For the turbine skeptics

Mark Buchanan has an article in New Scientist 2 April p8 which raises questions about the availability of flow energy and the possible bad effects of extracting a lot of it.

Reply to
Peter Scott
Loading thread data ...

Links?

Reply to
Manticore

formatting link

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

formatting link
you my friend. Always amazes me when people are using a medium such as this then don't provide a link :-)

Reply to
Manticore

formatting link

I have it bookmarked..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

formatting link
> Thank you my friend. Always amazes me when people are using a medium such as

I'm trying to sell more copies

Reply to
Peter Scott

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000= 0000000000000000000000000000000

Oh look it's Harry!

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Harry, have you ever thought of becoming a science fiction writer?

You're certainly a bit clueless when it comes to facts

Reply to
geoff

Reply to
geoff

Indeed. More desperate measures to discredit it by the wind lobby fully paid up nerds.

Are there no depths to which they will not sink?

formatting link
?event=22
formatting link

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

A *what* turnip head, harry? I think there was some noise on the line there damaged the transmission. Could you clarify? - thanks.

Reply to
Tim Streater

I think harry just lost his carrier.

(and "turnip head" could be the new plantpot! :-)

Reply to
Jules Richardson

Back on topic, this appears to be reasonably balanced, unlike harry.

formatting link

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

harry's in a carrier? Perhaps he needs burping then.

Reply to
Tim Streater

"Even if every town in Suffolk, were to erect 10 wind turbines and completely destroy the tourist industry (worth £7.5bn) and two 600MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbines to back them up, and cover the whole county in electricity cables, it could not even begin to match the output of Sizewell B, which already makes Suffolk a net exporter of zero carbon energy, let alone Sizewell C, which will make it the greenest county in the UK by a country mile, if we are allowed to retain any country miles, that is."

Now if the turbines did what they say you wouldn't need to cover the county in pylons. As the turbines are already in each market town you don't need to distribute the power any further.

The nuclear / CGT for the windless days wouldn't need any more cable infrastructure than is already in place.

Only a _little_ unfair.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

Yes you would. On the rare occasions that the wind actually blew hard, there is oversupply.

No, teh xetra nfrastrucutre is need to take teh wind power away when there is too much

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

But they don't, though, do they. See that report TNP posted.

Reply to
Tim Streater

formatting link
UPDATE, April 6: This article has elicited a considerable amount of interest, and some criticism. We always welcome discussions of the stories we publish. Some readers felt the original headline (Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all) was misleading, so to address these concerns we have changed it. We have also been made aware of a wider debate about Kleidon's research that we did not address in the original article: we will continue to follow this issue and report back on what we find.

Reply to
OG

formatting link

"The wind lobby is leaning on us very hard, and we have been forced to compromise impartiality to give space to some hurriedly put together counter propaganda"

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.