Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Guest posiedon]

http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/eco/windfarm-wind-turbine.gif

[Skunnered]

^^The road through the Kames, presumably!

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

This article sums it up perfectlty.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8081276/Spending-Review-Honesty-is-the-best-policy-before-the-bigger-fuel-bills-start-to-bite.html

 

Some of the readers comments hit the nail on the head too.

 

Also this one

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8068402/Renewables-will-add-880-a-year-to-bills.html

[ArabiaTerra]

This article sums it up perfectlty.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8081276/Spending-Review-Honesty-is-the-best-policy-before-the-bigger-fuel-bills-start-to-bite.html

 

Some of the readers comments hit the nail on the head too.

Complete and utter crap. Nothing has challenged the science, and without a challenge to the science, the entire premise of the article is garbage.

 

Also this one

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8068402/Renewables-will-add-880-a-year-to-bills.html

And Booker is a known and repeated liar about climate change, he's won awards had awards named after him for it.

[Guest Anonymous]

Complete and utter crap. Nothing has challenged the science, and without a challenge to the science, the entire premise of the article is garbage.

AT's got a short memory.

[ArabiaTerra]

Complete and utter crap. Nothing has challenged the science, and without a challenge to the science, the entire premise of the article is garbage.

AT's got a short memory.

Ok then, where's the challenge?

[crofter]

This article sums it up perfectlty.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8081276/Spending-Review-Honesty-is-the-best-policy-before-the-bigger-fuel-bills-start-to-bite.html

 

Some of the readers comments hit the nail on the head too.

Complete and utter crap. Nothing has challenged the science, and without a challenge to the science, the entire premise of the article is garbage.

 

 

I don't know, what about this?

 

In Spain the other day, the government realised that it was spending so much on price guarantees to solar power "entrepreneurs" that it decided to cut back. The same will have to happen with wind power here. It would be so much better, and cheaper, if it came before turbines have stalked their way across every lonely and lovely place in these islands.

[Guest Anonymous]

Speaking as a moderator - Gorgo is entitled to his opinion too,AT, the word "garbage" is hardly conducive to a polite exchange of information.

 

Seems like the challenge is you behaving like an adult and less like a stroppy child!

[ArabiaTerra]

Speaking as a moderator - Gorgo is entitled to his opinion too,AT, the word "garbage" is hardly conducive to a polite exchange of information.

 

Seems like the challenge is you behaving like an adult and less like a stroppy child!

Hey, I was rightly called out on that one, and I apologised. So what's the problem?

[crofter]

So what's the problem?

 

The problem is:

 

when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less -- and have the same effect.

 

Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

 

In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate....

... Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

[ArabiaTerra]

So what's the problem?

 

The problem is:

 

when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less -- and have the same effect.

Energy efficiency measures are cheaper, but we could be 100% efficient in everything we do, and if we still use fossil fuels for our primary energy source, climate change would still happen. We need to do both, energy efficiency measures and renewables.

 

Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Before we can reduce, we first have to stop our emissions rising. We haven't even managed to do that yet. The rise has slowed, but not stopped. But then, we've only just begun to tackle this problem.

 

In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate....

... Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.

Yes, that's because, due to pressure from the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel dependent countries we adopted a cap and trade system instead of simply putting a price on carbon emissions.

 

And you're talking about worst case scenarios here maybe having a detrimental effect. The worst case scenario for climate change is the end of civilisation as we know it, no maybe or might about it.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

I don't know, what about this?

 

Quote:

In Spain the other day, the government realised that it was spending so much on price guarantees to solar power "entrepreneurs" that it decided to cut back. The same will have to happen with wind power here. It would be so much better, and cheaper, if it came before turbines have stalked their way across every lonely and lovely place in these islands.

 

It appears AT just ignores facts that he cant answer.

 

Bob Spanswick wrote an interesting little bit about how much fossil fuels would be left in the ground thanks to the building of this windmills, he wrote of a figure of 11.2 million tons being left untouched.

 

It has to be the biggest piece pf pro-windfarm crap ever written.

 

India's fossil fuel consumption is forecast to rise by 70% as more of their people are lifted out of poverty

China's emissions are forecast to equal that of the rest of the world combined by 2030.

The only thing that is going to slow this consumption of fossil fuels is the scarcity of these fuels which will eventually come.

 

And yes we should be looking at developing renewables, but more importantly is the need to transform everbodies awareness of our own energy consumption.

 

This mega wind farm doesn't address that, in that it is trying to seduce people with tales of fabulous wealth (which in return feeds more consumption) goes against the grain of what it is supposed to be built for.

 

And nobody has been able to give a credible answer to the question-

 

Show me the 25 year guarantees for this huge and unaffordable subsidy?

 

I imagine it will be paid long enough for the small band of key players to get stinking rich and then after that ?

[crofter]

Energy efficiency measures are cheaper, but we could be 100% efficient in everything we do, and if we still use fossil fuels for our primary energy source, climate change would still happen. We need to do both, energy efficiency measures and renewables.

 

Assuming there is an unlimited amount of money to be thrown around, you would be correct. However, we are in hard financial times, and the most effective way to spend a limited amount of money is NOT on subsidising wind energy.

[crofter]

This mega wind farm doesn't address that, in that it is trying to seduce people with tales of fabulous wealth (which in return feeds more consumption) goes against the grain of what it is supposed to be built for.

 

I would support it if I believed that the stories of fabulous wealth were true. It may be that it can earn some money, but this has yet to be convincingly shown. They should give up the "saving the planet" angle because that is just a crock.

[Para Handy]

A wind turbine manufacturer which received £10m from the Scottish government to safeguard jobs has gone bust.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-11626680

 

Well Surprise, Surprise