The Great Global Warming Swindle?

west_is_best

gromituk wrote: »

Of course they're not, in exactly the same way that an irrational wind farm hater like you isn't going to accept anything that contradicts what you think - such as the other report I mention alongside the industry's figure! So you still say that wind farms never recover their embodied CO2, like you burst into this forum proclaiming?

All you do is spout soundbites Daily Mail-style, which all collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Unfortunately on a forum like this you are likely to encounter more intelligent people who can see through what you say. Like the other poster I've just criticised, why is it so hard for you to understand that just because natural climate change occurs, man-made climate change can't occur as well? Or is it such an obvious point that rather than accept it, you merely ignore it?

All I have done is supplied facts, so people can make their own minds up....

By the way, I dont read the Daily Mail...... I read The Sun!!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I look a little further than the BWEA website and the Danish Wind association website!!!!!!!!!

Its facts people want not lies and deceipt.

I have supplied websites so people can read through, its up to them to make their own judgement!!!!

Unfortunately on a forum like this you are likely to encounter more intelligent people who can see through what you say.

calling yourself intellegent??? are you a wind farm developer aswell???? :rotfl::rotfl:

west_is_best

Wind energy is another one of those ideas that captures the media's attention and the hearts of some in the environmental movement. Yet, it is costly, inefficient, and not even able to put a dent in our long-term energy needs. Companies like Whole Foods may generate increased profits from their own embrace of wind power, but for the rest of us it's all nothing but hot air.

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest39.html

west_is_best

Ken68 wrote: »

All good stuff, Lynwen.
I kid you not my little town is surroun ded by large turbines, 20 at the last count and more to come.
Am very interested in what happens in 16 years.
Every farmer seems to be applying for permission to build. They not only get paid NOT to grow crops, but now get paid to generate electricity..All for the price of a plot the size of a large haystack.And what was a farm track for access is made into a road, probably 100% grant as well.
The world has gone mad. Swindle.

I agree with you 100%.

Mind you, I do feel slightly sorry for these farmers, as they are being totally brainwashed by these developers. Everything is all well and good now, while they are being paid for keeping the turbines on their land, but whats going to happen (as you say) 16 years down the line, if not less, when the subsidies end...... people will not see these developers for dust!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, farmers could loose their single farm payment because of such development.
It states in the SFP cross compliance, erosion of soil, water pullution, gate no wider than 100metres wide etc etc etc....... if the farmers dont rectify these problems within 3 months, they will have to pay back what they have received from the SFP......... and trust me, we are talking about (some of our local farms) £50-£60,000......... per year!!!!!!!!!!!!!! work it out, its more than a £1,000 per week before they get up from bed!!!
It would cripple farmers, having to pay all this money back...... all for a measley £5,000 per year per turbine (approx)

It is scandalous, as you say.

west_is_best

bonnie wrote: »

I do not believe in global warming, it is part of the earths natural cycles, the dinosaurs did not drive 4 by 4's and recycle but they were wiped out and guess what we are still here years later.
But i do turn everthing of and don't buy into consumerism. It makes sense to turn things of and turn your heating down, saves you money on fuel bills and if you use things till they are on there last legs you are also saving money.
What is the point of recycling when it goes of to china in a big boat, to be sorted. The gets turned into something new, more fuel lost and shipped back over here.
Same as the cars, surely it costs more co2 to charge an eletric car up then to run on biodiesel like we do, you are better not using your car at all.

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

I agree with you 100%.......... I recon, that it's all a money spin. An excuse to put more taxes on people...... I think it's all down to politics.

It is getting to be like a cult.......... most war's are down to religion and politics....... Global warming scam will be next, if people dont take control of their feelings.

west_is_best

kittiwoz wrote: »

Presumably what you mean to say is that is that wind farms in mid Wales only produce of 23% of their maximum rated output. This seems a not unreasonable number, the figure (capacity factor) across the UK as whole is around 25-30% with higher production in Scotland, sometimes exceeding 30%. What you need to understand is that wind turbines are not designed to produce their maximum power constantly since the power available in the wind varies cubicly with wind speed. If a turbine were operating with a high capacity factor it would imply that it was maxing out at low wind speeds and so wasting the extra energy available in higher winds.

The figure you give implies that the wind turbines in Wales are producing approximately the amount of power that the designers expected. They will be feeding that power into the national grid to supplement the power produced by other fossil-fuel power stations so that we are less reliant on them and mitigating the need to build more new gas fired power plants to meet our growing power needs or to replace old power stations as they reach the end of their life.

If wind developments do not produce 30% or more, they are NOT viable, and developers would not be able to live on their income without subsidies, in other words, developers would run and leave the country should the subsidies finish....

Cardew

Lynwen,

You doth protest too much.

gromituk and I don’t approach the whole GW issue from the same side of the fence, but I have to say his contributions are far more balanced than yours.

Any form of power generation(gas, oil, coal, wind, waves, solar, nuclear) is going to have advantages and disadvantages; and attract opponents and proponents.

Whatever stance you take on any of those forms of generation, the most rudimentary research on the internet can produce publication after publication to support any argument you wish to make.

Your NIMBY line is understandable, but I suggest if they were to build any type of power station in your ‘back yard’ you would be similarly upset.

However I suggest swamping this thread with a one-sided diatribe against wind farms simply detracts from your campaign.

west_is_best

Your NIMBY line is understandable, but I suggest if they were to build any type of power station in your ‘back yard’ you would be similarly upset.

belive it or not love, I wouldnt be upset at all.

But hay, I do agree with you, this is not the forum to get into a discussion about wind developments, (even though I was starting to enjoy it:rotfl:)

I will let you get on with it, sorry if Ive upset some people, I just wanted to prove that not everything called green IS green.

Ken68

The largest of my local wind turbines cost £1million quid.
SO..applying the normal economics divide that by say, to be generous, 25 years and assuming the money was borrowed and interest has to be paid and the grant was from the taxpayer (including corporate taxpayer )...I give up, my arithmetic isn't good enough.
It would be cheaper to tell Whitehall to switch orf all their lights, cheaper to reduce rail and bus fares and so on.
But to expect a green revolution by giving grants is bonkers.

former_student

Global Warming is being used as an excuse to get more taxes of us by politicians, its absurd really.

Cardew

Lynwen wrote: »

belive it or not love, I wouldnt be upset at all.

But hay, I do agree with you, this is not the forum to get into a discussion about wind developments, (even though I was starting to enjoy it:rotfl:)

I will let you get on with it, sorry if Ive upset some people, I just wanted to prove that not everything called green IS green.

Therein lies the problem. It simply is not possible to 'Prove' anything in this area. It simply is not a black and white situation. Those continually repeating that Man is totally responsible for Global Warming are producing no more proof than those who repeatedly argue that Man has zero effect.

There does at least seem a consensus that we should try to husband the Earth’s resources, regardless of the GW argument. So to that end, it surely must make sense to try and develop the technology for wind/wave/solar power generation(and dare I say it nuclear energy!) so we consume less of these resources.