Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Cost of wind power 'scam'



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

You report (22 July) that the 152-turbine wind farm in South Lanarkshire will supply 320,000 homes. At a wind speed of 14mph, what will the 280,000 homes without electricity do? At a wind speed of 12mph, what will the 300,000 homes without electricity do? At 10mph, what will the 320,000 homes without electricity do?
Burning Issue (21 July) revealed Friends of the Earth's flawed philosophy for a green future. Vehicle biofuels will be provided by other countries while we specialise in micro-generated wind and solar power in a country where the sun shines infrequ
ently and the wind fails to blow at the correct speed for continuous production.

Rather than admit a fossil fuel-free future will not be a replica of today's consumer society, FOE is promoting a fantasy world of electric cars and green consumerism where life goes on as before minus a few trips to Lanzarote.

JOHN ROGERSON
Livingstone Place
Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire

You report (22 July) that the 152-turbine wind farm in South Lanarkshire will supply 320,000 homes. At a wind speed of 14mph, what will the 280,000 homes without electricity do? At a wind speed of 12mph, what will the 300,000 homes without electricity do? At 10mph, what will the 320,000 homes without electricity do?

ROBERT PATE
Old Edinburgh Road
Minnigaff, Wigtownshire

How have we got into the ridiculous habit, when discussing (supposed) climate change or (certain) environmental damage, of saying "carbon" when we mean "carbon dioxide"? The only carbon in the atmosphere is particles of soot, of which there are admittedly an awful lot. And wetlands (your report, 21 July) do not, as far as I know, contain coal, graphite or diamonds.

DERRICK McCLURE
Rosehill Terrace
Aberdeen



The full article contains 297 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 July 2008 9:11 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

James F,

East Ayr 23/07/2008 00:51:16
Looks like either Robert or John has been plagiarising the other.
We don't need direct sunshine for solar power. Electric cars are the only way to go.

It is not true to say that "the only carbon in the atmosphere is particles of soot". Carbon dioxide contains 27% carbon and 73% oxygen. Referring to carbon in the atmosphere as shorthand for carbon dioxide is quite legitimate.
2

SouthernSkye,

23/07/2008 07:52:43
James F so why can we not all use the correct short hand and call it CO2?

With regard to electric cars...why are they the only option? Surely with the batteries required and the generation of electricity to charge those batteries, plus the replacement of those batteries...hydrogen fuel cell is the better option? Especially as commercially viable and environmentally friendly ways of producing H should be with us soon.
3

fred bear,

23/07/2008 08:20:02
#2

What are these "commercially viable and environmentally friendly ways of producing H" which "should be with us soon" please?
4

SouthernSkye,

23/07/2008 08:29:44
#3 fred bear
http://tkcollier.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/an-simple-cheap-way-to-produce-hydrogen/

5

SouthernSkye,

23/07/2008 08:36:22
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_June_6/ai_n25489804


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070827174310.htm

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn13344-solar-cell-speeds-hydrogen-production.html

Sorry I hit return earlier than I intended.
6

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/07/2008 08:51:50
The reason 'carbon' is used when referring to the atmosphere or wetlands is for exactly the same reason that we refer to so many tons of "copper" in a copper mine.

Copper occurs in numerous minerals, sometime as complex sulphides with other metals, sometimes as a hydrated carbonate and sometimes as the element itself. It would be hopelessly complicated to try to refer to these separately. Thus we say, 'There are so tons of copper in that mine', because that is what we are interested in and those compounds can be converted into the element copper.

Similarly with carbon, which can occur as carbon dioxide or methane in the atmosphere, countless complex organic compounds in soils and wetlands, hydrocarbons in oil, complex compounds and the element itself in coal, and so on. Thus we say, 'There are so many tons of carbon in that wetland' because that is what we are interested in and those compounds can be converted into CO2 or methane.

I'm just glad we are not plagued by 'copper denialism', otherwise I suppose we would be subjected to idiotic letters to newspapers complaining about the 'ridiculous habit' of using 'copper' when we mean malachite or chalcocite, or whatever.

What such complaints reveal is that when people don't want to believe in some inconvenient truths that they don't want to understand, they produce all manner of baseless objections to shelter their psyche from reality.
7

fred bear,

23/07/2008 09:07:10
#4

Interesting item, but, as I read it, it is an invention which makes the electrolysis more efficient, you still need the electricity (in massive quantities) to enable a hydrogen economy. Why not use the electricity to charge a modern, high efficiency battery and use that to directly propel the car? This article is suggesting using a battery to produce the hydrogen on the vehicle or in the garage, and then use a fuel cell to turn this back into electricity. Where's the sense in that?!

There is a long way between a demonstration of a technology, and its useful application to solve a problem. This seems to be in the category of "might prove useful"
8

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 09:32:18
'At a wind speed of 12mph, what will the 300,000 homes without electricity do? At 10mph, what will the 320,000 homes without electricity do?'

Carry on as usual of course. The grid operators will simply bring another generating source online as they do now when Torness or Hunterston fail or the coal conveyor belt at Longannet breaks.


9

Alastair the First,

23/07/2008 09:39:04
6: Sorry, but you are way off course - the emissions that are referred to in "carbon emissions" consist of CO2 alone, although I'll perhaps grant you methane even though it is unstable in the atmosphere and tends to combust spontaneously in sufficiently high concentrations to form CO2 and H2O. The problem is that most of the politicians who blithely utter the phrase "carbon emissions" have no scientific or engineering knowledge and don't know what they are talking about.

To reduce my carbon emissions, I would stop burning toast and stop using lead pencils. To reduce my CO2 emissions, I would avoid leaving the top off a bottle of lemonade.
10

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/07/2008 09:58:24
#9 Alastair the First claimed,

"the emissions that are referred to in "carbon emissions" consist of CO2 alone"

No, that is not the case. Emissions from wetlands consists of a mix of CO2 and methane: that is why "carbon emissions" is more appropriate. Methane is a much more (c. 23X) potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (at the present concentrations of both gases in the atmosphere), and lasts about ten years in the atmosphere before being oxidised.

Besides, there is also the question of carbon in other forms.

To get concerned about about such usage is to get entangled in semantics. As I implied before, it seems to me that the motivation of those who do so is to create confusion and obfuscation for the sake of it. It is a non-issue as far as understanding the carbon cycle is concerned.
11

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/07/2008 10:22:54
Re #2 and #3 I read an article in a Sunday paper which was waxing lyrical about a new home/garage hydrogen making machine - no cost detail but "very expensive".
Cost of 1 gallon of H2 was £3.50 and one gal petrol/diesel is equivalent energy content to 4 gal H2. Hence equivalent cost of H2 would be around £14 per gal - not quite competitive - even without factoring in the capital cost of the "machine"??
#8 Fred - spot on - so where are the next generation of back up power stations? Current ones are due to be taken off line in the next 10 years or so - as the EU tells us to do!!
12

Neil,

Glasgow 23/07/2008 11:01:13
Slioch says she is glad we are not plagued by 'copper denialism'. Perhaps she would do us the couresy of providing links to instances where she has said that the use of copper in wiring or elsewhere is currently responsible for this fantasticaly hot summere we are suffering from? I am sure we would all be entertained.

The truth is that the term denier/denialist is a deliberate & dishonest piece of spin to try to link those who do not believe we are undergoing catastrophic warmin g with Holocaust denial. The term would be equally inappropriate from those who deny copper is going to kill us, phlogiston, or indeed the existence of Santa Claus, none of which I assume Slioch does.
13

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 11:58:15
12. The earth's supply of copper is expected to run out in around 25 years but I expect you will deny it.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/07/2008 12:41:33
#12 Neil

The use of the term 'denial' has nothing to do with linking it to holocaust deniers ( a particularly obnoxious example of the thought process).

Denial is a common enough phenomenon whenever people do not wish to accept evidence or facts that contradict what they want to be true. It is characterised (in the case of climate change denial) by
1.a refusal to accept well founded scientific evidence,
2. an eagerness to find and exaggerate apparent or non-existent flaws in that evidence, and
3. an eagerness to accept alternative explanations however flimsy or non-existent the evidence or theoretical base for them.

The above concern about the use of the term 'carbon emissions' rather than 'carbon dioxide' is an example of 2.

Yesterday's hilarious suggestion by Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head that recent climate change is caused by continental drift is an example of 3.
15

GlenB,

23/07/2008 13:27:40
Denial is what global warmists call any view that disagrees with their own.
16

fred bear,

23/07/2008 13:40:01
Denial is a common enough phenomenon whenever people do not wish to accept evidence or facts that contradict what they want to be true. It is characterised (in the case of windmill denial) by
1.a refusal to accept well founded scientific evidence regarding the minute amount of conventional generation which can be dispensed with,
2. an eagerness to find and exaggerate apparent or non-existent flaws in that evidence, and
3. an eagerness to accept alternative explanations however flimsy or non-existent the evidence or theoretical base for them, and hope that alternative assertions without any supporting science will become fact through constant repetition .

Fred Bloggs is an example of this, through his constant, erroneous assertion that the grid can cope with load fluctuations due to varying wind speed at high levels of penetration.
17

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 14:18:07
16 claims:

'Fred Bloggs is an example of this, through his constant, erroneous assertion that the grid can cope with load fluctuations due to varying wind speed at high levels of penetration.'

I have never said this. I have only ever advocated penetration levels of up to 20%.
18

Neil,

Glasgow 23/07/2008 14:53:35
Slioch says
"The use of the term 'denial' has nothing to do with linking it to holocaust deniers ( a particularly obnoxious example of the thought process).

Denial is a common enough phenomenon whenever people do not wish to accept evidence or facts that contradict what they want to be true."

So if she would like Santa Claus to be true & who wouldn't she is indeed a Santa Claus denialist.

The "environmentalist" thought processes can be judged by the fact that they can, with a straight computer scren deny that their intended to be any similarity between the use of the term to describe those who deny that this is a particlaurly warm summer with those who deny the Holocaust. All their other claims should be treated as equally true.

For example Fred's lie that copper is going to run out in 25 years time, which closely parrallels the slightly shorter timescale promised by the Club of Rome nearly 30 years ago.
19

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 15:27:57
18. Neil (global warming denialist):

As expected you deny that copper is going to run out in 25 years. Any idea when it will???
20

GlenB,

23/07/2008 15:47:24
#18 The Club of Rome

Very few people are even aware of this group who have had a great deal of influence in the whole green agenda.

Some interesting reading at http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 15:47:52
The price of copper has increased by 300% in only 5 years as demand exceeds supply and stocks are low. It and many other commodities like oil, gold and platinum are likely to become increasingly scarce and therefore costly with serious consequences for industry and the world's economy.

 

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.