of their technology to windfarms?
Have a look at the offshore potential resources in the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy. A disappointing amount of areas are considered to suitable. The biggest zone is where the offshore platforms are situated now.
As for wave and tidal, few areas seem to be suitable. Estuaries and the pentland firth. All have their good points and bad points. Ironically the heroes of the antiwind movement in north Scotland the RSPB are totally opposed to a severn estuary tidal scheme. I doubt if it gets built tbh.
As for wave, I don't think that it can withstand the conditions around our coasts but I'm hopeful. I noticed that the Pelamis scheme has stopped working. There was big hopes for a commercial scheme in Scotland but unsurprisingly that has been put on the back burner for now.
I know it seems disconcerting that onshore wind power is the only option for us at the moment, but things are starting to change.
I don't quite understand this. Either there is enough resource capacity offshore or there isn't, money shouldn't be a factor.
How do express a need for renewable energy without some kind of expression to the public that we need renewable energy?
It stops when we have 80% of our energy produced by renewable energy.
You are right bang on. Onshore wind farms are the easiest answer. So it is no wonder that the rush for this sector is being pursued first and foremost. I'm glad the penny has dropped.
I feel we're getting somewhere.
A few mixed messages in there but I doubt the Green Party would want our lovely country destroyed by their own policies. Whichever party you wish then their scientific advice will be the same. We need renewable energy and we need it now. It is only UKIP that doesn't want onshore windfarms. Incidentally, the SNP seem to be the most vociferous at wanting onshore wind...
I will when Caithness has ~450MW of onshore wind capacity, which may not be far off.
If you are not being a troll, then you are as irrational about Global Warming and windfarms as you appear to think I am about Scotland and smoking.
This discussion has ended for me, because I can't believe anyone can have a logical discussion with someone who makes remarks like......
It stops when we have 80% of our energy produced by renewable energy.
I will when Caithness has ~450MW of onshore wind capacity, which may not be far off.
Nobody wants the whole of Scotland covered in them, and if you look at the BWEA map then that is not quite the case. (the bolding is mine)
If you are not being a troll, then you are as irrational about Global Warming and windfarms as you appear to think I am about Scotland and smoking.
This discussion has ended for me, because I can't believe anyone can have a logical discussion with someone who makes remarks like......
It stops when we have 80% of our energy produced by renewable energy.
I will when Caithness has ~450MW of onshore wind capacity, which may not be far off.
Nobody wants the whole of Scotland covered in them, and if you look at the BWEA map then that is not quite the case. (the bolding is mine)
If you look at the task ahead and the scientific advice from the IPCC then we need to get 80% of our energy from renewable sources to give the Earth's carbon sinks a chance to reverse the trend of spiralling GHG increases. That is fact not fiction. I'm not irrational or being a troll, I'm being realistic of what needs to be done. Perhaps you don't seem to realise the enormity of the situation, you have already admitted to being a Climate Change Denier. I shall add that bit of irrationality onto the pile of smoking and independence.
I was hoping you would be open minded for a change, I guess not.
I am no maths wizard, and have likely got my calculations wrong, but I calculate, on your 430 tonnes figure that, currently, we are paying Ł500 million in subsidies to 216 windfarm operators with a total capacity load of 3625MW, and mitigating 430x24x365x3.6=13560480 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum...........or at least 30% of that using the more optimistic load of turbines....ie 4068144 tonnes. On a current power station emission annual total of 170million tonnes, that is a 2.4% reduction. Seems a lot of money for not a lot.
It is a lot of money.
Ł125 to mitigate 1 tonne of CO2.
About Ł60 for every household per year. Can you afford that?
If you look at the task ahead and the scientific advice from the IPCC then we need to get 80% of our energy from renewable sources to give the Earth's carbon sinks a chance to reverse the trend of spiralling GHG increases. That is fact not fiction. I'm not irrational or being a troll, I'm being realistic of what needs to be done. Perhaps you don't seem to realise the enormity of the situation, you have already admitted to being a Climate Change Denier. I shall add that bit of irrationality onto the pile of smoking and independence.
I was hoping you would be open minded for a change, I guess not.
It is deeply pejorative to call someone a “climate change denier”…it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial – the label applied to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate the Jews, and others, in very great numbers.
I was hoping you would be open minded for a change, I guess not.
Have a look at the offshore potential resources in the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy. A disappointing amount of areas are considered to suitable. The biggest zone is where the offshore platforms are situated now.
As for wave and tidal, few areas seem to be suitable. Estuaries and the pentland firth. All have their good points and bad points. Ironically the heroes of the antiwind movement in north Scotland the RSPB are totally opposed to a severn estuary tidal scheme. I doubt if it gets built tbh.
As for wave, I don't think that it can withstand the conditions around our coasts but I'm hopeful. I noticed that the Pelamis scheme has stopped working. There was big hopes for a commercial scheme in Scotland but unsurprisingly that has been put on the back burner for now.
I know it seems disconcerting that onshore wind power is the only option for us at the moment, but things are starting to change.
Thanks for the ref Rheg, I shall take a look at the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy. I don't know much about wave and tidal power other than that almost no commercial generation exists at present.
I thought the RSPB had changed their minds about onshore wind recently. :confused
It is deeply pejorative to call someone a “climate change denier”…it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial – the label applied to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate the Jews, and others, in very great numbers.
Get a grip Oddquine.
Godwin's law and all that.
I expect you will regret saying that once you've sobered up.[disgust]
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.
I am a great believer in individual wind turbines connected to the National Grid, but I have yet to be convinced that windfarms are little more than a method of generating income for the owners and kudos for a Government trying to meet silly targets from the EU who are too inclined to produce sound-bites rather than sensible policy.
In my web browsing, I have found the following.......from a couple of those energy companies who invest heavily in windpower.............
Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
Amid its triumphalist announcements last week (May 2009, after the formal opening ceremony at Whitelee wind farm, outside Glasgow), Scottish Power made no reference to the remarks made to Reuters news agency on 22 April by Rupert Steele, regulation director at ScottishPower Renewables, in which he warned that Britain, aiming to install some 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost an equivalent capacity of backup power generation to cover periods when the turbines are idle. "Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," he said. "The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all…"
Logical conclusion.............
So, what we are actually doing, at a time of financial stringency, is creating two parallel energy systems, at more than double the necessary cost, to meet demented EU targets, while simultaneously destroying our landscape – in the name of environmentalism. As Lord Reay pointed out, "per delivered megawatt, the capital cost of wind is three to five times the cost of nuclear, ten times the cost of gas and 15 times the cost of coal".
And the logic behind heavily subsidising this over-hyped system to the benefit of energy companies is what?
As someone who believes that by far the worst way to reduce anything is to give incentives to produce some/any way which appears to do that, I'm of the opinion that we could get rid of (or at least limit) the windfarms despoiling our countryside by introducing a carbon tax........... simple, predictable, relatively cheap to collect. It would affect all businesses pro rata to their energy use, with no thresholds and cut-offs. And above all, it would create no anomalies and distortions.
But to do that, you have to really believe that carbon emissions contribute to global warming (if you believe that global warming is a problem in the first place).............and I'm not convinced the World's Governments do either.
I have always believed that to make something work...............you punish the transgressors............not incentivise them to come up with something which makes them money but doesn't make a lot of difference to the situation to be remedied.
When you have Ed Milliband saying things like "Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt."...............DUH!...............we are into green ideology and EU dictat fuelled by industrial greed..............and not into cutting carbon emissions.
[and here endeth the alcohol fuelled rant..............................I await the fallout. ;)]
Like it, Oddquine. Don't forget to factor in the cost (economic and environmental) of making and maintaining these turbines. They are, after all, made from mined and refined metals, concrete and pollutive electronic processes; on top of this engineers have to drive cranes, lorries and ATVs out to the sites to erect and maintain them. :D
However, I personally do like them as a thing of grace and beauty.
Get a grip Oddquine.
Godwin's law and all that.
I expect you will regret saying that once you've sobered up.[disgust]
As I was not drinking at the time I wrote that, so I can't sober up........and do not regret it.
I was not using Godwin's Law......I was commenting on the tendency of people to stigmatize with labels those who disagree with them, such as calling those who do not think Israel behaves well anti-Semites. On reflection, the Holocaust was not the best example to use, as Holocaust Deniers are flying in the face of facts, while "Climate Change Deniers" are questioning the predictions of scientists......ie, theories and hypotheses.
It is not that I do not think man cannot influence our climate, but I am not convinced it is liable to be the kind of problem all the computer models from global warming convinced "scientists" and all the theories propounded as facts by the Global Warming panic button pushers claim. After all, remember the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s which led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s.
A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. No poll of scientists has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process.
One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle.
There used to be three kinds of lies........lies, damned lies and statistics............and in these "enlightened" times, to that list we can add computer models.
I'm afraid my opinion of computer modelling is that it is an imperfect "science". As with all computers, they work on the garbage in, garbage out" principle. A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality.
After all, computer models were used to convince the SEC in the US to remove regulations that led to the current economic melt down.
Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:
"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
Computer models are nothing more than high-tech methods of producing betting odds...............and there are many occasions on a race track when it is not the favourite who romps home a length ahead of the field.
By all means use computer models as a guide.......but we should not make the mistake of accepting them as proven fact, because they are anything but. By the way, there are no "Climate Change Deniers".......there are just people who believe the saying in physics: ``Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag its tail'' (Ockham's Razor)
Like it, Oddquine. Don't forget to factor in the cost (economic and environmental) of making and maintaining these turbines. They are, after all, made from mined and refined metals, concrete and pollutive electronic processes; on top of this engineers have to drive cranes, lorries and ATVs out to the sites to erect and maintain them. :D
However, I personally do like them as a thing of grace and beauty.
I personally don't mind them in small doses. They are much more elegant than those enormous pylons marching over the countryside...............such a shame that they won't remove one of them either.
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.
I am a great believer in individual wind turbines connected to the National Grid, but I have yet to be convinced that windfarms are little more than a method of generating income for the owners and kudos for a Government trying to meet silly targets from the EU who are too inclined to produce sound-bites rather than sensible policy.
In my web browsing, I have found the following.......from a couple of those energy companies who invest heavily in windpower.............
Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
Amid its triumphalist announcements last week (May 2009, after the formal opening ceremony at Whitelee wind farm, outside Glasgow), Scottish Power made no reference to the remarks made to Reuters news agency on 22 April by Rupert Steele, regulation director at ScottishPower Renewables, in which he warned that Britain, aiming to install some 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost an equivalent capacity of backup power generation to cover periods when the turbines are idle. "Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," he said. "The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all…"
Logical conclusion.............
So, what we are actually doing, at a time of financial stringency, is creating two parallel energy systems, at more than double the necessary cost, to meet demented EU targets, while simultaneously destroying our landscape – in the name of environmentalism. As Lord Reay pointed out, "per delivered megawatt, the capital cost of wind is three to five times the cost of nuclear, ten times the cost of gas and 15 times the cost of coal".
And the logic behind heavily subsidising this over-hyped system to the benefit of energy companies is what? :confused
As someone who believes that by far the worst way to reduce anything is to give incentives to produce some/any way which appears to do that, I'm of the opinion that we could get rid of (or at least limit) the windfarms despoiling our countryside by introducing a carbon tax........... simple, predictable, relatively cheap to collect. It would affect all businesses pro rata to their energy use, with no thresholds and cut-offs. And above all, it would create no anomalies and distortions.
But to do that, you have to really believe that carbon emissions contribute to global warming (if you believe that global warming is a problem in the first place).............and I'm not convinced the World's Governments do either.
I have always believed that to make something work...............you punish the transgressors............not incentivise them to come up with something which makes them money but doesn't make a lot of difference to the situation to be remedied.
When you have Ed Milliband saying things like "Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt."...............DUH! [evil]...............we are into green ideology and EU dictat fuelled by industrial greed..............and not into cutting carbon emissions.
[and here endeth the alcohol fuelled rant..............................I await the fallout. ;)]
The benefits are that Halkirk now has floodlighting capacity for the Ross Institute and the Church over from the Ulbster. Now that must be progress-how long have these buildings stood without being proudly illuminated? However the logic of this project does escape me.
As I was not drinking at the time I wrote that, so I can't sober up........and do not regret it.
I was not using Godwin's Law......I was commenting on the tendency of people to stigmatize with labels those who disagree with them, such as calling those who do not think Israel behaves well anti-Semites. On reflection, the Holocaust was not the best example to use, as Holocaust Deniers are flying in the face of facts, while "Climate Change Deniers" are questioning the predictions of scientists......ie, theories and hypotheses.
It is not that I do not think man cannot influence our climate, but I am not convinced it is liable to be the kind of problem all the computer models from global warming convinced "scientists" and all the theories propounded as facts by the Global Warming panic button pushers claim. After all, remember the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s which led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s.
A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. No poll of scientists has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process.
One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle.
There used to be three kinds of lies........lies, damned lies and statistics............and in these "enlightened" times, to that list we can add computer models.
I'm afraid my opinion of computer modelling is that it is an imperfect "science". As with all computers, they work on the garbage in, garbage out" principle. A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality.
After all, computer models were used to convince the SEC in the US to remove regulations that led to the current economic melt down.
Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:
"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
Computer models are nothing more than high-tech methods of producing betting odds...............and there are many occasions on a race track when it is not the favourite who romps home a length ahead of the field.
By all means use computer models as a guide.......but we should not make the mistake of accepting them as proven fact, because they are anything but. By the way, there are no "Climate Change Deniers".......there are just people who believe the saying in physics: ``Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag its tail'' (Ockham's Razor)
I wanted to good rep you for this post oddquine but I need to spread it around first.
It's good to see the real issues brought up rather than the usual slagging from one side or the other.
roadbowler
08-Jun-09, 11:45
The benefits are that Halkirk now has floodlighting capacity for the Ross Institute and the Church over from the Ulbster. Now that must be progress-how long have these buildings stood without being proudly illuminated? However the logic of this project does escape me.
yes it would appear caithness is now the foremost leader in scotland of using renewable energy to create light pollution?!?y
yes it would appear caithness is now the foremost leader in scotland of using renewable energy to create light pollution?!?y
And it won't just be light pollution if the proposed sports complex at Halkirk goes ahead with it's planned sauna etc-partly funded by the windmill money. A disgrace IMHO that monies from the windmills are allowed to be spent in this way. The commitee who administer this fund should hang their heads in shame.
It is not that I do not think man cannot influence our climate, but I am not convinced it is liable to be the kind of problem all the computer models from global warming convinced "scientists" and all the theories propounded as facts by the Global Warming panic button pushers claim. After all, remember the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s which led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s.
The global cooling hysteria of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of one scientist's crusade with the media in order to make a name with himself. He was totally ignorant about sulphur compound aerosols with cooloed the climate. Obviously the media jumped on the story and blew it up out of proportion, they need to sell papers and we buy them, it's called business. At the same time, climatology research was in its infantcy and very few climatologists were actually agreeing with said 'rookie' climatologist.
A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct.
No it doesn't, but if backed up with scientific evidence then it does, unless you have summat against science?:confused
Sceptics often quote Galileo being correct against popular scientific opinion. Galileo was politically gagged and wasn't allowed to publicise his theories about the solar system.
No poll of scientists has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process.
No scientists are making polls. Science is a consensual process, if you have a theory and you can prove and repeat it then the theory is correct and scientists naturally take the consensus that it is correct, an alternative approach is irrational. Up to date there is no data or experiment to prove that climate change is kak. There may be uncertainty in the data but that is a total different thing to proving something it wrong.
One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle.
Considering the odds and what is at stake if correct, it is just common sense.
There used to be three kinds of lies........lies, damned lies and statistics............and in these "enlightened" times, to that list we can add computer models.
I'm afraid my opinion of computer modelling is that it is an imperfect "science". As with all computers, they work on the garbage in, garbage out" principle. A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality.
After all, computer models were used to convince the SEC in the US to remove regulations that led to the current economic melt down.
Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:
"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
Computer models are nothing more than high-tech methods of producing betting odds...............and there are many occasions on a race track when it is not the favourite who romps home a length ahead of the field.
By all means use computer models as a guide.......but we should not make the mistake of accepting them as proven fact, because they are anything but. By the way, there are no "Climate Change Deniers".......there are just people who believe the saying in physics: ``Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag its tail'' (Ockham's Razor)
The key issue with computer models is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has programmed a model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
Virtually all independently gathered models calculate a climate temperature increase of around 3°C if CO2 was doubled.
To deny anthopogenic warming, you need to not only explain what's causing global warming but also explain why increasing CO2 isn't causing the expected and observed warming.
I think if you were say computer models were unreliable then that seems to be a harder obstacle to overcome.
It occurs to me that this thread would make a riveting live debate (if we could find someone brave enough to chair it :eek: ) . I'm sure it would fill the Ross Institute but might need some bouncers if things got too heated.
It occurs to me that this thread would make a riveting live debate (if we could find someone brave enough to chair it :eek: ) . I'm sure it would fill the Ross Institute but might need some bouncers if things got too heated.
What a good idea-Have it at night though so folks can admire the new flood lighting.
oldmarine
08-Jun-09, 18:40
What is the reason for Wind Farms? I always thought they were there to generate power like we are doing in the California deserts.
Sorry, this post will have to be split, because the org says I am too verbose.
The global cooling hysteria of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of one scientist's crusade with the media in order to make a name with himself. . He was totally ignorant about sulphur compound aerosols with cooloed the climate. Obviously the media jumped on the story and blew it up out of proportion, they need to sell papers and we buy them, it's called business. At the same time, climatology research was in its infantcy and very few climatologists were actually agreeing with said 'rookie' climatologist.
And the current hysteria has its origins first in a paper published in the media before it was reviewed by his scientists peers, then a crusade by 89 scientists, not by any means all involved with climate change at a conference in Villach in 1985, to save the planet from man and man from himself on very little evidence. This gave us the IPCC.........which is now in the position of working very hard to justify its existence..............largely by perpetuating the fear factor.
Climatology research is admittedly no longer in its infancy, it is now toddling along, learning as it grows........but like all toddlers, it still knows proportionately little about the world in which it lives. Unfortunately, there are some toddlers who make much more noise than others and demand all the attention. In Climatology research, those toddlers are the Global Warming afficionados............and there are a lot of scientists not agreeing with them, but who can't make themselves heard because Global Warming is now official mantra and those with other views, however scientifically verifiable are simply put down as "Climate Change Deniers".
No it doesn't, but if backed up with scientific evidence then it does, unless you have summat against science?:confused
Sceptics often quote Galileo being correct against popular scientific opinion. Galileo was politically gagged and wasn't allowed to publicise his theories about the solar system.
I have nothing at all against science, but I do have a problem with cherry-picking the science to back your opinion.
So when we examine the climate change debate we should consider whether this issue is like a dispassionate scientific question where we may assume that the math will be used in a neutral manner or is it like a financial or political issue where no sensible person would accept the assumption of neutrality.
With regard to climatology, it seems to me that its objectivity is open to question. Once science becomes allied with advocating what should be done, rather than telling us what is currently known and what the complexities and uncertainties involved with that knowledge are, science becomes political. Today, in pursuit of achieving the action on climate change that they think is right, it is striking how many in the scientific community have become extremely intolerant of dissent.
The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. Richard Feynman
No scientists are making polls. Science is a consensual process, if you have a theory and you can prove and repeat it then the theory is correct and scientists naturally take the consensus that it is correct, an alternative approach is irrational. Up to date there is no data or experiment to prove that climate change is kak. There may be uncertainty in the data but that is a total different thing to proving something it wrong.
That is my whole point, Rheghead.
Real science requires experimental controls to prove anything. Can you tell me the controls in climate science?
Those "scientific" papers relied on by the IPCC to put the fear of carbon into us are not even properly peer reviewed as is the norm within the scientific community. The norm for the publishing of scientific papers is to have peer reviewers that are given access to the complete data so they can review it, audit it, and look for problems. Too many authors of climate change papers, such as Crowley and Lowry, and Mann refuse to make their source code and data available for verification. Why.........because they are not scientists........or because flaws might be found?
If science is the consensual process you say......can you explain why the only papers from the scientific community being used by the IPCC to engender world wide "policy" are those which warn of catastrophic global warming, and why none of those equally validly produced ones which contradict that view are given any weight?
Much of climatology consists of crunching statistics produced from data gathered by others. Statistics often provides a scientist a good idea for a hypothesis, but statistical correlations do not prove cause and effect. A meaningful correlation has to be more than just two variables trending in the same direction. The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have also gone up means nothing. It is a correlation only in the sense that both variables are headed in the same direction. The odds of this being the case are 50%. A similar correlation exists between CO2 and breast cancer.
(continued in next post)
(continued)
Considering the odds and what is at stake if correct, it is just common sense.
No, Rheghead, it is not common sense...it is overkill.
From everything I have read, less than half of all published scientists endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view", including current and former IPCC scientists.
Personally, I'm not too inclined to set much store in scaremongering when it is sometimes necessary to ensure that elevation of panic by citing erroneous data to make things appear worse.
Common sense would be reducing carbon emissions by all methods available not just taking the easy option of filling the country/world with Wind Turbines.
Common sense would have started the search for efficient replacement technology twenty odd years ago when Dr James Hansen (Al Gore's chief scientific ally and the one who gave the erroneous information to the IPCC in November last year) sent the NY Times science writer a scientific report he wrote, prior to its publication in the journal Science, announcing that the planet was getting noticeably warmer and for the first time" the greenhouse effect" made page one of the New York Times.......and we all know what has happened since.
Common sense would be recognising that the world isn't going to implode in our lifetimes, even if we did nothing in the short term and actually thought about the best way to combat any problems which might arise. The knee-jerk reactions we are seeing world wide today are reminiscent of the UKs Dangerous Dogs act...ie let's be seen to be doing something however inappropriate.
Common sense should have allowed the scientific community to debate, research, and develop a joint recommendation in the interim as further research continues............but the politicians jumped on the bandwagon, and all science has been subsumed by political aims.
But Common sense has left the world, scared off by the media hype encouraged by partisan scientists and politicians.
The key issue with computer models is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has programmed a model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
And maybe that is because nobody has yet come up with a model which can predict all the hundreds of variables in the Earth System. And if nobody has managed to do that.......why on earth are we assuming that those models are the be-all and end-all of climate change "science"? All the scaremongerers are interested in is man made effects...........they are not interested in natural ones because that will not fit the current agenda.
I haven't just read Green websites and what you would call "Climate Change Deniers" websites, I have sought out those which claim to be unbiased and give facts, figures and links which are checkable......I have also read websites regarding how computer models work and have confirmed in my own mind the garbage in garbage out theory. It is amazing how much difference a small discrepancy in data input can make................and in the case of climate change modelling, we do not just have small discrepancies........we have large areas omitted completely, or estimated on the best guess principle.
I'm afraid I have difficulty basing any set of policies which will produce a carbon ban damaging third world economies, but enriching those who sell "green technologies"(like Al Gore) on flawed data and the consequential flawed conclusions.
The conclusion of the NAS Report on Global climate Change in 2001 did not get any media attention as they preferred the "confirmed global warming" headline........but it was that “A causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.”
As far as I can see the predictions of severe warming over the coming century are based on developing models of climate change that have so far failed to accurately simulate history, let alone predict the future.
Virtually all independently gathered models calculate a climate temperature increase of around 3°C if CO2 was doubled
These uncertainties in modeling climate processes are many times larger than the 4 W/m2 input of energy resulting from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the 4 W/m2 can be accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a consequence, forecasts based on computer simulations of climate may not even be meaningful at this time.
What is an independently gathered model................one which uses data gathered by someone else and independently inputs it into the model he has set up according to his beliefs.................or someone who gets on his big jersey, sets out to get his own data from properly sited ground stations and inputs it into a model which is free from bias?
(still too long.........another post to come.....has the org never dealt with female posters before?)
(continued............again)
To deny anthopogenic warming, you need to not only explain what's causing global warming but also explain why increasing CO2 isn't causing the expected and observed warming.
As a really simple soul.....my automatic reaction would be because the models are wrong. Maybe I am naive, but when it is only the land-based data which gives any indication of significant warming, I'm inclined to wonder about the accuracy of that data........or the weight given to the data which doesn't conform to the theory.
That explanation could well have to do with the bits which affect climate change they can't measure, so ignore as if they didn't exist.....or guesstimate their effect.......but not enough to make a difference to the anticipated outcome. For example water vapour is as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.......in fact, more so...as water vapour accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%..............but heck can you imagine the uproar if we banned irrigation?
To quote from Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)
"Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
I think if you were say computer models were unreliable then that seems to be a harder obstacle to overcome.
But the problem is that you can say computer models are not reliable, and are exaggerating the effects of Global Warming only to get the riposte that you are a Climate Change Denier............and you are then ignored.
Let's be honest here.........the predictions of severe warming over the coming century are based on developing models of climate that have so far failed to accurately simulate history, let alone predict the future.
From my reading, it would appear that climate change computer models failed to predict the particularly cold winter in the northern hemisphere last year............so timescales of one year would appear to be too short for accurate forecasting.
The climate has been cooling now for seven years and was static for the four years before that, yet the models predicted continuing warming over the same period................so timescales of ten years would appear to be too short for accurate forecasting.
Now, that is worrying when you consider that the whole AGW hypothesis is based on only 23 years of data......ie from 1975-1998..........ie after the cooling period.
What I also read is that "over the last century, from 1900 to 1940 we had significant warming with very little increase in carbon dioxide levels. From 1940 to 1975 we had strong cooling while carbon dioxide levels were increasing rapidly. From 1975 to 1998 both carbon dioxide and temperature were increasing significantly and now from 1998 to 2009 we have cooling while carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. That represents 40 years of no correlation, 46 years of negative correlation and 23 years of positive correlation. What possible rationale justifies claiming 23 years of positive correlation proves the AGW theory while ignoring 86 years of negative or zero correlation."
You see..... it worries me when dissent is forbidden...............and as far as I can see, it most definitely is forbidden. At one stage..........in Australia, I think, there was put forward the suggestion that "Climate Change Deniers" should be jailed as "Holocaust Deniers" are.........and no, I'm not using Godwin's Law. The politicians have decided Global Warming is a fact........and because they dish out the grants, they can even tell the likes of the Royal Society to rap Exxonmobil on the knuckles for daring to mislead the public by questioning the link between human activity and increases in global warming.
I tend to be of the opinion that forbidding dissent means you have something to hide, because if your stance is correct and can be proven so, what is the problem with people not agreeing with you, as you have the information to prove your case.
And when the much vaunted Al Gore makes such remarks as: "Inaccurate data is often received from satellites, weather balloons and weather stations. We know this data is inaccurate because it does not conform to our highly-sophisticated climate change models", it makes one wonder if the planet he is on is the one we think he is talking about.
Imo, it illustrates the unbounding arrogance of the Global Warmers that they can even think the data relied on for years to produce the theories Global Warming is based on becomes inaccurate as soon as it doesn't conform to their projections. They do not even consider for a second that their projections might just possibly be wrong............it has got to be the data they have relied on in the past which has cocked up.
Sorry, I just don't buy that!
You know, I was never a Global Warming sceptic until I started replying to you on this thread.....I just didn't see that loads of wind turbines would make enough difference to justify the rape of the countryside.....and that is why I posted this thread.
Now I am a Global Warming Sceptic.................not a climate change one, though.............. the climate is always changing; from warm periods when the dinosaurs flourished, to the many ice ages when glaciers covered much of the land. Climate has always changed due to natural cycles without any help from people. People probably make a difference, but nobody has convinced me that it will be a catastrophic difference.
Personally, I have no problem with making sensible efforts to reduce carbon emissions...........it can't hurt if not taken to extremes..................but we have entered extremes mode and I am still trying to work out the justification for it.
As a complete cynic, I do rather wonder why "Global Warming" has now become "Climate Change" in government speak. It couldn't possibly be because the powers that be know that Global Warming is a fallacy based on biased data.............but Climate Change will always be with us whether there is man made input or not?
I will when Caithness has ~450MW of onshore wind capacity, which may not be far off.
Glad to hear that Rheghead. So you will be fighting against all those projected windfarms after Rumster on the CWIF list (No 19)......because they bring Caithness over ~450MW?
That's better than nothing, I suppose, though when you factor in the line to take all that surplus energy to Beauly, will you also object to the march of the enormous pylons to the South to feed their energy habits....or do you not care about the Highland environment as long as folks furth of us can waste electricity with impunity because some of it is carbon free?
(continued....again)
I can keep going on this subject.
As a really simple soul.....my automatic reaction would be because the models are wrong. Maybe I am naive, but when it is only the land-based data which gives any indication of significant warming, I'm inclined to wonder about the accuracy of that data....or the weight given to the data which doesn't conform to the theory.
That explanation could well have to do with the bits which affect climate change they can't measure, so ignore as if they didn't exist.....or guesstimate their effect...but not enough to make a difference to the anticipated outcome. For example water vapour is as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2..in fact, more so...as water vapour accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%...but heck can you imagine the uproar if we banned irrigation.
Write to the IPCC and tell them where they've got it wrong, I'm sure they'll be interested to hear from you.
To quote from Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)
"Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
I was not aware of Bryson Reid until you quoted him. He died last year. He was 89 years old, an emeritus which is an honorary position rather than a hands-on position in climatology. He is has been listed on his wikipedia as a Climate Change Denier.
But the problem is that you can say computer models are not reliable, and are exaggerating the effects of Global Warming only to get the riposte that you are a Climate Change Denier....and you are then ignored.
Read again
To deny anthopogenic warming, you need to not only explain what's causing global warming but also explain why increasing CO2 isn't causing the expected and observed warming.
So far no climate change denier has come up with any explanation which stands up to scrutiny.
Let's be honest here...the predictions of severe warming over the coming century are based on developing models of climate that have so far failed to accurately simulate history, let alone predict the future.
Wrong.
From my reading, it would appear that climate change computer models failed to predict the particularly cold winter in the northern hemisphere last year............so timescales of one year would appear to be too short for accurate forecasting.
You need to read up on weather/climate prediction modelling. There is always room for error and uncertainty. But like I've always said, uncertainty does not mean something is wrong.
The climate has been cooling now for seven years and was static for the four years before that, yet the models predicted continuing warming over the same period................so timescales of ten years would appear to be too short for accurate forecasting.
Wrong. Even if right, the world cooled between 1940 and 1970, that does not mean that anthropological greenhouse gases aren't warming up the planet.
Now, that is worrying when you consider that the whole AGW hypothesis is based on only 23 years of data......ie from 1975-1998..........ie after the cooling period.
A bit longer than that. Satellite data has been invaluable but instrumental data has shown that the planet is warming up over the last 150 years. The Sun has been attributed to about 30% of that warming.
What I also read is that "over the last century, from 1900 to 1940 we had significant warming with very little increase in carbon dioxide levels. From 1940 to 1975 we had strong cooling while carbon dioxide levels were increasing rapidly. From 1975 to 1998 both carbon dioxide and temperature were increasing significantly and now from 1998 to 2009 we have cooling while carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. That represents 40 years of no correlation, 46 years of negative correlation and 23 years of positive correlation. What possible rationale justifies claiming 23 years of positive correlation proves the AGW theory while ignoring 86 years of negative or zero correlation."
Have you been reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear? If so, Oh man <bangs head against the wall>
You see.. it worries me when dissent is forbidden.......and as far as I can see, it most definitely is forbidden. At one stage....in Australia, I think, there was put forward the suggestion that "Climate Change Deniers" should be jailed as "Holocaust Deniers" are....and no, I'm not using Godwin's Law. The politicians have decided Global Warming is a fact...and because they dish out the grants, they can even tell the likes of the Royal Society to rap Exxonmobil on the knuckles for daring to mislead the public by questioning the link between human activity and increases in global warming.
I tend to be of the opinion that forbidding dissent means you have something to hide, because if your stance is correct and can be proven so, what is the problem with people not agreeing with you, as you have the information to prove your case.
Nobody is gagging anybody. Dissent in scientific circles is encouraged. In fact, by its very nature, the IPCC is sceptical about Climate Change. It only adopts in its reports that can be substantiated and proved. This has led to the reports being reported on the conservative side because the IPCC,on the historical behest of the USA, is composed of politicians as well as climatologists, much to the annoyance of climatologists.
And when the much vaunted Al Gore makes such remarks as: "Inaccurate data is often received from satellites, weather balloons and weather stations. We know this data is inaccurate because it does not conform to our highly-sophisticated climate change models", it makes one wonder if the planet he is on is the one we think he is talking about.
Al Gore is not a working climatologist, he is a politician. I'm fully aware that quotes from politicians can be taken out of context. We see it all the time.
Imo, it illustrates the unbounding arrogance of the Global Warmers that they can even think the data relied on for years to produce the theories Global Warming is based on becomes inaccurate as soon as it doesn't conform to their projections. They do not even consider for a second that their projections might just possibly be wrong....it has got to be the data they have relied on in the past which has cocked up.
Sorry, I just don't buy that!
Well they do the completely opposite to what you're inferring to all the time. Science is about challenging established theories.
Go back to the bold text
To deny anthopogenic warming, you need to not only explain what's causing global warming but also explain why increasing CO2 isn't causing the expected and observed warming.
You know, I was never a Global Warming sceptic until I started replying to you on this thread.....I just didn't see that loads of wind turbines would make enough difference to justify the rape of the countryside.....and that is why I posted this thread.
Now I am a Global Warming Sceptic....not a climate change one, though.... the climate is always changing; from warm periods when the dinosaurs flourished, to the many ice ages when glaciers covered much of the land. Climate has always changed due to natural cycles without any help from people. People probably make a difference, but nobody has convinced me that it will be a catastrophic difference..
liar, you already said you weren't sure about global warming, I am not naive enough to think you hadn't trawled through global sceptical websites etc before you started this thread.
And what has the dinosaurs got to do with anything? The climate back then was a different beast altogether, the continents were arranged differently for a start, not to mention the grossly different concentrations in GHGs.
Personally, I have no problem with making sensible efforts to reduce carbon emissions.....it can't hurt if not taken to extremes....but we have entered extremes mode and I am still trying to work out the justification for it.
We haven't even scratched the surface of what needs to be done. This isn't a political situation which will bury itself next month. It is a scientific one that won't go away until there is a political solution to tackle it.
As a complete cynic, I do rather wonder why "Global Warming" has now become "Climate Change" in government speak. It couldn't possibly be because the powers that be know that Global Warming is a fallacy based on biased data....but Climate Change will always be with us whether there is man made input or not?
Yet again, you are completely wrong.
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change not IPGW. It has been in existence for over 20 years now.
Quite frankly I'm staggered at your lack of understanding on this subject. Please read more stuff from realclimate.net. You can even write to them and express where they've got it all wrong.:roll:
liar, you already said you weren't sure about global warming, I am not naive enough to think you hadn't trawled through global sceptical websites etc before you started this thread.
Quite frankly I'm staggered at your lack of understanding on this subject. Please read more stuff from realclimate.net. You can even write to them and express where they've got it all wrong.:roll:
I had part written a response to your whole post, but when I got to the second wrong in your replies...I thought there was no point in trying to discuss anything with someone displaying such patronising arrogance.
So I limit myself to this.
I am not a liar.
I was simply trying to work out why we were pumping money into wind turbines and nothing else of any real use in cutting carbon emissions. Have you never had an alcohol fuelled thought which niggled away at you?
I was neither a Global Warming believer or sceptic, when I started this thread....I was Global Warming Neutral...ie it exists and we should be taking steps to reduce our impact..........but taking sensible steps. I did not think proliferation of windfarms was a sensible step. Simple as!
I am not exactly a Global Warming Denier now either.......but I think there are too many holes in the IPCC computer models to justify basing Global policy on them...particularly global policy which will have such drastic consequences to the World Economy.
If there is not time to take effective steps to reduce our carbon footprint, then, as a race, we will just have to die off.....because putting up hundreds of wind turbines isn't going to make one iota of a difference.
If there is time, then we should be putting in place methods which will work, not just sticking a plaster over the cut.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over........ because you have convinced me that the hype is just that......not fact, simply projections on incomplete data presented as fact.
I may lack understanding in your opinion.........but I am capable of reading, weighing up evidence and reaching a conclusion and I thank you for the push to do that.
I had part written a response to your whole post, but when I got to the second wrong in your replies...I thought there was no point in trying to discuss anything with someone displaying such patronising arrogance.
Arrogance? Is the unstoppable effects of climate change arrogant? Is the relentless spread of disease arrogant? The early ancestors thought so. That was because like you they found it hard to evaluate a scientific principle from a socio-politic standpoint.
You have come to the conclusion that putting up windfarms is too much to pay for reducing carbon emissions. What is your yardstick for comparison in that assertion?
Seems like the arrogant person is you.
Putting up a wind farm is decision of function over form. Form is worthless without function. Without function, the Earth loses everything.
I am not exactly a Global Warming Denier now either.......but I think there are too many holes in the IPCC computer models to justify basing Global policy on them...particularly global policy which will have such drastic consequences to the World Economy.
So you would wait till we're without uncertainty? When it is too late perhaps?:roll:
If there is not time to take effective steps to reduce our carbon footprint, then, as a race, we will just have to die off.....because putting up hundreds of wind turbines isn't going to make one iota of a difference.
Showing your true colours here me thinks.
If there is time, then we should be putting in place methods which will work, not just sticking a plaster over the cut.
Yep and what is the cheapest and proven way of producing electricity by renewable means?
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over........ because you have convinced me that the hype is just that......not fact, simply projections on incomplete data presented as fact.
No the hype is with the outspoken climate change deniers and anti-wind farm brigade. Personal greed over common sense wins every time. I bet you can reel off more deniers than actual climate change scientists.
I may lack understanding in your opinion.........but I am capable of reading, weighing up evidence and reaching a conclusion and I thank you for the push to do that.
You're welcome. If you have an open mind :roll: then that facts speak for themselves.
roadbowler
09-Jun-09, 23:04
obviously a heated topic, especially, here in caithness. I personally believe windfarms for hiking power down south makes little sense. All for community wind schemes ( not for floodlighting tho!) and off grid home systems. I only pipe in cause i guess you could say i am a co2 skeptic and climate realist. I've been looking at the science and politics of it for quite sometime and my mind is made up. However, i do find it interesting that the very people who pontificate about global warming, or climate change whatever they are calling it now are the very people who will not "sacrifice" anything to reduce their impact on the planet. Their idea of a sacrifice is to support windfarms and war to support their own personal greed for energy to support their consumeristic high impact lifestyles. Disgusting in my view. Funny how when the peddlers of anthropogenic warming use the personal greed accusation to all of us socalled "deniers" but, in fact most don't dare look at themselves and see their own personal greed. My view, is yes, i don't believe a word of the manmade global warming hype yet, i would challenge anyone on any carbon footprint assessment... I think i would need to drive to london and back every week to come out of the negative. The answer to oddquines question is easy. No, no logic. Simply just because the energy from renewables might be renewable, the infrastructure and environmental destruction required to employ the governments targets is completely illogical. What the government should be doing is stemming energy consumption. What if the government capped the amount of energy this country used back to 1980 levels??? Certainly, with your strong convictions and concern for the environment and climate change you would surely support this???
I only pipe in cause i guess you could say i am a co2 skeptic and climate realist.
Not both in the same sentence.
I personally believe windfarms for hiking power down south makes little sense.
Makes sense to me. Lots of space to put them up north, thermal losses would amount to about 1-2% over 1000 miles.
However, i do find it interesting that the very people who pontificate about global warming, or climate change whatever they are calling it now are the very people who will not "sacrifice" anything to reduce their impact on the planet. Their idea of a sacrifice is to support windfarms and war to support their own personal greed for energy to support their consumeristic high impact lifestyles.
Which stereotypes do you draw from?
My view, is yes, i don't believe a word of the manmade global warming hype yet
Does a thermometer reads right when you take the temperature as the elephant in the room breathes, sweats and farts?
What the government should be doing is stemming energy consumption.
Yes, as an 'as well as' rather than an 'instead of'
roadbowler
09-Jun-09, 23:39
sorry for double post. Yes, same sentence. I will make no attempts to argue the scam of anthropogenic global warming with you as it is apparent from this thread you canna see the woods fae the trees on the topic. However, when i see the drum beaters pounding out the personal greed accusation personally it annoys me. What is it again you do for your personal sacrifice to stem global warming? Thats right. Nothing directly, but ..... You support windfarms to justify your greedy over consumption of energy? Waste how many amps per hour running your computer to reiterate the pseudo science of agw? Anything else?
What is it again you do for your personal sacrifice to stem global warming? Thats right. Nothing directly,
I don't think you know me so try discussing something that you do know about. Ah yes, you know all about global warming. So tell me Brains, why do you think that doubling the CO2 levels will not increase Global temperatures by about 3 degrees? And what accounts for the Global warming observed in the last century?
but ..... You support windfarms to justify your greedy over consumption of energy?
I justify my support for windfarms because they will make a signicant cut in the UK's carbon emissions. Probably around 10%.
many amps per hour running your computer to reiterate the pseudo science of agw? Anything else?
See, you failed at the first hurdle. I would have thought that anyone who can refute the Greenhouse effect should be able to ask a pertinent question in the appropriate units.:roll: :lol:
roadbowler
10-Jun-09, 00:57
roflmao!!!! Sorry us 12 volters tend to think in amps. I repeat, i will make no attempt to bash my head on the wall with you sir on the agw scam. You won't change my mind. Why are you so keen to change the subject of your own personal attempts to stem global warming?? Yes, you are correct, i know nothing about you. This is why i'm asking you what you do! Directly.... In support of your concerns of stemming global warming? So, far, you support windfarms in one of the finest unspoilt counties in scotland to perpetuate spiraling energy consumption therefore to justify your own greed for energy. Very good. Give me statistics.. Thermal figures.. All this rubbish in support of your own greed. I'm afraid until you make personal sacrifices that actually affect your everyday life in regards to your own principles and convictions you only support windfarms because it satisfies your own greed and it is this and only this that drives your argument as to the logic.
roadbowler
10-Jun-09, 01:02
btw... This makes YOU fall at the first hurdle.[disgust]
I'm afraid until you make personal sacrifices that actually affect your everyday life in regards to your own principles and convictions you only support windfarms because it satisfies your own greed and it is this and only this that drives your argument as to the logic.
Honestly, give me your opinion, do you think the average person will be keen to make sacrifices to their cosy standard of living, eg car, holiday, nice house and fire, the lot.......... just to stop Climate Change? Do you really think their conciences will burn so much that they will make real changes to their lives for the sake of stopping about a metre rise in sea levels and a 2 degree increase in Global temperature by 2100? And add that to the fact that the people that climate change will affect the most are probably thousands of miles away and not even born yet?
If you honestly expect the typical westernised human being to do that then you are living on cloud cuckoo land.:roll:
Yeah right, we could all go back to the stone age. Any takers??
The fact remains that global warming and the dire consequences thereof remain matters of speculation. One gets weary of the chest thumping and raging of the wilder - and more ignorant - pundits.
Dare I say it? - get a life!
(By the way, I am presuming that your posting name is gaelic for red head. It must be awful having to constantly instruct people in the proper spelling.)
roadbowler
10-Jun-09, 01:36
bravo!!!! I must applaud you! Only a decent and honest man would admit to his own greed! Perhaps you could applogise and concede to the oddest of quines and change your signature to, "support wind farms so i can continue to partake in my greedy, consumeristic, energy rich life at the expense of my grandchildrens childrens heat exhaustion":eek::eek:
bravo!!!! I must applaud you! Only a decent and honest man would admit to his own greed! Perhaps you could applogise and concede to the oddest of quines and change your signature to, "support wind farms so i can continue to partake in my greedy, consumeristic, energy rich life at the expense of my grandchildrens childrens heat exhaustion"
I didn't admit to anything.
I am asking you, why would anyone go back to the 'Stone Age' because of some difficult-to-understand far-flung theory about Climate Change that wouldn't affect them in any case and even less in their own lifetime?:confused
You tell me o twister of words.:lol:
The fact remains that global warming and the dire consequences thereof remain matters of speculation.
Speculation? Hmmm....
Global temperatures going up 0.2C per decade, GHG gas levels going up 3ppm per year. 50 years ago no one even questioned the general principle that if it wasn't for GHGs the Earth would have a global temperature of -18C.
Of course it can't be rises in greenhouse gases that is causing global warming now could it. That would be absurd, right? Doh!
What could we speculate is causing this global temp increase? :lol:
You're on a wind up.
roadbowler
10-Jun-09, 02:34
i won't exhaust the list of reasons why they would..... But, the reasons that somebody wouldn't is already perfectly depicted and couldn't be more conspicuous than in your very own posts..... Arrogance, selfishness, greed & lack of enlightenment & sentience.
i won't exhaust the list of reasons why they would..... But, the reasons that somebody wouldn't is already perfectly depicted and couldn't be more conspicuous than in your very own posts..... Arrogance, selfishness, greed & lack of enlightenment & sentience.
The reason why you do not acknowledge the science behind climate change is probably because you are too arrogant to acknowledge sound scientific explanations when you read it.
Read a book, you've read nothing up to now I'd imagine. Enlightenment is reading and accepting information that can be proven. You've a long way to go. The greenhouse effect can be proven in the laboratory experiments. It is not mumbo jumbo.
You are the arrogant and selfish one. Your lack of enlightenment is comical And your sentience? I doubt it, you need to first think for yourself to be sentient instead of being moronically lulled into all that neocon anti-environment-sponsored crap.
Yeah, I am the biggest fool though. To think I could get a fool to see the light...[lol]
roadbowler
10-Jun-09, 03:07
proofs in your posts.... The more you speak.... The more your defects are illuminated Lol so, i rest my case and now.. Se dir gorisht helfen
proofs in your posts.... The more you speak.... The more your defects are illuminated Lol so, i rest my case and now.. Se dir gorisht helfen
Talking about yourself again? :lol: Have you anything of worth to offer to this thread instead of a wind up?:confused
This Richard Buxton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/03/ethical-business-energy-wind-power) has some good ideas about wind farms.
oldmarine
10-Jun-09, 05:26
Sceptics often quote Galileo being correct against popular scientific opinion. Galileo was politically gagged and wasn't allowed to publicise his theories about the solar system.
Galileo was excommunicated by the church in his day because the church did not know what he had discovered. Many centuries later the church realised the mistake they had made and reinstated him. My degree is in Science with a major in Electronics Engineering. I have also taught Bible classes in various churches I have attended. I always used Galileo as an example for when the church can err. Thus, the church is not perfect and this is an example of when it can be wrong.
ywindythesecond
10-Jun-09, 22:18
He's [oddquine] right you know (and I 'aint on about smoking or Independence):
Scottish Power says Britain needs backup for wind
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday.
The government is relying heavily on the growth of wind power to meet tough European Union renewable energy targets and promises another 525 million pounds in support for offshore wind as part of Wednesday's budget.
But the more wind turbines Britain erects the more conventional plants it will need.
"Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain's Iberdrola, one of the world's largest wind farm operators.
"The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all ... That happens also offshore," he told Reuters.
Britain plans to install as much as 30 gigawatt of wind capacity, mostly offshore, as part of its efforts to source 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.
At end-2008, it had wind capacity totalling 3.24 GW, including 2.65 GW onshore and 566 megawatts (MW) offshore. It is to reach 4 GW later in 2009 and 5 GW early next year.
Scottish Power had installed capacity of 665 MW by the end of last year and is close to completing Whitelee Windfarm, near Glasgow, which will be Europe's largest onshore site with 140 turbines.
Steele said wind farms usually had a load factor of 30 percent, which meant they provided 30 percent of named plate capacity over the year.
(Reporting by Nao Nakanishi)
Rupert Steele, must know what he's talking about he IS the expert!
*http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE53L40920090422
More words of wisdom on the matter from more Captains of Industry are to be found in the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee Report on the Economics of Renewable Energy. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19502.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19502.htm)
Particularly interesting are the minutes of 17th June 2008 and the Memorandum by E.ON UK (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8061704.htm), in which the Managing Director, Generation, E.ON UK, stated:
— “ Intermittent renewable energy sources incur costs to the power system beyond those of the technology itself. Large volumes of intermittent renewable generation may lead to curtailing of renewable or baseload generation at times of low electricity demand and high renewable generation. Moreover, 90% or more of intermittent renewable generation such as wind will need to be backed up by more flexible fossil-fired capacity to help ensure that sufficient generating capacity is available at winter peak.”
This is explained further in the Supplementary memorandum by E.ON UK (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8061708.htm).
As expansion of the UK wind carpet requires a 75% to 90% corresponding expansion of “more flexible fossil-fired capacity” to ensure meeting peak winter demand, it is irresponsible to continue to construct windfarms without simultaneously constructing the corresponding additional back-up, which is in on top of replacement generation for redundant facilities, and on top of extra generation for projected increased demand.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.