|
|
|
|
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 7/31/2009 6:02:13 PM |
What's the point of producing something as useless as wind turbines?
We have a government and Opposition which have both nailed their colours to the mast of this 'green' industry without studying the facts with regard to their ability to do the the job, ie produce electricity on demand.
Worse, the government has already subsidised every turbine currently in use in this country, with added costs to the consumer. I've never understood why 'natural' electricity is so expensive......surely, it should be the cheapest?
The government and opposition have studied the situation, they have concluded that wind power alone will not solve the low carbon emission energy generation they desire.
So far in this country land based turbines have been expensive true, but there is a reason for that, if you had followed the industry you would know the reason for it, im assuming you have followed the topic in some way, otherwise you wouldnt really know anything about it.
The government recently intruduced a new system for renewable energy in relation to conventional energy sources, but there again if you have followed the situation then you would already know what Im talking about there too.
Renewable energy... in this instance wind turbines are expensive to buy and maintain yes, but the tipping point at which the one is cheaper than the other [renewable vs conventional] has passed, it is now renewable energy that is the most cost effective way to produce electricity.
The government has made changes to make this possible, and sure maybe it does cost a little more in some ways but isnt that a small price to pay, after all its your grand childrens children that will suffer.
But then I guess when your faced with a person with his eye on his own wallet rather than the future wellbeing of all its not hard to see what the problem is...
Ive come to see part of the renewable energy problem is people who are only looking after number one. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 7/31/2009 6:29:46 PM | Bummmer... I know what, let us invade somewhere like........ Ooooh, I know... Australia?
We can mine their Uranium and build loads of Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Processing and Reprocessing Plants... and call it...... Oooh.. me Sir... ooooooh... me Sir... me Sir...
Ermmmm... Ok, you boy at the back.
Scotland Sir!
Boy, why Scotland?
Errrr because it is empty, and doesnt move much?
Boy don't you mean, it has sparce population supported by the UK Tax payer, is quite geologically stable and has lots of water to duilute any polution and wash it into the nearby lakes (I can spell they can't) and eventually the sea?
Yes Sir, exactly what I meant but I was trying to be politically sensitive..
Why Boy??
Well Sir is our PM not scottish, and was his predecesor not scottish and did the West Lothian Question never play a part in any election nor law passed by Blur and Broon...?
Boy, astute as you may be, aye ye never ken aboot Eastlan Flat??? A good place, stable, flat and sparce of people of worth.
Sir, is it not in England and close to Larndarn?
Yes myboy... the best place it could be, the closer the better!!
and here endeth the lesson of ruffiness
Gu Math Theid Leibh.
Ruffy
xx | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:10:10 PM | | CleverKitten needs one of those ecologically sound Dutch Ovens. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:28:00 AM | Quote "The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is used during the manufacturing phase. “This, they say, means the turbine model earns its own worth more than 35 times during its energy production lifetime"...."
Hi Ruffy
We know somewhere windy, do we not? (What do you think of my photos on Star Gazers?)
A little suspicious of these figures. Where do they come from? I have no reason to disbelieve them in their selves, however, we need to know exactly what they mean. Reasoning goes like so: The first thought is, 'What monitory value do we assign to the electricity?' We are back to pay points and the most expensive, I suspect, is the price the domestic consumer pays. So if we use that it moves the balance point in the equation in favour of the turbine.
The question is, what exactly does 'manufacturing phase' encompass? There are two extremes. Firstly, the spin doctor's version where only the cost electricity used in final assembly is counted. This is where the alternator just appears on the factory floor, some brackets bent and drilled, and a cowling fabricated. The materials for the blades and mast are already present so the the compounds are mixed and fibres laid with electricity for heat and light. A gearbox is assembled and mounted on a frame with the alternator. Hardly any electricity used. Then the second take which is total cost. This includes the mining and processing of raw materials, extracting iron ore, using tonnes of coal in turning it into shiny steel. Machining the armature of that alternator, the copper for the windings. The fuel used moving the components to the wind turbine assembly plant. The chemical plant producing the materials for the mast and blades. Carrying the whole lot to the top of a hill, then all the copper cable to carry the electricity away.
Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to rip your case. It is just that people have vested interests and they will package their arguments in ways to suit their business. These packages are then placed in the balance where other people, unaware of what is exactly in the package, assign an incorrect/misleading weight to the argument. It is possible to attractively package most things if inconveniences are not included. That is what a sales person does. That's spin business folks! (apologies Warner Bros.) | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:01:30 AM | The politics in green energy exist as in every aspect of life. Vested interests decided that the technology they would push is wind turbines on the basis that each house can have one, regardless of the practicalities.
In fact, the much better energy production method is tidal power, it's regular and 100% predictable. You get over the cyclic nature of production by using very large flywheels as energy storage. It really is that simple.
The flywheels are spun up electrically at times of peak production. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:55:12 AM | I really hate it when the green bullies start saying ooo its your kids/grandkids who are gonna suffer with global warming etc. What a load of bollox!
watch there faces when you ask them if they knew the romans were building vine yards in york 2000 years ago, or ask them why only a few hundred years ago the thames used to freeze over regular! Ask them if they knew that a decent volcanoe going off puts more co2 in the atmosphere then man ever has!
even leading scientist know its a con but get hushed up by governments who want it as an excuse to tax or play with others economy!
like clarkson said if polluting the globe gets us decent summers im all for it! | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:44:15 AM | Badge
I remember in the early seventies getting all wound up over running out of oil. Wonder what interest started that rumour. The problem never came to pass and I started to learn and analyse.
Roll on the next mass extinction. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 4:49:06 AM | Mersey Man. My uncle was a director of an oil company. He told me that there is always 30 years' supply on hand but production is kept down to keep the price up.
North sea oil could have given us cheap fuel in the UK but much of it was exported (Germany bought £3 billions-worth per annum, f.e.) There are plenty of oil reserves.
CO2 makes up approximately 0.05% of the atmosphere. Plant-life needs it and we need plants. Global warming is a con but I'm all for controlling pollution. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/1/2009 7:06:27 AM |
I really hate it when the green bullies start saying ooo its your kids/grandkids who are gonna suffer with global warming etc. What a load of bollox!
watch there faces when you ask them if they knew the romans were building vine yards in york 2000 years ago, or ask them why only a few hundred years ago the thames used to freeze over regular! Ask them if they knew that a decent volcanoe going off puts more co2 in the atmosphere then man ever has!
even leading scientist know its a con but get hushed up by governments who want it as an excuse to tax or play with others economy!
like clarkson said if polluting the globe gets us decent summers im all for it!
Research it before you comment on it.
The term used is global warming, but the effect wont be the global getting hotter, in the short term the temp will rise, that will melt the ice which will shift the balance, England will freeze over in the end and those parts that arnt colder will be covered in water. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/12/2009 7:36:46 PM |
We have a government and Opposition which have both nailed their colours to the mast of this 'green' industry without studying the facts with regard to their ability to do the the job, ie produce electricity on demand
Yes they have, you think maybe they know more than you on the subject maybe?
And how do you 'know' how much I know about wind turbines?
Answer - you don't!
You have no idea what I know about the topic.
No I dont, but I would like to find out.
I have no inside knowledge on how Vestas operates
I have!
Vestas already know a solution to energy production based on Wind turnines alone will not work, the solution is an intergrated one involving Wind, Water, Sun and a small amount of Nuclear power.
Where one has short commings, the others dont.
When there is no wind there will be waves or sun or nuclear power.
Renewable power will not be based soley on one type of production. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 1:36:00 AM |
Yes they have, you think maybe they know more than you on the subject maybe?
Eithe the government knows less than me on the topic, or it is acting contrary to the evidence.
Everything I have learned about wind power suggests to me that it will never be a viable source of power.
Vestas already know a solution to energy production based on Wind turnines alone will not work
Therefore, it is useless!
 | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 3:10:55 AM | I laugh when i hear about people in towns putting those little wind turbines on their homes! We did some calculating and worked out that for an ordinary person in a town near us (using average wind speeds) it would take 24.3 years to recoup the cost of buying the thing in the first place, baring in mind this does not take into consideration, wear and tear and spare parts!
The large scale off shore wind turbine farms im sure generate alot more cash, but again pound for pound just aren't really viable, unless its for a remote community.
Just invest into Nuclear Fusion. Second we have this sorted - 1 or 2 reactors could power the planet! (Well certainly europe!) | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 3:38:47 AM |
Eithe the government knows less than me on the topic, or it is acting contrary to the evidence.
Everything I have learned about wind power suggests to me that it will never be a viable source of power.
Or maybe the dogma that is in your mind is not in theirs becuase they see the bigger picture for all, rather than the thoughts and beliefs of a few.
Therefore, it is useless!
more of your dogma!
Only if its used alone, and only the short sighted would use it alone, or think to get rid of it because it can not be used alone, a short sighted man would not see its uses in a strategicly intergrated plan of operations to produce cleaner energy in the future.
The good ol British Tommy was usless when faced with a Tiger tank during the war ZeeGary, would you have dismissed them all because they are usless, or would you have developed a plan to suplement their short commings with other equipment...
ie get them their own tank killing weapons, like other tanks ? | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 4:51:21 AM |
Or maybe the dogma that is in your mind is not in theirs becuase they see the bigger picture for all, rather than the thoughts and beliefs of a few.
Another example of someone using a word the meaning of which they don't actually know.
OED Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertable.
At no point have I claimed to be an authority on wind power - I have merely commented upon facts as I see them.
I'm also tempted to provide a definition of the term 'debate', since you are clearly just offering contradiction instead of information to support your claims.
The fact is, the government is unable to produce accurate figures for projected wind-produced power, because the figures which ARE available show how unreliable wind power is. It may sound rather grand for it to claim that wind will eventually produce a certain high percentage of our power (and many intelligent people have been taken in by it), but the reality is very different.
Only if its used alone, and only the short sighted would use it alone, or think to get rid of it because it can not be used alone, a short sighted man would not see its uses in a strategicly intergrated plan of operations to produce cleaner energy in the future.
The fact is that it CANNOT be used alone!
Therefore, there is no point in investing in it......the long term view shows that the government will waste billions of OUR pounds trying to make wind power viable, when it should be investing in other, reliable sources.
BTW have you read MSG 18? It contains a few facts which the wind power industry would rather we didn't know......
The good ol British Tommy was usless when faced with a Tiger tank during the war ZeeGary, would you have dismissed them all because they are usless, or would you have developed a plan to suplement their short commings with other equipment...
Everything should be used when it is beneficial to the user..... | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 5:07:02 AM | Well, I would attach a turbine to my house but the problem is the vibration often causes the brickwork to crumble over time. Until they fix these problems they're pretty useless. Anyway here's a great article from Christopher Booker about wind turbines:
<div class="quote">
It would be hard to beat the sad gullibility with which the media last week reported the plans of Lord Mandelson and our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband to cover our countryside and sea with 10,000 more huge wind turbines. According to one newspaper, it would need "an area of only 70 square miles to generate Britain's total power requirements".
Well, no, actually. To meet our peak demand of 56 gigawatts of electricity would require 112,000 turbines covering 11,000 square miles, or an eighth of Britain's entire land area.
Another newspaper solemnly reported that a new study shows that "a well-placed turbine could make enough energy to power 825,000 homes". Well, no, actually. The figure for a single 2 megawatt turbine would be just 825 homes, meaning that the newspaper was only 100,000 per cent wrong.
Even more alarming than the media's credulity is that of the ministers themselves, in seriously trying to pretend that their £100 billion dream of building three giant turbines every day between now and 2020 has the faintest practical hope of being realised, let alone that it would serve any useful purpose to do so.
Most alarming of all, however, in the desperation to reach EU "renewables" target, is the setting up of a new Infrastructure Planning Commission to force through thousands of these absurd objects over the wishes of local people and councils, who are now to be robbed of any right of appeal. Last week a Government inspector threw out a highly unpopular scheme for seven turbines in Shropshire which would have generated £43 million in subsidies alone for its owners over the next 25 years. The surrounding community was delighted. From next March, however, thanks to Lord Mandelson's all-powerful new Commission, such inquiries will be a thing of the past, thrown onto the scrapheap of history along with much of the rest of our democracy, We will no longer have any right to oppose this tsunami of lunacy, until our countryside is ruined to no rational purpose whatever. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 5:48:47 AM |
Another example of someone using a word the meaning of which they don't actually know.
OED Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertable.
At no point have I claimed to be an authority on wind power - I have merely commented upon facts as I see them.
You quote sources of information, like posting websites, as though that information is fact.
Those sites do not take into account the bigger picture, in fact they quietly ignore it to support their beliefs.
It is dogma, they do lay down what they say as facts.
Or do you think that what they say is not based on facts?
"•Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed ..."
As far as your argument on the debate goes your side is right because it is based on facts.
Thats dogma.
Definitions of debate on the Web:
•argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
•consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
•discuss the pros and cons of an issue
•argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
•argue: have an argument about something
•the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)
So far all you have been saying is that wind turbines cant be used alone, so they shouldnt be used at all.
[with regards to its uses in motorcars]
Which is like saying petrol can not be used alone so shouldnt be used at all.
There is no real wide support for using Nuclear energy alone due to the facts of it, it can be used to supliment other sources of power but thats it.
The facts and figures are not being used because they know something you are unaware of, something you would know if you had knowledge of Vestas business plan, and the state of play as it is at the moment.
The turbines in position at the moment are based on old and unreliable technology, they were bought and installed when the technology was new, today thats not the case, the technological advances that have been made show it can deliver what it promises if used in an intergrated way in conjunction with other sources, there are no local spercific figures because there are no local instance of use.
The reason the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight closed is because the technology they were using to produce the blades they did was of the old way, they knew there was no use for it so closed the production line, they want to go to the new technology because they know by experience [see Spain, Denmark, Germany and America] that the new technology works when used in the intergrated manner I mentioned above.
I cant blame you for being misinformed, they make it look so convincing, becuase they neglect to mention the firgures they do have are out of date and not relivent to those turbines that are being proposed here and now.
Therefore, there is no point in investing in it......the long term view shows that the government will waste billions of OUR pounds trying to make wind power viable, when it should be investing in other, reliable sources
What other sources of power?
Nuclear isnt wanted by the majority, coal is going to run out.
BTW have you read MSG 18? It contains a few facts which the wind power industry would rather we didn't know......
I have read it, it doesnt take some important facts into consideration.
Intergrated uses isnt mentioned, it singles out the weakness of each and dismisses them on that basis then moves onto the next power source and dismisses that too, with valid points I agree, but at no point does he suggest using the strengths of one to aleviate or remove the weaknesses of another.
Its a diatribe on renewables followed by a staunch almost blind support for Nuclear without thought of what the majority of the people want.
People dont want nuclear power, people want clean energy production, spent nuclear fuel is not clean
To meet our peak demand of 56 gigawatts of electricity would require 112,000 turbines covering 11,000 square miles, or an eighth of Britain's entire land area
The demand projection will not be met soley by wind derived production.
But of course you already know that right?
It is clear how well informed you are on the subject, you have all the facts and fingers, you already know that the demand will be supplied by wind, water, sun and nuclear, and for now coal, that is until the coal runs out.
Tell me, how many farms are made up of just one turbine?
Where is this single turbine installation? | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 6:35:19 AM |
You quote sources of information, like posting websites, as though that information is fact.
Those sites do not take into account the bigger picture, in fact they quietly ignore it to support their beliefs.
It is the task of others to supply contrary information.
I notice that it is something distinctly lacking in your posts on this thread.
It is dogma, they do lay down what they say as facts.
Or do you think that what they say is not based on facts?
You've missed an obvious (but important) point you accused me of having 'dogma, viz:
more of your dogma!
And thank you for confirming that you don't know what 'dogma' means with regard to my comments:
"•Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed ..."
I am not any of those things!
So far all you have been saying is that wind turbines cant be used alone, so they shouldnt be used at all.
Not exactly - wind should not be used at all because it is useless.
Which is like saying petrol can not be used alone so shouldnt be used at all.
Not in the slightest! Petrol runs my bike on its own.....I don't put any other power into the bike to make it run. Any electricity it needs is produced by that petrol via the alternator.
Definitions of debate on the Web:....•argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
I'll agree with that.
The facts and figures are not being used because they know something you are unaware of, something you would know if you had knowledge of Vestas business plan, and the state of play as it is at the moment.
You've already stated that:
Vestas already know a solution to energy production based on Wind turnines alone will not work....
I agree with them.
Nuclear isnt wanted by the majority
Hmm.....so, on the one hand, you refer to me as being 'short-sighted' and of being "a person with his eye on his own wallet" for opposing wind power, and yet you appear to support those who are against one of the few viable long-term solution to the planet's energy source purely for its effects on the environment? So, it's OK for them to complain, but not me?
I have read it, it doesnt take some important facts into consideration.
Intergrated uses isnt mentioned
It doesn't need to - the article is concerned with 'renewable energy' (big clue - check the title) so it doesn't need to discuss 'integration' with other sources. All it has to o is present the case against wind power, which it did to such an extent, that you weren't able to rebutt any of it.
The demand projection will not be met soley by wind derived production.
But of course you already know that right?
Yup!
It is clear how well informed you are on the subject...
Thank you!
you already know that the demand will be supplied by wind, water, sun and nuclear, and for now coal, that is until the coal runs out.
I haven't said that........try reading my posts for a change, or provide the relevant quotes.
Tell me, how many farms are made up of just one turbine?
Where is this single turbine installation?
Dunno.......tell me! | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 7:20:14 AM | | regarding msg 34, research? sooo which of the facts are you disagreeing with? so now your saying its gonna get colder in blighty, yet the government is saying the opposite, including this week when they were encouraging home grown fruit and veg. i might of not been listening properly but im sure they were saying droughts and hot weather were on the way in the future, but i take it you know better? | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 9:32:36 AM |
It is the task of others to supply contrary information.
I notice that it is something distinctly lacking in your posts on this thread.
The data comes in many parts, I have researched the subject taking the points and forming my own informed judgment on it based on the facts I have learnt.
I have taken it from places like Vestas IntraNet, their own internal data, and the facts presented by other industries like those that supply tidal power sources.
I have assumed you also have researched the subject before you comment on it based on the fact you seem keen to argue the case against renewable energy sources.
[quoute]You've missed an obvious (but important) point you accused me of having 'dogma, viz:
Thats a little argumentative [may even be considered baiting by forum rules], yes what I say is not based on dogma, becuase it is based on facts, proven facts, pure and simple.
My argument is not based on what I have thought of bacause a few people who have observed little and said lots, I have based what I think on facts, facts published in internal papers by companies like Vestas, GE, Siemens etc.
Where as the only person whom you have quoted seem to have some kind of vested interest in supporting Nuclear power as our only power source.
not a bad idea until you run out of places to put the spent nuclear fuels...
Maybe you wouldnt mind a reprecessing plant a several hundread yards from your home.
I would mind, but I wouldnt mind the wind turbines, the tidal generators, the solar panels all around my house.
No renewables are not perfect, but they are the best of a bad lot, and taking each strength from the three and using them to minimise the weakness of the others is a better call then dumping toxic waste into our countryside for ever more.
Your comments are dogmatic because they are not based on facts when considering the whole picture, while it is true wind turbines provide no power, it is unlikley to be a day when there is no wind, no sun, no waves and no fission.
The use of a small amount of nuclear power is expected because of the short commings of renewables, but we should not be totally reliant on nuclear power, the governments who have the technology all agree on that point, way back when it was invented it was seen as a wonder source of energy production, but attitudes have changed.
Not exactly - wind should not be used at all because it is useless.
not its not, it provides something, no matter how small, and given the amount of turbines, and the type its hardly surprising is it?
I am guessing you have done your own research on the subject again before you comment on it.
you appear to support those who are against one of the few viable long-term solution to the planet's energy source purely for its effects on the environment?
Yes I am against it as the only source of power because of the damaging effects.
So, it's OK for them to complain, but not me?
Basically yes, because the "them" you mention do not wish to damage, where as you dont care as long as it doesnt cost to much money and doesnt effect you.
What would your opinion on BNFL wanting to open a power station near your home, or on land you enjoy walking on?
Do you know what the actualities of such a power station are?
Have you been to Sizewell B, or maybe Heysham 2?
Take a look on google earth, you know there is an exclusion fence 1 mile away from the generator, no body can go there anymore, it is totally cut off, out of bounds...
If it was a wind farm you would be able to walk up to it, touch it... sure its not perfect but its better than the alternative when your sight is on the future for all, rather than there here and now with thoughts on your own wallet.
It doesn't need to - the article is concerned with 'renewable energy' (big clue - check the title) so it doesn't need to discuss 'integration' with other sources. All it has to o is present the case against wind power, which it did to such an extent, that you weren't able to rebutt any of it.
I did rebutt it, but you dont seem to want to consider it.
Do you understand even what my argument is for?
The demand projection will not be met soley by wind derived production.
But of course you already know that right?
Yup!
It is clear how well informed you are on the subject...
Thank you!
So you would get rid of wind turbines and replace them with?
And before you answer bare in mind Nuclear power is not wanted by the majority.
I haven't said that........try reading my posts for a change, or provide the relevant quotes
I assume you knew, by that I take it to mean you dont after all. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 9:34:17 AM |
regarding msg 34, research? sooo which of the facts are you disagreeing with? so now your saying its gonna get colder in blighty, yet the government is saying the opposite, including this week when they were encouraging home grown fruit and veg. i might of not been listening properly but im sure they were saying droughts and hot weather were on the way in the future, but i take it you know better?
Short term effect is hotter, long term is colder.
Ive already said why. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 10:59:27 AM | On a hot day, I drove past a wind farm in Kent. Not one turbine was working because there was no wind. If, and it's a big if, the planet is warming up, then there will be more hot days with the turbines stationary.
A study circa 1980 established that there were 300 years' supply of coal if used at the then rate of consumption. I don't know much about coal-fired power stations but understand that filters are being developed to eliminate harmful substances. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 11:16:19 AM |
A study circa 1980 established that there were 300 years' supply of coal if used at the then rate of consumption. I don't know much about coal-fired power stations but understand that filters are being developed to eliminate harmful substances.
Then what? The global consumption of coal is increasing and has been, steadily, for quite some time.
It's a narrow minded view that says because we can't get all our energy need from wind power, then it's useless. Just because the climate isn't constant and is cyclical does not mean we should ignore the fact that we're buggering it up. Oh, the Thames used to freeze over so it doesn't matter how much coal we burn.
H.x | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 11:30:36 AM | MSG 44 OK, let's quickly address the 'rules' section of your post.
Don't:
1) accuse other posters of anything.
2) state your assumptions about them without providing the relevant quote - otherwise, it's misrepresentation.
You should do what I do when I'm unsure of a particular stance - ask a question!
On to your post.
You've based your argument in favour of wind power on the comments of a company which supplied wind turbines, so there is bound to be a little bias there. When confronted with an impartial body ( the Danish government, which runs its own turbines) you dismiss those findings without supplying figures that contradict them.
You claimed that you had rebutted them, but I cannot find the relevant post, nor indeed anything which supports your case.
Further, you keep acknowledging the fact that wind power is of little use, viz:
MSG 44
it provides something, no matter how small
while it is true wind turbines provide no power
That has been virtually my entire argument throughout the thread.
You've also made statements which you've been unable to support. Take this one, from MSG 26:
wind turbines are expensive to buy and maintain yes, but the tipping point at which the one is cheaper than the other [renewable vs conventional] has passed, it is now renewable energy that is the most cost effective way to produce electricity.
It ignores the fact that the industry is heavily subsidised, and that the wind turbines still require a running conventional power station to be fully operational for when the wind isn't blowing.
And before you answer bare in mind Nuclear power is not wanted by the majority.
And wind power is?
 | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 11:41:00 AM |
The term used is global warming, but the effect wont be the global getting hotter, in the short term the temp will rise, that will melt the ice which will shift the balance, England will freeze over in the end and those parts that arnt colder will be covered in water.
May I say this is bollox? It's based on erroneous research as I've cited in previous idiotic discussions on the current climate hysteria. There is no evidence whatsoever that these catastrophic predictions will come to be, indeed, many of the catastrophic predictions made ten years ago have failed to materialise. The reasons for this are two-fold: (1) they are based on computer models that are demonstrably wrong and (2) they are based on the hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of climate on Earth AND that climate feedbacks are on the whole positive. But the latter cannot possibly be true because positive feedback systems, as any engineer will tell you, are inherently unstable. If the Earth were dominated by them it would long since have turned into a fireball.
Notwithstanding the above, the perversion of the scientific method by activist scientists and radical environmentalists (who, by the way, no longer profit from distributing Socialist Worker) has filtered down to our politicians, who are behaving in insanely cretinous ways. If the destruction of technocracy and the rolling back of the industrial revolution is the goal, then these policies will be a great success. | |
|
| Wind turbines?I
Posted: 8/13/2009 5:04:48 PM |
while it is true wind turbines provide no power
I meant to type
while it is true wind turbines provide no power when there is no or low wind
Sorry your right, that was a typing error on my part
Basically yes, because the "them" you mention do not wish to damage, where as you dont care as long as it doesnt cost to much money and doesnt effect you.
That is based on what you have already said, which is you dont want turbines because they produce no power, and are to expensive. thus usless.
ergo
So if you dont want the "to expensive" option, you want the cheaper option, because thats all your left with...
And you already know it wont effect you because of your geographic location.
But, as i know something else, which is to follow I cant really be open to that charge because I dont believe it, I meerly offer it as a reason based on your own words.
It ignores the fact that the industry is heavily subsidised, and that the wind turbines still require a running conventional power station to be fully operational for when the wind isn't blowing.
It goes both ways, no i havent, i didnt think it was worth it because I knew that they both recieve subsidies, why muddy the issue with something both are in recipt of?
But now you push it, did you know about the subsidies given to BNFL are more than those given to the companies who are pushing the use of renewables?
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/liabilities_nuclear_power.pdf
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/back-door-politics-20080118
Bearing that I already knew about that in mind, how can I accuse you of anything, after all it is me who wants the cheaper option isnt it?
As to misrepresentation, it cant be, because I am basing what I say on what you have said, I dont need a direct quote, because it can be found in this thread, which counts as the same article.
For instance
i can say "No, I dont want to pay for that its to expensive"
you can then go and say "he wont pay he wants the cheaper option"
And not misrepresent what I have said, because while its not a direct quote the essence of what i have said is still intact.
I have based my opinion regarding you wanting the cheaper option on the following
Worse, the government has already subsidised every turbine currently in use in this country, with added costs to the consumer. I've never understood why 'natural' electricity is so expensive......surely, it should be the cheapest?
Re the cost:
"In the UK, this subsidy is achieved through Renewables Obligation Certificates, the cost of which are eventually passed onto the consumer. In 2006 the cost to consumers was £600 million, and this is predicted to rise to £3 billion in 2020. 1 That is about £200 per household per annum, on top of current energy bills, for the privilege of using of ‘free’ energy."
Which you quoted from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/renewable-energy-%E2%80%93-our-downfall/
You have already stated that you follow the facts of that article, and even quote them over and over again.
BTW have you read MSG 18? It contains a few facts which the wind power industry would rather we didn't know......
I hope I have cleared that up to your satisfaction regarding the rules of the forum ZeeGary, if not I do appologise, the way you have worded your point of view leads me to make the conclusions I have, so i dont see it as misrepresentation.
The way you mean it and the way that I take it might not be the same, but I do not deliberatly mean misrepresent you and what you have said, that is not my intention at all.
Leaving the rules of the forum behind.
And wind power is?
Yes it is, and the support is getting stronger by the day, and not just because it is a cleaner way to produce energy, but because people know that one day the resources we are currently using to produce our power will run out, or because people would rather look at a wind farm, rather than the 1mile exclusion zone fence of a nuclear power station.
I dont think you and I will ever see eye to eye regarding the roll wind turbines have in the renewable energy world.
Thats fine by me | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
