I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).

http://www.ppdlw.org/articles/wind_t...al_tourism.pdf

"Heading the list of things that most detracted from a visit to the
country were electricity pylons and mobile phone masts followed
closely by wind turbines and telephone poles. (It is not clear if
respondents were aware, when questioned, of the height of wind
turbines.)"

I don't agree with everything written in these links, but some of the
pictures from both sites taken together as putative before and after
do make the eyesore point quite well:
http://www.hbp.org.uk/
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons

With respect to the Scottish landscape, it's irrational to complain
about wind turbines and have no complaint about pylons.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:41:44 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

For example, he moans about the wind turbines on the landscapes he
drives through, but is apparently blind to the pylons, which almost
certainly outnumber the turbines by hundreds or thousands to one. A
turbine is only an eyesore, if you consider it such, I don't really,
at the point of installation. Pylons, in contrast, are all over the
Highlands & Islands, and are a much greater collective eyesore, yet
none of the anti-wind brigade ever complain about them.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

With respect to the Scottish landscape, it's irrational to complain
about wind turbines and have no complaint about pylons.

Um, not completely. I would agree that pylons are a visual blight that
we've all gotten used to BUT they aren't concentrated on hilltops and high
moors like windmills are and certainly aren't anything like as visible at a
distance. More often than not pylons run through valleys reducing their
visual impact enormously.

Tim

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).



Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed. I doubt that even one 400 kV twin wired line would
be pushed to carry their output!..

http://www.ppdlw.org/articles/wind_t...al_tourism.pdf

"Heading the list of things that most detracted from a visit to the
country were electricity pylons and mobile phone masts followed
closely by wind turbines and telephone poles. (It is not clear if
respondents were aware, when questioned, of the height of wind
turbines.)"

Well I bet they'd all moan the more if their mobiles didn't work and
they had to use candles to see by etc..

I don't agree with everything written in these links, but some of the
pictures from both sites taken together as putative before and after
do make the eyesore point quite well:
http://www.hbp.org.uk/
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons

With respect to the Scottish landscape, it's irrational to complain
about wind turbines and have no complaint about pylons.

Well if the stupid idiot government would see sense about these idiotic
things and get on with building a few more Nuclear stations then we
wouldn't need them..

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:41:44 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

For example, he moans about the wind turbines on the landscapes he
drives through, but is apparently blind to the pylons, which almost
certainly outnumber the turbines by hundreds or thousands to one. A
turbine is only an eyesore, if you consider it such, I don't really,
at the point of installation. Pylons, in contrast, are all over the
Highlands & Islands, and are a much greater collective eyesore, yet
none of the anti-wind brigade ever complain about them.

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:53 +0100, "Tim+"
wrote:

Um, not completely. I would agree that pylons are a visual blight that
we've all gotten used to

The tourists who responded to the survey agreed with me rather than
you in placing them higher than turbines as a detractions from the
view.

BUT they aren't concentrated on hilltops and high
moors like windmills are

They frequently cross and blight otherwise relatively unspoilt wild
skylines.

and certainly aren't anything like as visible at a
distance.

It depends where they are.

More often than not pylons run through valleys reducing their
visual impact enormously.

Only sometimes true, and anyway the valleys and glens are mostly where
people live, so residents and visitors still have to put up with the
eyesore.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:53 +0100, "Tim+"
wrote:

Um, not completely. I would agree that pylons are a visual blight
that we've all gotten used to

The tourists who responded to the survey agreed with me rather than
you in placing them higher than turbines as a detractions from the
view.

Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.


BUT they aren't concentrated on hilltops and high
moors like windmills are

They frequently cross and blight otherwise relatively unspoilt wild
skylines.

Which just goes to show that two blights *do* make a wrong.


and certainly aren't anything like as visible at a
distance.

It depends where they are.

Again true.

More often than not pylons run through valleys reducing their
visual impact enormously.

Only sometimes true, and anyway the valleys and glens are mostly where
people live, so residents and visitors still have to put up with the
eyesore.

I'm no fan of pylons but I accept their necesssity. I *like* reliable
affordable electricity. Without subsidies, windfarms wouldn't exist and
they do not provide secure or affordable power. As we *don't* need them,
it's perfectly reasonable to rail against windmills but not agains pylons
(which we do need).

Tim

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:14:39 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed.

Not a meaningful sentence, but I think I can guess at the sort of
irrelevant thing you were trying to say.

Well I bet they'd all moan the more if their mobiles didn't work and
they had to use candles to see by etc..

Perhaps, but the point at issue is that the survey showed that pylons
are considered at least an equal blight on the landscape as wind
turbines, yet are usually ignored when people complain about wind
turbines being a blight.

Well if the stupid idiot government would see sense about these idiotic
things and get on with building a few more Nuclear stations then we
wouldn't need them..

That's just the sort of irrationality to which I refer. The means of
generation is irrelevant to the blight caused by pylons - whatever
the generating source, we'd still need a means of distributing the
electricity, so we'd either still have pylons, which are at least a
great a blight as wind turbines, or would have to pay to bury the
cables instead.

Oh, and BTW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom
"However The Times reported the cost of building each EPR reactor had
increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not regard as
commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of 16.6p/kWh for
private-sector financed reactors."

.... in a little more detail ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8470XC20120508
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear
developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to
7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year.

"If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the
UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told
Reuters. Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most
expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore
wind, he said. "The only way they could be built is if the
construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer," Atherton said,
equating to a multi-billion pound government insurance policy.

EDF's Flamanville reactor, which is under construction in France, is
running four years late and at least double its original budget."

Note: The figure of £7bn does not include the costs of
decommissioning at end-of-life and handling waste; it is unclear
whether or not the 16.6p/kWh unit cost of electricity does so.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:09 +0100, "Tim+"
wrote:

Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

Which just goes to show that two blights *do* make a wrong.

:-)

I'm no fan of pylons but I accept their necesssity. I *like* reliable
affordable electricity.

So do I. I'm just pointing out that to criticise wind turbines for
being a blight on the landscape but not to complain about the much
larger number of pylons is nothing more or less than bias, pure and
simple.

Without subsidies, windfarms wouldn't exist and
they do not provide secure or affordable power.

Without subsidies, and being an offshoot of the nuclear arms race,
nuclear power certainly would never have come about. Without
subsidies, no new nuclear power stations are likely to be built in
this country, see the projected costs given in my reply to Tony.

As we *don't* need them,
it's perfectly reasonable to rail against windmills but not agains pylons
(which we do need).

But it's only your opinion that we don't need wind turbines and do
need pylons, and, although it's an opinion widely shared within this
group, it's perhaps not as widely shared elsewhere, and even if it is,
it's still only an opinion.

All I'm trying to point out that this complaint about wind turbines
being a blight on the landscape is one of several common examples of
bias both within this ng and the wider media when discussing such
issues.

It seems that when discussing power generation, the mortar boards are
cast aside and replaced by the pointed hats and druidic robes. Here
are some more examples that spring to mind:

Pejorative terms like NIMBY are applied to those who are anti nuclear
power or shale gas, but not to those who are anti wind turbines.

Wind turbines are widely criticised for being heavily subsidised, but
it is equally widely ignored that the nuclear generating industry has
gobbled up more than half of the world subsidies to the power
generating industry to date (note: when I last checked this link
thoroughly and extended Table 1 as below, there appeared to be
summation errors in it, nevertheless the overall point stood and still
stands that fission has gobbled up half the total R&D subsidies known
to IEA, equalling all the other areas, including fusion, added
together):

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html

Table 1 (extended with summation errors corrected, and this will wrap
of course - you'll have c'n'p into Notepad or equivalent and replace
any spurious newlines by tabs)
Year 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total
Percent
Consvn 333 955 725 510 1240 1497 1075 6335 9.74%
Fossils 587 2564 1510 1793 1050 612 1007 9123 14.02%
Renews 208 1914 843 563 809 773 1113 6223 9.56%
Fission 4808 6794 6575 4199 3616 3406 3168 32566
50.04%
Fusion 597 1221 1470 1055 1120 893 715 7071 10.87%
Other 893 1160 787 916 3756 5.77%
Total 7426 14608 11910 9036 7835 7181 7078 65074
100.00%

Another point about subsidies that is widely overlooked is that
generations indefinitely (for all practical purposes) into the future
will have to bear the cost of managing, storing, and guarding (against
potential terrorist attack) nuclear waste, but, unlike us creating the
waste now, will have zero benefit from so doing. In effect it is
being demanded of the future, without being given any say in the
matter, that it should subsidise the present. This too is never
mentioned when subsidies to wind generation are criticised.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:09 +0100, "Tim+"
wrote:
Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

Cost and appearance. And safety, as underground cables are much less
likely to be damaged than overhead ones when there is a of of traffic.

Cables aren't always buried in town, either. I know of many towns in
France, and not a few large villages in the UK where power is run in to
the houses from poles set at the side of the road.

I'm no fan of pylons but I accept their necesssity. I *like* reliable
affordable electricity.

So do I. I'm just pointing out that to criticise wind turbines for
being a blight on the landscape but not to complain about the much
larger number of pylons is nothing more or less than bias, pure and
simple.

Pylons are a passive part of the landscape, in a way like trees or even
large fenceposts. My brain can easily almost "tune them out" of the
scene. Wind turbines are an active part of the landscape, as they should
be moving at all times. My brain is constantly forced by this motion to
notice them and keeps trying to ignore them.

As we *don't* need them,
it's perfectly reasonable to rail against windmills but not agains pylons
(which we do need).

But it's only your opinion that we don't need wind turbines and do
need pylons, and, although it's an opinion widely shared within this
group, it's perhaps not as widely shared elsewhere, and even if it is,
it's still only an opinion.

So you'd like to do away with pylons and replace them with wind turbines?

Or would you like to do away with both?

All I'm trying to point out that this complaint about wind turbines
being a blight on the landscape is one of several common examples of
bias both within this ng and the wider media when discussing such
issues.

So, which would you rather have? The minimum number of pylons necessary
to transport energy from a small number of centralised power stations,
or a much larger number to transmit power from many small, unreliable
sources of electricity, as well as the ones needed to transport power
from the back-up energy sources and the wind turbines themselves? Either
way, the wind turbine alternative ruins far more skylines and countryside.

It seems that when discussing power generation, the mortar boards are
cast aside and replaced by the pointed hats and druidic robes. Here
are some more examples that spring to mind:

Pejorative terms like NIMBY are applied to those who are anti nuclear
power or shale gas, but not to those who are anti wind turbines.

Speak for yourself. They're *all* NIMBYs as far as I'm concerned, as are
those who want HS2 and wanted HS1 to run along routes away from their
homes. They don't care *where* they go, other than it must be far away
from their back yard.

Snip anti-nuclear rant


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:19 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:29:45 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

[Some dribbling **** that's killfiled here]

Well obviously it can't be, because otherwise you wouldn't have
replied to it.

Oh look JavaJive who claimed to have kill filed me replies to my post in
order to claim someone else hasn't kill filed him.

Still, the greenwash Nimby proved that David was right by ignoring the
information that he didn't want to see.

As I'm not a 'greenwash Nimby' (sic),

Oh yes you are (veri sic).

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 22/08/2013 10:21, Jim K wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:25:37 PM UTC+1, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%

29.aspx


erm....

"......... there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: snip potassium chloride (intravenous drips),snip"

where do you keep yours?

Jim K

I keep mine in the kitchen cupboard - Lo-Salt is 1/3 Sodium Chloride,
2/3 Potassium Chloride.

SteveW

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:09:02 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

Cost and appearance. And safety, as underground cables are much less
likely to be damaged than overhead ones when there is a of of traffic.

Or when there is a lot of snow:
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/2189...ylons-toppled/
If they'd buried it all in the first place, we'd've been reaping the
benefits ever since of having more reliable supplies in winter. Taking
into account all those costs since, perhaps it might even have been
cheaper in the long run.

Pylons are a passive part of the landscape, in a way like trees or even
large fenceposts. My brain can easily almost "tune them out" of the
scene.

If that's really true, I don't think you should assume that anyone
else has that happy facility - certainly I do not.

Wind turbines are an active part of the landscape, as they should
be moving at all times. My brain is constantly forced by this motion to
notice them and keeps trying to ignore them.

Both are equally visible, and equally noticeable, from my house.

So you'd like to do away with pylons and replace them with wind turbines?

No. And as you don't appear to have a substantive rebuttal of what I
have actually said, I have to presume that you are instead trying to
put words into my mouth that you think you can rebut.

I am merely pointing out ... oh, hold on, you've left it quoted ...

All I'm trying to point out that this complaint about wind turbines
being a blight on the landscape is one of several common examples of
bias both within this ng and the wider media when discussing such
issues.

So, which would you rather have?

An intelligent unbiased discussion.

It seems that when discussing power generation, the mortar boards are
cast aside and replaced by the pointed hats and druidic robes. Here
are some more examples that spring to mind:

Pejorative terms like NIMBY are applied to those who are anti nuclear
power or shale gas, but not to those who are anti wind turbines.

Speak for yourself.

I always do, or hadn't you noticed ?-)

They're *all* NIMBYs as far as I'm concerned, as are
those who want HS2 and wanted HS1 to run along routes away from their
homes. They don't care *where* they go, other than it must be far away
from their back yard.

In any issue like this, there are always TWO sides, BOTH of which have
merit. One is, as the saying has it: "You can't halt progress!", but
the other is that if the majority hoping to benefit from a proposed
development truly want that development, then they should be prepared
to pay a reasonable compensation to those whose lives would be
blighted by it.

Suppose you've sunk your entire life's savings into a property in a
quiet nook of the world, and then five years later someone comes along
and says: "Sorry, chum, but there's going to be a railway (or
motorway, or wind-farm, or whatever) right outside your front door!",
then you'd expect to be compensated sufficiently to enable you to go
and find another quiet nook to live out your days. That doesn't
strike me as being an unreasonable position. A property to live in is
the biggest single investment that most people make. It's only fair
that they should be compensated if their property is going to be
significantly devalued in the name of progress.

Snip anti-nuclear rant

Except that it wasn't a rant, and only 'anti-nuclear' to the extent of
pointing out some facts about nuclear power that are habitually
'overlooked' as part of the general bias in this ng.

If it was anti anything, it was anti bias.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:41:45 PM UTC+1, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:09 +0100, "Tim+"

wrote:



Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

At a first guess - the land is more expensive in cities and distances shorter, so it makes more sense to bury the cables. You could get quite a substantial house into the footprint of a 400kV pylon. In addition, I suspect there may be fewer complaints of electric / magnetic field induced illnesses when the wires are out of sight...
In fact there are pylons - and quite a bit of lower voltage distribution - coming a fair way into many cities and towns.
For example, this one is in Mitcham, which while not exactly central London, isn't exactly rural either.
http://goo.gl/maps/mkZLj

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , The Other Mike
scribeth thus
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

And, of course, add to this that pylons are spindly and what ? 60 feet
tall
maybe ?

Over 130 feet for a typical 400 kV pylon. Nearer 100ft in rural areas.
Slightly lower profile towers have been used more recently.

Ground clearance is a minimum of 25ft at 400kV and nearer 40ft in most
cases

The tallest UK towers are the ones across the Thames and the Severn 623ft
&
488ft respectively.

Some pics here

http://www.timbouckley.com/news/?cat=19

http://www.gorge.org/pylons/structure.shtml




You couldn't make this one up;!...

http://s202.photobucket.com/user/Pag...ylons.gif.html
--
Tony Sayer

Interesting one here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudders...ow_Canal_Pylon

On 22/08/2013 18:36, wrote:
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:41:45 PM UTC+1, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:09 +0100, "Tim+"

wrote:



Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

At a first guess - the land is more expensive in cities and distances shorter, so it makes more sense to bury the cables. You could get quite a substantial house into the footprint of a 400kV pylon. In addition, I suspect there may be fewer complaints of electric / magnetic field induced illnesses when the wires are out of sight...
In fact there are pylons - and quite a bit of lower voltage distribution - coming a fair way into many cities and towns.
For example, this one is in Mitcham, which while not exactly central London, isn't exactly rural either.
http://goo.gl/maps/mkZLj

The buzzing of high voltage overhead lines in damp weather is also going
to affect far fewer people than a line strung over a densely populated town.

SteveW

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:09 +0100, "Tim+"
wrote:

Whatever they might have said, pylons are a *necessary* evil. There's
not
an economic alernative if you want affordable electricity in your home.

They bury the cables in the towns and cities, why not in the
countryside?

Which just goes to show that two blights *do* make a wrong.

:-)

I'm no fan of pylons but I accept their necesssity. I *like* reliable
affordable electricity.

So do I. I'm just pointing out that to criticise wind turbines for
being a blight on the landscape but not to complain about the much
larger number of pylons is nothing more or less than bias, pure and
simple.

Without subsidies, windfarms wouldn't exist and
they do not provide secure or affordable power.

Without subsidies, and being an offshoot of the nuclear arms race,
nuclear power certainly would never have come about. Without
subsidies, no new nuclear power stations are likely to be built in
this country, see the projected costs given in my reply to Tony.

As we *don't* need them,
it's perfectly reasonable to rail against windmills but not agains pylons
(which we do need).

But it's only your opinion that we don't need wind turbines and do
need pylons, and, although it's an opinion widely shared within this
group, it's perhaps not as widely shared elsewhere, and even if it is,
it's still only an opinion.

All I'm trying to point out that this complaint about wind turbines
being a blight on the landscape is one of several common examples of
bias both within this ng and the wider media when discussing such
issues.

It seems that when discussing power generation, the mortar boards are
cast aside and replaced by the pointed hats and druidic robes. Here
are some more examples that spring to mind:

Pejorative terms like NIMBY are applied to those who are anti nuclear
power or shale gas, but not to those who are anti wind turbines.

Wind turbines are widely criticised for being heavily subsidised, but
it is equally widely ignored that the nuclear generating industry has
gobbled up more than half of the world subsidies to the power
generating industry to date (note: when I last checked this link
thoroughly and extended Table 1 as below, there appeared to be
summation errors in it, nevertheless the overall point stood and still
stands that fission has gobbled up half the total R&D subsidies known
to IEA, equalling all the other areas, including fusion, added
together):

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html

Table 1 (extended with summation errors corrected, and this will wrap
of course - you'll have c'n'p into Notepad or equivalent and replace
any spurious newlines by tabs)
Year 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total
Percent
Consvn 333 955 725 510 1240 1497 1075 6335 9.74%
Fossils 587 2564 1510 1793 1050 612 1007 9123 14.02%
Renews 208 1914 843 563 809 773 1113 6223 9.56%
Fission 4808 6794 6575 4199 3616 3406 3168 32566
50.04%
Fusion 597 1221 1470 1055 1120 893 715 7071 10.87%
Other 893 1160 787 916 3756 5.77%
Total 7426 14608 11910 9036 7835 7181 7078 65074
100.00%

Another point about subsidies that is widely overlooked is that
generations indefinitely (for all practical purposes) into the future
will have to bear the cost of managing, storing, and guarding (against
potential terrorist attack) nuclear waste, but, unlike us creating the
waste now, will have zero benefit from so doing. In effect it is
being demanded of the future, without being given any say in the
matter, that it should subsidise the present. This too is never
mentioned when subsidies to wind generation are criticised.


You are excatly correct.
Most of the people here are too thick to see it.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).



Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed. I doubt that even one 400 kV twin wired line would
be pushed to carry their output!..

So what do you suppose this is about then?
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons

"Jim K" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:25:37 PM UTC+1, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%

29.aspx


erm....

"......... there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your
kitchen, garage or bathroom: snip potassium chloride (intravenous
drips),snip"

where do you keep yours?


Would you want any of them in your drinking water?

"Artic" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
Arfa Daily scribbled...


"Artic" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
harryagain scribbled...


"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

No doubt it will be ignored by the greenwash NIMBYs.

Cheers

Dave R

So how come a fellow with qualifications in zoology and in charge of
Northern Rock when it went bust is suddenly an expert in fracking?

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

Just another ignorant journalist now.


He's a ****. Anti-government, but sits in the Lords.
Born with a gold spoon up his arse and thinks he knows how to make the
poor richer by allowing a free market.


Remind me again ... Which charm school was it that you went to ... ?

Arfa


John Precott's in 'ull


Ah ! Did you take the full module on how to respond to egg throwing
incidents ? :-)

Arfa

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:49:03 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons.

People who do not live where?

Where the biassed writer (of the original article linked up thread)
drove, part of which is here near where I live - I drive some of
that route weekly for my shopping.

Irrationally? That's merely your opinion. I don't find it irrational to
prefer one thing rather than another. Given the choice, I'd rather have
a pylon within view that a wind turbine. At least the former is doing
something useful.

It's not just *one* pylon to be preferred over a single turbine, but a
whole line of them right across your view, and right up the next glen,
and the one after that. In terms of impact on the landscape, pylons
outnumber wind-turbines *many times* to one. To complain about a
wind-turbine and not have anything to say about many times more pylons
is irrational bias.

FACT: as I write this, our wind fleet is producing 0.3GW. That's a
shortfall of some 3.7GW, assuming the fleet is rated at 4GW (a shortfall
of 4.7 is you assume 5).

Since every pronouncement from wind proponents says that this or that
new addition to the wind fleet will produce enough power for x number of
homes, and since those x homes need power 7x24, it seems reasonable to
expect that the wind fleet produce power 7x24, at the rated output.
That's what we, the public, have been sold.

Fascinating to others perhaps, but completely irrelevant here as I'm
not arguing about how effective or otherwise wind-turbines are, or
even could potentially be, but what is their impact on the landscape
compared with many times more pylons.

Any shortfall, therefore, should result in a rebate and questions asked,
f'rinstance as to why wind appears unable to emulate good reliable old
nuclear, which *has* been producing over 9GW for some considerable time
now, day in, day out.

Again, not relevant to the point I was making, but see the costs for
nuclear power that I posted in reply to Tony.

Perhaps Java Jive could tell us where the country should apply to for
its rebate due to apparent unreliability of wind generation.

Me? This is your irrelevant aside, not mine.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:59:03 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

and a line of pylons in the Highland of Scotland shows how puny
are
man's works.

They appear to be trying to take over like the tripods from War
of
the Worlds along the southern end of the M74. Ruin the landscape.

Alongside the road is the only viable route in that area and was
chosen
to minimise the visual impact. The line was restrung ...

Sorry I wasn't clear, the War of the Worlds tripods taking over
should have been refering to the thousands of windmills that have
sprouted up in that area in the last 5 years or so.

You barely notice the plylons. Just recently half the the 400 kV line
from Carlisle south to Lancaster/Preston has been restrung, nice
bright shiny cables and clean glass insulators. Don't half show how
mucky the other half of the line is!

Then they put the turbines on the nearby hilltops for quite a distance
along it.

Almost flaming anywhere they could, the windmills have completely
ruined the landscape.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:04:41 +0100, The Other Mike wrote:

They are arcing horns and are fitted so any arcing from overvoltage that
occurs takes place across them and not across the porcelain insulators.

And you don't want the arc tracking along the insulator as it will
leave a mark/deposit that will encourage further arcing and/or
leakage along that path. Eventually the insulator will fail.

One of the ones at the top of "our" pole did that a few years back.
Every time they tried to restore power the insulator would breakdown,
arc across and trip the line. We just happened to be outside when
they tried a power restore and noticed, rang the DNO who passed the
message on. The guys that came to replace it where quite pleased as
they where having problems finding it though they had narrowed it
down to our spur or the segment of line that our spur leaves.

Got the impression they where using some form of ground
current/voltage test equipment that they moved between restore
attempts and noted the readings, higher the ground voltage/current
the closer they are to the fault, I think. Any body know?

--
Cheers
Dave.

snip)

It's not just *one* pylon to be preferred over a single turbine, but a
whole line of them right across your view, and right up the next glen,
and the one after that. In terms of impact on the landscape, pylons
outnumber wind-turbines *many times* to one. To complain about a
wind-turbine and not have anything to say about many times more pylons
is irrational bias.
snip

One thing everyone seems to have missed.

You can cure the problem of pylons by burying the power lines.

However, with wind turbines....oh, hang on....

Ground clearance is a minimum of 25ft at 400kV and nearer 40ft in most
cases

The tallest UK towers are the ones across the Thames and the Severn 623ft
&
488ft respectively.

Some pics here

http://www.timbouckley.com/news/?cat=19

http://www.gorge.org/pylons/structure.shtml




You couldn't make this one up;!...

http://s202.photobucket.com/user/Pag...ylons.gif.html
--
Tony Sayer

Interesting one here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudders...ow_Canal_Pylon



Its a wonder this one hasn't got some domesticated climbing plants to
help disguise it a bit;!...


http://goo.gl/maps/QhfjI
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:14:39 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed.

Not a meaningful sentence, but I think I can guess at the sort of
irrelevant thing you were trying to say.

Well it wasn't a structured a question if you look at it again..


Well I bet they'd all moan the more if their mobiles didn't work and
they had to use candles to see by etc..

Perhaps, but the point at issue is that the survey showed that pylons
are considered at least an equal blight on the landscape as wind
turbines, yet are usually ignored when people complain about wind
turbines being a blight.

Pylons do something useful like cart power from where its generated to
where its needed .. Windymills OTOH are a useless waste of money and
energy for what they produce all of .63 MW at the moment..
...

Well if the stupid idiot government would see sense about these idiotic
things and get on with building a few more Nuclear stations then we
wouldn't need them..

That's just the sort of irrationality to which I refer.

Ah! Yes I'd forgotten you aren't that in favour of Nuclear are you?..

The means of
generation is irrelevant to the blight caused by pylons - whatever
the generating source, we'd still need a means of distributing the
electricity, so we'd either still have pylons, which are at least a
great a blight as wind turbines, or would have to pay to bury the
cables instead.

And see the power bills hit unprecedented heights of course..


Oh, and BTW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom
"However The Times reported the cost of building each EPR reactor had
increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not regard as
commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of 16.6p/kWh for
private-sector financed reactors."

... in a little more detail ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...r-britain-edf-
idUKBRE8470XC20120508
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear
developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to
7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year.

And the longer we wait the more they'll cost..

"If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the
UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told
Reuters. Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most
expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore
wind, he said. "The only way they could be built is if the
construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer," Atherton said,
equating to a multi-billion pound government insurance policy.

EDF's Flamanville reactor, which is under construction in France, is
running four years late and at least double its original budget."

Note: The figure of £7bn does not include the costs of
decommissioning at end-of-life and handling waste; it is unclear
whether or not the 16.6p/kWh unit cost of electricity does so.

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:37:37 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

It's not just *one* pylon to be preferred over a single turbine, but a
whole line of them right across your view, and right up the next glen,
and the one after that. In terms of impact on the landscape, pylons
outnumber wind-turbines *many times* to one.

I think you need to take a trip down to Carlisle along the M74. There
is a 400 kV line running along there but you won't notice the pylon
every half mile or so tucked away in the valley bottom as there will
be tens of windmills in view, along the ridge line, waving blades
over the horizon or in full view on nearer hills.

Given the choice between a row of well spaced, static, grey, mostly
low down pylons or a veritable forest of great white moving things on
the hill tops I know which I'd prefer.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).



Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed. I doubt that even one 400 kV twin wired line would
be pushed to carry their output!..

So what do you suppose this is about then?
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons


Thats a dual circuit 400 kV transmission line..

As referred to above..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:49:23 +0100, The Other Mike wrote:

And, of course, add to this that pylons are spindly and what ? 60
feet
tall maybe ?

Over 130 feet for a typical 400 kV pylon. Nearer 100ft in rural
areas.

Very crap and variable conversion from m to ft there - 50m & 46.5m

*Over 160 feet for a typical 400 kV pylon. Nearer 150ft in rural
areas.*

Oh good I didn't think my guesstimate last night was that far out and
is actaully reasonably close.

Ground clearance is a minimum of 25ft at 400kV and nearer 40ft in
most
cases

*Conductor* ground clearance (it sags!)

25 foot conductor to ground seems *awfully* low. A vehicle can be up
to 16 foot high stand on top of it and you are only 3' from the
line... OK most vehicles are only 13' high but that only leaves 6'
for some one stood on top. Less than half the insulator length,
hum...

Are we mixing up feet and metres again? Minimum of 25 m would fit
better with the sag on the 400 kV line that follows the M74/M6.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20/08/2013 18:25, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

No doubt it will be ignored by the greenwash NIMBYs.

It'll be ignored because it's a blog...

.... by someone who is really really sure it'll all be OK really.

He was the chairman of Northern Rock for 3 years. Guess how that ended up.

(hint, it wasn't OK really)

On 23/08/2013 00:23, OG wrote:
On 20/08/2013 18:25, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

No doubt it will be ignored by the greenwash NIMBYs.

It'll be ignored because it's a blog...

... by someone who is really really sure it'll all be OK really.

He was the chairman of Northern Rock for 3 years. Guess how that ended up.

(hint, it wasn't OK really)

So, with that recommendation, let's have a look at his blog

Five Myths:
"First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United
States"
so he says "The Environmental Protection Agency closed its investigation
at Dimock, in Pennsylvania, concluding there was no evidence of
contamination" and hyperlinks the word "closed" to this report
http://tinyurl.com/plle4k7 which is mostly about a site in *Wyoming*.

However, it does make reference to Dimock; and if the blogger had read
the report *he claimed in support of his argument* he would have read:

"... the agency concluded its inquiry without following through on the
essential question of whether Dimock residents face an ongoing risk from
too much methane, which is not considered unsafe to drink, but can
produce fumes that lead to explosions.

The EPA also never addressed whether drilling €“ and perhaps the pressure
of fracking €“ had contributed to moving methane up through cracks in the
earth into their water wells.

As drilling has resumed in Dimock, so have reports of ongoing methane
leaks. On June 24, the National Academy of Sciences published a report
by Duke University researchers that underscored a link between the
methane contamination in water in Dimock and across the Marcellus shale,
and the gas wells being drilled deep below."

On 21/08/2013 13:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is the problem with 'big state' : if more than half the nations GDP
is flowing through government, the money gets spent the way they decide,
to favour themselves and people who sponsor them. You dont get to spend
it the way YOU want.

"more than half"?

On 20/08/2013 20:30, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:29:45 +0100
Java Jive wrote:

On 20 Aug 2013 17:25:37 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

Perhaps this is why:
Bad Request (Invalid URL)

That's if you miss out the last part of the URL. Copy and paste the
whole thing, and it works just fine.


Until you read it. What a load of tripe!

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:23:03 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

And, of course, add to this that pylons are spindly and what ? 60 feet
tall maybe ?

Small ones might be only 60' the 400 kV ones are just a *tad* bigger.
The insulator chains are a good 15' to 20' long. Each segment is a
large dinner plate in diameter and adds over a foot to the chain
length.

There is a set of insulators hanging in a corner of the Museum of
Science & Industry, Manchester, no information label though. It spans
two floors.

http://www.howhill.com/images/PICT0295.png

So 15' * 3 + spacings an up to earth wire at top 15' * 3, lower line
is about half way up the structure * 2 giving something of the order
of 200', or 60 m. About the height of the *hub* of a 2 MW windmill,
add another 40 m for the blades...

--
Cheers
Dave.


According to this

http://uk.ask.com/question/how-high-...ctricity-pylon

They are not quite that tall, and the smaller ones are quite a bit less.
Still taller than I originally perceived without really thinking about it,
though.

Oh, and there's 88,000 of 'em :-)

Arfa

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).



Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed. I doubt that even one 400 kV twin wired line would
be pushed to carry their output!..

So what do you suppose this is about then?
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons


Thats a dual circuit 400 kV transmission line..

As referred to above..
--
Tony Sayer


Apparently required to service the output of all the windmills that they've
shoved up in the north. Wishful thinking, if you ask me, and doubling the
visual impact of the windmills for no valid reason ...

Arfa

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2013 20:30, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:29:45 +0100
Java Jive wrote:

On 20 Aug 2013 17:25:37 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

Perhaps this is why:
Bad Request (Invalid URL)

That's if you miss out the last part of the URL. Copy and paste the
whole thing, and it works just fine.


Until you read it. What a load of tripe!


Specifically ... ?

Arfa

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:52:07 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:14:39 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Seeing if most all the windymills in the UK even if the wind was blowing
at the right speed.

Not a meaningful sentence, but I think I can guess at the sort of
irrelevant thing you were trying to say.

Well it wasn't a structured a question if you look at it again..

It wasn't a even a question if you look at it again.

Pylons do something useful like cart power from where its generated to
where its needed .. Windymills OTOH are a useless waste of money and
energy for what they produce all of .63 MW at the moment..

In your opinion, which doesn't count for much up here in the
highlands. We are the people who have to look at the result.

According to figures given by Arfa, there are 88,000 pylons in the UK
(which seems a very small number to me, but as I don't know any
better, I'll go with it), and there are just under 5,000 wind
turbines, so, to the nearest whole number, there are 18 pylons for
every turbine.

How then can one be an eyesore, and the other not?

Well if the stupid idiot government would see sense about these idiotic
things and get on with building a few more Nuclear stations then we
wouldn't need them..

That's just the sort of irrationality to which I refer.

Ah! Yes I'd forgotten you aren't that in favour of Nuclear are you?..

I'm not, but that is not the point here. The point is ...

The means of
generation is irrelevant to the blight caused by pylons - whatever
the generating source, we'd still need a means of distributing the
electricity, so we'd either still have pylons, which are at least a
great a blight as wind turbines, or would have to pay to bury the
cables instead.

As I presume it's intended to be an answer to the above, this
statement ...

And see the power bills hit unprecedented heights of course..

.... directly contradicts ...

And the longer we wait the more they'll cost..

By choosing NOT to build any more nuclear power stations, and instead
going for cheaper carbon-based ones, we could probably afford to bury
the cabling, as arguably should have been done half a century ago in
the first place.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:28:06 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:23:03 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

And, of course, add to this that pylons are spindly and what ? 60 feet
tall maybe ?

Small ones might be only 60' the 400 kV ones are just a *tad* bigger.
The insulator chains are a good 15' to 20' long. Each segment is a
large dinner plate in diameter and adds over a foot to the chain
length.

There is a set of insulators hanging in a corner of the Museum of
Science & Industry, Manchester, no information label though. It spans
two floors.

http://www.howhill.com/images/PICT0295.png

So 15' * 3 + spacings an up to earth wire at top 15' * 3, lower line
is about half way up the structure * 2 giving something of the order
of 200', or 60 m.

The tallest 'off the shelf' UK tower with the exception of river crossings is
50m, most are a max of 46.5m. These heights are only used when maximum
clearance over other structures is needed.

--

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:56:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

I note that all of the answers to this point are written by people who
do not live here writing irrationally as apologists for pylons. None
address the fundamental problem of numbers, that for every turbine
there are probably hundreds or thousands of pylons (I've searched but
not been able to find a figure for the number of pylons in Scotland).

http://www.ppdlw.org/articles/wind_t...al_tourism.pdf

"Heading the list of things that most detracted from a visit to the
country were electricity pylons and mobile phone masts followed
closely by wind turbines and telephone poles. (It is not clear if
respondents were aware, when questioned, of the height of wind
turbines.)"

I don't agree with everything written in these links, but some of the
pictures from both sites taken together as putative before and after
do make the eyesore point quite well:
http://www.hbp.org.uk/
http://benvironment.org.uk/post/5269...ant-new-pylons

With respect to the Scottish landscape, it's irrational to complain
about wind turbines and have no complaint about pylons.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:41:44 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

For example, he moans about the wind turbines on the landscapes he
drives through, but is apparently blind to the pylons, which almost
certainly outnumber the turbines by hundreds or thousands to one. A
turbine is only an eyesore, if you consider it such, I don't really,
at the point of installation. Pylons, in contrast, are all over the
Highlands & Islands, and are a much greater collective eyesore, yet
none of the anti-wind brigade ever complain about them.

Across the whole of the UK there are roughly 4 x more transmission system pylons
than wind turbines and more than 72 x more wind turbines than large power
stations

22,000 pylons vs 5,000 wind turbines vs 69* large power stations

There are 88,000 pylons including the distribution network, the number on the
transmission network, 400kV 275kV and 132kV is just 22,000*

The big difference is that pylons rarely run along high ground, blend into the
landscape and fulfil a very vital service. Wind turbines are often on high
ground, stick out like a sore thumb and do nothing other than leach money from
the poor to benefit rich offshore based parasites.


69 large power statons, or one for every 3500 sq km and almost invisible in
comparison to wind turbines

*
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/54CF2C41-A1C5-45DD-AB31-2653615B1790/49386/NationalElectricityTransmissionSystemPerformanceRe port2010201119.pdf
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/4933FA38-A087-4783-941E-9FD8D1CA59BC/49018/Pylondesign16ppbookletFINAL.pdf
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/index.cfm


--

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:51:39 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

And, of course, add to this that pylons are spindly and what ? 60 feet
tall maybe ?

Over 130 feet for a typical 400 kV pylon. Nearer 100ft in rural areas.
Slightly lower profile towers have been used more recently.

Ground clearance is a minimum of 25ft at 400kV and nearer 40ft in most
cases

The tallest UK towers are the ones across the Thames and the Severn
623ft & 488ft respectively.

How about the one at Kincardine over the River Forth? the southern tower
is listed at 505ft.

Scotland doesn't count

505ft is correct according to the CAA.
--

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:14:39 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus


http://www.ppdlw.org/articles/wind_t...al_tourism.pdf

"Heading the list of things that most detracted from a visit to the
country were electricity pylons and mobile phone masts followed
closely by wind turbines and telephone poles. (It is not clear if
respondents were aware, when questioned, of the height of wind
turbines.)"

Well I bet they'd all moan the more if their mobiles didn't work and
they had to use candles to see by etc..

That is why the country needs smart metering. Reliable nuclear coal and gas
fired electricity for those that want it. Intermittent unrelaible wind for the
unwashed greens.

I'd still advocate branding them on the forehead and smart tagging them with
identification though. If they try and take avantage of anything powered by
conventional generation and they'd be arrested on the spot and deported to
Rockall.

So no internet, no post, no rail, nothing but locally sourced food, no
pesticides, no fertilisers, no healthcare. Drive them back to living in caves
and ultimately Darwin would ensure they and their offspring live the 'Green
Dream' ubntil they croak and cease to exist. Leaving the planet free for the
rest of us.

--

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:49:03 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

FACT: as I write this, our wind fleet is producing 0.3GW. That's a
shortfall of some 3.7GW, assuming the fleet is rated at 4GW (a shortfall
of 4.7 is you assume 5).

Since every pronouncement from wind proponents says that this or that
new addition to the wind fleet will produce enough power for x number of
homes, and since those x homes need power 7x24, it seems reasonable to
expect that the wind fleet produce power 7x24, at the rated output.
That's what we, the public, have been sold.

Any shortfall, therefore, should result in a rebate and questions asked,
f'rinstance as to why wind appears unable to emulate good reliable old
nuclear, which *has* been producing over 9GW for some considerable time
now, day in, day out.

Perhaps Java Jive could tell us where the country should apply to for
its rebate due to apparent unreliability of wind generation.


The provisioned connection capacity from wind farms into the national grid that
is operationally metered is 7136MW. There is other wind generation that is
embedded in the distribution networks but the extent and the output of this
generation is not monitored or reported via a credible mechanism.

The total of all wind turbines connected via the national grid and declared as
available is more or less 6000MW at the moment rising to 6500MW by the year end

Those are all figures you can rely on

At 0.3GW the 5000* turbines (renewables UK figure) are producing less than half
what one of the six units at Drax can produce reliably round the clock.

So where the actual output is 0.3GW the shortfall due to the intermittency of
wind, poor reliability and delays in getting the poxy things built is between
5700 and 6836 MW, or in other terms around a Drax, a Fiddlers Ferry and a
Rugeley, or around 4 billions quids worth of capital required to bridge that
shortfall (finger in the air estimate based on the market cap of Drax and cost
of recently constructed gas generation)

With an average domestic load of 400W that shortfall is equivalent to somewhere
between 14.25 and 17 million households. With 26.4 million households in the
UK (ONS 2012 figures) , then, ignoring all commercial and industrial load we
would have the lights on in only 35% of them without the wonder of coal, nuclear
and gas.

P.S. renewables UK are currently claiming 6374MW onshore and 3653MW offshore, a
total of 10027MW total capacity pointing to an embedded generation total of
around 2.9GW

http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/index.cfm


--