New round of consultations for wind farm announced (From Bournemouth Echo)

Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Very true, I for one, do not want this project to go ahead.

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986.

What's your point?

I think they should double the amount of turbines give it a real chance. We know they work and like the motor car they will be refined and improved over time. We need to stop using gas to make electricity but then that was done to give a massive market for the privatisation of British gas. Bless misses T for that one.

What will Navitus and other wind farms guarantee us for our money?

The only thing they guarantee is a doubling of our power bills.

They can achieve nothing else if the Chinese, Indians and Germans continue to build coal powered stations.

The only thing that wind farms are good for is that they guarantee a income for the Duchy of Cornwall and the owners, they make us all a lot poorer, as the Greens know full well,
they last only15years before having to be replaced at vast cost to us, as for comparing them to the evolution of the car that's La La Land talk.
We need fracking gas plants so we can keep the lights on.

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986.

What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Well that saves me commenting on the base topic!

All these 'consulttions', is any public money being poured into arranging them? I am unsure, but somehow believe we will not like the answer.

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986.

What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Subsidies are not really that high despite what you may be led to believe. Aprox 10% of your electricity bill goes towards environmental costs.

Of This 10% about 43% goes to the RO which funds large renewable energy projects, and 1.5% goes towards the feed in tariff.

The rest goes to carbon emissions reductions programme and community energy savings programme neither of which fund renewable energy.

Your comment on global warming is not even work rebuking as there is scientific consensus that this is occurring.

these wind turbines are not economic. By the time you've added maintenance costs as they are always breaking down, especially the ones at sea they are just not worth it. Our energy bills are so high at the mo causing bussiness to go bust and factories to move abroad because of the ridiculous green carbon taxes our government is imposing and the pathetic costs of projects like these wind turbines. If scientists can actually come up with something that works I'd be all for it. Until then our gutless gov should stop these projects which only go ahead so it looks like we are doing something.

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986.

What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Subsidies are not really that high despite what you may be led to believe. Aprox 10% of your electricity bill goes towards environmental costs.

Of This 10% about 43% goes to the RO which funds large renewable energy projects, and 1.5% goes towards the feed in tariff.

The rest goes to carbon emissions reductions programme and community energy savings programme neither of which fund renewable energy.

Your comment on global warming is not even work rebuking as there is scientific consensus that this is occurring.

Subsidies are not that high....yet

At 10x the cost of conventional generation wind power will double your electric bill with every 10% put in service. On top of that.... here come carbon taxes.

Everyone agrees that we have seen global warming since the LIA but what the scientists have failed to prove is that any of this is due to man's production of CO2. All this wasted expenditure on renewables is based on poor models that have been discredited over the past 15 years.

It is all about money and political power. There are 3 main vested interests. The big companies make a fortune from the huge renewables subsidies; governments increase their taxes and spending plans on the excuse of being green; the environmental activists can pursue their anti-capitalist agenda and pretend communism has not failed.

The trouble is that there is no evidence to support the idea that man-made carbon dioxide has caused dangerous global warming. So the vested interests have to bluff and bluster, and make personal attacks on anyone who dares to talk about the science.

There is no basis whatsoever for timwel's alarmist exaggeration of the effects of wind power on either generation costs or electricity bills. These anti-wind posters just make the figures up to suit their arguments.

Similarly to recognise that global warming exists, but assert that none of it is due to human CO2 emissions, flies in the face of any serious research. Even the so-called sceptics are not this ridiculous.

And as for carbon taxes, if these were introduced at a realistic rate (ie to cover the cost of the damage caused by consuming fossil fuels), there would be no need for subsidies for wind. And if the revenues were distributed to all citizens on an equal basis, rich high energy users would lose out financially, but there would be fewer low-income people in fuel poverty.

Generation costs - there exists a detailed report by Professor Gordon Hughes (a well respected energy specialist) that wind power has a capital cost about 10 times the cost of a gas station. All paid for out of consumers' electricity bills

Electricity bills - In effect, the bill payer suffers a hidden tax to finance the huge subsidy needed to pay for wind power. I am unsure of the amounts but the power companies are not happy their forced bill rises are criticised by government. I think we may soon have a whistleblower to identify this.

Global warming - The amazing thing is that many still believe in the man-made GW hypothesis. Forget the propaganda for the moment and remember there is no evidence. Since the computer models making the projections have been wrong so many times, they cannot be relied upon. There is nothing else apart from these models which shows MMGW.

Carbon taxes - If you push these up sky high, the country becomes less economic and much poorer. Do you want massive fuel bills for everyone? It is like saying " we want to sell this unviable ugly car made in a very inefficient way, so we will put a big tax on the efficiently produced cars."

Also, since when has any government redistributed penal taxes to the poor?

alanh7 - Gordon Hughes is an economist whose work for the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation is NOT well respected by energy experts. Basically he exaggerates the costs of wind by falsely asserting that the backup which needs to come in when wind speeds are low has to be provided by inefficient Open Cycle Gas Turbines. The reality is that the back up is provided by more modern, more efficient, and less costly Closed Cycle Gas Turbines.

The evidence of global warming comes from rising average temperatures, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and rising sea levels. Natural variations, like solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, and ocean circulation patterns, are often irregular but tend to be cyclical. There is no evidence to suggest that the long term rising trend is due to anything other than human activity - primarily greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation.

Hughes is respected in my view though probably not liked by those on the other side of the argument.

He says in fact that OCGTs must be used as backup because it would operate with a very low load factor of 17% and Combined Cycle plants would not be economic.

Whether that point is debatable or not, I was really referring to capital cost where figures are justified as follows: cost of meeting renewables target with wind power by 2020 - £120 billion; cost of same power generation using gas - £13 billion.

It is not adequate to say that there is GW and nothing to suggest it is not man-made. It was never man-made in the past being down to purely natural factors. The onus is on those wanting the world to spend trillions to prove it is man-made now. There is no evidence here.

Hughes may be respected by you, but he's not respected by energy experts. He is plain wrong. The National Grid has a responsibility to bring in the most cost effective plant when needed as back up, and this is CCGT, not OCGT. He also exaggerates the amount of backup needed (and its capital cost) to balance wind variability, and looks only at capital costs, ignoring running costs.

You ignore the weighty scientific evidence on human-caused global warming, but respect the analysis of one economist, whose results have been shown to be false.

Well, wind capital costs running at 10 times conventional is a killer argument is it not on its own?

Besides, we now know that turbine life is only 15 years typically instead of 25 years and that must overshadow viability - hence investors running scared now. After all, a big subsidy increase is not likely to be politically feasible.

There is no evidence on MMGW because the models are discredited. That is no criticism of the modellers, more a case of saying that climate is too chaotic to forecast now and probably also in the future. Apart from the models, there is plenty of evidence of GW, but not of it being man-made.

Another report (peer reviewed) has just been published, saying that current climate behaviour is perfectly normal based on history. As such, there is no need to look at CO2 anyway.

My view is that this is the key issue - if MMGW cannot be shown, we should stop all the consequences like unviable energy generation, and also what is perhaps the largest scam of all, carbon trading.

mooninpisces wrote:
There is no basis whatsoever for timwel's alarmist exaggeration of the effects of wind power on either generation costs or electricity bills. These anti-wind posters just make the figures up to suit their arguments. Similarly to recognise that global warming exists, but assert that none of it is due to human CO2 emissions, flies in the face of any serious research. Even the so-called sceptics are not this ridiculous. And as for carbon taxes, if these were introduced at a realistic rate (ie to cover the cost of the damage caused by consuming fossil fuels), there would be no need for subsidies for wind. And if the revenues were distributed to all citizens on an equal basis, rich high energy users would lose out financially, but there would be fewer low-income people in fuel poverty.

You of course assert that Navitus will achieve a load factor of 35% which is higher than the UK average of 28%, DECC so say, that is lifted by the superior performance of wind rigs in Scottish Waters whereas comparative wind speed areas elsewhere support calculations that Navitus would do well to better 17.5%

You have also supported Navitus Lts assertion rhat it will generate enough power to service 800,000 homes when, using the recognised DECC formula that tells of 2011`s wind power generation of 10,372gW as being enough to serve 2,400,000 homes, indicates that it could serve only 65,000 even if it achieved UK average
load factor performance.

So exaggeration is the name of your game my dear (chap).

On top of that you quote unfounded fancies as fact where they suit and the other way around when they don`t and generally paint a picture of Greenery that does it no favours at all.

But we`ll see what the Nav man has to say about his figures next time around.
If he has half a clue as to where they came from that is!

mooninpisces wrote:
Hughes may be respected by you, but he's not respected by energy experts. He is plain wrong. The National Grid has a responsibility to bring in the most cost effective plant when needed as back up, and this is CCGT, not OCGT. He also exaggerates the amount of backup needed (and its capital cost) to balance wind variability, and looks only at capital costs, ignoring running costs. You ignore the weighty scientific evidence on human-caused global warming, but respect the analysis of one economist, whose results have been shown to be false.

As I have informed you previously The National Grid will require the availability of conventional station output of Peak Load on the Grid + 10%. regardless of how much extra renewables may offer.

There has been no GW for 15 years and its disappearance is not due to those variables you quote but the announced fact that the extra insolation that drove most of it since around the 70`s despite major volcanic events has since faded.
Solar physicists are predicting a further decline in solar output.
It`s about time we srarted looking laterally.

alanh7 - 10 X capital costs is not a "killer argument" if the figures are wrong, which they are. And if the running costs go the other way, which they do, then you have to ask why did Hughes ignore them?

mooninpisces wrote:
alanh7 - 10 X capital costs is not a "killer argument" if the figures are wrong, which they are. And if the running costs go the other way, which they do, then you have to ask why did Hughes ignore them?

200megaWatts average actual output(notallof which is usable) against a capital cost oflikely somewhere between
£2 and £4Billion for kit that may just last out 20 years when £5Billion can buy us a Nuclear station rated at 1000megaWatts output that will see out 40 years of service and likely more
IS A KILLER!
Especially when its waste product can then be fed as fuel to its Fast Breeder successor, or partner, depending on the way more than just the wind blows.

a.g.o.g. wrote:

mooninpisces wrote: alanh7 - 10 X capital costs is not a "killer argument" if the figures are wrong, which they are. And if the running costs go the other way, which they do, then you have to ask why did Hughes ignore them?

200megaWatts average actual output(notallof which is usable) against a capital cost oflikely somewhere between £2 and £4Billion for kit that may just last out 20 years when £5Billion can buy us a Nuclear station rated at 1000megaWatts output that will see out 40 years of service and likely more IS A KILLER! Especially when its waste product can then be fed as fuel to its Fast Breeder successor, or partner, depending on the way more than just the wind blows.

Having shown that the cost of wind farms is incredibly high, for extra comfort, it might be worth mentioning some evidence given years ago to a government committee - this was from an energy company chief who pointed out that without subsidies, no-one would ever build a wind farm.

The reason Hughes did not mention running costs was that his paper was produced to compare capital costs at the time.

One can't really judge in this sort of forum on whether Hughes' paper is wrong - we must agree to differ. Certainly, it is closely-reasoned and backed up with plenty of figures. To my knowledge, it has not been discredited as bad science by any in the climate industry.

You only have to look at the reaction of the greens to shale gas to see their agenda. They are horrified to see a potential life-saving solution to our energy problem because it will take away their chance to blame, bully and tax the rest of us.

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986.

What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Subsidies are not really that high despite what you may be led to believe. Aprox 10% of your electricity bill goes towards environmental costs.

Of This 10% about 43% goes to the RO which funds large renewable energy projects, and 1.5% goes towards the feed in tariff.

The rest goes to carbon emissions reductions programme and community energy savings programme neither of which fund renewable energy.

Your comment on global warming is not even work rebuking as there is scientific consensus that this is occurring.

There are also many scientists who believe as I do that this is a naturally occurring sequence of events but they get shouted down by the many who make millions of pounds out of promoting this nonsense, every national newspaper over the last week has been providing statements from these very people that so called global warming has shown no significant increase since 1998, but of course so many people are led like sheep into believing the biggest sting of the century that they don't want to listen to other evidence.

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote: Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986. What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Subsidies are not really that high despite what you may be led to believe. Aprox 10% of your electricity bill goes towards environmental costs. Of This 10% about 43% goes to the RO which funds large renewable energy projects, and 1.5% goes towards the feed in tariff. The rest goes to carbon emissions reductions programme and community energy savings programme neither of which fund renewable energy. Your comment on global warming is not even work rebuking as there is scientific consensus that this is occurring.

There are also many scientists who believe as I do that this is a naturally occurring sequence of events but they get shouted down by the many who make millions of pounds out of promoting this nonsense, every national newspaper over the last week has been providing statements from these very people that so called global warming has shown no significant increase since 1998, but of course so many people are led like sheep into believing the biggest sting of the century that they don't want to listen to other evidence.

Thank you so much for standing up and being counted as a scientist on this forum.

I know it is not easy to do owing to attempts to threaten scientists etc. (even death threats apparently for those contributing to Durkin's Channel 4 documentary).

It is no problem to me if anyone, scientist or not, believes in AGW having properly looked at the evidence. But I do have a hang-up about the mass of people being gulled by the propaganda of vested interests.

alanh7 wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

OwlsRd wrote:

Hessenford wrote: Prince Phillip once said "that wind turbines "never work", that they are reliant on government subsidies and their supporters believe in "fairytales".

Prince Philip also once said "If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." To a British student during a visit to China in 1986. What's your point?

My point is that as dippy as Prince Phillip may be he is right on this one, wind farms do no produce enough energy, as prince Phillip says, the only winners are the people who obtain great subsidies to build these ugly things, the amount of materials, machining and energy used to build these turbines far out weighs and power they may generate, beside which global warming is the biggest con of the century, many people are making large sums of money with all this scaremongering.

Subsidies are not really that high despite what you may be led to believe. Aprox 10% of your electricity bill goes towards environmental costs. Of This 10% about 43% goes to the RO which funds large renewable energy projects, and 1.5% goes towards the feed in tariff. The rest goes to carbon emissions reductions programme and community energy savings programme neither of which fund renewable energy. Your comment on global warming is not even work rebuking as there is scientific consensus that this is occurring.

There are also many scientists who believe as I do that this is a naturally occurring sequence of events but they get shouted down by the many who make millions of pounds out of promoting this nonsense, every national newspaper over the last week has been providing statements from these very people that so called global warming has shown no significant increase since 1998, but of course so many people are led like sheep into believing the biggest sting of the century that they don't want to listen to other evidence.

Thank you so much for standing up and being counted as a scientist on this forum. I know it is not easy to do owing to attempts to threaten scientists etc. (even death threats apparently for those contributing to Durkin's Channel 4 documentary). It is no problem to me if anyone, scientist or not, believes in AGW having properly looked at the evidence. But I do have a hang-up about the mass of people being gulled by the propaganda of vested interests.

Here, here.