On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:17:21 -0800 (PST) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

There's a big difference between being reliant on a STEADY AND
CONTINUOUS flow of gas that can be switched off at a moment notice
(think Ukraine) and cannot easily be stock piled for long term
security of supply

The Germans and a number of other people on the mainland manage to
store gas for a fair amount of time.

Are you comparing like for like? Space available for storage? Gas
usage?

What is "a fair amount of time"? Long enought to see them through a
major political crisis that results in the pipelines being shutdown
for weeks? Months?

MBQ

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:57:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The problem is that these things are woefully inadequate in terms of
the amount of energy generated for a given amount of environmental
impact.

The environmental impact of a wind farm is very low, despite the
desperate attempts of the antis to dredge up everything they can.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:08:50 -0800 (PST) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

Wind is already producing over 8% of electricity
in Scotland, it may be 9 or 10% by now.

Try achieving the same %age in England

The renewables figure for the whole of the UK is now something a
little under 5%. Given that there is little hydro electricity
outwith Scotland I think we can assume that a fair proportion of
that is wind.

with it's *much* higher population density

Population density in Scotland is rather more varied than in
England. However, the central belt of Scotland has a pretty high
population density compared to most of England and it has not been
an insurmountable barrier to the largest wind farm currently
operating in the UK (Black Law) or the largest one currently being
built (Whitelee, AKA Eaglesham Moor).

and there would be an outcry over the environmental impact.

The environmental impact of a wind farm is very limited. Some
concrete for the mast foundations, Macadamised roads, a substation.
That's about it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:14:02 -0800 (PST) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

The Germans and a number of other people on the mainland manage to
store gas for a fair amount of time.

Are you comparing like for like? Space available for storage? Gas
usage?

As near as one can compare such things. The difference was that the
party politicians had the will in Germany, while in the UK they put
their hands up and mouthed things like, "our policy is that we have
no policy" and "the market will provide."

What is "a fair amount of time"? Long enought to see them through a
major political crisis that results in the pipelines being shutdown
for weeks? Months?

IIRC somewhat more than one month, but probably not as much as three
months. Note the way gas prices shot up in the UK but not in many
other western European countries.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-11-26 15:27:03 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:57:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The problem is that these things are woefully inadequate in terms of
the amount of energy generated for a given amount of environmental
impact.

The environmental impact of a wind farm is very low, despite the
desperate attempts of the antis to dredge up everything they can.

The environmental impact of a wind farm is *not* very low. The
windmills are worse than having power pylons marching across the
countryside, and that's bad enough. In order to generate worthwhile
amounts of energy, vast numbers would be required and they would be
completely unacceptable environmentally. The environment does
include visual amenity.

Far better to do what M. Sarkozy is doing this week, and assisting Mme.
Lauvergeon with persuading the Chinese to have nuclear power stations
rather than coal ones. Even the idiot Brown has figured that one
out, although in his case, it's a diversion from his other troubles and
incompetences.

David Hansen wrote:
The environmental impact of a wind farm is very low, despite the
desperate attempts of the antis to dredge up everything they can.

Bird Strikes. Especially on big rare ones like eagles.

It rather looks as though the right places for them to avoid this is the
places where the wind is least!

Andy

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:26:59 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

David Hansen wrote:
The environmental impact of a wind farm is very low, despite the
desperate attempts of the antis to dredge up everything they can.

Bird Strikes. Especially on big rare ones like eagles.

Provided the wind farm is sited properly there are not mountains of
dead birds at the foot of the turbines. The RSPB has a fairly
sensible policy
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/polic...arms/index.asp


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:59:56 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

The environmental impact of a wind farm is very low, despite the
desperate attempts of the antis to dredge up everything they can.

The threat of a wind farm almost spelled the end of a (very small)
airfield near here, used mainly for parachuting and skydiving.

I note that you have failed to mention an environmental impact.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:08:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The environmental impact of a wind farm is *not* very low. The
windmills are worse than having power pylons marching across the
countryside, and that's bad enough. In order to generate worthwhile
amounts of energy, vast numbers would be required and they would be
completely unacceptable environmentally.

Ah, proof by assertion again.

The environment does include visual amenity.

And there we have it. No rational argument, but instead an argument
relating solely to appearance (no matter how it is dressed up). Glad
we have got there at last.

I like their visual appearance (and I have seen the largest wind
farm currently operating in the UK at Black Law), but opinions vary.
That is why surveys are carried out.
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/attitudes05-small.pdf is a
gathering of some of these surveys. There is a small (but loud)
minority against them.

I'm sure much the same sort of people objected to the "visual
intrusion" of hydro-electric stations and the associated
transmission lines in Scotland some decades ago. Very few people now
complain about them.






--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

Provided the wind farm is sited properly there are not mountains of
dead birds at the foot of the turbines. The RSPB has a fairly
sensible policy
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/polic...arms/index.asp


Nice link, thanks.

They've put in objections or concerns on about 200 applications. I
wonder what proportion of the total that is?

Andy

On 2007-11-27 08:33:12 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:08:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The environmental impact of a wind farm is *not* very low. The
windmills are worse than having power pylons marching across the
countryside, and that's bad enough. In order to generate worthwhile
amounts of energy, vast numbers would be required and they would be
completely unacceptable environmentally.

Ah, proof by assertion again.

Please list how many would be required and in which locations in order
to be able to generate 50% of the UK electricity demand.



The environment does include visual amenity.

And there we have it. No rational argument, but instead an argument
relating solely to appearance (no matter how it is dressed up). Glad
we have got there at last.

I like their visual appearance

Others don't.


(and I have seen the largest wind
farm currently operating in the UK at Black Law), but opinions vary.
That is why surveys are carried out.
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/attitudes05-small.pdf is a
gathering of some of these surveys. There is a small (but loud)
minority against them.

BWEA. Hmm.... that's an impartial source.......



I'm sure much the same sort of people objected to the "visual
intrusion" of hydro-electric stations and the associated
transmission lines in Scotland some decades ago. Very few people now
complain about them.

I expect that they are more concerned about other parts of the country now.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:06:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Please list how many would be required and in which locations in order
to be able to generate 50% of the UK electricity demand.

1) I don't recall suggesting generating 50% of the electricity from
onshore wind. Part of the reason for this is that, at current
prices, any more than around 20% would be increasingly expensive to
integrate with other sources of supply.

2) http://www.embracewind.com/myths.html

"Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the
British countryside

"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

3) I am not a builder of wind farms and neither am I in the planning
department of any UK council. Therefore the location of the 2000
additional turbines is not something I determine. However, I have
welcomed the one that is to be built in the area.

BWEA. Hmm.... that's an impartial source.......

Nice try. However, the evidence presented by the reports does not
just disappear because you type a few words. I note that you were
unwilling or unable to challenge the briefing sheet.

Those who read the briefing sheet will note the organisations who
had the surveys carried out. They will also find a link to the older
surveys at www.bwea.com/ref/surveys.html




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:08:51 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

They've put in objections or concerns on about 200 applications. I
wonder what proportion of the total that is?

I suspect not as high a proportion as some think. One could total up
the projects on http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp to get a figure,
I can't be bothered.

During my visit to Black Law the loudest noises to be heard normally
were those made by the birds and the lambs. People talking were
louder on occasion. Motor vehicles on the public road were rather
louder than any other noise. The birds were flying around happily
and there was no carpet of dead birds.

There have been a small number of cases where there have been
excessive numbers of bird deaths. The last I heard was one in
Norway, where there had been no problem with earlier phases but
there was with a late phase.

While the RSPB has a fairly sensible policy, that does not mean that
individual local activists do not mangle it for other reasons.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:08:51 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

They've put in objections or concerns on about 200 applications. I
wonder what proportion of the total that is?

I forgot to add that, given the planning systems in use in the UK,
the way to at least have one's voice heard is to make an objection.
In a number of cases these are holding objections which are made and
then withdrawn for a number of reasons.

Some further amplification:

http://www.embracewind.com/myths.html

"Myth: Wind farms kill birds

"Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms
and birds [13], that "in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any
major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms". Wind
farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. BWEA
members follow Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with
organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that
wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive
species or wildlife designated sites. Furthermore, a recent report
published in the journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat
to bird populations in the UK is climate change [14]."

http://www.bwea.com/pdf/wfd.pdf is the 2001 report by English
Nature, RSPB, WWF-UK and BWEA which looks at the issues in England
and provides what is in effect a checklist. There have been some
changes since then, but it is still worth looking at.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-11-28 08:57:29 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:06:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Please list how many would be required and in which locations in order
to be able to generate 50% of the UK electricity demand.

1) I don't recall suggesting generating 50% of the electricity from
onshore wind. Part of the reason for this is that, at current
prices, any more than around 20% would be increasingly expensive to
integrate with other sources of supply.

So what would need to be installed to achieve 20%.




2) http://www.embracewind.com/myths.html

Another disinterested source.




"Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the
British countryside

"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources.

Governments can go. Legislation can be changed.


Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

So to get to 20% would require 9000 of these eyesores.




3) I am not a builder of wind farms and neither am I in the planning
department of any UK council. Therefore the location of the 2000
additional turbines is not something I determine. However, I have
welcomed the one that is to be built in the area.

That's nice. Are you planning a little celebration for it so that it
feels at home?



BWEA. Hmm.... that's an impartial source.......

Nice try. However, the evidence presented by the reports does not
just disappear because you type a few words. I note that you were
unwilling or unable to challenge the briefing sheet.

There's no need. The information comes from a source that is not
disinterested and therefore cannot be taken at face value as presented.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:19:40 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-28 08:57:29 +0000, David Hansen
said:


"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources.

Governments can go.

With a bit of luck...

--
Frank Erskine

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:19:40 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

So to get to 20% would require 9000 of these eyesores.

It would require say 2500 of these fine looking machines onshore and
say 2000 offshore.

Nice try. However, the evidence presented by the reports does not
just disappear because you type a few words. I note that you were
unwilling or unable to challenge the briefing sheet.

There's no need. The information comes from a source that is not
disinterested and therefore cannot be taken at face value as presented.

Those who take the trouble to read the information offered will note
that the surveys were commissioned by a variety of organisations.
These include the Scottish Executive and part of the nuclear lobby
(the DTI). Should you wish to information is provided to enable you
to look up every survey.

Nice try.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote:
Thus spake Andy Hall ) unto the assembled multitudes:

Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

So to get to 20% would require 9000 of these eyesores.

It's funny how people throw up their hands in horror at the thought of wind
turbines becoming a common feature of the landscape, and yet in the 19th
century and before, the countryside would have been smothered in windmills.


A LOT smaller than todays monstrosities.

Anyway, 20% of three times too much is literally ****ing in the wind.

We NEED about three times the generation capacity to get fossil fuels
off the roads. So 100% of that 300% is say - 135,0000 windmills. One for
every 50 people in the country.

On 2007-11-29 09:07:50 +0000, said:

Thus spake Andy Hall ) unto the assembled multitudes:

Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

So to get to 20% would require 9000 of these eyesores.

It's funny how people throw up their hands in horror at the thought of wind
turbines becoming a common feature of the landscape, and yet in the 19th
century and before, the countryside would have been smothered in windmills.

The cities were smothered in chimnies belching all kinds of noxious
materials and we don't have that any more either.

Rather a difference between the small windmills used for agricultural
purposes and the huge ugly white things attempting to generate
electricity.

On 2007-11-29 08:26:49 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:19:40 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Wind power is
currently the most cost effective renewable energy source in a
position to help do that. Around 3,500 of additional modern wind
turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's
electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore."

So to get to 20% would require 9000 of these eyesores.

It would require say 2500 of these fine looking machines onshore and
say 2000 offshore.

Not according to your report. You may think that they are fine
looking. Others don't.



Nice try. However, the evidence presented by the reports does not
just disappear because you type a few words. I note that you were
unwilling or unable to challenge the briefing sheet.

There's no need. The information comes from a source that is not
disinterested and therefore cannot be taken at face value as presented.

Those who take the trouble to read the information offered will note
that the surveys were commissioned by a variety of organisations.
These include the Scottish Executive and part of the nuclear lobby
(the DTI). Should you wish to information is provided to enable you
to look up every survey.

Nice try.

Did it include surveys from other sources that would give a different
view? As a minimum there is the possibility of editorial conrol by
selection, so the source cannot be considered to be reliable.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:50:02 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It would require say 2500 of these fine looking machines onshore and
say 2000 offshore.

Not according to your report. You may think that they are fine
looking. Others don't.

Which report is it that I have produced? Does this report relate to
appearance or the output of wind turbines?

Did it include surveys from other sources that would give a different
view? As a minimum there is the possibility of editorial conrol by
selection, so the source cannot be considered to be reliable.

Should you wish to criticise the reports then feel free to study
them and give us some explicit counters. Until then your criticisms
can not really be taken seriously.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:44:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

We NEED about three times the generation capacity to get fossil fuels
off the roads. So 100% of that 300% is say - 135,0000 windmills. One for
every 50 people in the country.

A fascinating example of how to concoct figures.

Meanwhile those of us advocating sustainable generation are not
advocating generating all the electricity from onshore wind turbines
and thus your point is moot.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:24:38 +0000 Frank Erskine wrote :
"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources.

Governments can go.

With a bit of luck...

This 10% requirement is already in force in lots of councils,
referred to as the 'Merton Rule', after the London Borough that
devised it - a minority Conservative council. I've just had a long
talk this morning with one of our users who is grappling with this
in leafy Waverley, so don't expect a change of government to change
anything in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merton_Rule

The explanatory booklet referenced from the Waverley site is quite
upfront about costs and benefits. Solar water heating, £2-5K, saving
£100 p.a [assuming gas heating] (SAP2005). The installed cost of a
2m2 PV panel will be £9-18K (their figure), it would generate
1563kWh per year - say £180p.a. and it will last about 25 years.
Economic nonsense. If, as an alternative, you offered to install
triple glazed windows which would deliver save just as much energy,
your planning application would probably be rejected as you hadn't
shown the 10% renewable input.

My church's windows badly need replacing: putting in a different
design (but appropriate for the age of building) would enable us to
have double glazing which would cut our energy use significantly,
and the cost would probably be less than replicating what we have.
It's 99% certain that if we wanted to do the first, our planners
would fight us all the way. If it's stick with which to beat
developers, climate change is a great weapon. Otherwise do they
really care? Excuse the cynicism.


--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:44:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

We NEED about three times the generation capacity to get fossil fuels
off the roads. So 100% of that 300% is say - 135,0000 windmills. One for
every 50 people in the country.

A fascinating example of how to concoct figures.

Meanwhile those of us advocating sustainable generation are not
advocating generating all the electricity from onshore wind turbines
and thus your point is moot.


So where does the rest come from?

Not enough land for biofuel.
Not enough sun for solar.
Not enough estuaries for wave power.
Not enough volcanoes for geothermal.

What's left?
Fossil or nuclear. for the last 80%

ok so which is better.
Nuclear.

So why **** around with ugly windmills?

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:24:38 +0000 Frank Erskine wrote :
"Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of
electricity supply must come from renewable sources.
Governments can go.

With a bit of luck...

This 10% requirement is already in force in lots of councils,
referred to as the 'Merton Rule', after the London Borough that
devised it - a minority Conservative council. I've just had a long
talk this morning with one of our users who is grappling with this
in leafy Waverley, so don't expect a change of government to change
anything in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merton_Rule

The explanatory booklet referenced from the Waverley site is quite
upfront about costs and benefits. Solar water heating, �2-5K, saving
�100 p.a [assuming gas heating] (SAP2005). The installed cost of a
2m2 PV panel will be �9-18K (their figure), it would generate
1563kWh per year - say �180p.a. and it will last about 25 years.
Economic nonsense. If, as an alternative, you offered to install
triple glazed windows which would deliver save just as much energy,
your planning application would probably be rejected as you hadn't
shown the 10% renewable input.

My church's windows badly need replacing: putting in a different
design (but appropriate for the age of building) would enable us to
have double glazing which would cut our energy use significantly,
and the cost would probably be less than replicating what we have.
It's 99% certain that if we wanted to do the first, our planners
would fight us all the way. If it's stick with which to beat
developers, climate change is a great weapon. Otherwise do they
really care? Excuse the cynicism.


Indeed. As usual they have discovered a problem, then decided on the way
it's to be (seen to be) solved (the wrong way) and made that compulsory.

Less travel, more national Grid, better insulation and nuclear power
stations would reduce our Co2 emissions by 90%. With no appreciable
environmental impact aesthetic or otherwise.

Things that wont work a-

- hydrogen fuel
- hybrid cars
- bus lanes
- speed humps
- CFL lightbulbs
- Biofuel
- windmills

Strangely however by making us suffer with having to put up with all of
the above, they can tell us they are 'doing something'

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:33 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Less travel, more national Grid, better insulation and nuclear power
stations would reduce our Co2 emissions by 90%. With no appreciable
environmental impact aesthetic or otherwise.

Anything to back up this series of assertions?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:48:41 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Meanwhile those of us advocating sustainable generation are not
advocating generating all the electricity from onshore wind turbines
and thus your point is moot.

So where does the rest come from?

Not enough land for biofuel.
Not enough sun for solar.
Not enough estuaries for wave power.
Not enough volcanoes for geothermal.

What's left?
Fossil or nuclear. for the last 80%

You are again trying to pose a simplistic either or question, but
things are rather more complicated than that.

For example, wave generation would not be done in estuaries, it
would be done out at sea. You didn't mention tidal currents. There
is a long list of things.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:33 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Less travel, more national Grid, better insulation and nuclear power
stations would reduce our Co2 emissions by 90%. With no appreciable
environmental impact aesthetic or otherwise.

Anything to back up this series of assertions?


Tons of stuff posted last week.

Tell me ho YOU personally would reduce CO2 emissions by 90% and still
keep this country a viable industrial society with a population of 65M
or more.

The BEST your bloody windmills cando s 20% of around 40% of the total
CO2 burn (the electric generator burn part)

Great: Destroy the countryside for 8% reduction.
Typical.

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:48:41 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Meanwhile those of us advocating sustainable generation are not
advocating generating all the electricity from onshore wind turbines
and thus your point is moot.

So where does the rest come from?

Not enough land for biofuel.
Not enough sun for solar.
Not enough estuaries for wave power.
Not enough volcanoes for geothermal.

What's left?
Fossil or nuclear. for the last 80%

You are again trying to pose a simplistic either or question, but
things are rather more complicated than that.

For example, wave generation would not be done in estuaries, it
would be done out at sea. You didn't mention tidal currents. There
is a long list of things.



Out as sea? so block half the north sea with hufely expensive bobbing
platforms for a few megawatts? How to build them? what cost? how to get
the power ashore?


Insane. You don't have a clue, do you?


Do the maths. Do the numbers.stop listening to the 'well it works on a
small scale so it has to be The Answer' brigade.

The truth is there is NO answer at all.

Its a stark choice between a rapidly falling standard of living, climate
change out of control or nuclear power. Take your pick.

Other countries have slightly different alternatives: We don't.

On 2007-11-29 12:23:16 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:50:02 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It would require say 2500 of these fine looking machines onshore and
say 2000 offshore.

Not according to your report. You may think that they are fine
looking. Others don't.

Which report is it that I have produced? Does this report relate to
appearance or the output of wind turbines?

You tell me - or are you just making up the numbers?



Did it include surveys from other sources that would give a different
view? As a minimum there is the possibility of editorial conrol by
selection, so the source cannot be considered to be reliable.

Should you wish to criticise the reports then feel free to study
them and give us some explicit counters. Until then your criticisms
can not really be taken seriously.

Why do you imagine that your figures can, when they don't come from
disinterested sources?

On 2007-11-29 15:51:18 +0000, said:

Thus spake Andy Hall ) unto the assembled multitudes:

It would require say 2500 of these fine looking machines onshore and
say 2000 offshore.

Not according to your report. You may think that they are fine
looking. Others don't.

But not all others. I think they are fabulous. Form and function in
glorious harmony. We're hoping to erect one at this university. It'll
provide 20% of our electricity, with another 20% from our CHP plant which is
being installed as I speak.

All kinds of things are done at universities that are not scalable or
suitable for the real world.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Things that wont work a-

- hydrogen fuel
- hybrid cars
- bus lanes
- speed humps
- CFL lightbulbs
- Biofuel
- windmills


Might as well collect farts.

Hello Hansen !

Strangely however by making us suffer with having to put up with all of
the above, they can tell us they are 'doing something'

Exactly, but we have nobody else to blame for that.

DG

wrote:
But not all others. I think they are fabulous. Form and function in
glorious harmony. We're hoping to erect one at this university. It'll
provide 20% of our electricity, with another 20% from our CHP plant which is
being installed as I speak.

I'm not convinced about the windmills, but for a place like Sussex, CHP
is definitely a good idea. Why only 20%?

It always bothers me that we throw away our aircon exhaust - couldn't we
blow it into the houses next door?

Andy

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:07:37 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

wrote:
But not all others. I think they are fabulous. Form and function in
glorious harmony. We're hoping to erect one at this university. It'll
provide 20% of our electricity, with another 20% from our CHP plant which is
being installed as I speak.

I'm not convinced about the windmills, but for a place like Sussex, CHP
is definitely a good idea. Why only 20%?

It always bothers me that we throw away our aircon exhaust - couldn't we
blow it into the houses next door?

Almost certainly - but at what price, both financially and
ecologically?

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:05:47 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Anything to back up this series of assertions?

Tons of stuff posted last week.

I don't recall anything convincing.

Tell me ho YOU personally would reduce CO2 emissions by 90% and still
keep this country a viable industrial society with a population of 65M
or more.

You are trying to pose a simple question and get a simple answer,
but reality is a lot more complicated.

I, along with many others, am calling for three things:

1) reduce emissions every year so the UK reaches a target of at
least 80% cuts by 2050;

2) include annual milestones and progress reports so politicians
can't blame preceding Governments for missing targets; and

3) include international aviation & shipping emissions

There is no simplistic answer to how this could be done. This is not
a sound bite subject.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:46:23 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

All kinds of things are done at universities that are not scalable or
suitable for the real world.

That is true. However, the first commercial wind farm in the UK was
opened in 1991 http://www.good-energy.co.uk/gyo_ppa_case_delabole
and thus we know how they work "in the real world".


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:44:36 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
wrote this:-

In response to the other poster, he is probably right about scalability
where wind power is concerned,

Why?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:15:02 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Out as sea? so block half the north sea with hufely expensive bobbing
platforms for a few megawatts?

http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html gives some actual figures for
one system, which readers may compare with your assertions.

How to build them?

Not a problem. They are built in a variety of places, including
http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/s...energypark.htm

what cost?

A matter for those involved. At the moment there is some government
support, though nothing like the amount of money poured into the
bottomless nuclear pit.

You didn't ask how they are got into position. The answer is that
they float and can be towed into position. There is a photo of one
being towed on the first link.

how to get the power ashore?

By cable.

Insane. You don't have a clue, do you?

Readers may judge the veracity of this assertion for themselves.

Do the maths. Do the numbers.stop listening to the 'well it works on a
small scale so it has to be The Answer' brigade.

In order to make these assertions you appear to believe that you can
read my mind.

The truth is there is NO answer at all.

I have stated several times that there is no one answer.

Its a stark choice between a rapidly falling standard of living, climate
change out of control or nuclear power. Take your pick.

Fascinating. Having asserted that there is no answer, you offer a
single simplistic answer. Truly fascinating.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2007-11-30 09:06:33 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:46:23 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

All kinds of things are done at universities that are not scalable or
suitable for the real world.

That is true. However, the first commercial wind farm in the UK was
opened in 1991 http://www.good-energy.co.uk/gyo_ppa_case_delabole
and thus we know how they work "in the real world".

... or don't.

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:05:47 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Anything to back up this series of assertions?

Tons of stuff posted last week.

I don't recall anything convincing.

Tell me ho YOU personally would reduce CO2 emissions by 90% and still
keep this country a viable industrial society with a population of 65M
or more.

You are trying to pose a simple question and get a simple answer,
but reality is a lot more complicated.

I, along with many others, am calling for three things:

1) reduce emissions every year so the UK reaches a target of at
least 80% cuts by 2050;

2) include annual milestones and progress reports so politicians
can't blame preceding Governments for missing targets; and

3) include international aviation & shipping emissions

There is no simplistic answer to how this could be done. This is not
a sound bite subject.



No, but you can eliminate all the avenues that will NOT provide the
above fairly quickly. That includes windmills.

If you do that you are left - as far as the UK is concerned, with just
one existing viable technology.