Oh my god, the worst pseudo documentary I have ever seen! Random quotes copied off of the internet, and the worst music track ever... if this represents wind farm opposition, bring on wind farms!
I do not want to look every fuckin day at several windmills that even are the biggest in the world at that moment. They are destroying our landscape just for everyboy is seeing: Hey, they are green.
Windmills are the opposite of nature, they destroy it and disturb fauna and flora. It is just about the money they can make with windmills, not about nature. that's all. We have to change us, not our environment.
In the US, did you know wind companies get $23 in subsidies/mw? Then the states give them 30%, so we end up paying for EVERYTHING, and with higher electricity rates to boot, all for a tiny bit of electricity we don't even need. It's the biggest scam since the Springfield Monorail.
the typical power density you get from wind farm is around 1Watt/square metre. do the maths andd see how many wind turbines and how many square miles of territory you would need to install to get a sizeble )but still unreliable!) wind energy source.
An example : The average energy-production of an Enercon E126 Wind Turbine is 20 Gigawatthours per year, breaking down to 6,5MWp per Hour. If your claims would be correct the Wind-Site would have to be ~ 2,5 x 2,5 km in Size. See, you are way off with your calculations.
@RoteKampfSocke we are not talking about a single wind turbine, instead a wind farm where the turbines have to be well apart from each other. Typically 30 times the square of the diameter of the rotating blades
i am also talking about wind-farms or parks. You can fit 6 or more of the E126 (which is currently the world's biggest wind turbine) in a 2,5x2,5km space ...
Real Life example : A Windfarm in Estinnes,Belgium - 11 Units in a 3x3km Area.
You can't compare the Wind situation in the us to the situation in europe, especially when the wind parks are located far away from the coasts.
The 20GWh per year i quoted earlier is generated by a precise model for one unit, including downtime. 220GWh / 9 mio m2 = 24,444 KWh/a/m2 = 66W/d/m2 = 2,72W/h .. thats almost 3x the value you originally quoted... and that is not a bad value since the land can still used as a food source for farm-animals.
it depends on the figures you consider realistic. As stated on the website "Yearly ESTIMATED production : 165 GW.h (for an equivalent of 2500 hours of full load / year) that would give a capacity factor of 2500h/ 8760h= 28%. The German EXPERIENCE however according to te E-on data when applied and measured with real data (not estimates) on the field, provided a capacity factor of about 1/6 or 17%.
@robz40 but a specific power real capacity of 0.5 or 1 or 2 or 3 W/sqm is in many ways academic because we STILL need to install and mantain Turbogas generation ready to be fired up when the wind isn't blowing. Therefore the money spent on wind power makes you save only fuel and not much of it as you cannot push wind power to more than 10-20% of the production needed. This alternative energy is NOT a real alternative, just a modest and expensive help.
@robz40 And it gets worse: 66MW of turbines cost about 66 million euros and let's assume unrealistically they last 20 years WITHOUT any maintenance and additional costs. How much nuclear fuel including waste management would they save? 20x165GWhx0.01/1000=33milion euros . There are better ways to spend that money on real services needed by the citizens.
That the way things are. Wind power is a colossal waste of money because it only allows to save fuel (and not much of it) at an enormous cost, money that would be far better spent on nuclear power stations. Renewables are NOT the future despite the hype sorrounding them because of the physical contraints. No wind = no generation therefore we need to install convenational or nuclear power stations ANYWAY to guarantte the supply. google
does anyone care 1:17 is photoshoped and has been reproduced across many web sites... .. its just a joke,, go there and look plz .... this photo is taken on the A706 at the bus stop. ....
hum...everybody seems to care about researching nuclear power and fusion and other dangerous shit,but noone cares about doing some serious investigation on how to take the best out of renewable energies...yeah!A big lie indeed. I know the turbines can damage ecosystems...scientists need to put their minds at work in order to avoid that,it's called good will and we're reponsable of our enviroment.
... L'éolien réduit les émissions de CO2 car l'éolien se substitue aux centrales thermqiues. Le nucléaire a trop d'inertie, il ne peut dépasser 75% du total de la puissance utile..
Firstly, I am a greenhouse skeptic too. I agree wind has problems with supplying a consistant power source, and is visually intrustive. But it has its place in the generation of power. It should be used selectively rather than widely. If highly windy areas could help generate power - then why not exploit the potential? However, I think the real secret to lowering power usage is to try to curb population growth - something everyone (including governments)seem reluctant to acknowledge.
Having lots of wind turbines dotting the landscape might be a worthwhile sacrifice if they produced large amounts of usable energy. they don't.
For all their expense and extreme size they're a piddly and unreliable energy source. The most misleading thing is the nameplate energy rating - in reality they average more like 20%. But the bigger problem is the intermittentcy. It means many many more coal and gas plants.
Its not a lie or misleading, its how power generation stats are reported, although it should be made more clear.
The same scrutiny should apply to, for example UK coal plants, who have a nameplate/installed capacity of 28.5GW but taking into account their avg load factor (62.5% in 07) this should be reduced to 17.8GW.
If it is misleading then its something the whole industry is guilty of, only in the case of wind its load factor being lower the difference is more obvious.
You claim that mans CO2 is proven to cause unnatural warming is a lie. If you have the proof, there is a $500,0000 prize awaiting you. No on else has claimed. Good luck getting it.
As for 50% from wind; are you insane?? You deliberately avoid the fundamental issue. Wind will always need 90% - 100 % back up from conventional stations. This has been stated by wind company executives and UK has been asked to build new conventional stations to back up the turbines. Madness
Also, it is simply not true that a large proportion of our (in the US, anyways) electricity supply can't come from wind. If there were an efficient, integrated, high-voltage North American grid connecting geographically dispersed wind farms, we could easily - and reliably - get 50% of our power solely from wind. In other words, the wind isn't always blowing everywhere, but it's always blowing somewhere. New storage technologies will further increase reliability/consistency of supply.
You climate change denialists first said it was crazy that CO2, a compound whose radiative forcing potential is beyond dispute, caused climate change. When that came apart like a $2 shirt, the talking point became warming is real, but not a threat. Then you clowns admitted it was a problem, but it was too expensive to do anything about right now. And now that wind is among the most economical forms of power, you're complaining that it spoils your view. How pathetic. Just give it up already.
I don't know what that man bases that sentence about Danish CO2 on since wind accounts for 20% of Danish energy consumption. I suspect it is yet another sentence taken out of context and out of meaning by the sceptics.
Renewable technologies are incapable of producing anywhere near as much power as 'dirty-methods'. That not a reason to use dirty power though - its the reason to use a lot less power with renewables! Isn't this a no-brainer...?
I agree, Wind energy is a waste of money. Its said that Wind is used to make people think that they use "green power", while they actually use more coal and nuclear power. Companys that make these wind-plants get tremendeous financial aids while they build these monsters. So its a business which we all pay.
"... it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push Britain's installed power base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts."
"Industry sources estimate the bill for additional generation could be well in excess of £50bn."
Tafia, who said the power stations would close down? Why do you want them to? They'll run less and produce less CO2, but be there for when it's not windy.
This is a typical comment from someone who understands nothing of the way the grid works.
You're making no sense. Firstly, you don't understand statistics: so don't quote them. You can't look at a number as small as the number of accidents with wind power and scale it up like that - it's meaningless.
If people would just stop lying about wind power and pandering myths, then we could actually HAVE a meaningful generation - the National Grid have stated that the system can cope with approx. 30%.
If you replaced coal power plants with wind power plants, then you would have to "scale it up like that". How else would it work? It's not my fault if you have trouble looking at things objectively.
That doesn't make any sense. You don't even understand how multiplication works? At least 49 people have been killed by wind turbines (probably more), for a very small amount of energy generated. According to wind PROPONENT Paul Gipe, the all-time average is 0.15 people killed per TWh. Now multiply this rate by the total energy you want to generate (the amount produced by the things that wind will replace), and you'll have an estimate of the total deaths it will cause.
Nothing at all wrong with wind power if we don't count the huge cost and general uselessness of wind-power for large scale generation and the need for constant back-up.
BTW, how is it "clean" when it takes such huge amounts of energy to manufacture, transport and erect the things?
Idiots rant about wanting clean power... Then they rant because clean energy is not pretty. I wish all the stupid liberal tree kissers would go live in a cave without the electricity they complain about. Wind power is clean; unlike coal and nuke power... Therefore, I think windmills are beautiful!
This video is stupid, i'm from denmark and we get 25% of our energy from windmills, thats energy for 1,3 million peaple. And the amount of wind energy is still rising.
You might have 25% capcity, but what you get depends on the weather. In France they have 78% nuclear capacity and get loads and loads and loads of CO2-free power every single day of the year. Enough to export to every single one of their neighbours.
Nuclear reactors run flat out; they can only produce as much as the minimum demand on a leccy grid. Saying France produces ~78% of their electricity with nuclear is misleading; it's more to the point to suggest that it contributes ~30% of the leccy capacity on the european grid - which is roughly the point of minimum demand. It would be like suggesting that Suffolk produces ~100% of their electricity with nuclear. It simply wouldn't contribute any more than 20% of the capacity in the UK.
ok, lets kill evry1 on the planet to keep its beauty in sum parts. and plus that comment about the "not able 2 shut down alredy existing plants", we wont av 2 burn as much in the plants
that music was extreme... yea and who do you propose a better way to get energy?? you put it underwater and it starts killing fish and all the freakin activists will be up in arms again.
Supercapacitor? That's incredibly ignorant. Don't believe this guy. The way to store large amounts of energy like this is with hydroelectric and compressed air utilities. They're not that efficient, and wind power doesn't produce any significant amounts of energy worth storing, but that's how we routinely store energy from every other type of power plant.
You can get power out of ocean currents, and the turbines are close to land, it's still not as advanced as windmill technology, but it will get there.
this is bullshit how the fuck is it hurting the environment, also who the fuck is giving thumbs down to ppl against this? also if something goes wrong with windfarms, jack happens. if something goes wrong with nuclear plants, thousands die
Dozens of people have been killed by wind farm accidents, which is actually a huge number when you consider the tiny amount of power they've produced. If they were used in such large numbers as to replace all other power sources, we'd see people being killed by them malfunctioning on the news every night.
And yes, the numbers are low, but the power output, is too. There's no reason to believe that safety would suddenly improve if we built enough turbines to replace fossil fuels, so there would be a lot more deaths.
There was a fatality at Earlsburn wind farm where a fall arrest system failed. I think it's silly to criticise safety: they are statistically MUCH safer (on a per MWh basis) than either coal or gas. Only nuclear is probably safer on a per MWh basis.
Wind turbines are more dangerous than coal or gas from a safety perspective (on a per MWh basis). From a deaths-by-pollution perspective wind is better. Nuclear beats all of them, though.
You can find all sorts of things in Google searches. The fact is that wind power is safe.
In the UK there has been one accident to a worker on a site. It was a terrible accident, but it's still only ONE person.
Why are you being so negative? What other suggestions do you have? We need more generation. Nuclear is important, but won't solve everything. We need renewables as part of the energy mix.
Yes, the number of deaths is low. It's the number of deaths PER UNIT OF ENERGY that is high. If we replaced all our fossil fuel plants with wind power plants there would be many more deaths because of this.
To think of it another way, the amount of power produced by renewables is very very low. Combine all the energy produced by all the wind power plants in the world and it would fit into the measurement error of other power sources. It's a negligible part of the "energy mix".
The longer we chase after things like this, the more radioactive toxic waste is dumped into our atmosphere by coal power plants.
I already said it doesn't take into account deaths from pollution, which isn't caused by climate change, anyway. Other way around.
Estimating deaths caused by climate change is a highly speculative business, and the effect wind power has on climate change (if any) is very contentious. But if one power source is proportionally 100 times as deadly as another, I'm going to think it's bad, even if the numbers might be a bit off. Even with very generous estimates, it's still bad, in other words.
nuclear powerplants have the potential to become nuclear ... weapons, remember what happend in russia? plus ! uranium isnt reneable... just like oil.. its going to run out, the wind... and... whats more important... being able to have a huge house and big backyard with an amazing veiw... or.. being alive to even get that... without stuff like this.. we wont be here in a couple hundred years
hahahahhaha...to old to CARE i bet. Not to old to ruin it for everyone else. Renewable is the future, videos like this wont count for anything in the end.
Your grandkids will laugh out loud when they are told of the crazy idea that humans can control the weather. "How could grandad Miniwatts believe this crap?" they will ask in amazement.
We need to act NOW before our grand kids suffer the consequences Germany makes 12 times our wind power with much lower average winds (see bwea). No one likes having mobile transponders near their homes either, but we all want mobiles. Flog your 4x4's and plush big houses have a uk holiday, that will help the enviroment aswell , classic N.I.M.B.Y.
Nuclear does give us reliable abundant energy unlike wind which gives us dead birds and big bills. Nuclear waste can be safely dealt with. Google Finland nuclear waste disposal and try to keep up with the facts.
Man, this is so accurate. Screw these windfarms that provide clean power, give me nuclear waste, heavy metal ash and long-term damaging wastes over wind power any day! /sarcasm
Bullcrap, Over 90,000 CO2 measurements were taken from 1820 to 1940 using Petenkofer process which revealed CO2 levels were as high as 430 ppm in that period. (now 380 ppm)IPCC didn't like that; it destroyed their myth so they claimed the figures incaccurate even though they came from Nobel winning scientists.
Not true squire. The Vostok ice core research went back 420,000 years and clearly shows four previous interglacials all warmer than todays. Greenland core samples show temperatures rising 5 degrees in less than 100 years.
Better that than a polluted sky, lung diseases and cancer, don't you think? Climate change is a problem, temperatures have risen in proportion to Co2 output since the beginning of the industrial revolution. You not wanting this to be true does not make it untrue. It's just your opinion, a redneck opinion that doesn't make sense.
People are missing the point I think. You may think oil, coal and nuclear power stations are pretty but at the end of the day we're going to run out of oil, coal and gas eventually, not to mention how dirty they are.
Windfarms are the best idea for power generation in the UK because we dont get much sun but we are the windiest nation in Europe!
ok orinoco7 how tall are the house at 1:20 and 1:30??? and do you have a cell phone they are tall as or taller than many turbines there a tower by my house that 1000+ feet tall
Well if it is 26% (and i don't know whether that's accurate or not) that's more efficient than the average lightbulb - there's no energy source with 100% efficiency in practice or even close to it
Well thats not what they're telling them now. Presumably the difference is down to the considerable improvements in the efficiency of wind turbines made over the last decade.
I see you've deleted your post claiming the Climate Reality website had 90 'scientific articles' proving climate change isnt man-made - and my reply pointing out that not one of those articles was written by a scientist - and they included speeches from Republican senator Tom McClintock who gets campaign funds from Exxon-Mobil (google Tom McClintock and Exxon). I wonder why.
That's two accusations I have had today of doctoring photos (not true) and now taking comments off. While I have the right to do this I only delete abusive remarks - it is still there - you can repeat your stuff as often as you like. As long as you are discussing I am happy to try and answer.
because they did disagree on this issue in the 70s, 80s and 90s but the sheer weight of evidence has changed the minds of the sceptics and created concensus among scientists ; because if they decided they wanted to lie for money they could get $10,000 per academic paper they wrote denying climate change was man-made - but most of them still say it is man-made.
Can you say why you believe the politicians and front groups funded by the big oil companies?
There is no real- world weight of evidence Duncan. It exists only in computer models. I repeat, he consensus was "orchestrated by the IPCC" Written by IPCC co-chair John Houghton in his book. I have a copy but I bet you don't.
Untrue - it exists in artic ice cores going back many tens of thousands of years among other things and we know from this and other evidence that the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the earth's inhabited history
Untrue Tafia - there are arctic ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years which show the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the earth's inhabited history
Duncan, Wise up. Those IPCC summaries are written by a few government-appointed writers and do not reflect the views of the majority of scientists. The agreement you cite is always "orchestrated " by the IPCC. This was admitted by a former IPCC chairman in his book. He appeared to be boasting about it.
That's simply untrue. They're written by thousands of scientists from all around the world. Most of the tiny minority who deny it have been offered $10,000 per academic paper they write denying climate change is man-made by companies like Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
Orinoco - i see another of your videos is about "the myth of anthropomorphic climate change" - funny how pretty much every scientific expert on climate change agreed at the IPCC conference that human activity is almost certainly a major cause of climate change
You are wrong about a consensus in the IPCC. The loud voices of the politicians have drowned out the scientific truths. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that there is no scientific evidence to show that man has anything to do with climate change. Money that could be better spent is being wasted on grants to try and convince us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening. Climate change is a natural process. Money would be well better spent saving the rainforests.
I have 90 links to scientific articles on the Climate Reality website plus numerous pdf docs and links to websites...you are only hearing the political case and do not appear to have looked at the scientific data saying that climate change is a natural process. All this is a drop in ocean compared to what evidence there is out there putting forward true science and not political science.
I just looked it up by googling Climate Reality - There are no academic articles by scientists on it, just a load of editorials and comment articles from newspapers almost none of which are even written by scientists.
One of the articles is written by Tom McClintock - who isnt a scientist but a politician - and one who gets funding for his campaigns from Exxon-Mobil (google Tom McClintock Exxon - and look at the third page that comes up)
Oh and there's Melanie Phillips - who writes for that rag the Daily Mail and is notorious for never researching her articles properly and thinking her opinion is so important she doesnt need to know any of the facts
I believe the vast majority of scientific experts. There was debate among scientists in the 80s and 90s about whether global warming was man-made or not. That debate's over. The evidence now is so overwhelming that scientists agree there's a 90-95% probability that current global warming involves a large man-made element.
If you'd rather be suckered by charlatan politicians funded by Exxon-Mobil and by sloppy journalists who don't even check their facts feel free though.
but there was no concensus in the whole scientific community on that - only a minority of scientists claimed it.
Plus it may not be entirely inaccurate. If global warming slows or stops the ocean convection currents from the equator to the poles then the UK could end up as cold as Alaska (which is on the same latitude)
Orinoco you quote Professor Rod Smith of Imperial College as disparaging wind turbines as not cost effective. Yet even the website of the Nuclear Industry Association (hardly supporters of wind power) quotes the report of the Royal Academy (one of whose authors is listed as Professor Rod Smith) as stating that problems with intermittent power production by renewables could be solved by sharing electricity between countries and by increasing storage capacities.
Energy in Brief 2006...shows that wind produced 1% of our energy in 2005. How many more wind farms will have to go up to make a significant input? And no nuclear power stations could close even then. Wind energy is the wrong way forward.
I was in Forth handing out leaflets in the 2005 election after most of the wind-turbines were already up and there are no turbines in or even nearly as close to the village as shown in those (obviously photoshopped or edited) photos - no matter what kind of camera the original photo was taken with.
Anyone who doubts it can go to Forth and see for themselves - Gadjabout's right - those still photos of Forth in the video are frauds.
Fact is the Blacklaw turbines could not reliably supply a street light could they?
BTW, are the 80,000 homes you cite disconnected from the grid and supplied directly from the wind farm? Those not as expert as you on the national grid would like to know.
So explain how the grid system worked before the introduction of wind in terms of loss of power? And how does it work now? And is there any difference? Thank god you're not working in the electricity supply industry anymore, otherwise the lights will be out sooner than we think.
Pro-winders are operating on SO many false premises. Example: oil provides only about 2% towards all our electrical generation. You could put up 1,000,000 wind turbines and it would be completely irrelevant to oil production. It would have absolutely NO effect on oil demand. But, it makes good propoganda, doesn't it...given the problem in the middle east.
How long did it take you to photoshop the pics from Black law wind farm?? I live in that Village (Forth) & work on that windfarm its a 130MW site providing electricity to over 80,000 homes..The turbines DO NOT loom over the village like that. I suggest if you are campaining against wind farms STOP posting LIES!!!!
The photographs of Black law you refer to were taken with Nikon D2X camera with a 50-500mm lens as printed on one of the photographs. I have NOT tampered with them in any way.
Then when people go to Forth they should see wind turbines right next to houses - which is what your photo shows - and the blades should be near the roofs of some of the houses.
Yet anyone who's been to Forth knows you can only see the turbines in the distance - there isnt a single one as close to a house as the ones shown in your photo - they're not even to scale in it.
Then its amazing that there are turbines shown practically right next to houses and with their blades practically touching their roofs - when anyone who's actually been to Forth can see there are no turbines anywhere near that close to houses - and even if they had been any (and there arent) their blades wouldnt come close to the level of the top of a house.
That windfarm DOES NOT provide power to 80,000 homes. What actually does the job 75% of the time? Have you looked at the actual efficiency factor? If those homes were actually powered by those turbines, they would be sitting in the dark the vast majority of the time. Cut the propoganda. Your employer has brainwashed you.
It doesn't unbalance the grid, as has been stated previously the biggest risk to unbalance the grid is the loss of a big unit, such as Sizewell B. The variation in wind can be predicted within the timescales of load balancing, even Ofgem state this and I take their opinion over yours anytime. You have yet to produce a salient fact or evidence to back up your claims.
All renewables gave us 4.2% of our electricity in 2005. 95.8% came from other sources.What do you suggest we do to make up the shortfall? Wind? Laughable.
I fail to see the relevance of your statement and yet again you have failed to answer a question posed to you. Face it, you're on a losing battle and haven't got a clue how the grid system works and the energy supply pressures we are facing in the very near future.
The key questions is where will our energy come from in 10-15 years time? Do you seriously want to rely on overseas sources of fuel from politically unstable countries. Global warming is secondary in terms of threats to the UK. So what do you propose is the solution to the energy crisis?
There are several examples of islanded grids which have adapted scheduling technology to manage intermittency. Places with far more fragile transmission and distribution networks than say the UK. This is simply system operators whining because they have to change their otherwise relatively simple electricity dispatch software.
"Wind power is so feeble it "Wind power is so feeble it is ignored by supply engineers other than the comment one engineer made: "When trying to balance the national grid with wind farms connected, it is like driving an articulated truck with no steering and no brakes""
Despite the obvious oxymoron, load balancing is only a question of adapting technology to accommodate intermittency.
regardless of whose view you choose to subscribe to (e.g. pro wind/against; pro global warming/against) there is no reason not to embrace clean renewable technology. We should also focus on environmental education - make people take responsibility of their energy use and just stop complaining about those who are taking action.
Exactly, take responsibility. Thats what these anti-wind people won't see, that it is our responsibility because we are the energy consumers. If we are to continue to consume, more power is needed, and someone has to live near whatever power stations they will build. Better that they are wind turbines than nuclear reactors surely? They need to stop this "not in my back yard" mentality or they may find they are living near the next Chernobyl.
Yes to poverty? Poverty will come about if we don't have a supply of energy that is as independent to external market pressures as possible. Wind has the lowest net cost of any generation technology. Not just economic cost but also environmental cost and social cost. Tell me, what do you see as the alternative to renewable energy? And why are they preferred to renewables?
"The same whackos were telling us a few years ago that man was causing the next Ice Age. "
The only reason you seem to be rejecting the arguments about climate change are that a previous prediction was wrong. Mind plenty of world changing predictions were proved to be true. Suppose you still think the earth is flat? It might explain why you don't like wind.
The basis of your argument is seriously flawed, as a generic group of people (in this case politicians and scientists)predicted an event that did not come to pass you can no longer value anything they predict to happen now. You have skewed all eveidence to meet with your own viewpoint, in this case that you don't like to look at wind turbines. And when questions are posed challenging those views which you cannot answer you choose to ignore them.
The basis of your argument is seriously flawed, as a generic group of people (in this case politicians and scientists)predicted an event that did not come to pass you can no longer value anything they predict to happen now. On this rationale you shouldn't trust anyone. You have skewed all evidence to meet with your own viewpoint, in this case that you don't like to look at wind turbines. And when questions are posed challenging those views which you cannot answer you choose to ignore them.
BTW, the "consensus" among climate scientists is bogus. It was admitted as such by a former chairman of the IPCC who told us in his book (I have a copy) that there was no agreement amongst scientists but because politicians needed a clear message to put to the masses, the consensus was: "orchestrated by the IPCC"
Wind power is so feeble it is ignored by supply engineers other than the comment one engineer made: "When trying to balance the national grid with wind farms connected, it is like driving an articulated truck with no steering and no brakes"
You misunderstand. Nobody is saying that Earth has not warmed slightly in the last 100 years ( 0.8 degrees C.) This is entirely within natural variation and NASA recently told us that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the last 100 were before 1940 and the warmest was 1934. Nutters have hijacked this natural variation to tax and control us and try to make us live by their rules.
Tafia I commend your faith in your views, however from the evidence I have seen (as a practicing meteorologist & engineer) I have concluded that such strong views against global warming are gravely misplaced.
And the fact remains that wind power is a source of energy with low life cycle cost, sound technology, fuel supply free of market constraints(aka free), negligible emissions, and meaningful contribution to the overall mix. It is a great way to express your individuality by being against the masses, but most modern scientists accept that global warming is taking place and it is based on robust evidence.
Solution to what? Surely you dont believe the lies about man melting the planet. The same whackos were telling us a few years ago that man was causing the next Ice Age. Frozen or fried, they can't decide which is the best scare to impose their leftie political control on the rest of us. Wake up.
The discussion isn't about global warming, it's about a secure supply of energy for the future generations seeing as how past generations have wasted so much. As a species we are living way beyond our means, CO2 is one of the indicators of that. You need to wake up before the lights go out.
TheFlange666 - you don't know the facts. You are just saying things without any scientific evidence. Wind turbines are not the solution. To say that those of us who have taken the time to study the subject are 'half wits' is laughable. I'll leave your comment on so you can be embarrassed by your inability to write anything worth reading.
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT NEED TO OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS THE WIND ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 week ago
Oh my god, the worst pseudo documentary I have ever seen! Random quotes copied off of the internet, and the worst music track ever... if this represents wind farm opposition, bring on wind farms!
tadswana 8 months ago
I do not want to look every fuckin day at several windmills that even are the biggest in the world at that moment. They are destroying our landscape just for everyboy is seeing: Hey, they are green.
Windmills are the opposite of nature, they destroy it and disturb fauna and flora. It is just about the money they can make with windmills, not about nature. that's all. We have to change us, not our environment.
Miezimiezmiez 11 months ago
In the US, did you know wind companies get $23 in subsidies/mw? Then the states give them 30%, so we end up paying for EVERYTHING, and with higher electricity rates to boot, all for a tiny bit of electricity we don't even need. It's the biggest scam since the Springfield Monorail.
Cowcharge 1 year ago
An utter waste of money with the only return being feeling "green".
Cowcharge 1 year ago
the typical power density you get from wind farm is around 1Watt/square metre. do the maths andd see how many wind turbines and how many square miles of territory you would need to install to get a sizeble )but still unreliable!) wind energy source.
robz40 2 years ago
@robz40
What is your data source ?
An example : The average energy-production of an Enercon E126 Wind Turbine is 20 Gigawatthours per year, breaking down to 6,5MWp per Hour. If your claims would be correct the Wind-Site would have to be ~ 2,5 x 2,5 km in Size. See, you are way off with your calculations.
RoteKampfSocke 1 year ago
@RoteKampfSocke we are not talking about a single wind turbine, instead a wind farm where the turbines have to be well apart from each other. Typically 30 times the square of the diameter of the rotating blades
robz40 1 year ago
@robz40
i am also talking about wind-farms or parks. You can fit 6 or more of the E126 (which is currently the world's biggest wind turbine) in a 2,5x2,5km space ...
Real Life example : A Windfarm in Estinnes,Belgium - 11 Units in a 3x3km Area.
Google it if you don't believe me.
RoteKampfSocke 1 year ago
Comment removed
easyfencing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoteKampfSocke I checked it out on google. You need to consider the capacity factor NOT just the installed MW
From google : Yearly estimated production : 165 GW.h (for an equivalent of 2500 hours of full load / year)
Estimates are generally otpmistic as maintenance and therefore no production of eletricity can be considerable (cont..)
robz40 1 year ago
@robz40 Let's do some maths with their estimates of 165GWh/(365x24hours)= 18MW
18MW/(3x3sqKm) = 2Watts/sq metre
not far from the typical 1W per sq metre stated before
My data source comes from case studies (what you get in real, experimented terms) of wind farms in the US.
robz40 1 year ago
@robz40
You can't compare the Wind situation in the us to the situation in europe, especially when the wind parks are located far away from the coasts.
The 20GWh per year i quoted earlier is generated by a precise model for one unit, including downtime. 220GWh / 9 mio m2 = 24,444 KWh/a/m2 = 66W/d/m2 = 2,72W/h .. thats almost 3x the value you originally quoted... and that is not a bad value since the land can still used as a food source for farm-animals.
RoteKampfSocke 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoteKampfSocke
it depends on the figures you consider realistic. As stated on the website "Yearly ESTIMATED production : 165 GW.h (for an equivalent of 2500 hours of full load / year) that would give a capacity factor of 2500h/ 8760h= 28%. The German EXPERIENCE however according to te E-on data when applied and measured with real data (not estimates) on the field, provided a capacity factor of about 1/6 or 17%.
robz40 1 year ago
@robz40 but a specific power real capacity of 0.5 or 1 or 2 or 3 W/sqm is in many ways academic because we STILL need to install and mantain Turbogas generation ready to be fired up when the wind isn't blowing. Therefore the money spent on wind power makes you save only fuel and not much of it as you cannot push wind power to more than 10-20% of the production needed. This alternative energy is NOT a real alternative, just a modest and expensive help.
robz40 1 year ago
@robz40 And it gets worse: 66MW of turbines cost about 66 million euros and let's assume unrealistically they last 20 years WITHOUT any maintenance and additional costs. How much nuclear fuel including waste management would they save? 20x165GWhx0.01/1000=33milion euros . There are better ways to spend that money on real services needed by the citizens.
robz40 1 year ago
That the way things are. Wind power is a colossal waste of money because it only allows to save fuel (and not much of it) at an enormous cost, money that would be far better spent on nuclear power stations. Renewables are NOT the future despite the hype sorrounding them because of the physical contraints. No wind = no generation therefore we need to install convenational or nuclear power stations ANYWAY to guarantte the supply. google
bbc tea time britain from above
and watch the video
robz40 2 years ago
does anyone care 1:17 is photoshoped and has been reproduced across many web sites... .. its just a joke,, go there and look plz .... this photo is taken on the A706 at the bus stop. ....
Gadabout96 2 years ago
such awesome, and beautiful creations! :o
2big 2 years ago
solar and wind energy is not eficient
But We will find an alternative to nuclear power
question of time
PleasureTV 2 years ago
i think Solar Energy Is better..
1-No noise
2-No sadow flicker
3-No view obstruction
Georgem68 2 years ago
But MUCH more expensive.
WockneysRedBarrel 2 years ago
hum...everybody seems to care about researching nuclear power and fusion and other dangerous shit,but noone cares about doing some serious investigation on how to take the best out of renewable energies...yeah!A big lie indeed. I know the turbines can damage ecosystems...scientists need to put their minds at work in order to avoid that,it's called good will and we're reponsable of our enviroment.
theprophecy11 2 years ago
... L'éolien réduit les émissions de CO2 car l'éolien se substitue aux centrales thermqiues. Le nucléaire a trop d'inertie, il ne peut dépasser 75% du total de la puissance utile..
laian123456 2 years ago
Those who can do ... those who can not are Professors!
enotstehw 3 years ago
Firstly, I am a greenhouse skeptic too. I agree wind has problems with supplying a consistant power source, and is visually intrustive. But it has its place in the generation of power. It should be used selectively rather than widely. If highly windy areas could help generate power - then why not exploit the potential? However, I think the real secret to lowering power usage is to try to curb population growth - something everyone (including governments)seem reluctant to acknowledge.
Starwithnoname 3 years ago
Having lots of wind turbines dotting the landscape might be a worthwhile sacrifice if they produced large amounts of usable energy. they don't.
For all their expense and extreme size they're a piddly and unreliable energy source. The most misleading thing is the nameplate energy rating - in reality they average more like 20%. But the bigger problem is the intermittentcy. It means many many more coal and gas plants.
They're just a terrible lie.
DrBuzz0 3 years ago
Its not a lie or misleading, its how power generation stats are reported, although it should be made more clear.
The same scrutiny should apply to, for example UK coal plants, who have a nameplate/installed capacity of 28.5GW but taking into account their avg load factor (62.5% in 07) this should be reduced to 17.8GW.
If it is misleading then its something the whole industry is guilty of, only in the case of wind its load factor being lower the difference is more obvious.
WockneysRedBarrel 2 years ago
josealexandrecroca.
Exactly how does reduced wind speed create rain? Do tell us.
Tafia2006 3 years ago
Sorry orinoco7 turbines slow local wind, so may rise local percipitation, if true that is a golden benefit.
josealexandrecroca 3 years ago
offsprng46
You claim that mans CO2 is proven to cause unnatural warming is a lie. If you have the proof, there is a $500,0000 prize awaiting you. No on else has claimed. Good luck getting it.
As for 50% from wind; are you insane?? You deliberately avoid the fundamental issue. Wind will always need 90% - 100 % back up from conventional stations. This has been stated by wind company executives and UK has been asked to build new conventional stations to back up the turbines. Madness
Tafia2006 3 years ago 2
Also, it is simply not true that a large proportion of our (in the US, anyways) electricity supply can't come from wind. If there were an efficient, integrated, high-voltage North American grid connecting geographically dispersed wind farms, we could easily - and reliably - get 50% of our power solely from wind. In other words, the wind isn't always blowing everywhere, but it's always blowing somewhere. New storage technologies will further increase reliability/consistency of supply.
offsprng46 3 years ago
You climate change denialists first said it was crazy that CO2, a compound whose radiative forcing potential is beyond dispute, caused climate change. When that came apart like a $2 shirt, the talking point became warming is real, but not a threat. Then you clowns admitted it was a problem, but it was too expensive to do anything about right now. And now that wind is among the most economical forms of power, you're complaining that it spoils your view. How pathetic. Just give it up already.
offsprng46 3 years ago
I don't know what that man bases that sentence about Danish CO2 on since wind accounts for 20% of Danish energy consumption. I suspect it is yet another sentence taken out of context and out of meaning by the sceptics.
Renewable technologies are incapable of producing anywhere near as much power as 'dirty-methods'. That not a reason to use dirty power though - its the reason to use a lot less power with renewables! Isn't this a no-brainer...?
dt2002dk 3 years ago
Put this into Google:
Yesterday, a listener on the Michael Medved show challenged me that (I paraphrase), "Denmark has adopted wind power at no cost."
Tafia2006 3 years ago
I agree, Wind energy is a waste of money. Its said that Wind is used to make people think that they use "green power", while they actually use more coal and nuclear power. Companys that make these wind-plants get tremendeous financial aids while they build these monsters. So its a business which we all pay.
suharinos 3 years ago
"... it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push Britain's installed power base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts."
"Industry sources estimate the bill for additional generation could be well in excess of £50bn."
Wind = more coal & gas guys!
(The Guardian, June 4 2008).
Whaup67 3 years ago
windpowerfails,
Not heard the latest? Earth has been cooling for 10 years with rising CO2. Why do we need wind non-power?
Ho ho ho. Gotcha.
Tafia2006 3 years ago
yes, that's right, wind turbines sure are beautiful! And yes, they will obviously mean less CO2 emissions from conventional power.
windpowerrocks 3 years ago
magyaar,
How many real power stations will shut down as a result of wind non-power? Erm.....not one.
Tafia2006 3 years ago 2
No need for them to shut down... just to reduce emissions.
luiscolorado 3 years ago
Tafia, who said the power stations would close down? Why do you want them to? They'll run less and produce less CO2, but be there for when it's not windy.
This is a typical comment from someone who understands nothing of the way the grid works.
magyaar 3 years ago
You're making no sense. Firstly, you don't understand statistics: so don't quote them. You can't look at a number as small as the number of accidents with wind power and scale it up like that - it's meaningless.
If people would just stop lying about wind power and pandering myths, then we could actually HAVE a meaningful generation - the National Grid have stated that the system can cope with approx. 30%.
magyaar 3 years ago
If you replaced coal power plants with wind power plants, then you would have to "scale it up like that". How else would it work? It's not my fault if you have trouble looking at things objectively.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
What I meant was the the statistics are meaningless if you scale them like you have. It's not my fault if you don't understand basic maths.
magyaar 3 years ago
That doesn't make any sense. You don't even understand how multiplication works? At least 49 people have been killed by wind turbines (probably more), for a very small amount of energy generated. According to wind PROPONENT Paul Gipe, the all-time average is 0.15 people killed per TWh. Now multiply this rate by the total energy you want to generate (the amount produced by the things that wind will replace), and you'll have an estimate of the total deaths it will cause.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
adam,
Nothing at all wrong with wind power if we don't count the huge cost and general uselessness of wind-power for large scale generation and the need for constant back-up.
BTW, how is it "clean" when it takes such huge amounts of energy to manufacture, transport and erect the things?
Tafia2006 3 years ago
Tafia. Your comment below suggests you completely misunderstand the economics of wind farms and structure of the National Grid.
The 'energy payback' of a wind farm is in the order of a few months.
As for the grid... well, duh! Any intermittent system needs backup, but that's included in the overall carbon cost.
Come back when you've learnt some more.
magyaar 3 years ago
just the people that believe/create these kinds of videos. there is nothing wrong with clean, renewable wind power energy.
adamfenner03 3 years ago
Unless there are better, more efficient alternatives
ayebretwalda 3 years ago 2
Adam,
Clarify please. What is: " complete stupidity"?
Tafia2006 3 years ago
Complete stupidity!!
adamfenner03 3 years ago
toneub. Be specific. Which parts are not true. Facts please, not opinions.
Michaelcopen: Windmills ARE beautiful, but windmills mill corn.
No corn or windmills in this video so why bring it up?
Tafia2006 3 years ago
this film is a big lie...
toneub 3 years ago
man lame
douwe5 3 years ago
Idiots rant about wanting clean power... Then they rant because clean energy is not pretty. I wish all the stupid liberal tree kissers would go live in a cave without the electricity they complain about. Wind power is clean; unlike coal and nuke power... Therefore, I think windmills are beautiful!
michaelcopen 3 years ago
Brazil nut,
Pray tell us, how much have the Danes reduced their CO2 emmissions by? If it helps I can tell you; they have risen. Byee
Tafia2006 3 years ago
This video is stupid, i'm from denmark and we get 25% of our energy from windmills, thats energy for 1,3 million peaple. And the amount of wind energy is still rising.
brazilias 3 years ago
You might have 25% capcity, but what you get depends on the weather. In France they have 78% nuclear capacity and get loads and loads and loads of CO2-free power every single day of the year. Enough to export to every single one of their neighbours.
Number1BadBoyInnit 3 years ago
Nuclear reactors run flat out; they can only produce as much as the minimum demand on a leccy grid. Saying France produces ~78% of their electricity with nuclear is misleading; it's more to the point to suggest that it contributes ~30% of the leccy capacity on the european grid - which is roughly the point of minimum demand. It would be like suggesting that Suffolk produces ~100% of their electricity with nuclear. It simply wouldn't contribute any more than 20% of the capacity in the UK.
TechnoEngineer 3 years ago
Pizzamoron,
Stick with pizzas,
you know nothing beyond: " hold the anchovies"
Tafia2006 3 years ago
Wind power rules over nuckuler nuculer will distroy the planet dumbass
RUSTYMUTT222 3 years ago
ok, lets kill evry1 on the planet to keep its beauty in sum parts. and plus that comment about the "not able 2 shut down alredy existing plants", we wont av 2 burn as much in the plants
jellyman795 3 years ago
anybody against wind mills is a flat out idiot.
UnosPizzaGuy 3 years ago 2
that music was extreme... yea and who do you propose a better way to get energy?? you put it underwater and it starts killing fish and all the freakin activists will be up in arms again.
kratois 3 years ago
Did anyone else see all of the dead animals(birds) in the begining other than me???
elhombrechocolate 3 years ago
Well if you don't like windmills on land, put them on water.
That way everyone wins.
Also, what about ocean currents. Can you imagine the power of those currents.
All that this is to show it can be done, and is nothing more than a gimic to boost the case for this on and/or under water.
Hell, you have all the area you would ever need on the ocean to do something like this
prezaie2 3 years ago 4
There is no way to get descent power out of ocean currents.
One hour of no wind = one hour of no electricity. You can't store electricity on that scale.
Can you imagine the power of a cyclone or huricane ? Whell you can get zap nada nil out of it. And they generate unbelievable amounts of energy.
Btw have you the slightest idea how deap the ocean is ? 3 miles ... how you gonna construct stuff there ?
Lowieken73 3 years ago
#1 what do you know about ocean currents?!?
#2 no wind at windfarm 'A'? then switch to windfarms "B" "C" "D" etc ?!?
#3 Yes you can store electricity on any scale its called a super capacitor.
#4 ocean depths vary. I'm talking about the shallow parts.
#5 have you heard of hydrostatic pressure? if you have the slightest amount of movement with deep enough
water, you have enormous kinetic energy. Even small creeks have been used to power entire factories via paddlewheels in the past.
prezaie2 3 years ago
Supercapacitor? That's incredibly ignorant. Don't believe this guy. The way to store large amounts of energy like this is with hydroelectric and compressed air utilities. They're not that efficient, and wind power doesn't produce any significant amounts of energy worth storing, but that's how we routinely store energy from every other type of power plant.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
You can get power out of ocean currents, and the turbines are close to land, it's still not as advanced as windmill technology, but it will get there.
brazilias 3 years ago
We store electrical energy on that scale all the time. Get a clue.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
what is that music ??? .... TERRIBLE !!!
franckaera51 3 years ago 4
this is bullshit how the fuck is it hurting the environment, also who the fuck is giving thumbs down to ppl against this? also if something goes wrong with windfarms, jack happens. if something goes wrong with nuclear plants, thousands die
illiniwac 3 years ago
Dozens of people have been killed by wind farm accidents, which is actually a huge number when you consider the tiny amount of power they've produced. If they were used in such large numbers as to replace all other power sources, we'd see people being killed by them malfunctioning on the news every night.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
like automobiles? Or animals? Or Cigarettes? Or scaffolding? Or Sharp things?
Moron.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
Cigarettes don't produce energy. Other sources of power produce energy with far lower human cost.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
like?
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
Jigglesnap. I agree. There have been deaths. Mainly farmers in America running their own small wind turbines.
There have been VERY few accidents on large-scale wind farms and only one unfortunate fatality in the UK in over twenty years of operating wind farms.
magyaar 3 years ago
What accident in the UK?
And yes, the numbers are low, but the power output, is too. There's no reason to believe that safety would suddenly improve if we built enough turbines to replace fossil fuels, so there would be a lot more deaths.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
There was a fatality at Earlsburn wind farm where a fall arrest system failed. I think it's silly to criticise safety: they are statistically MUCH safer (on a per MWh basis) than either coal or gas. Only nuclear is probably safer on a per MWh basis.
magyaar 3 years ago
Wind turbines are more dangerous than coal or gas from a safety perspective (on a per MWh basis). From a deaths-by-pollution perspective wind is better. Nuclear beats all of them, though.
ohmygodthisisdumb 3 years ago
Do you have any evidence to back up that completely specious claim?
magyaar 3 years ago
That's pretty much accurate. I don't know if it takes into account deaths by pollution, but the safety records posted all over the webare:
nuclear power: 8 deaths per terawatt year
natural gas: 85 deaths per terawatt year
coal: 342 deaths per terawatt year
hydro power: 884 deaths per terawatt year
wind power: 0.15 deaths per TWh = 1,314 deaths per terawatt year
You can find all of this in Google searches
jigglesnap 3 years ago
You can find all sorts of things in Google searches. The fact is that wind power is safe.
In the UK there has been one accident to a worker on a site. It was a terrible accident, but it's still only ONE person.
Why are you being so negative? What other suggestions do you have? We need more generation. Nuclear is important, but won't solve everything. We need renewables as part of the energy mix.
magyaar 3 years ago
Can you find better numbers?
Yes, the number of deaths is low. It's the number of deaths PER UNIT OF ENERGY that is high. If we replaced all our fossil fuel plants with wind power plants there would be many more deaths because of this.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
To think of it another way, the amount of power produced by renewables is very very low. Combine all the energy produced by all the wind power plants in the world and it would fit into the measurement error of other power sources. It's a negligible part of the "energy mix".
The longer we chase after things like this, the more radioactive toxic waste is dumped into our atmosphere by coal power plants.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
You are not accounting for the people who die due to pollution, and droughts, hurricanes and cyclones caused by climate change.
luiscolorado 3 years ago
I already said it doesn't take into account deaths from pollution, which isn't caused by climate change, anyway. Other way around.
Estimating deaths caused by climate change is a highly speculative business, and the effect wind power has on climate change (if any) is very contentious. But if one power source is proportionally 100 times as deadly as another, I'm going to think it's bad, even if the numbers might be a bit off. Even with very generous estimates, it's still bad, in other words.
jigglesnap 3 years ago
Great music, not
bondiproductions 3 years ago
I realize that the video is anti-wind, but those monsters are awesome. The bigger the better.
Killroy1999 3 years ago
nuclear powerplants have the potential to become nuclear ... weapons, remember what happend in russia? plus ! uranium isnt reneable... just like oil.. its going to run out, the wind... and... whats more important... being able to have a huge house and big backyard with an amazing veiw... or.. being alive to even get that... without stuff like this.. we wont be here in a couple hundred years
neoneo1793 3 years ago
hahahahhaha...to old to CARE i bet. Not to old to ruin it for everyone else. Renewable is the future, videos like this wont count for anything in the end.
TheWindTurbine 4 years ago
wind forvery few watts.
Do some research; you are being lied to.
Your grandkids will laugh out loud when they are told of the crazy idea that humans can control the weather. "How could grandad Miniwatts believe this crap?" they will ask in amazement.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
We need to act NOW before our grand kids suffer the consequences Germany makes 12 times our wind power with much lower average winds (see bwea). No one likes having mobile transponders near their homes either, but we all want mobiles. Flog your 4x4's and plush big houses have a uk holiday, that will help the enviroment aswell , classic N.I.M.B.Y.
wind4watts 4 years ago
Nuclear does give us reliable abundant energy unlike wind which gives us dead birds and big bills. Nuclear waste can be safely dealt with. Google Finland nuclear waste disposal and try to keep up with the facts.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Man, this is so accurate. Screw these windfarms that provide clean power, give me nuclear waste, heavy metal ash and long-term damaging wastes over wind power any day! /sarcasm
squid808 4 years ago
we nead wind power in thr future
terrytrooper 4 years ago
Bellagio,
Bullcrap, Over 90,000 CO2 measurements were taken from 1820 to 1940 using Petenkofer process which revealed CO2 levels were as high as 430 ppm in that period. (now 380 ppm)IPCC didn't like that; it destroyed their myth so they claimed the figures incaccurate even though they came from Nobel winning scientists.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Duncan,
Not true squire. The Vostok ice core research went back 420,000 years and clearly shows four previous interglacials all warmer than todays. Greenland core samples show temperatures rising 5 degrees in less than 100 years.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Better that than a polluted sky, lung diseases and cancer, don't you think? Climate change is a problem, temperatures have risen in proportion to Co2 output since the beginning of the industrial revolution. You not wanting this to be true does not make it untrue. It's just your opinion, a redneck opinion that doesn't make sense.
bellaggio1770 4 years ago
People are missing the point I think. You may think oil, coal and nuclear power stations are pretty but at the end of the day we're going to run out of oil, coal and gas eventually, not to mention how dirty they are.
Windfarms are the best idea for power generation in the UK because we dont get much sun but we are the windiest nation in Europe!
Fletch1986 4 years ago
experimentation and innovation is the future of energy. give wind its fair shot.
johnpaulinjapan 4 years ago
ok orinoco7 how tall are the house at 1:20 and 1:30??? and do you have a cell phone they are tall as or taller than many turbines there a tower by my house that 1000+ feet tall
colin340 4 years ago
Efficiency? 26%??/ Laughable
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Well if it is 26% (and i don't know whether that's accurate or not) that's more efficient than the average lightbulb - there's no energy source with 100% efficiency in practice or even close to it
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Duncan, The Royal Academy told the government years ago their reliance on wind power was crazy
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Well thats not what they're telling them now. Presumably the difference is down to the considerable improvements in the efficiency of wind turbines made over the last decade.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Inst Chem engineers said the same thing
Tafia2006 4 years ago
oops no you haven't - sorry about that - dodgy browser here
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
I see you've deleted your post claiming the Climate Reality website had 90 'scientific articles' proving climate change isnt man-made - and my reply pointing out that not one of those articles was written by a scientist - and they included speeches from Republican senator Tom McClintock who gets campaign funds from Exxon-Mobil (google Tom McClintock and Exxon). I wonder why.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
That's two accusations I have had today of doctoring photos (not true) and now taking comments off. While I have the right to do this I only delete abusive remarks - it is still there - you can repeat your stuff as often as you like. As long as you are discussing I am happy to try and answer.
orinoco7 4 years ago
yeah - my mistake - i apologise - my browser wasnt working correctly for a minute and i thought the comment was gone.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
P.S feel free to delete the two apologies i made above since i've one in this post and having it in triplicate might annoy people.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Hey Duncan
Can you say why you believe "scientists" who are funded by politicians?
Tafia2006 4 years ago
because they did disagree on this issue in the 70s, 80s and 90s but the sheer weight of evidence has changed the minds of the sceptics and created concensus among scientists ; because if they decided they wanted to lie for money they could get $10,000 per academic paper they wrote denying climate change was man-made - but most of them still say it is man-made.
Can you say why you believe the politicians and front groups funded by the big oil companies?
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Duncan,
There is no real- world weight of evidence Duncan. It exists only in computer models. I repeat, he consensus was "orchestrated by the IPCC" Written by IPCC co-chair John Houghton in his book. I have a copy but I bet you don't.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Untrue - it exists in artic ice cores going back many tens of thousands of years among other things and we know from this and other evidence that the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the earth's inhabited history
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Untrue Tafia - there are arctic ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years which show the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the earth's inhabited history
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Duncan,
You are are so naive.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
No , you are, since you're ignoring all the scientific exports in favour of Exxon-Mobil funded politicians and PR campaigns.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Duncan,
I see you have discovered a way to store grid electricity? Wow, a huge breakthrough which will make you millions. BTW, how big will the batteries be?
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Taifa,
I'm no expert on that. I believe the Royal Academy of Engineers (including Professor Rod Smith who Orinoco quotes in his video) are though.
Or perhaps you're a bigger expert on power storage than the entire Royal Academy?
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Duncan, Wise up. Those IPCC summaries are written by a few government-appointed writers and do not reflect the views of the majority of scientists. The agreement you cite is always "orchestrated " by the IPCC. This was admitted by a former IPCC chairman in his book. He appeared to be boasting about it.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
That's simply untrue. They're written by thousands of scientists from all around the world. Most of the tiny minority who deny it have been offered $10,000 per academic paper they write denying climate change is man-made by companies like Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Orinoco - i see another of your videos is about "the myth of anthropomorphic climate change" - funny how pretty much every scientific expert on climate change agreed at the IPCC conference that human activity is almost certainly a major cause of climate change
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
You are wrong about a consensus in the IPCC. The loud voices of the politicians have drowned out the scientific truths. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that there is no scientific evidence to show that man has anything to do with climate change. Money that could be better spent is being wasted on grants to try and convince us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening. Climate change is a natural process. Money would be well better spent saving the rainforests.
orinoco7 4 years ago
I have 90 links to scientific articles on the Climate Reality website plus numerous pdf docs and links to websites...you are only hearing the political case and do not appear to have looked at the scientific data saying that climate change is a natural process. All this is a drop in ocean compared to what evidence there is out there putting forward true science and not political science.
orinoco7 4 years ago
I just looked it up by googling Climate Reality - There are no academic articles by scientists on it, just a load of editorials and comment articles from newspapers almost none of which are even written by scientists.
One of the articles is written by Tom McClintock - who isnt a scientist but a politician - and one who gets funding for his campaigns from Exxon-Mobil (google Tom McClintock Exxon - and look at the third page that comes up)
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Oh and there's Melanie Phillips - who writes for that rag the Daily Mail and is notorious for never researching her articles properly and thinking her opinion is so important she doesnt need to know any of the facts
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Then there are comment articles by Christopher Booker - who isnt a scientist but a journalist
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
I suppose you take Al Gore's 35 Inconvenient Errors to bed with you everynight :-)
orinoco7 4 years ago
I believe the vast majority of scientific experts. There was debate among scientists in the 80s and 90s about whether global warming was man-made or not. That debate's over. The evidence now is so overwhelming that scientists agree there's a 90-95% probability that current global warming involves a large man-made element.
If you'd rather be suckered by charlatan politicians funded by Exxon-Mobil and by sloppy journalists who don't even check their facts feel free though.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Recall the debate in the Seventies by many of the same government funded "scientists" who swore man was causing the next Ice Age? Wake up Duncan
Tafia2006 4 years ago
but there was no concensus in the whole scientific community on that - only a minority of scientists claimed it.
Plus it may not be entirely inaccurate. If global warming slows or stops the ocean convection currents from the equator to the poles then the UK could end up as cold as Alaska (which is on the same latitude)
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Orinoco you quote Professor Rod Smith of Imperial College as disparaging wind turbines as not cost effective. Yet even the website of the Nuclear Industry Association (hardly supporters of wind power) quotes the report of the Royal Academy (one of whose authors is listed as Professor Rod Smith) as stating that problems with intermittent power production by renewables could be solved by sharing electricity between countries and by increasing storage capacities.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Energy in Brief 2006...shows that wind produced 1% of our energy in 2005. How many more wind farms will have to go up to make a significant input? And no nuclear power stations could close even then. Wind energy is the wrong way forward.
orinoco7 4 years ago
you guys are so dumb your the kind of people that will make the uk a useless country
colin340 4 years ago
I'll leave your pathetic comment on colin340 so people can see who is really dumb around here. We are prepared to answer any sensible comments.
orinoco7 4 years ago
I was in Forth handing out leaflets in the 2005 election after most of the wind-turbines were already up and there are no turbines in or even nearly as close to the village as shown in those (obviously photoshopped or edited) photos - no matter what kind of camera the original photo was taken with.
Anyone who doubts it can go to Forth and see for themselves - Gadjabout's right - those still photos of Forth in the video are frauds.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
Yes to blackouts,
The BWEA spin ( geddit ) tells us Blacklaw will provide leccy for 70,000 homes. (not so but hey WTF)
You say 80,000. Now who is writing lies?
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Yestoblackouts,
Fact is the Blacklaw turbines could not reliably supply a street light could they?
BTW, are the 80,000 homes you cite disconnected from the grid and supplied directly from the wind farm? Those not as expert as you on the national grid would like to know.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Yestowind. ( yes to blackouts )
Re your silly and baseless remark: " You haven't a clue how the grid system works"
I spent 30 happy years in the electricity supply industry. :-)
Tafia2006 4 years ago
So explain how the grid system worked before the introduction of wind in terms of loss of power? And how does it work now? And is there any difference? Thank god you're not working in the electricity supply industry anymore, otherwise the lights will be out sooner than we think.
yestowind 4 years ago
Pro-winders are operating on SO many false premises. Example: oil provides only about 2% towards all our electrical generation. You could put up 1,000,000 wind turbines and it would be completely irrelevant to oil production. It would have absolutely NO effect on oil demand. But, it makes good propoganda, doesn't it...given the problem in the middle east.
mama146 4 years ago
How long did it take you to photoshop the pics from Black law wind farm?? I live in that Village (Forth) & work on that windfarm its a 130MW site providing electricity to over 80,000 homes..The turbines DO NOT loom over the village like that. I suggest if you are campaining against wind farms STOP posting LIES!!!!
Gadabout96 4 years ago
The photographs of Black law you refer to were taken with Nikon D2X camera with a 50-500mm lens as printed on one of the photographs. I have NOT tampered with them in any way.
orinoco7 4 years ago
Then when people go to Forth they should see wind turbines right next to houses - which is what your photo shows - and the blades should be near the roofs of some of the houses.
Yet anyone who's been to Forth knows you can only see the turbines in the distance - there isnt a single one as close to a house as the ones shown in your photo - they're not even to scale in it.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
I have not doctored any photographs.
orinoco7 4 years ago
Then its amazing that there are turbines shown practically right next to houses and with their blades practically touching their roofs - when anyone who's actually been to Forth can see there are no turbines anywhere near that close to houses - and even if they had been any (and there arent) their blades wouldnt come close to the level of the top of a house.
DuncanMMcFarlane 4 years ago
That windfarm DOES NOT provide power to 80,000 homes. What actually does the job 75% of the time? Have you looked at the actual efficiency factor? If those homes were actually powered by those turbines, they would be sitting in the dark the vast majority of the time. Cut the propoganda. Your employer has brainwashed you.
mama146 4 years ago
It doesn't unbalance the grid, as has been stated previously the biggest risk to unbalance the grid is the loss of a big unit, such as Sizewell B. The variation in wind can be predicted within the timescales of load balancing, even Ofgem state this and I take their opinion over yours anytime. You have yet to produce a salient fact or evidence to back up your claims.
yestowind 4 years ago
Yestowind,
All renewables gave us 4.2% of our electricity in 2005. 95.8% came from other sources.What do you suggest we do to make up the shortfall? Wind? Laughable.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
I fail to see the relevance of your statement and yet again you have failed to answer a question posed to you. Face it, you're on a losing battle and haven't got a clue how the grid system works and the energy supply pressures we are facing in the very near future.
yestowind 4 years ago
The key questions is where will our energy come from in 10-15 years time? Do you seriously want to rely on overseas sources of fuel from politically unstable countries. Global warming is secondary in terms of threats to the UK. So what do you propose is the solution to the energy crisis?
yestowind 4 years ago
burnhoseburns.
Can you tell us what percentage of our energy is curently provided by nearly 2000 UK turbines on and off shore?
Tafia2006 4 years ago
There are several examples of islanded grids which have adapted scheduling technology to manage intermittency. Places with far more fragile transmission and distribution networks than say the UK. This is simply system operators whining because they have to change their otherwise relatively simple electricity dispatch software.
burnthoseburns 4 years ago
"Wind power is so feeble it "Wind power is so feeble it is ignored by supply engineers other than the comment one engineer made: "When trying to balance the national grid with wind farms connected, it is like driving an articulated truck with no steering and no brakes""
Despite the obvious oxymoron, load balancing is only a question of adapting technology to accommodate intermittency.
burnthoseburns 4 years ago
regardless of whose view you choose to subscribe to (e.g. pro wind/against; pro global warming/against) there is no reason not to embrace clean renewable technology. We should also focus on environmental education - make people take responsibility of their energy use and just stop complaining about those who are taking action.
burnthoseburns 4 years ago
Exactly, take responsibility. Thats what these anti-wind people won't see, that it is our responsibility because we are the energy consumers. If we are to continue to consume, more power is needed, and someone has to live near whatever power stations they will build. Better that they are wind turbines than nuclear reactors surely? They need to stop this "not in my back yard" mentality or they may find they are living near the next Chernobyl.
TheFlange666 4 years ago
Yestowind (yestopoverty)
Do you have any salient facts to offer?
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Yes to poverty? Poverty will come about if we don't have a supply of energy that is as independent to external market pressures as possible. Wind has the lowest net cost of any generation technology. Not just economic cost but also environmental cost and social cost. Tell me, what do you see as the alternative to renewable energy? And why are they preferred to renewables?
yestowind 4 years ago
Yestowind.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Over.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
"The same whackos were telling us a few years ago that man was causing the next Ice Age. "
The only reason you seem to be rejecting the arguments about climate change are that a previous prediction was wrong. Mind plenty of world changing predictions were proved to be true. Suppose you still think the earth is flat? It might explain why you don't like wind.
yestowind 4 years ago
The basis of your argument is seriously flawed, as a generic group of people (in this case politicians and scientists)predicted an event that did not come to pass you can no longer value anything they predict to happen now. You have skewed all eveidence to meet with your own viewpoint, in this case that you don't like to look at wind turbines. And when questions are posed challenging those views which you cannot answer you choose to ignore them.
yestowind 4 years ago
The basis of your argument is seriously flawed, as a generic group of people (in this case politicians and scientists)predicted an event that did not come to pass you can no longer value anything they predict to happen now. On this rationale you shouldn't trust anyone. You have skewed all evidence to meet with your own viewpoint, in this case that you don't like to look at wind turbines. And when questions are posed challenging those views which you cannot answer you choose to ignore them.
yestowind 4 years ago
BTW, the "consensus" among climate scientists is bogus. It was admitted as such by a former chairman of the IPCC who told us in his book (I have a copy) that there was no agreement amongst scientists but because politicians needed a clear message to put to the masses, the consensus was: "orchestrated by the IPCC"
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Burnthoseburns,
Wind power is so feeble it is ignored by supply engineers other than the comment one engineer made: "When trying to balance the national grid with wind farms connected, it is like driving an articulated truck with no steering and no brakes"
Tafia2006 4 years ago
You misunderstand. Nobody is saying that Earth has not warmed slightly in the last 100 years ( 0.8 degrees C.) This is entirely within natural variation and NASA recently told us that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the last 100 were before 1940 and the warmest was 1934. Nutters have hijacked this natural variation to tax and control us and try to make us live by their rules.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
Tafia I commend your faith in your views, however from the evidence I have seen (as a practicing meteorologist & engineer) I have concluded that such strong views against global warming are gravely misplaced.
burnthoseburns 4 years ago
And the fact remains that wind power is a source of energy with low life cycle cost, sound technology, fuel supply free of market constraints(aka free), negligible emissions, and meaningful contribution to the overall mix. It is a great way to express your individuality by being against the masses, but most modern scientists accept that global warming is taking place and it is based on robust evidence.
burnthoseburns 4 years ago
Eric.
Solution to what? Surely you dont believe the lies about man melting the planet. The same whackos were telling us a few years ago that man was causing the next Ice Age. Frozen or fried, they can't decide which is the best scare to impose their leftie political control on the rest of us. Wake up.
Tafia2006 4 years ago
The discussion isn't about global warming, it's about a secure supply of energy for the future generations seeing as how past generations have wasted so much. As a species we are living way beyond our means, CO2 is one of the indicators of that. You need to wake up before the lights go out.
eric170776 4 years ago
TheFlange666 - you don't know the facts. You are just saying things without any scientific evidence. Wind turbines are not the solution. To say that those of us who have taken the time to study the subject are 'half wits' is laughable. I'll leave your comment on so you can be embarrassed by your inability to write anything worth reading.
orinoco7 4 years ago