Well, is it???
Posted: Wednesday, 06 October 2004 |
Comments
Hi I.W. Visually, I too think wind turbines are interesting industrial structures especially when you forget about the need for pylons etc. When this is taken into account I don't think they suit all locations. Given the amount of money being spent advertising wind energy it is not surprising that you think they look ok. When you see the advertisements on TV does it cross your mind that they are being used to take away the guilt of using electricity despite the fact that turbines make up, and will always make up, a very tiny part of our generating capacity? When did you see a power station in the TV weather slot? When did any of these companies encourage you to use less energy - the companies only suggest they can provide cheaper energy and wind turbines are far from being the cheapest or most dependable method. Wind turbines are being used to reduce people鈥檚 feelings of guilt. This extract from an open letter sent by David Bruce to Jim Wallace recently seems to be about right for me when it comes to a reality check on the subject rather than the usual spin.
:It will make no significant contribution to emissions reduction (the ROC scheme rewards
suppliers whether generation reduces emissions, increases emissions or is emissions-neutral);
:It will provide no more than a fraction of the country鈥檚 energy demands without risking grid
stability;
:It will hinder the development of alternative renewable technologies for so long as windpower
remains a cash cow;
:It will provide Scotland with nothing but short-term, low-grade construction jobs;
:It will make no contribution to rural development but will, in all likelihood, do serious and
permanent damage to rural tourism.
Island Wanderer, I fear your liking for windfarms is an expensive distraction that has little to do with the core issue of how we will produce most of our electricity while minimising the impact on the environment. What do you suggest?
pondhead from Mull
Island Wanderer,
It is indeed great that issues such as global warming are being brought into our classrooms. The point is that action is required now, not in ten, twenty or thirty years.
Maybe in ten, twenty or thirty years the relevant technologies will be well enough advanced for other renewable energy schemes such as wave, tide and the like to take a bigger place in displacing unclean electricity generation. The point is that they aint here yet. Therefore more windfarms must be built.
Where they are placed, what size they are and their environmental impact will continue to be debated, not whether they are needed at all.
Wee Dobie from Mull
Classrooms sporting information from wind energy companies is ok but personally I wouldn't treat them any different to double glazing companies who would also say they are doing their bit for the environment. Their motivation and sales techniques are probably quite similar and it would be foolish to think otherwise.
pondhead from Mull
Pondhead,
Thanks for your comments.I'll deal with the longest one first. Yes, I believe that in twenty or thirty years time that we will be considerably advanced as regards different ways of providing our much required electrical power. These expected advantages are not noticable yet;therefore the requirement for wind farms. We must have the electricity plus a clean enviornment-nuclear power is far too dangerous, always was. Shall we ever see the day when it is not?
Have you ever considered how interisting solar power could well be. I can imagine enormous prospects for it in the future. These advantages are not available in a noticable way yet, but with their advent wind farms could be less prominent.
Now, the second and the shorter of the comments:Well, I think you are looking on the gloomy side a bit. I wish I had double glazing, and indeed that I could afford it I understand that it is a good way of keeping the house warm.I hardly think that I would turn an able salesman away.
I think that it is good that school childern are having the opportunity to be brought up to date regarding the plans for the future and the invasion of the coturyside to gain a necessary commodity. They must be clued up.After all they are the future.
Did you get my comment as regards your comment to my blogg: In good faith. 22/9/04.
I believe Tony is in Coll now. I look forward to having him back on the comments again.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree.
"Are wind farms the answer to climate change and global warming or is it all a farce and a figment of the imagination.
The planet might well not be in danger after all?"
Well whatever the pros and cons of wind farms I'm sorry but the issue of whether the planet is or isnt in danger isnt really debated apart from people on the far-right of the American Republican Party, Oil Tycoons and the like. No doubt it'll be argued that I have no right to state a view on windfarms somewhere where I dont live, but I would be in favour of a bank of them along the top of Arthur's Seat, the Braids and Blackford Hill. Reneable Energy is the onluy answer to global warming. Fact.
Malcolm from Edinburgh
Wee Dobie from Mull,
Thanks for the comment. Not only do I think that wind turbines are "intersting industrial structures,"but I look upon them as being somewhat asethetic; and many admit that they are. But as you say they may not suit all locations; many agree. As regards costs, I am not well acquainted with this aspect and dare not at the moment make comment.But I would hardly imagine that the end out put from the turbines would lessen in importance.
AsI already said, when you say that we are not advised properly to reduce use of electricity, I must again admit that my knowledge of the economics lacks rather a bit.But as regards the present, wind turbines are the only suitable clean energy providers, till something more suitable appers over the horizion.
I still fail to see how tv adverts etc take away feelings of guilt,turbines remain and will do so for many years yet.
As regards the letter by David Bruce to Jim Wallace: I believe that wind generation plus other kinds of providers, will indeed make an impression on unwanted omissions. If the country requires(juice)how can it possibly risk the grid system if this matter is addressed at the source and in good time.
Stability:
I hardly think that renewal tecnologies are a "cash cow" as government backing at the moment is not over zelous.Jobs don't seem to have a priority status but wind turbines do.Clean electricity is desperately required on this country's adgenda and this is towards a clean healthy future for us all.
Tourisim, you mention, as far as I am concerned,bully to them all,they gained maturity long ago.
And to end, it is not that I'm not immovable as regards wind farms, as such, but that I can see quite clearly the immense need which looms before us.
As you mention the enviornment, we are not minimising the matter of this important issue but pollution desperately requires to be addressed at every opportunity. Discretion in the erection of wind farms throughout the countryside,I hope will be the byword, at all times.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree.
Hi Malcolm. Did I read somewhere recently that there was a push to get Arthur's Seat listed as some world heritage site? Maybe that's because people like me keep suggesting that windfarms are much more appropriate being built there. Clearly windfarms would have less impact on the economy of that city with so many things on offer. I wonder what percentage of visitors to Edinburgh go there because of that hill - not many I think. A real comparison may be for me to suggest that we knock down Edinburgh Castle and put the turbines on that site? For many parts of Scotland the mountains are the economic equivalent of Edinburgh Castle. I am sure the people of Edinburgh would not object because they are not selfish and would not stand in the way of the windfarm developers efforts to save the world - if that is your belief. I feel "in my bones" that there will be no windfarms in Edinburgh despite the minimal impact they are said to have, but its very kind of you to offer Malcolm. I assume your green position does not allow you to be a supporter of James Lovelock? I am still looking for someone who is!
pondhead from Mull
James Lovelock? No, not really a fan. I think Gaia is a sort of projection that makes the planet into a sort of cuddly toy and absolves companies and abusing nation states of their responsibilities. I think Gaia Theory is largely rubbish and his call for nuclear power is reprehensible. I see for example that Dounereay is now going to cost us (ONLY) 拢1 billion to close. This was the positive spoihj beiung out out by the UKAEA this week.
That's not to open but to close a nuclear power site!!!
Give me strength. Where are the NIMBYS when you need them?
Malcolm from Edinburgh
Malcolm,
Sorry to have to correct you but Dounreay is nothing to do with nuclear power generation.
The whole concept of fast fission reactors is military, to produce fissionable materials (plutonium 239) from none fissile isotopes of uranium, U238.
The outrageous cost of decommissioning should be attributed to our being a nuclear weapons state and has nothing to do with nuclear power generation.
Yes it produced a little electricity but that was propaganda to hide it's real function... bombs.
Tony from ex Uig
Malcholm from Edinburgh,
We all have the right to have our opinions on, Wind farms, Climate Change,not only the:American Republican Party or the Oil Tycoons.
Arthur's Seat, The Braids and Blackfhord Hill, I'm sure would be ideal for wind turbines and they could well be landscaped to look attractive to the passers by as they wouldn't look obtrusive in any way.
Renewable energy is he only answer to global warming so far with wind turbines as yet being ahead in the efforts.
IW.
Pondhead,
Don't carry the fun too far,-Edinburgh Castle levelled!,how dare you! The hills and the castle have an economic value but are in no way equal. It is my impression that the world requires to be brought back from the brink after being severely garnished by dirty pollution.
The green position is worthy of notice and many in this country and beyond have concerns in proportion.
IW.
Malcolm from Edinburgh,
Re a further one of your comments:
I am out of my depth - James Lovelock - never heard of him! nor have I been acquainted with the name Gaia. What is Spoihj beinng, or something like that!
Nuclear power - I was always against it and didn't prove popular as a result. My human nature tells me that it is not right. Will it ever be?
IW.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree
Hi Malcolm. I don't get the feeling that Lovelock is saying this to be popular or intentionally to be unpopular. You appear to both be in agreement that this is a serious issue.
pondhead from Mull
Hi Malcolm. I should also have said I also believe this is a serious issue. My reading of Lovelocks position is that he is probably very aware of all the lies,deceits and P.R. in the nuclear industry yet he is saying something which damages his reputation in the eyes of many greens. Despite this he has said what he believes despite it being so very unpopular. Why would he do that? I don't think his assessment is quite so easily dismissed.
Island Wanderer. Popularity is a much over rated currency when it comes to looking for some sort of truth so please forgive me, I was trying to make a point - clumsily as usual. I am not suggesting anyone carries out my redevelopment plans for Edinburgh! Re James Lovelock....I think I am right in saying he was the chap who opened the first windfarm in the U.K. and has some understanding of the environment.You can find a lot about his ideas on the web. Regarding his recent position I suggest you copy and paste this link to read the article:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230
Tony: there was me fully expected to get a serious kicking from you!
pondhead from Mull
Pondhead;
Sorry to disappoint, I'm still trying to find by steel toe-capped boots... now which box were they in.
I've still not found any time to read all the correspondence of late hence my lack of stirring. But I do know where the wooden spoon hides!
Tony from ex Uig
For Island Wanderer, a bio on Lovelock:
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm
pondhead from Mull
Reply to comments from:- Pondhead from Mull,Tony ex Uig, Pondhead from Mull 2.,Tony from ex uig 2.
I am keen to find out about this man Lovelock. it appears that he was about at the very start of wind farms.
An address supplied, thanks.
Tony from ex Uig,
Hope you found the boots ok. Good to see you back online. Is it true that you've settled in Coll. I hope you have a long and happy stay there. Dare we expect to see you in Tiree sometime?
Pondhead from Mull 2,
To Malcolm: This lovelock must have been quite a fellow and it seems that he stood by his beliefs - if most people didn't where would we be.
To Island Wanderer:
I understand now that your quip regarding Edinburgh was purely in jest. you are forgiven. Again, lovelock seems a popular person.
Thanks for the link. I wonder, are the developers of wind farms all corrupt? You don't seem to have all that a high opinion of them.
Tony from ex Uig,2,
Sorry to dissapoint you, Dunreay Fission Reactors, Plotonium 239,isotopes
,uranium etc, are all beyond my scope.
Has decommissioning nothing to do with nuclear power generation???. The main idea is to produce bombs,you say, I always thought that one was pretty volotile.
Well these are all the comments meantime as I( hope to do a new blog next. I hope it won't be too controverscial. Thank you all for your comments.
IW.
Island Wanderer from From Tiree
I am astonished that educated people reading the Independent鈥檚 James Lovelock article debate whether they are a fan of him or not. The article is far from radical, all the issues have been raised before and researched (and reported) by the many prominent scientists.
The science is overwhelming and the science comes from an interaction of all aspects of modern society; historians, geologists, oceanographers, chemists, physicists, glaciologists, palaeontologists etc鈥
It鈥檚 only now that it鈥檚 become trendy to talk about it and the topics receiving press other than scientific journals. I recall discussing these very issues as a student back in the sixties/seventies and being branded an outrageous radical and told by my polluting piers of the time to get a hair cut.
Interestingly, the article agrees with my thoughts that the Kyoto Treaty is (sadly) just a cosmetic attempt. Real action is needed and now.
As to a solution, I disagree with the article. Nuclear energy is just one solution that would minimise greenhouse gasses. So will scrubbing power station flues combined with CO2 sequestration, so will the banning of all cars, so will switching off the electricity supply, etc...
OK, so many of the possible solutions may be completely stupid but they are solutions other than nuclear. It鈥檚 up to the public and politicians, having all the science explained to them, to decide on a course of action that either ignores the problem or tackles the problem.
Firstly one must comprehend the threat. Current science mentions the flooding of huge amounts of land as the sea level rises. One may wish to say 鈥渄on鈥檛 be daft鈥 but the science is simple, a bit of volumetric maths of ice caps turning to water and falling by gravity into the sea. This IS happening and has been measured. Other camps suggest, with massive backing from the whole scientific community, that the gulf stream will switch off, again, as it has done before in the history of the earth.
None of these 鈥榬esults of global warming鈥 will cause the 鈥楨nd of the world鈥 but will have a huge impact on the complete ecosystem of the planet and life as we know it.
So, if you accept that living in an ice age (i.e. no gulf stream) would be OK, or it鈥檚 quite right and proper for millions to move their homes to higher ground na dwe will loose a significant amount of food growing land, then you carry on building your pathetic windmills and burry your heads further into the sand.
Whether you or I like it, nuclear power IS a solution and society has to decide whether the dangers of such technology are acceptable (real dangers that is and not perceived dangers transferred from the bomb factories of Windscale, Chernobyl and Dounreay).
Personally, I鈥檓 already training my dog team and look forward to sledding to Tobermory for an evening pint of real ale. It鈥檒l take years for CalMac to get icebreakers!
Tony
Tony from ex Uig
IW,
Luckily there are Uig's on nearly every island so coming from Uig meant I could be more anomalous than my current home in Arinagour. The Uig I came from was actually the one on Coll so I have been on Coll for all of my blogging career. Before that I came from the pretend island of Anglesey which has a nuclear power station and far too many windfarms, one next to where I lived and was, astonishingly, built on the lee side of a hill!
PS sorry about the typos in by last comment.
Tony from exUig
Hi Tony
I'm a bit confused about which bit your astonished by: "I am astonished that educated people reading the Independent鈥檚 James Lovelock article debate whether they are a fan of him or not."
I thought we were discussing 1) the Gaia hypothesis - that the world can be viewed as one living and self re-generating organism and 2) whether nuclear power can save the planet.
Why is this astonishing to debate?
You say: "It鈥檚 up to the public and politicians, having all the science explained to them, to decide on a course of action that either ignores the problem or tackles the problem."
Unfortunately its up to neither. The problem lies in the relationship between the State and Big Business, and its most illuminating to watch this relationship unfold in the most crass expression of capitalism - the US of A.
I've been won round by friends to support Kerry on these grounds. A second Bush presidency would be terrible, for Kyoto (half-assed as it is) and our shared future.
Malcolm from Edinburgh
On a tangent, (regarding ways of reducing global warming) how about the contribution vegetarianism could make or even vaccinating ruminants! Yes pondhead has lost the plot again. See: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996431
pondhead from Mull
How does anonymous get changed to anomalous? Darn computers
Tony from exUig
Malcolm,
Yes you are probably right to quiz me. I took a small piece of earlier correspondence and used it a little out of context. Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush.
I agree completely about capitalism and the US of A but ultimately people do have their say. It just takes a very long time. Look how long it's taken green issues to be considered seriously all starting from a few loonies in the sixties. However, in the timescale needed to sort out global warming you are correct, money and greed will rule.
By the way I was not astonished by discussions on Gaia theory or nuclear power, they are very relevant.
Tony from the village
Hi Malcolm. I mentioned Lovelock as an assessor of the situation we find ourselves. You will appreciate that there are other voices saying similar things but Lovelock's is interesting because of his green credentials ( or not as you say). Malcolm, you say:"I think Gaia Theory is largely rubbish and his call for nuclear power is reprehensible." Therefore I presume you see the situation as less urgent than he does and feel it is appropriate for our main energy source to be gas, coal and oil?
pondhead from Mull
RSS Feed