Well this thread has 'blown up' some controversy. 1) I cannot see how Brown 'ruined everything' and 'mealy mouthed' MiIliband succeeded him. { (I note use of pejorative terms... are we not trying to get away from that?)} I understand it was an international banking crisis, caused in the main by people who sought to maximize profits. I also have been led to understand that if the Conservative Govt had been in power they would have done very much the same. I also understand, not my area at all, that the difference in fiscal control of the budget between the main parties is only a very small %. Not sure is it 4/5%. All the rest of the economy is tied up... which I guess is how we can find billions for an air war at the very time the NHS is under continued attack for efficiency savings, Libraries and youth services closing etc etc. The the realpoltik of the media, pundits and spin doctors maximize differences with sensationalist speak etc etc. So rather than find a middle way forward that benefits all.... Govts continue with a basically divisive ideology. 2) I think we all agree with the aims re environment as Lenny identified earlier in this thread... it is just the HOW.... 3) Not sure I would prefer wind turbines or a Nuclear power plant IMBY !! 4) One word of caution... it is very easy for us armchair pundits to make sweeping statements and denigrate those in Government. I imagine in power it is all a little different. Just like football management. All for me, i have reams of paperwork to do for my Feed in Tariff!
We have LOADS of wind farms round here, I can see about 5 x 5 turbines as soon as I leave the village. I think they're brilliant. They add something to the landscape, most of the area is empty fields with a few woods, and it makes the place look alive. The best part about it is that even if they're not running at full speed because France isn't that windy, they still turn constantly and provide enough electricity for all the villages around here.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science Some of these have probably been quoted as facts on here.. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...late__North_East_comments_in_fracking_debate/ An interesting article on fracking in the UK. I didn't know Gideon's father in law was involved in one of the companies that would make a lot of money from it...Am I surprised?
You will just have to have a pichet then Frenchie It is bl@@dy freezing in winter in central France... dont they know??
Having been open minded when it was first suggested that a wind farm was going to be erected here, I did my own research on the pros and cons, and came to the conclusion that as proposed it would be foolish, making no economic sense and being a health risk I wouldn't wish for. I live in an area that officially is the second least windy place in France and because of this the normal 120m high turbines would not work, so it is proposed to install 190m high ones. Even then it is admitted that the only way that the operating company could profit from them would be by government subsidy, which we are already paying for on an increasing scale every year. If they were supplying only a few villages with their needs it might be more of an argument to have them, but the number they wish to erect is to boost the national grid. The turbines are made in Spain and transported in sections overland. All very good if you wish to reduce the amount of traffic? Government guidelines say that they should not be closer than 500m to a dwelling, but all around the world there are examples of people being made ill when they live within 3Kms of them. Legal cases have been brought against companies and landowners for building them too close to communities, and in Denmark the government has stopped further expansion of wind farms because of the fears that they are creating illness. I could go on at length with examples and statistics to show how they are no answer to generation of electricity, but it does become quite technical. Strangely enough the most likely thing that will stop them is that they would be in the flight path of the cranes as they migrate every year.
I'm a very active anti wind farm campaigner here in Scotland. I'm really not sure why they have been pushed so strongly by government when there is no evidence of carbon savings (taking the assumption that carbon saving is necessary as a base point which I do not agree with but am willing to put aside in this battle). Every application here is accompanied by the catch phrase "could provide the energy to supply xxxxxxxx homes" this is never matched by the "did supply xxxxxx homes" as is always based upon base plate capacity which is about 5 times average output. Additionally most homes are heated by gas which is controllable and on demand so this is also ignored. As a grid contributor wind provides surges and troughs that cause inefficiency in the use of despatchable technologies. The super magnets required to get any decent output from the generators rely on rare earth mineral mining in china which is causing an environmental disaster. The bat and raptor populations in Scotland are badly affected by turbines as is the forest and peat lands that are disrupted and cleared to build them. Add in the eyesore and inefficiency in transmission and I really get angry. The right solution for the environment is planning control to protect rural areas as rural, urban areas as urban, industrial areas as industrial. We have effective proven efficient and safe clean technology (nuclear/modular nuclear) we have effective low emission despatchable technology (CSGT) and we have pipeline even safer even less controversial nuclear for rollout in 2nd half of this century with fusion. The way to move forward is exactly the approach the Westminster government have taken, we have reached our target in terms of what the grid can support in terms of wind therefore subsidies removed, CCS research has proven that it is not scalable and the FEED studies performed at a cost of £100million have proven that this project should not proceed with the further 900million funding (I've made a FOI request for results to use against Holyrood and SNP) and we are investing 500million in modular Nuclear research which we will be able to roll out to meet the energy needs in the 2020s....
Rather than debating the alternative energy vs. nuclear issue wouldn't it be better to tackle the issue of energy reduction first ie. a full programme of education for people on how to reduce their electricity use - beginning with insulating of homes (Britain has the second oldest and worst insulated houses in Europe) - then we can start to talk about other ways of producing electricity. Is it necessary that we heat and light all rooms in the house ? Is it necessary to have so many things on standby for the whole night etc.
Of course we should be, but while subsidies are being paid to companies on a huge scale to make up for failure to produce power, that money is diverted away from helping people to better insulate their homes, or create small rural industries which I am sure you would be in favour of. Figures show that maximum output from turbines is less than 20% of that projected. Despite increasing the number of them dramatically in France, the output decreased in 2013. Farmers are being told that they will receive €x based on maximum output, whereas it is more likely they will receive 10% of that sum. I asked our local council by how much the commune would benefit and they do not know. Their thinking is that it will provide a new stream of revenue as Paris reduces the money they receive, but it could be next to nothing.
I confess I did not know anything about the magnets etc and bad mining. I find the look of a wind farm rather pleasant - we had one near us in Wales and topping a hill getting near it they appeared quite majestic. That apart I thought they were fine when the wind is active and when it is not you lose nothing so they would contribute to the production of energy even if less so than "advertised" - is anything as good as advertised. Some of the above comments suggest I may need to revise my opinions of them. What about wind farms out at sea - are they not more efficient being exposed more? Then there are solar panels. I had always thought for households these were a good idea - if rather ugly. Is there a similar argument against them? If so does it apply to housing or to solar farms - or both? I do not know why the government does not mandate things like triple glazing and solar panels on roofs on all new housing, extensions etc. Increaed scale would be bound to reduce the cost. I have never understood the arguments against standby lights on TVs etc. They are miniscule and cannot consume much power - I am sure that LED clocks etc must use 100times the electricity that any household uses on standby lighting.
Yes windfarms at sea are a little bit more efficient around 5 to 10% better on average. Still not efficient enough to justify their use. The idea that all this is free energy is totally incorrect. When they're not turning something else has to and in order to ramp up things like gas or coal you cannot operate at their maximum efficiency either in terms of operational or economic therefore you produce more carbon per MW produced. It's a mess.... Solar panels again have some mining issues but for personal use make a contribution and not so much impact on the grid that can't be sorted. The issue is though that without storage they produce power during the day when house is empty and not at night when you need it. With the schemes where you got your panels free this was a great con.... Agree that we need to focus on energy savings in homes etc but remember most of these are in terms of heating which in general is not electric......
What I was trying to say Leo is that we should be focussing less on techno fix solutions and more on what the individual can do to reduce his energy use - there are no technical solutions, we need to bury that idea. Reduction of electricity use in the home can be achieved by better insulation of walls and ceilings, modernization of windows. Even by painting your house in a bright colour (if you live in a hot climate) or a dark colour (if in a colder one) can make a difference. Turn the fridge down, set the clothes washer onto a warm or cold setting rather than hot, don't use a dishwasher (restaurants may need such things but a household doesn't) - all of these things make a difference. In the end every individual has an obligation to reduce their own carbon footprint without waiting for the government to do these things from above. The same things apply to mobility - I am not looking for electro cars but rather that people ask firstly whether a journey is necessary and then look at the possibilities of walking, cycling, car pooling or public transport. For environmentalists who have solar panels on the one hand, but drive everywhere on the other (and maybe even fly several times per year) I can only scratch my head and wonder what game they are playing.
Carbon footprint of the Paris conference? How many tonnes of CO2 including our own flying rather than taking the faster train....!!!! The problem is education, my wife is Venezuelan and the amount of waste and lack of consciousness caused by overabundance is ridiculous but in late life impossible to correct (petrol at 1 to 2 US cents a gallon means gas guzzlers, fraud means free electricity etc....) We're a generation that doesn't remember WW2 when you had to be frugal, you had to eat everything including waste, leftovers etc. you switched lights off, you had far fewer gadgets. We need to be allowed to be time rich but in parallel should look at efficiency savings and to an extent we are, I mean my great aunts house was freezing because of its construction method, modern houses are much better with at least double and usually triple glazing, decent loft insulation, cavity walls and insulation, better materials of construction etc. I believe we use less energy with efficient dishwasher use than we ever did with a continually running tap!!!!
The UK is alone among G7 nations in dramatically increasing its fossil fuel subsidies, despite an earlier pledge to phase them out, a new report has found. The revelation will embarrass ministers who want to take a leading role at a crunch UN climate change summit in Paris in December, but who have been sharply cutting support for green energy at home. The report from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Oil Change International found that as a whole, G20 nations are responsible for $452bn (£297bn) a year in subsidies for fossil fuel production. The G20, which meets on Sunday in Turkey, pledged in 2009 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. In the UK, production subsidies of £5.9bn have already benefited major fossil fuel companies operating in the country, most foreign-owned, while £3.7bn is used tosubsidise fossil fuel production overseas in countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, the new analysis found. New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures. Shelagh Whitley, an author of the ODI report, said: “The UK has been cutting back support for solar power and energy efficiency, arguing that the burden was too high. Our figures reveal that in spite of supposed budget constraints the government is giving ever increasing handouts to oil and gas majors.” The report, entitled Empty Promises, states: “The UK stands out as a member of the G20 that, despite its pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, has dramatically increased its support to the production of fossil fuels in recent years.” Whitley said: “No other G7 country has done this.” Earlier UK tax breaks for North Sea exploration from 2009-14 were worth £551m to the French company Total, £131m to the US-based Apache and £267m to Norway’s state-owned Statoil, the ODI said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed on Tuesday a further $490bn a year in subsidies for fossil fuel consumption, mainly cheap fuel. Subsidies for renewable energy are far smaller, with the IEA estimating them at $135bn a year. “Fossil fuel subsidies are public enemy number one for the growth of renewable energy,” said Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, which provides the world’s most influential energy analysis. “I don’t understand some countries – they have renewable energy programmes and at the same time they have subsidies for fossil fuels. This is, in my view, myopic.”
Read the report and look deeply into definition of subsidy...... Very far from what the real meaning is.
They include government spending and tax allowances. Government spending can be and in many of these cases is profit driven as well as having a societal objective and cannot be called a subsidy (gross spend) (It's like me lending my neighbour £100 at 1000%APR on a Tuesday and saying I'll let him back down to 500% Wednesday and then claiming I'm subsidizing him). Tax allowances particularly in the UK are against the excess taxes such as Petroleum Revenue Tax and are allowable against profits over and above normal corporation taxes etc so again do not fit my definition of subsidy which to me is a cash conteribution or negative cash flow from subsidizer to subsidized. Most of the worlds hydrocartbon "subsidies" are in third world developing countries to make energy affordable to either keep population "happy(ish) e.g. Saudi and Venezuela or to help push industrialization e.g. China.
