Pro wind farms. Let's be "for" something for a change!
Government seriously considering u-turn on wind; wind companies' investment on hold due to uncertainty; well-funded anti-campaigns. Is the viability of life on earth more important than a view?
Hi Jessie, I suggest you keep your hair on, stop making silly nuclear comparisons, and have a look at this: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2012/06/adam-bruce-contrary-to-popular-opinion-wind-energy-cuts-electricity-bills-and-boosts-economic-growth.html
Well, let's get Mr. Davey's technological status quite clear. He is yet another P, P & E graduate with a Master in Economics. This makes him technologically incompetent, scientifically illiterate, environmentally challenged and economically incontinent. These are qualifications, apparently, for a career starter in management consultancy or Lib-Dem researching.
Does he realise that if 1 kg of moving hot air can supply, intermittently, one average home with electricity for one year, then 1 kg of fossil fuel can supply 100,000,000 such homes on a 24/365 basis. Now, wait for it, because 1 kg of nuclear fuel can supply 100,000,000,000,000 such homes.
That is what real economies of scale are about to cope with the millions of citizens around now instead of the hundreds around burning wood before the Industrial Revolution.
This man is the perfect parliamentary parallel for Chris Ecolooney Hooney, Eduardo Miliprat, Tim Yeo, Clegg the leg and his Spanish aero-generator aficionado, Charles Hendry, Greg Barker, David Cameron and his father-in-law to name a few tethered to the trough.
At least George Osborne may finally be seeing the light.
Some of us learn from history especially from other countries like Spain, Greece, Scotland, Denmark, Germany for which ALL the relevant reports rubbish that age-old scam that renewables create SUSTAINABLE, mouth-wateringly SUBSIDISED, employment designed to transfer from the poor to the rich.
So no Herbert won't be registering with the FT as you suggest to see how Ed proposes to keep all the money rolling in to his mates.
Hi Jessie, Thanks for the link. Looks like anti-wind lunatics are edging a step closer to
running the energy asylum. Hopefully common sense and reason will prevail. See also http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a1acb06-b88a-11e1-a2d6-00144feabdc0.html and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70f2a90e-b89e-11e1-a2d6-00144feabdc0.html
Sorry Herbert intelligence and sense seem finally to be prevailing -
PS and personally I prefer "palpable arrogance" to "supreme smugness"
Yep Herbert, you got it in one, apart from my arrogance that is....
Jessie, So now you are expressing doubt that pro-wind people lack the ability to follow your superbly intelligent pontifications? Your arrogance is palpable!
Oh and by the way Herbert? It still is a free world isn't it?
If it's pro-wind then there is always a chance to throw a bit of light onto an alternative way of thinking Herbert to those who may have the intelligence to follow it.
Why don't you give some sensible comment for a change instead of directing people towards biased information?
Jessie, Why don't you stop pontificating here (after all, this is a PRO-WIND initiative) and go and watch the football instead?
Oh dear Herbert = John Muir would be turning in his grave if he saw the devastation to his beloved mountains that wind farm development needlessly cause. You clearly know nothing about his incredible spirituality.
Wind farms will be a contributing factor to the lights going out - just like they will in Germany. You don't seem to accept that in order to have more wind farms, we need more conventional power stations ie gas and oh so funny, we just ain;t building them. Still better luck next time at trying to grasp some of the facts. Don't worry about the John Muir Trust, you still have Greenpeace, WWF etc in your pocket, all closely aligned to the RenewableUK. Sure little old
John Muir Trust won't stand in your way of devastating the countryside, though the National Trust must be causing you a few sleepless nights.
Jessie - The anti-wind stance of the "well respected" John Muir Trust is regrettable. I would suggest that John Muir himself may well be pro-wind these days, all things considered. And why don't you change your 'useless wind farms' record? I'm afraid your suggestion that wind farms are likely to cause the lights to go out is just plain silly.
Dale - what a great idea - let's just continue to rip off the poor to give to anyone that can afford £2000 to invest in a useless technology! Marvellous idea, This just epitomises the attutude of so many people in this country. Out for what they can get and sod everyone else.
Oh let's all jump on this particular bandwagon.
Herbert - here is something for you to consider too:
Response to the Grantham Institute for you from the very well respected John Muir Trust, fighting to save Scotland's cherished landscapes and mountains from the atrocity of useless wind farms.
Tuesday 12th June, 2012
Response to Grantham Institute report ‘The case for and against onshore wind energy in the UK’
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the UK’s leading wild land conservation charity has today commented on the Grantham Research Institute’s report ’The case for and against onshore wind energy in the UK’ released yesterday.
She said: “Unfortunately, the report appears to confuse the possibilities of wind energy with that of renewables. It states that it’s a myth that the unreliability of wind power requires gas-powered back-up because, among other things, ‘a more diversified mix of renewable sources’ can be used.
“The John Muir Trust would agree that a more diversified mix of renewable energy is essential to address the major intermittency issues caused by the UK’s current energy policy, which places too much emphasis on onshore wind.
“The report implies that the need for low carbon solutions automatically means more wind development is required, and suggests this is the cheapest option. Actually, the most effective use of public money to contribute to energy and carbon policy is to direct it towards energy conservation measures. Public spend should also, as a matter of urgency, be directed towards research and development of technologies that can deliver global solutions, such as carbon capture and storage.
“The quicker the government grasps this, the quicker we can move towards more effective energy solutions that protect the natural environment and don’t involve the destruction of huge swathes of our last wild and undeveloped land. Unfortunately, current policy is not delivering on its global environmental or economic aspirations.”
From my point of view - The Grantham report confuses renewables with Wind. Over half of the UK government reported carbon savings come from non-wind renewables.
The question of intermittency is crucial and Grantham have failed to grasp its significance. Wind volatility causes large swings in availability. In a typical realistic scenario 100MW of wind capacity can swing between plus 70MW to zero and back to 70MW within a 4 hour period. Evidence from grid operators such as E.On Energy Netz in Germany confirm this as a regular occurance. Providing cover for such rapid swings in the UK is only possible currently by using gas turbines. It would be nice if renewable sources such as tidal energy could fill this gap but in the realistic world - for the forseeable future this is not feasible.
Ramping up and down gas turbines in this way is highly innefficient. If you simply switch off the wind turbines and run the gas turbines in their normal mode you would produce the same amount of available energy but far less CO2 emissions. Incidentally UK government figures for carbon savings do not take this into account. And as you add more wind to the mix the problem gets worse. E.On Energy Netz estimate that by 2020 only 4% of their wind fleet capacity will replace fossil fuel generation due to the need to back up intermittent supply.
Far from "keeping the lights on" as Grantham sugggests Wind enerrgy is much more likely to cause them to go out because of the instability they cause on the grid.
Dale Webster commented
I am very much pro-wind farms. However the government should be encouraging individuals and communities to build their own wind farms to give them cheap electricity long-term, rather than subsidising wind farms for massive power companies and thus continue our dependence on paying ever increasing electricity bills. Some communities have set up cooperatives, investing on average only 2000 pounds each, and they now get money (from you!) every quarter, rather than a hefty bill. If Britain is not a nation of simpletons, then this should be on everyone' agenda.
Chloe, How long is a piece of string? Anyway, here is some recommended reading: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Releases/2012/MR110612-review-evidence-about-onshore-wind-power.aspx
Chloe Pink commented
You write that 'wind energy clearly can contribute to reducing carbon dioxide emissions; perhaps you can fill us in then where Herbert failed; just how much CO2 can be saved by wind turbines (as a percentage of total mamade emissions)?
You also refer to wind as an "alternative" yet wind is not an "alternative" to conventional generation; it is additional to existing generators.
You also write that "It is not hard to find independent reviews of the arguments, see
and the conclusion is that wind energy clearly can contribute both to reducing carbon dioxide emissions"
Yet the journalist concludes:
"Wind energy remains a highly controversial way to generate electricity for a variety of reasons, not least the costs and aesthetic impact. Claim and counter-claim dog any discussion on the topic and it is very hard to source impartial information.
..... until rigorous, comprehensive research is conducted on this specific subject the debate is, sadly, sure to rage on."
David B commented
I have no particular brief for or against wind energy, but as a scientist / mathematician with extensive experience in logical argument, it is clear there is some appallingly bad logic being used here by the 'anti-wind' commentators. I have the strong impression that they are not open to argument ie would not change their opposition to wind no matter what the evidence in favour of it. Their approach then is a matter of finding all and any possible problems with wind (real or imagined) and listing them, without consideration of the size of the problem or likely solutions, or alternatives. The alternative of 'just keep burning gas cos its cheap' may well lead to catastrophic climate change & many millions of deaths from food shortages (mostly not here but of the world's poor) & so is simply not a responsible option.
It is not hard to find independent reviews of the arguments eg see:
and the conclusion is that wind energy clearly can contribute both to reducing carbon dioxide emissions (& hence reducing the probability of a climactic catastrophe during the next 100 years), but also to reducing dependency on imported fuels, and in the medium term also likely to be cheaper than most alternatives (tho not cheaper than improving efficiency).
There are problems to be overcome with wind, but the solutions are there or being developed & refined as experience of generating & using wind power increases.
Herbert - it'd be nice to see some balance on your Pro Wind website ie all that SUCCESS stuff -
it would be nice to see something about the National Trust and English Heritage's legal challenge to the turbines approved near to Lyveden New Bield http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9223634/The-National-Trust-and-English-Heritage-taking-legal-action-against-a-wind-farm.html
You say you would be happy to camp and picnic near a wind farm - haven't you looked at all the accident statistics available for turbines - these are industrial installations not 18th century windmills as you would have us believe. Why would anyone go near one unless they have to, ie because they are working on them?
Chloe Pink commented
That's fine Herbert but you're not helping to promote renewables by not defining and quantifying their benefits and by spreading misinformation.
Chloe – I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your anti-wind pontifications.