Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Home-based wind power 'a waste of time' in the city

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 August 2008
By Jenny Haworth
DOMESTIC wind turbines are pointless in urban areas and benefit the environment only in rural locations, a report shows.
The study by the Carbon Trust shows that four times as much electricity and carbon is saved in rural areas than in urban locations, due to higher wind speeds.

In urban areas, roof-mounted turbines may not pay back the carbon emitted during their production, installation and use.

The study has found home wind power could provide just 0.4 per cent of the total UK electricity consumption and save 0.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The report's authors said: "Relative to total UK electricity consumption and emissions from power generation, these figures are fairly low."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 August 2008 9:22 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 07/08/2008 09:29:15
The daft thing is that if people just insulated their houses properly - cavity, roof, draughts, double glazing etc, this would save vastly more in the medium term than your own windmill. No use pumping energy in to have it escape again.

This much less to do with the dreaded "carbon dioxide problem" and more to do with sound common sense and a wish to save money.

It would also be useful if GW happened a bit quicker so that we wouldn't have to burn stuff in the first place - this of course would be self-correcting if you believe the eco-numpties arguments about CO2 causing it in the first place.
2

Unimpressed one,

07/08/2008 10:09:01
According to DEFRA's foresight programme, we can now expect temperatures to up by 4 degrees over the next 100 years. At least according to the 'scientific' adviser, Bob Watson. It must be something in the government departments' water supplies that makes scientific advisers go rabid and make these loony predictions. Of course none of this is predicted, conveniently, to occur during their lifetimes. No, they will get the publicity, take the money, write the reports and publish their books. But future generations should take note of the respectable 'great and good' of our age who took part in perpetrating the greatest global scam the world has ever seen. The real downside is that if they're crying wolf now over this rubbish, it does not bode well for the world when a real crisis is upon us and we really need to act.
3

Rational cynic,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 15:27:26
Ah, the deniers are denying again.

Tell me chaps, are you saying that a large number of scientists around the world are in a conspiracy to mislead the rest of the population, so they can get an increase in research grants?

Or are they all just mistaken?

Or is it the politicians using any excuse just to raise taxes, which is always a good vote winning tactic?
4

Unimpressed one,

07/08/2008 19:05:19
#3, No the only deniers around are gullible individuals like yourself who are denying that climate changes naturally as it has for thousands of years. Worse still idiotic scientists are insisting that because they can't explain what has caused the last century's warming periods according to their limited understanding of climate, then humans must be to blame. Their models are rubbish as most of them freely admit and they keep moving the goal posts every year or so, so it's no wonder the public give these claims little credence.
5

Rational cynic,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 21:29:23
Well, I don't think I'm gullible, I've been following this issue for nearly 20 years now. Over that time I've learned that people seem to hold strong views on the subject of climate change, either agreeing with the idea or rejecting it.

I've learned it's essential to evaluate the source of the views I read and hear, to consider who to believe and who to reject. I've concluded it's best to believe those who support their arguments with reason and evidence, and to reject those who don't back up their claims with evidence (or who provide "evidence" that comes from untrustworthy sources).

I've found the scientific community most convincing by far; those who deny the theory consistently fail to produce the evidence to support their claims.
6

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 07/08/2008 22:11:55
#5 Rational cynic

This works well until you get scientists producing data which supports their pet assumption to prove it's correct. You may think they're all straight up logical kinds of people, but unfortunately they're just as prone to illogical and emotional interference in their work as those who do not have the scientific approach. So if you're broke and someone is dangling the prospect of nice big research grant into "Global Warming" (the agenda is already set) then the figures will be produced to order.

The problem with GW/CC is the timescale of the events. If any of this anthropological and there are papers to support this view and others not to support it the ultimate proof will be if we're not frying in 10-20 years time, or, despite massive reduction in CO2 emissions that the climate continues to change unabated, which the logical may then check for other sources of the changes and not just hang on to one source.

Real scientists observe and measure and conclude independent of external political factors. The rest are employed by Government (inflation= 4.8%?), oil companies (terrible scarcity of this resource = raise the price!) or Greenpeace (it's all our fault, return to Stone Age, live in caves and eat grass please).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.