Re: lochluichart windfarm

"Bob Watkinson" <clodhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ds31vi$ftt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

nefamily.org.uk> wrote in message news:44kb0kF2krdaU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bob Watkinson" <clodhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ds23h2$1pj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


So again I ask - if you feel we have to keep the conventional means
for non windy days, why do we need the wind generators when the other
means are available all the time?


The number of totally non-generating days across the UK for wind power
was recently calculated, and I seem to recall it is surprisingly small.
Overall I have seen figures that indicate that the average wind turbine
will produce in the region of about 35-40% of its rated max power over
a year. This is known as its load factor. By comparison, fossil carbon
power stations have a load factor of 60-85% (depending on type).

The problem with coal or gas power stations isn't their existence
per-se, rather it is the fuel they consume and the CO2 emissions they
give off. The point about wind power is that every installed tubine
reduces the fuel requirements of other stations, and reduces the carbon
emissions overall. This may not result in fewer conventional power
stations, but that isn't really the point.

No.

You miss the point, you asked "why do we need wind generators when we
need others for backup?" I gave a good reason. Either you accept that I
have answered your question or you offer a rebuttal of my response, and
we continue discussing the point at hand. Just saying "No" to this point
is not offering a rebuttal. So stick with the argument at hand or accept
the answer that has been given.

If you took the time to consider properly before going in all guns
blazing, you'd realise without me having to explain it to you, that what
you said was "This may not result in fewer conventional power stations,
but
that isn't really the point." You spoke in the negative so by saying "no"
I was in fact agreeing with you. I then went on to explain what I felt the
point was. Are you keeping up?

Ahhhhh. I see. - thanks for the explanation.
Let's get this straight, do you agree that "Wind Power generation does not
replace all conventional power stations" is not, in fact, an argument
against Wind Power?

I am prepared to concede that 'stupid' was a poor word to use in my previous
post as it might imply that the above argument is 'stupid', I was
considering withdrawing the use of that word even before your reply.

If you have withdrawn that argument it no longer applies.


The point is The wind industry argues that 10% of our electricity could
be generated by wind turbines. Even if only a smaller proportion is
produced by wind - say 4.4% as envisaged by the government paper New and
Renewable Energy - there are those who would regard the contribution to
the fight against air pollution (however infinitesimal in global terms)
as worthwhile.

Your gratuitous 'however infinitesimal' suggests that you have already
closed your mind to the facts here.

Your opinion. Your dig does little to progress your argument.

So you don't see 'however infinitestimal' or 'derisory' as digs? You used
those phrases with no attempt to justify them in the context of the argument
under debate.


I would argue that the environmental costs of developing wind energy on
this scale hugely outweigh the derisory savings in emissions.

Two points
- you assume that the savings in emissions is derisory (which I presume
part of not letting the facts stand in the way of your argument)

Oh dear, another dig. Do you really believe that helps your argument

As far as I'm concerned, its better than slipping the perjorative word
'derisory' into an argument.

- you've not made it clear which particular 'environmental costs' you are
referring to.

And you can't think what I might mean? Really?

There are several factors that one may consider as 'environmental costs'
- effects on wilderness ecology,
- effects on birdlife (and bats),
- impact on groundwaters,
- cost of reprinting maps,
- energy payback times,
- impact on tourism,
- sound pollution,
- visual impact

But that's just the ones I can think of; someone else might think of half a
dozen more, and a third person could discount some or all of them.

No, I don't know what ones you have weighed in the balance against the
benefits of CO2 reduction offered by wind power. How could I ?


That is even if a reduction in emissions were to happen. In Denmark
where wind generation is massive the Carbon Dioxide levels went up 10%
in 2003.

Can you cite a source for these figures?

Well here's one source http://www.cslforum.org/denmark.htm there are many
others I could cite if your not happy with this one

Assuming you mean the figures in table 7; the figures for 2003 represent a
12% increase over 2002 as far as I can see. So, can you cite a source for
the 10% figure?

The European Energy Agency figure
for the 2002-3 increase in Danish greenhouse gas emissions was 7.3%.*,
(admittedly this is 'total greenhouse gas' rather than purely CO2, but I
wonder if you have reliable source data for CO2). Denmark already
produces 20% of its electricity by wind (3% total domestic energy
requirements), so you would presumably be happier if its CO2 emissions
were another 3 % higher.

By the way, I'm not convinced that Wind Power is the best means of
combatting global climate change either, but I would rather see good
arguments put forward than stupid ones.

"stupid" arguments. Your not very good at this are you Owen? Reasoned
debate does not involve insult. Perhaps you are a student with limited
experience but you really wont be taken seriously by resorting to such
tactics. You'll find the person you are debating with will walk away.
Sadly that only means they have recognised you are out of your depth and
don't want to make you look sillier

As I've acknowledged, I should have used a word other than 'stupid'.


*the increase in carbon emissions is attributed to increased coal powered
electrical generation for electricity exports.

Oh, and by the way, between 2003 and 2004, Danish CO2 emissions fell by
8.4% - as a result of (coal fuelled) electricity sales falling by about a
third.

Please cite your source

Danish Energy Authority http://www.ens.dk/sw22709.asp



.