Bishop Hill Scotland's green energy policy in the balance
Jan 12, 2013 Energy: wind A legal challenge to the Scottish government's green energy policy could kill off Alex Salmond's dream of utterly destroying the Scottish countryside. In a move that parallel's Pat Swords' challenge to Irish policy, Christine Metcalfe's challenge to Holyrood policy was recently given a hearing by the Compliance Committee at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe:
The question of the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap came up. The committee was shocked to discover that, despite the pronouncements of Fergus Ewing MSP and First Minister Alex Salmond, the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap 2020 and Energy Policy Statement are still officially only drafts.
So officials have relied on these drafts in giving the go-ahead for more than 3,500 wind turbines, granting planning without proper scientific justification based on a draft.
Reader Comments (96)
Well that was an educational couple of comments from McZed wasn‘t it? Full of science and engineering know-how coupled with razor sharp political insight and sound policy advancement, all delivered with such wit and jocularity. I miss him/her already. Not sure what you did to upset it DaveB, but please make sure you don’t do it again. ;)
Laurie Childs:
"Not sure what you did to upset it DaveB, but please make sure you don’t do it again. ;)"
Of course not - the very idea. Cue: "They don't like it up em".
It was an unpleasant exchange, not least because my friends know me as a left-wing nutjob, not a right-wing one but instructive in that it illustrates how many SNP supporters (older rank-and-filers, who recall the "wilderness years", are mostly more mature) conduct themselves. Believe me, it is not untypical.
In the 2007 election which brought it to power, the SNP campaigned on a left-of-centre platform that relied heavily on pork-barrel politics (healthcare and education freebies, a freeze on local taxes, etc) but soon began to look to centre-right policies (on which, obviously, it should have campaigned). It was the fastest political somersault I've seen in all my years of following UK politics; I've seen a few. More worryingly, it has adopted an increasingly authoritarian style, stripping local authorities of significant powers and arrogating them to a clique at the centre, undermining important legal principles without debate and much else besides.
Many up here had hitherto thought that nothing could be worse than the dead hand of Scottish Labour and hoped that the new administration would at least bring a breath of fresh air into a polity dominated by cronyism, mendacity and a narrow provincialism. Boy, were we naive.
DaveB - once again I concur with your analysis. The SNP leadership have let the power get to their heads and become very centralist, tightening their grip on all levers, and showing little if any respect for the principles of local democracy and good governance. e.g. centralising the existing police authorities one 'National' force, so there is less local accountability; attempting to end the requirement for corroborating evidence (which has been a foundation of Scots Law for hundreds of years). But it isn't just the SNP leadership and members in Holyrood who have abused their slim electoral advantage at the last election, many SNP led local authorities are also acting with contempt for local democracy and principles of good governance, e.g. SNP-run North Ayrshire council permits private windfarm developer to distribute “propaganda” to Primary schoolchildren...
My opinion is that the Scottish electorate is more likely to be to the right of centre than to the left. It is always a good idea for a political party to try to align itself with the broad political outlook of the people it represents.
I may find it difficult to vote for the SNP because of its energy policy and attitude to the EU. That said, I think it possible that an independent Scotland might bring with it political change. At present, Old Labour voters (I guess there is a fair number of them) are disenfranchised in Scotland. Conservatives, I guess, are probably under-represented. If this is so, it comes about, in my opinion, because some of the policies of the Westminister Labour and Conservative parties have alienated these groups. An independent Scotland might allow fresh political groupings to form.
There is always room for differing points of view. An illustration: the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society opposed the move to abolish the need for corroboration by two witnesses but the Procurator Fiscal Service supported the move as did the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Crown Office. There was always difficulty prosecuting rape cases, for example, when corroboration was needed from two witnesses. And the SNP whatever the faults in some areas has done good in others. My SNP councillors, a number of whom I know are all in my opinion lacking dogma and are practical people - except when it comes to energy policy.
Hello nut jobs and hangers and floggers. Since some of you are getting all lathered about our puts from wind turbines and subsidies thereof, perhaps you will also furnish the readers with some other figures, since you seem to be so keen on figures.
1) 1950-2013, how much has the UK consumer paid in subsidy to the nuclear industry?
2) How much will we pay to the nuclear industry for the next 63 years?
3) What has been the output from Torness 2 since 2011?
4) Why are the figures on childhood leukaemia clusters in Scotland locked down and secret as instructed by recent UK law?
5) Why do electricity generators in Scotland have to pay vast sums to connect to the National Grid whilst generators in London receive subsidies to do so?
6) What will happen to the nuclear waste lying in ponds in Windscale/ Sellafield?
7) Why did they change the name to Sellafield?
8) Why is it considered OK and safe to house WMDs and Nuclear submarines within 30 miles of most of Scotlands population but yet according to recent utterings it would be impossible to get permission to house these same WMDs and submarines on Englands south coast due to health and safety regulations?
HenBroon,
To quote you from earlier, "I will leave this nest of right wing nut jobs to massage you precious little egos amongst your selves. . Do your worst with your moderation, I care not one jot. Missing you already."
Welcome back.
I take it you are anti-nuclear then? Anyway, good news, wind output now 2.5 GW = 45% of installed capacity.
it seems that Henbroon has found another conspiracy theory! Yet another disproof of the Lewandosky hypothesis
Jan 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones
Well I thought it was only fair to allow the hangers and floggers to put the record straight on the figures since you all seem so keen on them. However it appears just as the question is asked on Nuclear, the hangers and floggers have some other thing they are interested in and no answers will be forthcoming. They never are. Nuclear has been one of the biggest con jobs ever perpetrated on humanity. Well maybe Y2K came close.
There is great news for Rosyth, given the braying and trumpeting we have heard from the Unionists gang hut these past few weeks. "10 quintillion jobs to go when Trident is dismissed from Scotland. Rosyth will be doomed, and Fifers will be seen eating their young." They croaked.
And then up pops this and suddenly it is unionist faces covered in eggs again?
New BP oil field deal secures 100 jobs at Rosyth Dockyard http://tiny.cc/zz4wqw
The SNPs renewable energy support is already securing engineering expertise and investments in Scotland. Engineering companies on the Clyde, Nigg, Scrabster, Orkney, Fife, Peterhead, Lossiemouth, Leith docks, Arnish, Campbelltown, are all providing almost lost engineering skills and innovation the kind that Scotland has always been renowned for. Apprentice ships are being offered in their thousands over this parliamentary term, thanks to the SNPs good management. Alex Salmonds promise to re industrialise Scotland is well on it's way. Foreign companies are lining up to invest. We need no machines of war in Scotland or it's nuclear poison spin of's. Scotland is now building for peace. We will be invading no one any time soon. We will leave that to the public school Toffs and Lord Snootys of London to play with their big boys toys, even if it means sharing with the French, who are after all their masters, and have been since 1066.
Yours sincerely Henry Angus Ogg Broon of that ilk.
HenBroon
I am unable to answer most of the questions you raise. Perhaps you might like to read this report (http://www.comare.org.uk/documents/COMARE10thReport.pdf
which examines the incidence of childhood cancer in the vicinity of all nuclear power stations in GB. It may assuage some of your concerns.
I have already strayed off topic in an earlier post and I should try, along with other posters, to stay on topic though the subject is a narrow one I think. Most people who post here regard wind power as a highly inefficient means of providing energy. The John Muir Trust, an environmental organisation has produced a report on the efficiency of wind power. If you have not already read it and would like to do so you can find it here:
http://www.jmt.org/assets/report_analysis%20uk%20wind_syoung.pdf
I would also wish that you encourage SNP members to read this report and I would be pleased to hear what you think of it. An awful lot more discussion among us is needed to inform the debate on independence in my view particularly when it comes to energy
Dinnae fash yersel sae, hen. Ye'll bust summat.
Always fun to watch a Scotchman with a grievance.
Jan 14, 2013 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson
Is that it? Wow just wow!
Scotlands grievances are being rectified as you sleep. The Posh boys do like it upem.
If there's one thing worse than a Scotsman with a grievance it's a Nat with his eyes wide shut and his comfort blanket pulled over his head. I've met enough of them to know, believe me.
Here's me thinking Eck the Fish was an economist and he really believes that Scotland can survive and thrive on wind power and what he can cadge from England. In his dreams.
Was that Henbroon or HenLoon?
Just asking!
lmfao....Lewandowsky would love this. if you want a debate henbroon, try using a few facts and figures brather than just eco-woo stuff that some 3 year old told you in the local MacDonalds
Mike jackson @9.07pm
Use of a Scots dialect phrase alongside Yorkshire dialect and an archaic, offensive description of a Scotsman is unlikely to win you friends in Scotland.
Let's leave out the personal insults and stick to the arguments.
It seems Bishop that some of your flock are just genetically disposed to hurling insults and abuse when their argument is lost. A lot of that kind of stuff gets spat at Scotland from across our border. Which is one of the motivators behind Scottish Independence. I remember reading about those who in similar fashion used to hurl rocks at passing stagecoaches as they were regarded as the work of the devil. Yorkshire was particularly bad for it.
However what is being deliberately ignored as I have just demonstrated is that wind turbines have not been alone in dipping in to the public purse. Like the stagecoaches they attract the ire of those who cannot suffer change and would much rather it was hidden from view, as we see in remote Dounreay slowly poisoning us. If wind turbines and the rest of our renewables, receive even a tiny fraction of that which has been poured in to Nuclear research, they will be very successful. However as we see no one will even look at the big white nuclear elephant in the room, that is seeping in to their very bone marrow. No one wants to talk about the subsidy Nuclear has conned out of us. "Electricity to cheap to meter." was the cry in the fifties. The very name NU ClEAR was itself a giant con. We got to pay for our own poison factories.
The jury is still out on the MMGW subject, that we all can see. What the jury is not still out on is that Scotland has rejected Nuclear and needs to find sustainable means to generate electricity, and that is what this is all about. Wind turbines are simply one fraction in the equation. Hydrogen is one of the other fractions. Anyone who cannot see the marriage between wind and hydrogen must be from the Luddite clan. Free generation stored as hydrogen whose by product is water. Work is on going right now in the Hydrogen centre in Fife, yes supported by Scottish tax payers. The legacy of Sandy McCauley of Unst who died in very mysterious circumstances. And that is before we consider pumped hydro storage. Wind turbines are here to stay, as are roads, railways, trees, walls, bridges, houses and factories, all the man made structures we need to live on this cold wind swept land. There is much work being done on tidal generators but because it is all hidden beneath the waves of the Pentland Firth the Luddites remain calm. There is much work being done on Hydro, some of it raises wails and screeches of Armageddon but in general it goes on unperturbed, but still has to jump through many hoops. Then of course we have the Carbon Capture scheme that is primed and ready to go but is being denied promised Westminster funding. Coal has some future with gasification projects. Fracking it seems will never get going because like Nuclear it is a polluting con.
Maintaining Scotland as a barren breathtaking lunar desert may be desirable to the most ardent unionist, but not to a growing number of us who can see we have been maintained thus, for political ideology.
There is no evidence anywhere that has shown that Scotlands tourism has suffered because of wind turbines on our land. Unless of course you believe The Donald? "I am the evidence." It's hard to know who is worse him or Gore. On the contrary Whitlee near Glasgow, has shown that there is a genuine desire to see and learn about wind turbines as we saw after they opened, and had to extend the car park to cater for the hundreds of cars that park there every week end and evening, as people walk, cycle, jog and stroll with their family friends and pets around the tracks. They use the cafe there and see the educational exhibition, and what it is all about. Remember when people used to travel to the Netherlands to see the windmills?
Someone mentioned the John Muir trust objecting to wind turbines, as if they are the final arbiter on the subject. For every report there is against wind turbines there is a report in favour of them. So nothing is to be gained by seeing and raising each other reports. I saw one blogger ranting about a visitor to his Scottish home who complained bitterly to him about the number of wind turbines littering the sides of the M74 as soon as you pass Gretna. On a recent trip I counted them. 37 were visible in 90 miles. Hardly littering. Unless of course you were 40ft tall.
Yours sincerely Henry Angus Ogg Broon.
The leader of Scotland's government, Alex Salmond, has supported renewables despite their unsuitability for mass-generation of affordable, reliable electricity, despite the damage they bring to the environment in many ways, and despite the harm they will do to the competiveness of energy-intensive industries in Scotland, and to the well-being of many people struggling with fuel bills.
His political persona is one of confident bluster, and his style in the Edinburgh parliament is to ignore the substance of questions asked of him and to use his replies merely as a vehicle for point-scoring. That is not remarkable by itself - presumably most politicians get professionally coached in that contempt for democracy in preparation for interviews in the mass media.
But his confidence in renewables is remarkable given that the case for them is so feeble, and the harm they do so palpable. How come? I suspect he is the victim/mouthpiece/stooge/figurehead/glorious-leader (choose one to suit your mood or perspective) of a powerful lobby, a lobby whose existence was presumably conceived in the surge of confidence in climate alarmism that preceded late 2009 - those heady days for them pre-climategate and pre-the Copenhagen fiasco and pre-The Hockey Stick Illusion expose of academic corruption and deceit, and pre-The Delinquent Teenager expose of IPCC corruption and deceit, and pre-the past few years of one confirmation after another that the 'sceptics' have more truth and wisdom on their side than the alarmists ever had.
A latecomer to this hypothesised larger lobby is surely the 2020 Climate Group. According to its website
[Source: http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/about-2020/the-2020-story/]
They have 30 'main group members' listed here: http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/about-2020/main-group-members/
A parochial Club of Rome perhaps? They are certainly quite busy. They have eight working groups:
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/built-environment/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/transportation/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/land-use-and-forestry/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/waste-and-resources/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/finance/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/opportunities-challenges/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/business-engagement/
http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/public-engagement/
Meanwhile, we sceptical ones, heavily-funded as we are by companies and government agencies, organised as we are into 'well-organised campaigns' ... whoops, I'm looking at the other side: http://www.2020climategroup.org.uk/leading-by-example/ ....
My mistake. We are more like scattered gadflies with resources to match.
I would imagine the Bishop includes phrases such as "right-wing nut jobs...hangers and floggers" in his reprimand regarding unnecessary insults.
I'm not going to answer those questions about nuclear power because they are ad hominem and because they are framed in a manner that prohibits their being answered. Suggesting that wind power is an alternative to nuclear generation betrays such ignorance of basic engineering concepts like base load, load following, peak lopping and so on as to make discussion pointless. Ignorance of these issues might have been forgiveable a decade or so back but persisting in it after all this time is not if one insists on participating in the debate. It is philistinism.
That said, many aspects of nuclear power generation were appallingly handled, mostly in the third quarter of the last century, especially the link between military and civil uses of the technology. Any industry veteran will give you details if you ask politely, as I did.
What cannot be disputed is that, whatever its drawbacks, nuclear power is a low-carbon technology. The intense drive to emissions abatement obliges all but the irrational to re-examine arguments now half a century old. (Much as Salmond claims to have done on NATO though I don't recall the debate on that one, only the outcome.) The issue here and the subject of this thread is whether wind-power is the panacea proponents claim or whether the authorities have not deliberately deceived the public.
Renewables "investment" in Scotland is a pernicious myth. Apart from two small heavily subsidised plants in Cambeltown and Arnish constructing towers (both opened and reopened by the Labour/Lib-Dim coalition and the current administration) and a few jobs promised with an eye to the EU and Westminster-driven off-shore wind-power bonanza, genuine manufacturing investment in Scotland will be paltry. Whether it will balance the inevitable loss of torurism income is not known because no-one in authority cares meaningfully to ask.
The main reason for this fiasco is that the "renewables" subsides regime was never designed to encourage investment or R&D into new technologies. Instead, generators are paid to produce electricity whether it abates emissions or not and, in defiance of laws of supply and demand, whether it is even needed ("constrained off" payments).
Developers buy their bits from the cheapest suppliers; these are not sited in Scotland. There is short-term construction work though the extent it impacts on local unemployment is unclear. Landowners do well enough, some rates are paid to the local authority and opportunist locals look to "community benefits" (though they are often paid to the local authority and redistributed to the favoured). A burgeoing eco-bureaucracy and a few hundred "consultants" serve to justify the sector's environmental destruction; once that's complete, they too will go.
That's it. Thereafter, once plant is operational, generators get to milk consumers for decades. It is what historians might call an unequal treaty. Salmond's hope is that most consumers will be sited south of the border. Whether one is impressed by the notion of an "independent" Scotland thriving on screwing England's poor depends, I suppose, on taste. Whatever, the resulting high energy prices inevitably impact on other manufacturing and service sectors. Wind power is a parasitic technology that, far from providing opportunities for reindustrialising Scotland, can only in the long term accelerate its post-industrial decline: it is what left-wing political economists (HenBroon will have studied them, of course) typically call a means of generating "fictitious capital". Mainstream commentators may use different terms but they generally agree. In short, there are, as many point out, useful parallels to be drawn with the sub-prime, banking and Eurozone crises.
***
I was just about to post the above when I saw the latest rant, comprising titbits seemingly picked up in the pub after last night's branch meeting.
"Anyone who cannot see the marriage between wind and hydrogen must be from the Luddite clan."
Anyone who thinks that the hydrogen economy is just around the corner needs to read Clinton warmist supremo Joe Romm's "The Hype about Hydrogen". Anyone who hasn't realised that wind-power's fiscal regime is focussed on grid connection, not hydrogen storage and will stay that way for decades needs to do some homework. Anyone who thinks that there is significant potential for new hydro and more pumped storage (not a recognised "renewable" BTW) in Scotland is saving the wrong planet. And so on. Finally, anyone claiming to be "of the left" needs to take a more balanced view of Luddism. It was an early 19th-Century movement of the poor from England's textile industry desperately concerned for their livelihoods. Their solution was doomed to fail but history shows that their concerns were not misplaced. Shame on you for such an ignorant jibe.
"I would imagine the Bishop includes phrases such as "right-wing nut jobs...hangers and floggers" in his reprimand regarding unnecessary insults."
Jan 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger
You speak for the Bishop do you? Wow, just wow.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"I was just about to post the above when I saw the latest rant, comprising titbits seemingly picked up in the pub after last night's branch meeting."
Jan 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB
Strange, I rant yet you are posting such composed and reasonable stuff it is positively celestial. However your reaction to my perfectly reasonable questions concerning Nuclear has confirmed all I need to know about your level of debate. You simply dismiss anything difficult as ranting or ad hominem. if you cannot answer the Nuclear questions it is because the answers would be to embarrassing for you. The questions I put are perfectly reasonable given the level of blinkered ignorance you are exhibiting. To describe Nuclear as low carbon, demonstrates such ignorance of Uranium mining and plant construction that I feel the need to go to the brown pain wall to watch it drying. Even if it were low carbon it still has incredible capacity to destroy us, slowly or instantly. Our children will not thank us for the poison we are leaving them.
Andrew
Up above you write, in the context of wind energy, "Salmond's dream of utterly destroying the Scottish countryside." Will it affect tourism?
This is what the John Muir Trust report says about Scots opinion:
37 per cent said the Government should prioritise protecting scenic wild land from large commercial wind farms, even if this means that there is less opportunity to develop wind power in those areas.
30 per cent said the Government should prioritise building large commercial wind farms, even if this means that some are placed on scenic wild land.
And on the potential threat to tourism:
43 per cent of people in Britain who visit scenic areas in the UK for their natural heritage and beauty would be ‘less likely to visit a scenic area with a large concentration of wind farms’
Just 2 per cent say they would be ‘more likely to visit a scenic area with a large concentration of wind farms’.
This is from the report of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in Holyrood issued in November 2012
"Several witnesses made assertions that there would be a negative impact on Scotland's tourism industry from renewable developments. However, these assertions were contradicted by research evidence from VisitScotland and others......no witness has provided the Committee with robust empirical evidence, as opposed to anecdotal comment and opinion, that tourism is being negatively affected by the development of renewable projects..."
The Committee went on to recommend monitoring and taking account of evidence from visitors to Scotland by the government and VisitScotland.
For what it's worth I am inclined to accept what the Committee says on this subject.
My understanding (doubtless wrong) Is that Woodhouse's phrase was:
"It's not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grudge".
Can anyone correct me on this?
Hector Pascal:
Wikiquote has it slightly different. From Blandings Castle, "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine."
racism
definitions
noun
1.the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2 abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
HenBron:
"However your reaction to my perfectly reasonable questions concerning Nuclear has confirmed all I need to know about your level of debate."
If you'd read my remarks with a little care, you'd have noticed that I did reply to your comments only not in quite the way you wanted. The key issue is whether wind power is a viable substitute for nuclear power. It isn't. Even that absurd poser George Monbiot grasped that, for a little while at least. There is an environmental case for abandoning nuclear fission as a generation technology though it's not as strong as many claim. However, positing wind power as a replacement is technically illiterate and exploits public concern over nuclear for purposes of unjustified enrichment.
I'm aware of the environmental issues associated with uranium mining and probably was before you were born. I admit I've not studied a carbon budget for mining the stuff but, if you can point me to one, I'll study it.
An issue I'm slightly better informed on is NATO's controversial use of depleted uranium in Iraq. It was one more cause of my recent disgust at the SNP's about turn on NATO membership. Respect is due to MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart who quit the whip in protest (though resignations might have been more principled) and to the 44 per cent of party delegates who opposed the move. What I struggle to see is how the policy change gives the SNP and its supporters much right to lecture me about environmental politics.
"I feel the need to go to the brown pain[t] wall to watch it drying."
Jokes pall when you repeat them two and three times, especially when they're not so funny first time. Still, it's a good suggestion. I think I'll go for it.
Economy,Energy,Tourism Committee Report para 71
"During this inquiry, the Committee was unable to obtain an accurate and up-to-date picture of where development of onshore wind where development is planned and what are local authorities'preferred areas for development. The provision of this information could go some way to reassuring members of the public about the expected scale of development in their area and that this will be arrived at through a local, democratic process."
Damning. One problem seems to be too few planning staff in local authorities.
'Use of a Scots dialect phrase alongside Yorkshire dialect and an archaic, offensive description of a Scotsman is unlikely to win you friends in Scotland.'
Jan 15, 2013 at 7:18 AM | sam
I thought it was witty and endearing. I suspect you are just a little bit up yourself, sam.
HenBroon apparently still does not understand that supply driven wind energy needs a complete set of fossil fueled power plants to provide electricity during the many periods that wind energy is close to zero. His talk of hydrogen is just pie in the sky; he should make some simple sums and assess the risks.
That makes wind energy an extra source on the grid. Hence, for correct calculation of fuel savings made with windmills, all aspects of the windmill lifecycle (a short one, only 15 years) have to be taken into account: that means design, manufacture, installation, digging, connection to the grid, transport, maintenance and removal. C. le Pair has done this in the Netherlands (NL current wind energy contribution 3.7% of total demand) and found that fossil fuel savings from windmills are only 1.6% of their rated power. When wind energy contribution increases to more than 5% the net fuel and CO2 savings become negative.
HenBroon states that the report by the John Muir trust is against windmills. This report is an analysis of wind power on the national electricity grid over a period of two years. It demonstrates that wind energy is supply driven, intermittent, with average output around 25% of its rated power and with many long periods of close to zero output power. These facts are corroborated by ongoing measurements on websites like Gridwatch, Eirgrid and the Bonnevile Power Administration. One only has to look. There certainly are NO reports that show different wind energy characteristics.
Logic is that since HenBroon finds the report is against windmills and since there are no other reports with different wind energy statistics he has now found a first good argument against windmills. There are many more; he only has to look.
@John Shade @4.27
"I thought it was witty and endearing. I suspect you are just a little bit up yourself,sam."
You have failed to understand the point I was making. Many Scots have encountered others (often English people) deliberately using the word "Scotch" to irritate and provoke the Scots. It is a wind-up. If you do not know that you cannot be a Scot.
You have guessed at my feelings on the matter and guessed wrongly. I find your second sentence offensive. I suspect it was your intention to offend. You have also, in my opinion, been rude to Andrew who earlier requested a stop insults - just after the post mentioning the "Scotch".
Your last sentence is good, sam. I failed to heed the Bish's injunction - too hastily to the keyboard did I go. As for your earlier point, I certainly did not fail to see it, I merely thought it feeble - which is pretty much what I think of the rest of your recent comment. Our correspondence ends at this end, here.
Reply to: Jan 15, 2013 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB
"If you'd read my remarks with a little care, you'd have noticed that I did reply to your comments only not in quite the way you wanted. "
All I ask for is figures on Nuclear, which you are not willing to consider, whilst at the same time leaping gleefully on figures of performance of these pesky wind turbines that has got you so exercised. It used to be at school when I did sums if the teacher asked you what 1 + 1 was you were expected to reply 2. Not start trumpeting about rants and ad hominem to deflect the fact that you simply do not wish to look at the elephant in the room, or worse cannot give the answer. I would have thought that someone with your supposed command of the figures and the data on these matters would be able to winkle out the costs of Nuclear since the fifties, and what it will cost us in future?
However since you then wander of on a tangent on depleted uranium, Iraq, Alex Salmond, NATO and environmental lectures from these dreadfull SNP supporters, I can only assume that you really are not confident at all of the ground you are standing on regarding "Scotland's green energy policy in the balance," which is the subject of this thread.
Quite how the SNP agreeing to and having the guts to publicly debate non Nuclear membership of NATO, as are 25 of it's member countries, leaving three who are nuclear armed. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. By it's forthcoming independence Scotland will decide if and when it becomes a NATO member, that is one of the golden prizes of Scottish Independence, you get to make your own policy within your own borders, voted for by the people who choose to live and work here. The natural order of things in the small succesfull independent countries of the EU some even smaller than Scotland. The public school spivs and toffs of the London clubs have had their day abusing Scotland, and treating us with contempt. But then you know that and I think that is what is really getting your dander up. The thought that Alex Salmond will deliver Scottish Independece and that June 24 will be Scottish Independence day for all time to come. The oldest country in Europe prevails.
Now I am of to the brown paint room. I'm delighted you think it's a good idea. I suggest you make your self comfortable when you come out it will all be over.
PS. "Even that absurd poser George Monbiot " sorry was that an ad hominem you just did on poor George? Do you know what ad hominem means really? Quite how you conflate my asking questions about nuclear generation subsidies to ad hominem, is beyond me. Still we live and learn.
Yours sincerely, HenAngusOggBroon of that ilk.
sam
re your 7.18am post this morning.
Having lived in Scotland for 60 years of my life I think I have acquired the privilege. I was differentiating between Scots in general with whom I have never had the slightest problem in all those years and the 'Hen Broons' who demonstrate exactly Wodehouse's quote about the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine. For them I reserve the word 'scotchmen' and always have.
Sorry if it gets up your nose.
And if you think 'sunshine' is Yorkshire you obviously never lived in the same parts of Scotland that I did.
"And if you think 'sunshine' is Yorkshire you obviously never lived in the same parts of Scotland that I did."
I have my God to thanks for that. Your sarcastic snide dialogue has the mark of Sassunach all over it. That you claim to be sixty and yet are so juvenile is hilarious. Still there's one in every toon.
Henbroon
It is quite simple. Nuclear power generates electricity when people need it. Wind power does not. It generates power when the wind blows, whether anybody needs the power or not. And, when there is a blocking high over the UK and people need power, wind always fails to deliver it.
Any further questions?
Like now Diogenes - Wind generation 954MW out of 5705MW installed. 16.7% of capacity and the temperatures are falling fast. (-5C at my place).
get more windmills, Cumbrian Lad!...lol
Thanks very much HaroldW. I've been looking for that for a long time. I didn't know there was such a thing as Wikiquote.
And Mike Jackson: yes of course it is Wodehouse. Two errors in one post. Must try harder.
@ HenBroon said,
The irony is that no matter how many wind farms are built, their output is unpredictably intermittent. So 'conventional' power generation on (less-efficient) standby is always needed.
Like this at -5.5 deg C, Mansfield UK.
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=P1000673.mp4
I came across this official Report of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7275&mode=pdf.
I have copied from page 10 a question by Murdo Fraser, the Convener of the Committee. Mr Fraser is sceptical of the usefulness of wind energy. He put his question to Duncan Burt, head of customer service at the Scottish Grid.
Wednesday 23 May 2012
ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM
COMMITTEE
Session 4
"The Convener: Patrick Harvie wants to pursue issues around security of supply, but before I bring
him in, I have a question about the grid. Thecommittee has received written evidence in which it has been suggested that if the proportion of energy that wind power contributes to the grid
goes above a certain level, that will create problems for grid management, because of the
intermittency issues to which Mr MacKenzie referred. Is that an issue that you recognise? Is
there an optimum level of wind-generated energy, beyond which there start to be management
problems for the grid
Duncan Burt: A number of reports and documents discuss that issue, but the view of National Grid as an operator is that running the grid is already a complex and detailed operation,as I am sure that the committee can envisage. Variable sources of power such as wind add another dimension to that, but it is simply a different dimension. It is another issue that we need to manage. We are not complacent about that, but we consider it to be well within our capabilities to have available, now and in the future, the tools that we need to run the system as it arrives, even if it involves significant amounts of wind. Wind power is probably already the single largest source of capacity connected in Scotland. Very soon²in the next year or two²it will becomethe largest single source of supply of electricity. That is being managed day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute in a very straightforward way."
Mr Burt seems a smoothie.
Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered Commenter sam
Reading Duncan Burt's reply to the Convener's question I think Burt is a wordsmith, not an engineer. Of course the grid operator wants to stay in business, but I wonder from where he will get reliable electricity on the grid if the only source is wind energy (or solar, but that is even worse). The only renewable that works on the grid is biomass, but there is never enough of it to supply 100% demand during the night with high pressure cold spells. There is a lot of dreaming going on.
Albert Stienstra
I agree that Mr Burt is a wordsmith - a good one. The intention is to try to have a "balanced portfolio". I copy below a reply by Mr Burt in response to a question about which political matters the MSPs should raise in a meeting with their Westminister counterparts.
Duncan Burt: " I echo that. In order to develop a balanced portfolio and secure energy supplies across Scotland and the UK, with a low- carbon mix of wind, nuclear, marine and hydro technologies, along with potential carbon capture and storage developments, that is balanced by gas, which is used to smooth things out on occasions when the wind is not blowing, we need a climate of strong political support and engagement in order to deliver the long lead-time items in the supply chain."
I have been reading some reports of the evidence professionals have been giving to both parliaments. There was mention of the anticipated lifetimes of Hunterston and Torness which were around 2020 to 2025.
Perhaps Scottish independence might have these effects on energy policies.Offshore wind energy implementation might go on, but it might not. Marine energy is likely to be stopped in its tracks. Some £45 billion of investment is needed to meet SNP plans by 2020 and industry is unlikely to risk it unless it is clear that both governemnts will support those plans. Post separation, English voters are likely to be unwilling to pay the subsidies needed and Scottish voters may not be willing or may be seen as unable to pay subsidies needed on their own. For marine energy development to go on, both governments would have to give advance, binding agreements for the subsidies to be met before investors would put up the development money. Even if there is no Scottish independence, putting up £45 billion in development costs will be questionable.
Scotland, if it was in the EU, would have to meet ROC obligations. Presumably so would England and Wales and Northern Ireland. England and Wales and Northern Ireland might choose to do that by building a couple of big offshore wind farms. Or it might continue to buy energy from renewable sources.The goverment is unlikely to default on its renewables obligations though conceivably it could repeal the Climate Change Act 2008.
There may well be common interest in keeping a common electricity market as well as the monarch and the pound.
See here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/c1912-ii/c191201.htm
and here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7275&mode=pdf
As Professor McIness observed: [8] The unseemly haste with which former UK Energy Minister Chris Huhne and current Energy Minister Ed Davey ditched their long-held anti-nuclear beliefs is testament to the reality of national energy and climate policy. Perhaps the State of Euphoria is more allegorical than fictional after all.
I am pretty sure reality on energy policies will, eventually, prevail with both sets of parliamentarians. On reflection, perhaps that is more of a hope.
Jan 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM | sam
Thank you for the information.
However, the parliamentarians not having any engineering science sense, I do not believe they will realize that when wind energy backup is done with fossil fueled power plants, the net effect will be that no fuel and hence no CO2 will be saved. It is better to do away with wind completely. This has exhaustively been studied in the Netherlands, from two different angles. I hardly ever read about this in discussions among politicians. If a scientist or engineer is among them, trying to explain this, he/she is pooh-poohed by the politicians, not a few of whom are in the pockets of the wind energy lobby. The wind energy lobby teaches politicians how to answer and the trouble is that scientists and engineers usually are not very good wordsmiths.
I am glad to read that you believe that the marine option - I assume this is what I would call the tidal option - will most likely be stopped. I always point to the most nearby tidal generator, the Barrage de la Rance, near St. Malo. Second largest in the world, running on a tidal range of 8 - 13 m (neaps - springs) and delivering a measly 64 MW average with a capacity factor of about 25%, same as wind. It was completed in the sixties and construction cost €100 million at the time. It would be ten times as expensive now. Tidal electricity on the grid is also quite a useless option. But tidal seems to have a lot of proponents in the UK. For the 10 GW power required for wind backup in Scotland many (> 150) of these tidal generators would have to be constructed all around the coast, to try to increase the total capacity factor, but the tidal range around Scotland is about half that near St. Malo.
If people really are so worried about CO2, which I increasingly believe is an effect and not a cause of warming, nuclear energy is the only option, as prof. McIness has elegantly shown, even without stating that windmills - I really cannot call them turbines - do not save any fossil fuel.
"If a scientist or engineer is among them, trying to explain this, he/she is pooh-poohed by the politicians, not a few of whom are in the pockets of the wind energy lobby. "
That one sentence completely dismantled any point you may have thought you were making. Given that the Nuclear lobby is the most powerful and corrupt lobby on earth, backed as they are by UK/ USA/ and French arms manufacturers. The historic record shows they have been heavily involved in law breaking even murder. The Nuclear industry is unadulterated filth, that has been found out. They had their chance and totally blew it.
Jan 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM | HenBroon
What have my comments to do with the nuclear lobby and the arms manufacturers? Are you suggesting that the wind energy lobby is of the same caliber? I certainly did not write that. And I am not interested in making points, as you are. I write it as it is.
In any case, British newspapers have made it abundantly clear that there is such a thing as a wind energy lobby with MPs, DECC, EU, Greenpeace, wind energy manufacturers etc. The same manufacturers are active in Scotland and England, as they are all over Europe. And politicians are the same everywhere, including Scotland.
Albert Stienstra
This may be of interest to you, if you have not already seen it http://www.iesisenergy.org/lcost/LCost-Paper.pdf. It is a paper by Colin Gibson former Director of Operations for the National grid.It was commissioned by the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuiders in Scotland. It is titled: "A probabalistic approach to levelised cost calculations for various types of electricity generation". the introduction says that this "approach has a great advantage over the scenario approach that simply shows a possible range of outcomes without attaching probabilities to these outcomes occurring." The method used allows the derivation of the probability of the outcome parameter (levelised costs) falling within various ranges.
The types of generation examined are:nuclear,on-shore wind, coal (in various forms), CCGT, off-shore wind and Severn barrage.
I hope it is of interest. It has been round long enough to have been commented on before but it is new to me.