ArabiaTerra

Not just haaaard.  Impossible.
 

Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

It seems that reality has proven you wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I won't deny that the climate is changing but reaching the age I am I can't help thinking about so many scientific theories that were once regarded are being gospel have been completely overturned. For example the theory in the 1970's that we were heading for another ice age, or the millennium bug which turned out to be a damp squib.

 

Or hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man which held up the advancement of early anthropology for years.

 

There never was a theory that we were heading for another ice-age. That's just another zombie* denier lie. There were a couple of papers published that mentioned that we would be getting another ice-age in a few thousand years, which were picked up by the media and made the front page of a few magazines and newspapers. The vast majority of papers published in the 70's were warning of Global Warming.

 

More here:-  http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm 

 

The millennium bug was not a problem because thousands of programmers spent millions of hours fixing everything before the millennium. (It still broke my watch though)

 

And Piltdown Man? Bloody hell, Joannie, you're really struggling if you're having to bring that up.

 

*zombie lie:- A lie which has been debunked over and over and over but still keeps on appearing.

 

Actually The "millennium bug" had no effect whatsoever I never downloaded any software for my pc which was quite old at the time, I figured to replace it after the turn of the century with one that should of been good for the next hundred years (millennium bug wise). Well I sobered up sometime around Jan 3rd switched on and to my surprise the pc was working just as it had before and continued to work at it same slow rate for the next couple of years.

 

Not every computer or application was affected, and nobody ever claimed that it would be. (at least, nobody who actually knew what they were talking about) There were all sorts of exaggerated claims made in the press about this, all sorts of doom and gloom predictions. It was very similar to the "ice-age coming soon" claims I referenced above. It was a good story which sold newspapers and the truth was somewhat lost in the media feeding frenzy.

I won't deny that the climate is changing but reaching the age I am I can't help thinking about so many scientific theories that were once regarded are being gospel have been completely overturned. For example the theory in the 1970's that we were heading for another ice age, or the millennium bug which turned out to be a damp squib.

 

Or hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man which held up the advancement of early anthropology for years.

There never was a theory that we were heading for another ice-age. That's just another zombie* denier lie. There were a couple of papers published that mentioned that we would be getting another ice-age in a few thousand years, which were picked up by the media and made the front page of a few magazines and newspapers. The vast majority of papers published in the 70's were warning of Global Warming.

More here:-  http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm 

The millennium bug was not a problem because thousands of programmers spent millions of hours fixing everything before the millennium. (It still broke my watch though)

And Piltdown Man? Bloody hell, Joannie, you're really struggling if you're having to bring that up.

*zombie lie:- A lie which has been debunked over and over and over but still keeps on appearing.

If only we had accurate records of say 2000 yrs

Ask and ye shall receive:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/past_change_med.jpg

Well, it's only 1000 years, but still...

Edit: Here's the ice-core data:-

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

This goes back 300,000 years. That enough for you?

No Colin i am not advocating that we all start burning peats,coal and logs creating vast amount of smoke ultimately createing smog which will affect peoples health.

 

What i'm saying is now that we no longer polute in this manner  what effect did all the smog have on the climate when it was there. Did it cool the earth down,cause more snow.There is where the answer lies.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that much of the change in the climate is a result of a the cleaner atmosphere, being created by the way we live now. 

 

Off course this is good but do we ever hear anyone debate what the climate would be like today if all the lums in Europe were reeking tonight,spewing vast amounts of dust and vile smoke into the sky no its all codswallop about greenhouse gases ect

 

As i said before the world is simply going back to what it was before man found fire,and if we stop.burning fossil fuel all together the climate will simply readjust to suit.

 

If only we had accurate records of say 2000 yrs

This is actually an interesting point.

If you look at the temperature graph for the 20th C then you will see rising temps up until the 40's, the it flatlines until the 70's then begins a steep rise again which has continued to this day. The scientific consensus explaining this pause in warming is that it was caused by a massive increase in sulphur dioxide from burning coal which was reflecting solar radiation back into space. The end of this pause coincides with the West starting to take serious action to combat smog and acid rain. Sulphur dioxide doesn't stay in the atmosphere, so the effects were immediate.

On the other hand, after 9/11, when aircraft were grounded across the USA for a few days, the surface temperature in the US immediately rose by a full degree C, demonstrating that the jet contrails were shielding us from a large amount of warming.

Temp graph:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Temperature_Composite_500.jpg

Of course, the rising temps we see today have nothing to do with the atmosphere being cleaner. They are due to increased CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere. The increase in smog in the middle of the 20C merely delayed the warming for a couple of decades until we cleaned up our act.

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.

 

Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocalyptic scenario somebody is capable of dreaming up, is as irrational as denying all the crap humanity churns out makes no odds to our surroundings.

 

Somewhere in between the gross extremes of both camps probably lies what is nearest to the truth. It would be nice, even perhaps useful to know what that is, but as long as the shock jocks on either sideline keep shouting at each other, that middle ground is always going to be drowned out. As always, the extremists ruin it for the vast majority of calm and resonable players.

Wow, Ghosty, didn't know you'd gone full on irrational denier troll. But then you're a troll anyway, so I guess it's your natural habitat. Why don't you actually educate yourself on the science, then you might be able to make a relevant contribution to this debate.

Tell you what, why don't you post some specific examples of "flawed science "climate change" propoganda" and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

Oh dear.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/

 

Don't you just hate it when the consensual scientists become non-consensual. Politically (and financially) motivated scientists, fuelling the needs of politicians.

 

There is a lot of practical sense in trying to reduce emissions and protect the environment. There is also a lot of completely valueless rhetoric and political investment behind the current attempts to make a difference. India is dramatically increasing its coal fired electric generating capacity, and if you've ever been to China, well what can you say? Indonesia is burning itself up, and has had a direct and very local impact on its neighbours for decades now.

 

Without bringing everyone to action, you are simply pi55ing in the wind! With subjective and politically motivated "scientific" analysis and facts being delivered and adjusted to meet the agenda, there will never be a credible advancement toward a measurable decline in global emissions, which is a goal I can certainly support without the politics involved.

 

The most interesting local development is all the third world nations who are choking in self generated pollution, and are making no attempt to reduce their own emissions, but are lining up at the door with their hands out looking for cash to mitigate the effects of climate change! 

Waaaah! Waaah!  Fixing Climate Change is haaaard. So we should do nothing.

Just another piece of fossil fuel funded propoganda. It will be ignored, as it should.

 

I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 
Let me help you out with that then. Here's just a few....
 
1) Interconnector - Every aspect of it,
 
2) Considerably more challenging site and terrain.
 
3) Considerably larger and complex engineering challenge.
 
4) 45% of the developer's shareholding is in the hands of muppets.

 

 
1. The Interconnector will be paid for as a part of the grid through the service charge everyone in the UK pays. It might add 20p or so to your annual bill.
 
2. How? The Burradale site is on top of a hill. The Viking turbines will be on top of hills. How is it any different?
 
3. Rubbish, a wind turbine is a wind turbine. In fact erecting 100 rather than 5 will give you more practice so it will be less challenging. /snark
 
4. Ad hominin attack. Sure sign of a losing argument.
 
So, you've got nothing but insults and tired old repetition of long debunked arguments. Give it up Ghosty, you're just trolling at this point.
 

Read all that so
 could you tell me  know it all Paul B  how much will the interconnecter will cost.

 
For you personally? Practically nothing as the cost will be shared throughout the UK as part of the service charge you already pay.

Yes  Arabia Terra I am aware of the subsidy on our power,but it was already there (sure it was?)before "service providers "were introduced into the system requireing even more money to fund them so they could compete for buisness,and n my judgement pushing the cost of electricity up even further.  

 

Someone has to pay for all the "bumph" and phone calls trying to get us to change or so called provider who should we do so will use exactly the same cables and source of supply.

 

I would think the body and blades of these turbines will last a long time,so except for the high cost of installation,after that every now and then some expenditure  to replace a few bearings, bushes ect I cannot see how they can not be effecient and be productive .

 

Many of use were critical of the Lerwick district heating scheme .Well it's still there and working and got many customers and as far as I know plenty still waiting patiently to connect up to it. Bit more expensive now but still there.

 

Do'es it make a profit ?

 

Will the wind farms be the same  ? 

Apart from maintenance costs, every turn of the Burradale blades has been profit for several years now. IIRC Burradale paid off the loan that built it 5 years early. I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

paulb- Remember those produceing electricty are selling it to a service provider who then sell it to us the customer .
 
We used to buy our power direct from source but Maggie Thatcher in a job creation exercise decided to create service providers and this would give us the customers better service and choice. 
 
Well whoever I pay for my power,the bulk of it is produced at the power station Gremista,so surely I should be able to pay them direct not through an agent. If i do not occur agent fees it should be cheaper.
 
I dare say the problem is with the many different sources of inputs from wind,solar ect into the "grid" who pays who and what becomes a big problem . 
 
Can you imagine going for a haircut and having to pay for it through a service provider!
 
Your idea regarding clusters of wind farms to suit the needs of any particular area is certainly credible.

 
Urabug, you're missing a crucial point here. Our electricity is subsidised. It always has been. Very heavily subsidised. We'd all be paying a lot more for our power if we were buying direct from Gremista because generating electricity by burning diesel is insanely expensive compared to pretty much any other type of generation you care to mention. As long as there is no price on carbon emissions burning coal in huge stations like Drax will always be the cheapest way to generate power. And that's the invisible subsidy that the fossil fuel generators get. They can dump their waste into the atmosphere at no cost.

 

 

I'm no roads engineer but I'd hazard a guess that roadbuilding was a contributing factor in landslips shown in both these photos, and not even a great depth of peat by the looks of things.

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/9048-a-month-s-worth-of-rain-in-a-day

 

"A months worth of rain in a day". The headline speaks for itself. And how does the road affect things up-hill of the road?

 

Easy - if it is uphill of the road, the road has cut through/across the layer of peat on the hill destabilising it and contributes to it breaking away above the road and flowing down over it.  Seems like common sense to me, of course the 'headline' has also been a contributing factor, I didn't say the building of the roads was the main cause.

 

And the point I've been trying to make, and obviously failing, is that Shetland is already covered with roads that cut up, down, along and through the peat willy-nilly, with no obvious ill-effects on the peat. These roads have been there for decades . and there has been no peat apocalypse. The landslides which have been happening with increasing frequency bear no relation to the roads anywhere near them. They have been caused by extreme rainfall which is a result of Climate Change. This is unstoppable. It will continue until there is no peat left on the sides of any of the hills in Shetland whether or not the windfarm gets built.

Which makes all this speculation about the windfarm causing landslides pointless. The landslides will continue anyway, windfarm or no.

 

Seriously though, show me one example of a landslide in Shetland caused by road building, just one, then we can talk.

 

 

Redburn, Bigton. Autumn 1978 - The saturated hillside gave way under the weight of the road, taking the road with it for approx 25 yards.  (my emphasis)

 

And when was that road built? How long had that road been there before the landslide? My point is that the weather has changed. We are now seeing far more intense cloudbursts which are causing the landslides. These will continue to happen as long as we are in this new climate until there is no peat left on the hills anywhere in Shetland. There is nothing we can do about this.

Welcome to the Anthropocene.

 

I'll take an EXPERIMENTAL Peat Restoration Project over no restoration project at all. You never know, it might actually work.

 

Given that recent previous attempts at this, undertaken under the oversight of some of the (alleged) foremost soil experts and botanists in the country, were a total and abject failure. I am not feeling as much of an optimist as put my money on it "maybe" working, I think I'll risk 50p on pigs flying first instead.

 

Still better than nothing at all though.

I'm no roads engineer but I'd hazard a guess that roadbuilding was a contributing factor in landslips shown in both these photos, and not even a great depth of peat by the looks of things.

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/9048-a-month-s-worth-of-rain-in-a-day

"A months worth of rain in a day". The headline speaks for itself. And how does the road affect things up-hill of the road?

 

its not the first time access roads have been built on deep sloping peat. as your aware peat around the half way house is in a poor condition. the restoration program would assist in preventing any more decay. and lets face it its not wind turbines thats caused the damage. i assume the crofter/farmers are not planning on paying to restore the moor. if it not returned to a better state expect more and more slides. 

 

It never ceases to astonish me how people have bought into this EXPERIMENTAL restoration programme.  How many acres are there of damaged peat?  How many acres are going to be destroyed with the proposed wind turbines and all the other peripherals being built, not just the access roads?  Since when have negatives been more favourable than positives?

 

I'll take an EXPERIMENTAL Peat Restoration Project over no restoration project at all. You never know, it might actually work.

 

 

Anyone seen the landslide north of the halfway house?

 

Don't suppose the numerous access roads will lessen any occurrences, should this go ahead?

 

No more than the hundreds of miles of roads already cutting through the peat hill have already increased the likelihood of landslides. If you can demonstrate a link between the recent landslides and the existing roads, then you can present a case for increased risk from the access roads. As there seems to be no correlation between the recent landslides and the existing roads, then good luck with that.

 

 

Hardly a like-for-like comparison though, given what the proposed access roads would lead to, together with the number of access roads being proposed.

 

True, the 100+ miles of access roads represent a tiny fraction of the mileage of the existing roads which already go up hill and down dale, ripping through the peat hill with no thought given to peat stability or drainage other than that which directly affected the roads themselves.

Seriously though, show me one example of a landslide in Shetland caused by road building, just one, then we can talk.

Anyone seen the landslide north of the halfway house?

 

Don't suppose the numerous access roads will lessen any occurrences, should this go ahead?

No more than the hundreds of miles of roads already cutting through the peat hill have already increased the likelihood of landslides. If you can demonstrate a link between the recent landslides and the existing roads, then you can present a case for increased risk from the access roads. As there seems to be no correlation between the recent landslides and the existing roads, then good luck with that.

 

Interesting thoughts on climate change about 5 minutes in.....

 

Interesting in as much as it reveals that he doesn't understand the basics of Climate Change.

This idea that if we take action, it will make no difference for thousands of years is complete nonsense. In fact it is the complete opposite of the truth. If we do not take action within the next 30 years then nature will take matters into her own hands and nothing we do after that will make any difference.

There is a point, after which, the natural carbon sinks (peat bogs, rain forests, tundra, the oceans, etc) will change from being natural carbon sinks to being natural carbon sources and Climate Change will take on a life of it's own. Officially, this will begin after 2 degrees of temperature rise though there are many scientists who think that we will pass this point of no return before we reach 2 degrees. On the other hand, you will struggle to find any scientists who think we can go above 2 degrees and get away with it.

Another point is the one about "going back to the stone age". This is typical denier nonsense. Nobody is suggesting this. We have the technology to provide the worlds energy needs without digging stuff up and burning it. All we've got to do is build it. Reducing peoples energy use (or increasing efficiency as I prefer to put it) is simply one step towards a sustainable future. Nobody, apart from a few radical nutters on the extreme fringes of the Green movement is suggesting that we need to go back to the stone age.

Again, nonsense.

The required hard-standing pads for the cranes were there in the original proposal. And do you really think that no-one, anywhere in the world, has had to deal with the problem of large cranes on soft ground?

More groundless scaremongering.

Well, I heard a rumour(I know, I know) that the laying of the huge inter-connector cable, and the spare capacity on it, opens the door to the building of a Nuclear Plant in Shetland.

 

Complete nonsense.

The capacity of the proposed Interconnector is 650MW. Viking will use 450MW of that, leaving 200MW spare. The average nuke is 1,000MW+. 200 isn't even enough for a single reactor.

Aaaaaand relax.

What's that I smell?

Vindication?

Victory?

Viking!

Apparently prices are affected by up to 14km away:-

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/08/windfarms-reduce-house-prices-compensation

Yes, I can just imagine the conversation with my nephew now. In about 20 years time.

" Yes son, we could have done something. We could have stopped global Warming before it ran over all the natural tipping  points and spiralled out of control. But you know, that would have changed the valuation on Grannies house from £200,000 to £185,000, and, obviously, that would have been totally unacceptable"

New manager, I heard.

Interesting to see "sheepshagger" getting so much attention.

Brian, you could try Peter Gear: http://www.shetlandgrasscutting.com/contact.html

This particular budget left me a little better off due to the rise in the personal allowance, but it doesn't make up for the rise in living costs over the last 5 years or so. And the rent rise that I've just been hit with pretty much wipes out the gain anyway.