ArabiaTerra

The Burradale turbines are an off-the-shelf commercial design, and they've done fine. Why wouldn't the proposed VE turbines work just as well? Or do you have some actual, you-know, evidence, that the VE turbines won't be up to the job? Because all I'm seeing from you here, is sour grapes and desperate flailing about trying to find any excuse to continue slagging this project off. So, evidence please. Put up or shut up.

Looks like a good idea. But... it's still at the prototype stage, so will need several years of further development to achieve the up-scaling needed to make it a viable replacement for the VE turbines, if it can be up-scaled. You did get a vote, when Billy stood for MSP. And I would like to note that he was beaten 2/3 to 1/3 by Tavish. Surely, if there really was the majority opposition you've always claimed, he should have won? It's funny to see you acknowledge that all the apocalyptic ranting of "sustainable" Shetland over the last 5 years or so seems to have had no effect. And if VE had organised a referendum, you would have been screaming about how it was rigged. I always knew that the number of people directly employed by VE would be quite small. But I also know that the number of jobs created by other renewables projects enabled by the interconnector and the jobs created by the general increase of revenue to the CT and the resultant spending this will make possible will be much larger. Yep, just like Burradale, which despite recurrent gearbox problems still managed to pay off it's initial investment years ahead of schedule and achieve an overall efficiency of 52% over the last 10 years, making it the most efficient windfarm on the planet! See above. I know, why don't we build 5, and test them for 10 years, you know, just to be sure. We could build them at Burradale maybe?

Glanced at the last one and thought: "Oooh, hobbit hole" Then I looked a bit closer and realised it was a hill in the background.

Good news at last for Shetland, amid all the doom and gloom. Welcome to the future.

Something else worth noting is that the turret is not protecting the airfield, it is covering the airfield, against the enemy simply flying in and landing paratroopers and transport planes directly onto the runway, Something the Germans did successfully in Norway and later in Crete (albeit with heavy casualties). More turret links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_hardened_field_defences_of_World_War_II#Allan_Williams_Turret http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/allan-williams-turret/ http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/allanwilliamspage.htm http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/showthread.php?t=8847 And the one in question which shows that it is still in it's original position: http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/showthread.php?t=14322

I wouldn't be so quick to summarise the conclusions of that report if I were you. It is a cherry-pickers dream. You can find stuff in there to support any conclusion you want, positive or negative. I mean, have you actually tried to read it? There does seem to be one part which is relatively straight forward, a table in chapter 3 (table 3-1), on pages 119 & 120, which lists each aspect of the climate and summarises the "Attribution of Observed Changes" in column 2. These are as follows: Temperature - Likely anthropogenic influence on trends in warm/cold days/nights at the global scale. No attribution of trends at a regional scale with a few exceptions. Precipitation - Medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. Winds - Low confidence in the causes of trends due to insufficient evidence. Monsoons - Low confidence due to insufficient evidence. El Niño and other Modes of Variability - Likely anthropogenic influence on identified trends in SAM (Southern Annular Mode). Anthropogenic influence on trends in North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are about as likely as not. No attribution of changes in ENSO. Tropical Cyclones - Low confidence in attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences (due to uncertainties in historical tropical cyclones record, incomplete understanding of physical mechanisms, and degree of tropical cyclone variability). Extratropical Cyclones - Medium confidence in an anthropogenic influence on poleward shift. Droughts - Medium confidence that anthropogenic influence has contributed to some observed changes in drought patterns. Low confidence in attribution of changes in drought at the level of single regions due to inconsistent or insufficient evidence. Floods - Low confidence that anthropogenic warming has affected the magnitude or frequency of floods at a global scale. Medium confidence to high confidence in anthropogenic influence on changes in some components of the water cycle (precipitation, snowmelt) affecting floods. Extreme Sea Level and Coastal Impacts - Likely anthropogenic influence via mean sea level contributions. Other Physical Impacts - Likely anthropogenic influence on thawing of permafrost. Low confidence of other anthropogenic influences because of insufficient evidence for trends in other physical impacts in cold regions. So, the conclusions seem to range from likely to probably to possibly to "we just don't know", depending on which aspect you're interested in and whether you are looking at global or regional and the "don't know" answers all cite lack of evidence rather than evidence of lack. I do notice that nowhere is the conclusion: "No it doesn't". Also, that quote of yours talks about "losses", not effects: Losses is talking about money, not weather. That quote is referring to actual financial damage due to extreme weather events, not about whether the events themselves are or are not due to AGW. That is a critical difference.

Joking aside, stilldellin, the "return spacecraft" is actually quite a rare surviving example of an Allan-Williams turret:

Nah, don't flatter yourself, dratsy. You're just a sad, racist, troll.

Hmmm, no source for your IPCC quote. Could it be from the 2007 report? That's getting a little outdated now. Here's some up-to-date stuff: http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-game-with-loaded-dice_Postdam-Instittue.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Storm-Century-Decade_MIT.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Summary-of-Hansen-Nov-2011.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Events-Increase-With-Global-Warming.html https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/doping-atmosphere https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/extreme-weather-forensics Even US Republicans are starting to catch on: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/29/454476/a-message-from-a-republican-meteorologist-on-climate-change/ http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/28/454281/global-warming-sharply-increases-likelihood-of-outlandish-heat-waves/ http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/27/451545/connecting-dots-climate-extreme-weather-pbs-story-texas-drought/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120131/texas-heat-and-drought-caused-global-warming-climate-change-james-hansen-nasa-science-skeptics-oklahoma-moscow So, what was that you were saying about scientists saying extreme weather is not due to global warming? (Perhaps you need to spend some time on Skeptical Science.)

Some more UK specific analysis of the fossil fuel subsidy issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/21/environment-budget-2012-osborne-planning

Fine example of the underlying racism in Shetland. It was obviously a joke comment - for Gods sake grow up! So it's not racist if it's a joke?

Some honesty from The Herald would be appreciated as well. Yet another article which doesn't mention the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which were increased by another £3 billion in the budget. BTW, VE will happily answer any questions you might have, just e-mail them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-17505448 This isn't good. Edit: More details here: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/update_elgin/update_elgin.aspx

http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-K2-terminated-speaker-cable/dp/B000J36XR2/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332760564&sr=8-2-spell Read the reviews.

^^^^ A few tips: Get yourself a bow, sneak is your friend, brew poison for the bow, shoot and run don't stand and fight.

^^^^ Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Granted it's not as bad as coal (1/3 as much carbon) or oil (1/2 as much), but it's still not sustainable in the long term. I think the best way to use gas would be to convert current coal stations to burn it. I don't know if building new stations to burn gas which would have to be replaced with something else* 10-20 years down the line would be viable compared to simply building something else* in the first place. At best, it could buy us some time. * renewables or nuclear.

Ultimately, it needs to be reduced to zero. But that's not the whole story. In order to avoid dangerous climate change, we have to avoid triggering the feedbacks which will cause major releases of carbon from the natural carbon sinks like the ocean, tundra, forests, etc. Scientists have calculated that we can do this be restricting temperature rise to 2 degrees C by 2100. To meet that 2 degree target we need to stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 ppm. This means there is a hard limit on the total amount of CO2 we can dig up and chuck into the atmosphere. This limit is estimated to be around 570 Gt of carbon*. We have already emitted 300 Gt, so that leaves roughly 270 left to play with. Emissions in 2010 were 30 Gt and annual emissions are still rising year on year. So, as you can see, we don't have much room for manoeuvre. The longer we wait to start reducing emissions, the faster, more disruptive and more expensive that reduction will be. Or, if we don't start reducing, the faster, more disruptive and more expensive climate change will be. This is why I get annoyed with those who say we should go nuclear, or tidal because they will ultimately be cheaper/more efficient/less disruptive than wind. Both of them are at least 10 years from being able to make a significant difference. We don't have 10 years. We have to act now, with the technology we have now. Waiting for something better to come along is not an option. * figures from here. Note, this is quite an old article (2006), if anyone knows of something more recent, then please post a link.

^^^^ No luck at all, as you say. Which makes me wonder about your mains supply. Have you had any bother with other electronics? If your mains supply is a bit unstable, it could be affecting the TV's. It might be worth getting that checked. Just a thought.

I have never said that power bills will come down due to wind power. What I have said is that fossil fuel power will continue to increase in price until it is more expensive than wind. There is a difference. And which part of that is wrong, Crofter? Is God going to start billing us for using his wind? Maintenance and running costs mean just that, the cost of keeping the plant running and the cost of financing it's capital cost. Fossil fuel plants have the same costs. In addition they have to pay for fuel. Windfarms don't.

GT, that report was written by Bjorn Lomberg, a notorious denier nutcase who has been completely debunked many, many times. Whole books have been written about how wrong he is. Nothing he says is worth listening to. As far as the article itself goes, he's just setting up a field of strawmen then attacking it with a flamethrower. First he says windpower is not competitive, without mentioning fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that competitiveness with fossil fuels is irrelevant because we can't keep using fossil fuels anyway due to climate change. Then he completely ignores the fact that Britain's existing fossil fuel and nuclear infrastructure is nearing the end of it's useful life and needs replaced anyway, so billions will need to be spent on our power infrastructure in the next few decades anyway, instead, presenting renewables investment as money which we otherwise wouldn't have to spend. This is an outright lie. Then he looks at the CO2 savings from 31% wind in Britain over 20 years and compares it to total global CO2 emissions over the next century as if no other country was going to do anything, and grandly declares that it's insignificant. Of course it is, globally, but it's not insignificant on a UK scale. You see how he's spinning this? Lomberg has been preaching this same message for decades now: "It's not so bad", " No need to panic", "Nothing you can do can stop it anyway". It was rubbish when he first came up with it, it's still rubbish now. He then repeats the old fallacy about how sometimes the wind doesn't blow. That's why we don't just depend on wind, Bjorn. That's why we need solar, wave, tidal, nuclear and hydro with gas as a backup, you moron. Every piece of this article is deliberately spun to present wind in the worst light possible. It's a hit piece, written by an idiot. Ignore it.

No, those subsidies are paid to oil producers and they keep the global oil price down. It affects us as much as anyone as oil is traded on a global market. Think about it this way. A big chunk of the tax you pay on your fuel doesn't go to the government, it goes straight to the oil companies in the form of tax breaks and allowances I have never said that power bills will come down due to wind power. What I have said is that fossil fuel power will continue to increase in price until it is more expensive than wind. There is a difference.

$409 billion dollars in 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/nov/09/iea-energy-outlook-carbon-climate-change

My point is that the Mareel might make a profit, or it might require a small subsidy, we'll have to wait and see. While the leisure centres have never made a profit, never will make a profit and will always require a subsidy. Yet while people are queuing up to attack the Mareel before it has even opened, the Leisure centres get a free pass. Why is that?

I used to be a party animal, in the pubs 2-3 times a week throughout the nineties. I pretty much gave that up after 2001 though. It just got boring. Now you'll see me out maybe 3 or 4 times a year, if that.