Compact fluorescent lamps failing

A LOT smaller than todays monstrosities.

Anyway, 20% of three times too much is literally pissing in the wind.

We NEED about three times the generation capacity to get fossil fuels off the roads. So 100% of that 300% is say - 135,0000 windmills. One for every 50 people in the country.

The cities were smothered in chimnies belching all kinds of noxious materials and we don't have that any more either.

Rather a difference between the small windmills used for agricultural purposes and the huge ugly white things attempting to generate electricity.

Not according to your report. You may think that they are fine looking. Others don't.

Did it include surveys from other sources that would give a different view? As a minimum there is the possibility of editorial conrol by selection, so the source cannot be considered to be reliable.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:50:02 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Which report is it that I have produced? Does this report relate to appearance or the output of wind turbines?

Should you wish to criticise the reports then feel free to study them and give us some explicit counters. Until then your criticisms can not really be taken seriously.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:44:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

A fascinating example of how to concoct figures.

Meanwhile those of us advocating sustainable generation are not advocating generating all the electricity from onshore wind turbines and thus your point is moot.

This 10% requirement is already in force in lots of councils, referred to as the 'Merton Rule', after the London Borough that devised it - a minority Conservative council. I've just had a long talk this morning with one of our users who is grappling with this in leafy Waverley, so don't expect a change of government to change anything in this regard.

My church's windows badly need replacing: putting in a different design (but appropriate for the age of building) would enable us to have double glazing which would cut our energy use significantly, and the cost would probably be less than replicating what we have. It's 99% certain that if we wanted to do the first, our planners would fight us all the way. If it's stick with which to beat developers, climate change is a great weapon. Otherwise do they really care? Excuse the cynicism.

So where does the rest come from?

Not enough land for biofuel. Not enough sun for solar. Not enough estuaries for wave power. Not enough volcanoes for geothermal.

What's left? Fossil or nuclear. for the last 80%

ok so which is better. Nuclear.

So why piss around with ugly windmills?

Indeed. As usual they have discovered a problem, then decided on the way it's to be (seen to be) solved (the wrong way) and made that compulsory.

Less travel, more national Grid, better insulation and nuclear power stations would reduce our Co2 emissions by 90%. With no appreciable environmental impact aesthetic or otherwise.

Things that wont work are:-

- hydrogen fuel

- hybrid cars

- bus lanes

- speed humps

- CFL lightbulbs

- Biofuel

- windmills

Strangely however by making us suffer with having to put up with all of the above, they can tell us they are 'doing something'

Thus spake Andy Hall ( snipped-for-privacy@hall.nospam) unto the assembled multitudes:

But not all others. I think they are fabulous. Form and function in glorious harmony. We're hoping to erect one at this university. It'll provide 20% of our electricity, with another 20% from our CHP plant which is being installed as I speak.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:33 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Anything to back up this series of assertions?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:48:41 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

You are again trying to pose a simplistic either or question, but things are rather more complicated than that.

For example, wave generation would not be done in estuaries, it would be done out at sea. You didn't mention tidal currents. There is a long list of things.

Tons of stuff posted last week.

Tell me ho YOU personally would reduce CO2 emissions by 90% and still keep this country a viable industrial society with a population of 65M or more.

The BEST your bloody windmills cando s 20% of around 40% of the total CO2 burn (the electric generator burn part)

Great: Destroy the countryside for 8% reduction. Typical.

Out as sea? so block half the north sea with hufely expensive bobbing platforms for a few megawatts? How to build them? what cost? how to get the power ashore?

Insane. You don't have a clue, do you?

Do the maths. Do the numbers.stop listening to the 'well it works on a small scale so it has to be The Answer' brigade.

The truth is there is NO answer at all.

Its a stark choice between a rapidly falling standard of living, climate change out of control or nuclear power. Take your pick.

Other countries have slightly different alternatives: We don't.

You tell me - or are you just making up the numbers?

Why do you imagine that your figures can, when they don't come from disinterested sources?

All kinds of things are done at universities that are not scalable or suitable for the real world.

Might as well collect farts.

Hello Hansen !

Exactly, but we have nobody else to blame for that.

DG

I'm not convinced about the windmills, but for a place like Sussex, CHP is definitely a good idea. Why only 20%?

It always bothers me that we throw away our aircon exhaust - couldn't we blow it into the houses next door?

Andy

Almost certainly - but at what price, both financially and ecologically?

Thus spake Andy Champ ( snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com) unto the assembled multitudes:

That would need a much bigger heating plant, and the one we have is enough for the university's needs, so we'd be wasting energy to produce energy. It's CHP, remember...

Our 'bought-in' electricity comes from a renewable energy supplier anyway.

In response to the other poster, he is probably right about scalability where wind power is concerned, but windmills are a very good localised source of power.