Just announced, Strathy North Wind Farm

[fred]

Where is the UK on your graph?

Insignificant.

[Rheghead]

I don't think there is a cat in hells chance. We can't even persuade America to cut greenhouse emissions and they don't have the excuse of being a developing nation. While Britain has managed a slight reduction on 1992 levels and Europe a slight increase they are still increasing at an alarming rate and they were already the worst culprit.

Perhaps you should research up about the Kyoto protocol? It allows developing nations to expand and contract their CO2 emissions to those of developed nations like us, who can afford to heavily invest in renewable energy.

Then perhaps you won't disingenuously present what China will do. As for the US who you dislike, be prepared for a major shift in policy towards climate change in the coming few years.

[fred]

Perhaps you should research up about the Kyoto protocol? It allows developing nations to expand and contract their CO2 emissions to those of developed nations like us, who can afford to heavily invest in renewable energy.

America is a developing nation?

Then perhaps you won't disingenuously present what China will do. As for the US who you dislike, be prepared for a major shift in policy towards climate change in the coming few years.

Yeh, the Wolf Crier in Chief says so so it must be true.

"When the grocer puts sand in the sugar,
When the milkman makes milk out of chalk,
When the boys stay at home with their mothers,
And the girls they forget how to talk..."

[KittyMay]

Without going back over the pros and cons of wind farms and any other alternative energy developments my biggest gripe about the present scenario is:

1. The area that hosts them is likely to be subjected to a visual and amenity effect that may discourage local tourism which is sometimes all these locations have going for them. Tourists are not flocking to see wind farms. It something you only do once. They are now so plentiful the novelty value has long worn off. In a very short time areas without wind turbine landscapes will be advertised as a bonus rather like the cachet which presently attaches to National Park locations.

2. Community benefit is chicken feed compared to the profits which are likely to be made by the developer and landowner and if a locality builds a new hall or swimming pool for itself it just means the Council is let of the hook and comtinues to levy council tax at the going rate in the locality.

3. Wind farms pay substantial rates which Highland Council collects for and then hands over to the Scottish Executive. A nice little earner! So how can the Executive determine a plus 50 megawatt wind farm (the threshold for a planning permission decision by the Council) or deliver a public local inquiry decision on a sub 50 megawatt application when it has such a strong vested interest in harvesting this annual income from the development?

4. Finally, why aren't more efforts being made to add value to yet another raw resource before shipping it out over the Ord. Shouldn't Caithness be looking at the Shetland idea of hydrogen fuel production sending it out by tanker or pipeline instead of stringing wire on more pylons alongside the A9?

Completely agree.

How about this for No. 5

5. If a group of energy experts had been tasked with looking at the UK's electricity production and identifying the LEAST effective way of reducing carbon emissions they would have come up with windfarms.

[KittyMay]

I feel quite the contrary, because I don't want windturbines all over the place, I think it is excellent that we try to cut down on our energy needs. Less energy, less wind turbines!

Gracious me!! I'm with you 100% on this particular point.

Two tiny problems though.

How do we persuade the masses to reduce consumption?

How can the government meet their renewable target if we reduce consumption thus reducing our requirement for wind turbines?

[Rheghead]

America is a developing nation?

No it isn't, but China is and it is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol whereas (as you fully know) the USA isn't.

[Rheghead]

How do we persuade the masses to reduce consumption?

Not so much persuasion but more blind coercion(sp) without us being too conciesce about it, eg redesigning tvs etc so that they do not need to be left on standby so that the clock doesn't need to be reset all the time, computers which use energy saving screens, outpricing conventional type light bulbs, making solar panels and ground source heating more affordable.

Plenty more options if we look hard enough.

How can the government meet their renewable target if we reduce consumption thus reducing our requirement for wind turbines?

I believe we would be able to meet them easier if we reduced consumption.

[fred]

No it isn't, but China is and it is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol whereas (as you fully know) the USA isn't.

No I didn't know that because it isn't true.

The Kyoto protocol was signed on behalf of the United Stated of America on November 12th 1998 by Vice President Al Gore.

[KittyMay]

Not so much persuasion but more blind coercion(sp) without us being too conciesce about it, eg redesigning tvs etc so that they do not need to be left on standby so that the clock doesn't need to be reset all the time, computers which use energy saving screens, outpricing conventional type light bulbs, making solar panels and ground source heating more affordable.

Ah, excellent suggestions but there would have to be the political will behind this - and there's none.

Plenty more options if we look hard enough.

This is getting ridiculous but I agree with you again. However, if it doesn't stand 400ft tall and have blades it's disregarded. Fred is quite right - it allows us to believe the planet is being saved and we can puff out our chests in pride at our fantastic achievement.

I believe we would be able to meet them easier if we reduced consumption.

Pardon?
The only mechanism in place to meet the carbon target is the production of renewable electricity- or windturbines. We could clean up existing technologies and reduce consumption slashing carbon emissions (and saving a fortune into the bargain) but that's not going to happen is it? There are no ROC's attached to any of these measures.

Your original point was that by reducing consumption we could do away with the need to have turbines all over the place. The renewable target is a long way from being met and reduction in emissions from other measures don't count towards the renewable target.

It looks like you're wrong Rheghead - I foresee wind turbines all over the place?
And all because Government made a very bad call that they can't get out of.

[scotsboy]

The tide rising and falling is just one big wave and where you get a big wave you get a lot of smaller waves, that's called harmonics.

Throw a pebble in the loch, it only hits the water once but you get a lot of ripples.

OK Fred, if the tide rising and falling is just one big wave, can you tell me what the wavelenght will be?

Also I dont get the analogy with the pebble in a loch as you are looking at a single event, where gravity is (or can be considered) constant........no?

Waves are caused by wind. Tides by gravitational pull.

[fred]

OK Fred, if the tide rising and falling is just one big wave, can you tell me what the wavelenght will be?

Long.

Also I dont get the analogy with the pebble in a loch as you are looking at a single event, where gravity is (or can be considered) constant........no?

No the gravitational effect of the moon is not constant in any one place on earth. When you throw a pebble into the loch the displacement causes the water around it to rise then the earth's gravity causes it to fall again but it doesn't stop there, it falls below the surface level before starting to rise again then it rises above the surface level before falling again. This causes not one wave but a series of ripples.

It's just the same with the tides, as the moon moves overhead its gravity lifts the water in the sea then as it moves away the water falls but it doesn't end there, the water continues to bounce up and down, the duration of the bounces and wavelength of the waves getting shorter and shorter with time.

Waves are caused by wind. Tides by gravitational pull.

No, there would still be waves lapping on the beach even if there was no wind anywhere in the world and waves will always travel towards the shore as which way the wind is blowing, never seen a wind that could blow the waves back out to sea yet.

[Rheghead]

Your original point was that by reducing consumption we could do away with the need to have turbines all over the place.

I think you have misunderstood. I accept that windfarms will be part of the generating mix of this country as they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy available. Simply reducing energy consumption will reduce the need for all forms of power generation not just windfarms.

[Rheghead]

No I didn't know that because it isn't true.

The Kyoto protocol was signed on behalf of the United Stated of America on November 12th 1998 by Vice President Al Gore.

Ah yes, the difference between a ratifier and a signatory, well split haired, you knew what I meant.

[fred]

Ah yes, the difference between a ratifier and a signatory, well split haired, you knew what I meant.

Ah yes, the rat went and welched on the deal, well and truly ratified.

[ywindythesecond]

I do know that a windfarm will mitigate many thousands of tonnes of CO2 per year that would have been generated by coal etc.

How do you know this Rheghead? What are your sources? Have you put all considerations into the equation? Did you include the Beauly to Denny grid upgrade? What size of windfarm were you talking about anyway?

Please answer with hard facts, not obfuscation.

ywindythesecond

[KittyMay]

I think you have misunderstood. I accept that windfarms will be part of the generating mix of this country as they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy available. Simply reducing energy consumption will reduce the need for all forms of power generation not just windfarms.

Is there room for one more on your planet? I could do with a break from reality too.

[Rheghead]

Is there room for one more on your planet? I could do with a break from reality too.

They wouldn't be putting them all over the place if they weren't good at their job

[Rheghead]

How do you know this Rheghead? What are your sources? Have you put all considerations into the equation? Did you include the Beauly to Denny grid upgrade? What size of windfarm were you talking about anyway?

Please answer with hard facts, not obfuscation.

ywindythesecond

Now that you agree that they are generating electricity and supplying the Grid then it is a simple step to work out that they are mitigating lots of coal and gas.

And what has the Beauly to Denny upgrade got to do with it?

Anyway, all you got to do is calculate the amount of energy in kWh that a windfarm will produce then tap the result in this converter then find out how much coal and gas you are mitigating by its use, simple really. I'm sure I don't need to go through the maffs with you.

[scotsboy]

Whilst gravity provides a factor in the production of waves the main contribution comes from wind, except in the case of a Tsunami which is caused by tectonic movement.

http://www.angelfire.com/crazy2/nur_...new_page_2.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...an/Waves.shtml
http://science.enotes.com/science-fa...es-waves-ocean
http://www.sosforkids.com/80.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Scienc...ausesWaves.asp
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...ence_fun/74467
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_wave

[fred]

Whilst gravity provides a factor in the production of waves the main contribution comes from wind, except in the case of a Tsunami which is caused by tectonic movement.

So if you look back at the original question.

Where do the waves come from when the wind is not blowing?

You will see my answer was correct.